Unified theory of all the corporate Bull shit lies damned lies and statistics


What things are and what things are about

Contextual Conceptualist

singular duality

duplicitous dichotomy

essentially Ironic

Plastic Plurality

a busmans journey
selling coals to newcastle

Travellers gathering knowledge
Tourists consuming

“computer codes”
“Computer codes” is currently in the lede twice. Do we mean algorithm? Computer program ? Pedro :  Chat  19:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not algorithm. “Computer codes” covers a broader type of model; algorithm would just be a way of doing one particular bit William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Good points. “Process” maybe? Or “system(s)”? Either are surely better “computer codes”. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The wording appears awkward, so I will try to patch. Feel free to correct my changes! rewinn (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit]soros influence
[1] James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely “NASA whistleblower” standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros’ Open Society Institute , which gave him “legal and media advice”? … Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros’ flagship “philanthropy,” by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI’s “politicization of science” program. Redhanker (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Not a reliable source, and Hansen was a well-known scientist and public figure 20 years before the incident. And please clearly indicate when you copy something somewhere. –Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Let the Reader examine them (if he can) free from the bias of prejudice or interest, and then judge impartially, and act like a good member of society, and an honest man.


Humbly submitted

To all who have PROPERTY in them ;

And especially


C O V E N T R Y:
Printed by and for T. LUCKMAN
And sold by J. JOHNSON, No. 8 Pater-nosterRow, London;
and all other Booksellers in Great-Britain. 1767
Let the Reader examine them (if he can) free from the bias of prejudice or interest, and then judge impartially, and act like a good member of society, and an honest man.


Chronology to present system.

Cause and Effect

Seperation, Church and State Executive and judiciary so on

Seperation of Supply from Demand Produce production remote from cosumer
seperation of then from now them and us, haves have nots

Seperation of truth from fiction Real from artificial analogue from digital



Self worth and prospects for the Young Young Women and Young Men

Imasculation of male role models?

The Nuclear Family.
Rights of part time workers.and wage differentials in part time pay.

Feminist victory(?) as a role model for Personal equality against corporatism.

David Bacon
Award-winning photojournalist, labor organizer, immigrant rights activist and author. His most recent book is Illegal People- How Globalization Creates Migration & Criminalizes Immigrants
David Bacon explains that what the US government and the governments of other rich industrialized countries do through their actions and policies towards poorer and developing countries is, in fact, designed to benefit the economies and large corporations of those “developed” countries and that these actions and policies often lead to what he refers to as “forced migration”. The policies of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) are terrible for working people of poor countries. In fact, the workers in both North and South America lost out with NAFTA. Workers in the U.S. lost when 800 jobs went to Mexico and Mexico lost a million jobs. Another way in which NAFTA creates poverty, for example, is that it allows U.S. corporations such as the huge food corporation of Archer Daniel Midlands to dump its products on the Mexican market at a very low price thus undercutting the price of local corn that has been grown by small farmers for centuries. As a result the local corn farmers have to go elsewhere to get money to feed their families. They often migrate to cities, to the U.S. and to the maquilladores –factories along the U.S.-Mexican border, which pay little and often mistreat workers. From 1994 when NAFTA went into effect until now about six million people have come to the U.S. from Mexico because there was no other way for their families to survive. Corporations want this flow of “cheap labor” because they profit from it but they want it in a certain controlled way in which people leave if they aren’t working and have no rights while they do work in the U.S. Twelve million people are now in the U.S. without visas and therefore have no political or labor rights, which is what “Illegal” means — that one is without rights and can be controlled. The same was true for the Chinese, Japanese and Filipino immigrants of the past. Notice as well the inherent racism. The stereotypes of “illegal” people are overwhelmingly people of color. The Real ID Act and the Patriot Act legislate that working outside of federal recruitment plans mean one will go to prison, as thousands of people do. There is a court in Tucson, Arizona where so-called “illegals” are brought in wearing chains, and then approximately seventy people a day from this group go to federal prison, thus making an example of them for the others. Local police and immigrations authorities work together—e.g., police set up roadblocks looking for driver’s licenses in the attempt to identify and arrest immigrants.
Stepford Wives.

Plot summary
The premise involves the married men of the fictional town of Stepford, Connecticut, and their fawning, submissive, impossibly beautiful wives. The protagonist is Joanna Eberhart, a talented photographer newly arrived from New York City with her husband and children, eager to start a new life. As time goes on, she becomes increasingly disturbed by the zombie-like Stepford wives, especially when she sees her once independent-minded friends — fellow new arrivals to Stepford — turn into mindless, docile housewives overnight. Her husband, who seems to be spending more and more time at the local men’s club, mocks her fears.
As the story progresses, Joanna becomes convinced that the wives of Stepford are actually look-alike gynoids, manufactured in secret at the men’s club. She visits the library and reads up on the pasts of Stepford’s husbands and wives, finding out that some of the women were once high achievers, while some of the men were brilliant engineers and scientists, capable of creating such life-like robots.
At the end of the story, Joanna attempts to flee the town of Stepford as well as warn her new friend Ruthanne, mother of the first black family to move into the town. The men find her and try to convince her that she’s mistaken. They take her to her former best friend Bobbie Markowitz, telling her that Bobbie will cut herself and bleed, proving herself to be human. Joanna enters the house to hear loud rock and roll music playing upstairs and sees Bobbie taking a large knife, and realizes that the men told Bobbie to kill her and use the music to cover her screams. Joanna argues with herself about whether or not she is simply paranoid. As Bobbie approaches with the knife, her last thoughts are that Bobbie will prove to be human and everything will be all right. The scene shifts to the men standing outside, wondering what’s taking so long, and one of them leaves to call Joanna’s husband and let him know where she is.
In the story’s epilogue, Joanna has become another Stepford wife gliding through the local supermarket, while Ruthanne (a new resident in Stepford) appears poised to become the conspiracy’s next victim.
Logan’s Run is a 1976 science fiction film based on the novel of the same name by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan 5, a “Sandman,” as he “runs” from society’s lethal demand.
The film version, directed by Michael Anderson and starring Michael York, Richard Jordan, and Jenny Agutter, was shot primarily in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex(including locations such as the Fort Worth Water Gardens and the Dallas Market Center) between June and September 1975. The film only uses the basic premise from the novel (everyone must die at a specific age, Logan runs with Jessica as his companion while being chased by Francis). The motivations of the characters are quite different in the film. It was the first film to use Dolby Stereo on 70mm prints.[2]
Since 1994, there have been several unsuccessful attempts to remake the film.
Soylent Green is a 1973 American science fiction film directed by Richard Fleischer. Starring Charlton Heston, the film overlays the police procedural and science fictiongenres as it depicts the investigation into the brutal murder of a wealthy businessman in a dystopian future suffering from pollution, overpopulation, depleted resources,poverty, dying oceans and a hot climate due to the greenhouse effect. Much of the population survives on processed food rations, including “soylent green”.
The film, which is loosely based upon the 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room!, by Harry Harrison, won the Nebula Award for Best Dramatic Presentation and the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film in 1973.
The Crucible is a 1953 play by the American playwright Arthur Miller. It is a dramatization of the Salem witch trials that took place in the Province of Massachusetts Bayduring 1692 and 1693. Miller wrote the play as an allegory to McCarthyism, when the US government blacklisted accused communists.[1] Miller himself was questioned by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Un-American Activities in 1956 and convicted of “contempt of Congress” for refusing to identify others present at meetings he had attended.[2] It was first performed at the Martin Beck Theater on Broadway on January 22, 1953. Miller felt that this production was too stylized and cold and the reviews for it were largely hostile (although The New York Times noted “a powerful play [in a] driving performance”).[3] Nonetheless, the production won the 1953 “Best Play”Tony Award.[4] A year later a new production succeeded and the play became a classic.[5] Today it is studied in high schools and universities because of its status as a revolutionary work of theatre and for its allegorical relationship to testimony given before the Committee On Un-American Activities during the 1950s. It is a central work in the canon of American drama.[6]

Hair: The American Tribal Love-Rock Musical is a rock musical with a book and lyrics by James Rado and Gerome Ragni and music by Galt MacDermot. A product of the hippie counter-culture and sexual revolution of the 1960s, several of its songs became anthems of the anti-Vietnam War peace movement. The musical’s profanity, its depiction of the use of illegal drugs, its treatment of sexuality, its irreverence for the American flag, and its nude scene caused much comment and controversy.[1] The musical broke new ground in musical theatre by defining the genre of “rock musical”, using a racially integrated cast, and inviting the audience onstage for a “Be-In” finale.[2]
Hair tells the story of the “tribe”, a group of politically active, long-haired hippies of the “Age of Aquarius” living a bohemian life in New York City and fighting againstconscription into the Vietnam War. Claude, his good friend Berger, their roommate Sheila and their friends struggle to balance their young lives, loves and the sexual revolution with their rebellion against the war and their conservative parents and society. Ultimately, Claude must decide whether to resist the draft as his friends have done, or to succumb to the pressures of his parents (and conservative America) to serve in Vietnam, compromising his pacifistic principles and risking his life.
Les Misérables (literally “The Miserable Ones”; usually  /leɪ ˌmɪzəˈrɑːb/; French pronunciation: [le mizeʁabl(ə)]), translated variously from the French as The Miserable Ones, The Wretched, The Poor Ones, The Wretched Poor, or The Victims), is an 1862 French novel by author Victor Hugo and is widely considered one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century. It follows the lives and interactions of several French characters over a seventeen-year period in the early nineteenth century, starting in 1815 and culminating in the 1832 June Rebellion.[1]
The novel focuses on the struggles of ex-convict Jean Valjean and his experience of redemption. It examines the nature of law and grace, and expounds upon the history of France, architecture of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love. The story is historical fictionbecause it contains factual and historic events.
Les Misérables is known to many through its numerous stage and screen adaptations,
The Planet of the Apes

Although Ulysse’s patrons Zira and Cornélius are convinced of his intelligence, the society’s leading orangutan scientists believe he is faking his understanding of language, because their philosophy will not allow the possibility of intelligent human beings. Ulysse falls in love with a primitive human female, Nova, whom he had met in the forest at the beginning of his visit to the planet. He impregnates her and thus proves that he is the same species as the primitive humans, which lowers his standing in the eyes of many of the apes. Their derision turns to fear with a discovery in a distant archaeological dig and an analysis of memory in some human brains. Evidence is uncovered that fills in the missing history of the apes. In the distant past, the planet was ruled by human beings who built a technological society and enslaved apes to perform their manual labor. Over time the humans became more and more dependent upon the apes, until eventually they became so lazy and degenerate that they were overthrown by their ape servants and fell into the primitive state in which our protagonist found them.
While some of the apes reject this evidence, others (in particular, an old orangutan scientist, Dr. Zaius) take it as a sign that the humans are a threat and must be exterminated. Ulysse learns of this, and escapes from the planet with his wife and newborn son, returning to Earth in the professor’s spaceship. Ulysse lands on Earth over 700 years after he had originally left it, just outside the city of Paris. Once outside the ship, he discovers that Earth is now ruled by intelligent apes just like the planet from which he has fled. He immediately leaves Earth in his ship, writes his story, places it in a bottle, and launches it into space for someone to find. It is at this point in the story that Jinn and Phyllis, the couple who found the bottle, are revealed to be chimpanzees. Jinn and Phyllis dismiss Ulysse’s story, saying that a human would not have the intelligence to write the story.
Bowling for Columbine

The film title originates from the story that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – the two students responsible for the Columbine High School massacre – attended a schoolbowling class early that morning, at 6:00 a.m., before they committed the attacks at school starting at 11:19 a.m. Later investigation showed that this was based on mistaken recollections, and Glenn Moore of the Golden Police Department concluded that they were absent from school on the day of the attack.[4]
Moore incorporates the concept of bowling in other ways as well. For example, the Michigan militia uses bowling pins for their target practice. When interviewing former classmates of the two boys, Moore notes that the students took a bowling class in place of physical education. Moore notes this might have very little educational value; the girls he interviews generally agree. They note how Harris and Klebold had a very introverted lifestyle and a very careless attitude towards the game, and that nobody thought twice about it. Moore asks if the school system is responding to the real needs of their students or if they are reinforcing fear. Moore also interviews two young residents of Oscoda, Michigan, in a local bowling alley, and learns that guns are relatively easy to come by in the small town. Eric Harris spent some of his early years in Oscoda while his father was serving in the U.S. Air Force.
Moore compares gun ownership and gun violence in other countries with gun ownership and gun violence in the United States. Moore concludes that there is no connection between gun ownership and gun violence. In search of the reason for the United States’s trigger mania, Moore discovers a culture of fear created by the government and the media. He says that fear leads Americans to arm themselves, to gun-making companies’ advantage. Moore suggests sarcastically that bowling could have been just as responsible for the attacks on the school as Marilyn Manson, or even Bill Clinton, who launched bombing attacks on several countries around that time.[5]

Tolpuddel Martyrs.
George Loveless wrote on a scrap of paper the following lines:
God is our guide! from field, from wave,
From plough, from anvil, and from loom;
We come, our country’s rights to save,
And speak a tyrant faction’s doom:
We raise the watch-word liberty;
We will, we will, we will be free!
The Peterloo Massacre (or Battle of Peterloo) occurred at St Peter’s Field, Manchester, England, on 16 August 1819, when cavalry charged into a crowd of 60,000–80,000 gathered at a meeting to demand the reform of parliamentary representation.
The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 had resulted in periods of famine and chronic unemployment, exacerbated by the introduction of the first of the Corn Laws. By the beginning of 1819 the pressure generated by poor economic conditions, coupled with the lack of suffrage in northern England, had enhanced the appeal of political radicalism. In response, the Manchester Patriotic Union, a group agitating for parliamentary reform, organised a demonstration to be addressed by the well-known radical orator Henry Hunt.
Shortly after the meeting began, local magistrates called on the military authorities to arrest Hunt and several others on the hustings with him, and to disperse the crowd. Cavalry charged into the crowd with sabres drawn, and in the ensuing confusion, 15 people were killed and 400–700 were injured. The massacre was given the name Peterloo in ironic comparison to the Battle of Waterloo, which had taken place four years earlier.
Historian Robert Poole has called the Peterloo Massacre one of the defining moments of its age. In its own time, the London and national papers shared the horror felt in the Manchester region, but Peterloo’s immediate effect was to cause the government to crack down on reform, with the passing of what became known as the Six Acts. It also led directly to the foundation of The Manchester Guardian (now The Guardian), but had little other effect on the pace of reform. In a survey conducted by The Guardian in 2006, Peterloo came second to the Putney Debates as the event from British history that most deserved a proper monument or a memorial. Peterloo is commemorated by a plaque close to the site, a replacement for an earlier one that was criticised as being inadequate as it did not reflect the scale of the massacre.
People’s Charter of 1838
In 1837, six Members of Parliament and six working men, including William Lovett, (from the London Working Men’s Association, set up in 1836) formed a

committee, which then published the People’s Charter in 1838. This stipulated the six main aims of the movement as:[1]
1. A vote for every man twenty-one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The secret ballot. – To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament – thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the Country.
5. Equal Constituencies, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of large ones.
6. Annual parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelve-month; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now.
Year of the Sheep
Another wave of mass emigration came in 1792, known as the “Year of the Sheep” to Scottish Highlanders. The people were accommodated in poor crofts or small farms in coastal areas where farming could not sustain the communities and they were expected to take up fishing. In the village of Badbea in Caithness the conditions were so harsh that, while the women worked, they had to tether their livestock and even their children to rocks or posts to prevent them being blown over the cliffs.[2] Others were put directly onto emigration ships to Nova Scotia (Antigonish and Pictou counties and later Cape Breton), the Kingston area of Ontario and the Carolinas of the American colonies. There may have been a religious element in these forced removals since many Highlanders were Roman Catholic. This is reflected by the majority representation of Catholics in areas and towns of Nova Scotia such as Antigonish and Cape Breton. However almost all of the very large movement of Highland settlers to the Cape Fear region of North Carolina were Presbyterian. (This is evidenced even today in the presence and extent of Presbyterian congregations and adherents in the region.)[citation needed]
[edit]Landlords’ behaviour

Portrait by Henry Raeburn of Alexander Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry in 1812. McDonnell claimed to support Highland Culture, while simultaneously clearing his tenants.
In 1807 Elizabeth Gordon, 19th Countess of Sutherland, touring her inheritance with her husband Lord Stafford (later made Duke of Sutherland), wrote that “he is seized as much as I am with the rage of improvements, and we both turn our attention with the greatest of energy to turnips”. As well as turning land over to sheep farming, Stafford planned to invest in creating a coal-pit, salt pans, brick and tile works and herring fisheries. That year his agents began the evictions, and 90 families were forced to leave their crops in the ground and move their cattle, furniture and timbers to the land they were offered 20 miles (32 km) away on the coast, living in the open until they had built themselves new houses. Stafford’s first Commissioner, William Young, arrived in 1809, and soon engaged Patrick Sellar as his factor who pressed ahead with the process while acquiring sheep farming estates for himself.[3]
Elsewhere, the flamboyant Alexander Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry portrayed himself as the last genuine specimen of the true Highland Chief while his tenants were subjected to a process of relentless eviction.[3]
To landlords, “improvement” and “clearance” did not necessarily mean depopulation. At least until the 1820s, when there were steep falls in the price of kelp, landlords wanted to create pools of cheap or virtually free labour, supplied by families subsisting in new crofting townships. Kelp collection and processing was a very profitable way of using this labour, and landlords petitioned successfully for legislation designed to stop emigration. This took the form of the Passenger Vessels Act 1803. Attitudes changed during the 1820s and, for many landlords, the potato famine which began in 1846 became another reason for encouraging or forcing emigration and depopulation.
[edit]Potato famine
Main article: Highland Potato Famine (1846 – 1857)

An early Victorian, romanticised depiction of a member of Clan MacAlister leaving Scotland for Canada, by R. R. McIan.
As in Ireland, the potato crop failed in the mid 19th century, and a widespread outbreak of cholera further weakened the Highland population. The ongoing clearance policy resulted in starvation, deaths, and a secondary clearance, when families either migrated voluntarily or were forcibly evicted. There were many deaths of children and old people. As there were few alternatives, people emigrated, joined the British army, or moved to the growing urban cities, like Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Dundee in Lowland Scotland and Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Liverpool in the north of England. In places some people were given economic incentives to move, but few historians dispute that in many instances landlords used violent methods.

Second phase of the Clearances

Ormaig was once the principal settlement on the Isle of Ulva near Mull. It had been inhabited since prehistoric times, until it was cleared by Francis William Clark in the mid 19th century.
It was only in the mid-nineteenth century that the second, more brutal phase of the Clearances began; this was well after the 1822 visit by George IV, when lowlanders set aside their previous distrust and hatred of the Highlanders and identified with them as national symbols. However, the cumulative effect was particularly devastating to the cultural landscape of Scotland in a way that did not happen in other areas of Britain.
Elizabeth Leveson-Gower, Duchess of Sutherland, and her husband George Leveson-Gower, 1st Duke of Sutherland, conducted brutal clearances between 1811 and 1820.[5][6] Evictions at the rate of 2,000 families in one day were not uncommon. Many starved and froze to death where their homes had once been. The Duchess of Sutherland, on seeing the starving tenants on her husband’s estate, remarked in a letter to a friend in England, “Scotch people are of happier constitution and do not fatten like the larger breed of animals.”[7]
While the collapse of the clan system can be attributed more to economic factors and the repression that followed the Battle of Culloden, the widespread evictions resulting from the Clearances severely affected the viability of the Highland population and culture. To this day, the population in the Scottish Highlands is sparse and the culture is diluted, and there are many more sheep than people. Although the 1901 census did return 230,806 Gaelic speakers in Scotland, today this number has fallen to below 60,000. Counties of Scotland in which over 50% of the population spoke Gaelic as their native language in 1901, included Sutherland (71.75%), Ross and Cromarty (71.76%), Inverness (64.85%) and Argyll (54.35%). Small percentages[quantify] of Gaelic speakers were recorded in counties such as Nairn, Bute, Perth and Caithness.
What the Clearances started, however, the First World War almost completed. A huge percentage of Scots were among the vast numbers killed, (Scotland lost over 147,000 men in World War One – 20% of Britain’s losses while only being 10% of the total British population) and this greatly affected the remaining population of Gaelic speakers in Scotland.
The 1921 census, the first conducted after the end of the war, showed a significant decrease in the proportion of the population that spoke Gaelic. The percentage of Gaelic speakers in Argyll had fallen to well below 50% (34.56%), and the other counties mentioned above had experienced similar decreases. Sutherland’s Gaelic-speaking population was now barely above 50%, while Inverness and Ross and Cromarty had fallen to 50.91% and 60.20%, respectively.
However, the Clearances did result in significant emigration of Highlanders to North America and Australasia — where today are found considerably more descendants of Highlanders than in Scotland itself.
One estimate for Cape Breton, Nova Scotia has 25,000 Gaelic-speaking Scots arriving as immigrants between 1775 and 1850. At the beginning of the twentieth century, there were an estimated 100,000 Gaelic speakers in Cape Breton, but because of economic migration to English-speaking areas and the lack of Gaelic education in the Nova Scotian school system, the numbers of Gaelic speakers fell dramatically. By the beginning of the 21st century, the number of native Gaelic speakers had fallen to well below 1,000.[8]

Tudor enclosures
There was a significant rise in enclosure during the Tudor period. These enclosures largely resulted in conversion of land use from arable to pasture – usually sheep farming. These enclosures were often undertaken unilaterally by the landowner. Enclosures during the Tudor period were often accompanied by a loss of common rights and could result in the destruction of whole villages.[6]
Open farmland in England had been commonly enclosed as pastureland for sheep from the fourteenth to the sixteenth century as populations declined. Foreign demand for English wool also helped encourage increased production, and the wool industry was often thought to be more profitable for landowners who had large decaying farmlands. Some manorial lands lay in disrepair from a lack of tenants, which made them undesirable to both prospective tenants and landowners who could be fined and ordered to make repairs. Enclosure and sheep herding (which required very few labourers) were a solution to the problem, but of course this created other problems: unemployment, the displacement of impoverished rural labourers, and decreased domestic grain production which made England more susceptible to famine and higher prices for domestic and foreign grain. From as early as the 12th century, some open fields in Britain were being enclosed into individually owned fields. In Great Britain, the process sped up during the 15th and 16th centuries as sheepfarming grew more profitable. In the 16th and early 17th centuries, the practice of enclosure was denounced by the Church and the government, particularly depopulating enclosure, and legislation was drawn up against it. But elite opinion began to turn towards support for enclosure, and rate of enclosure increased in the seventeenth century. This led to a series of government acts addressing individual regions, which were given a common framework in the Inclosure Consolidation Act of 1801.

Inflation and enclosure
Alongside population growth, inflation was a major reason for enclosure.[8] When Henry VIII became King in 1509, the royal finances were in good shape thanks to the prudence of his father Henry VII. But this soon changed as Henry VIII doubled household expenditure and started costly wars against both France and Scotland. With his wealth rapidly decreasing, Henry VIII imposed a series of taxes devised by his finance minister, Thomas Wolsey. Soon the people began to resent Wolsey’s taxes and a new source of finance had to be found: in 1544, Henry reduced the silver content of new coins by about 50%; this was repeated to a lesser extent the following year. This, combined with injection of bullion from the New World, increased the money supply in England; which led to continuing price inflation. This threatened landowners’ wealth, which encouraged the landowners to become more efficient, and enclosure was seen as a way of doing this.[citation needed]
The debasement of the coinage was not seen as a cause of inflation (and therefore enclosures) until the Duke of Somerset was Protector of Edward VI. Until then enclosures were seen as the cause of inflation, not the outcome. When Thomas Smith advised Somerset that enclosure was a resulit of inflation, he was only ignored. It was not until John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland was Protector that his finance minister William Cecil took action on debasement to try to stop enclosure.[citation needed]
Parliamentary Enclosure and open fields
During the 18th and 19th centuries, enclosures were by means of local acts of Parliament, called the Inclosure Acts. These “parliamentary” enclosures consolidated strips in the open fields into more compact units, and enclosed much of the remaining pasture commons or wastes. Parliamentary enclosures usually provided commoners with some other land in compensation for the loss of common rights, although often of poor quality and limited extent.
Parliamentary enclosure was also used for the division and privatisation of common wastes (in the original sense of “uninhabited places”), such as fens, marshes, heathland, downland, moors.
Marxist historians have focussed on enclosure as a part of the class conflict that eventually eliminated the English peasantry and saw the emergence of the bourgeoisie. From this viewpoint, the English Civil Warprovided the basis for a major acceleration of enclosures. The parliamentary leaders supported the rights of landlords vis-a-vis the King, whose Star Chamber court, abolished in 1641, had provided the primary legal brake on the enclosure process. By dealing an ultimately crippling blow to the monarchy (which, even after the Restoration, no longer posed a significant challenge to enclosures) the Civil War paved the way for the eventual rise to power in the 18th century of what has been called a “committee of Landlords”,[11] a prelude to the UK’s parliamentary system. The economics of enclosures also changed. Whereas earlier land had been enclosed in order to make it available for sheep farming, by 1650 the steep rise in wool prices had come to an end.[12] Thereafter, the focus shifted to implementation of new agricultural techniques, including fertilizer, new crops, and crop rotation, all of which greatly increased the profitability of large-scale farms.[13] The enclosure movement probably peaked from 1760 to 1832; by the latter date it had essentially completed the destruction of the medieval peasant community.[14]
By the end of the 19th century the process of enclosure was largely complete, in most areas just leaving a few pasture commons and village greens.
Many landowners became rich through the enclosure of the commons, while many ordinary folk had a centuries-old right taken away. Land enclosure has been condemned as a gigantic swindle on the part of large landowners, and Oliver Goldsmith wrote “The Deserted Village” in 1770 deploring rural depopulation. An anonymous protest poem from the 17th century summed up the anti-enclosure feeling:
They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.[17]
“Stop to consider how the so-called owners of the land got hold of it. They simply seized it by force, afterwards hiring lawyers to provide them with title-deeds. In the case of the enclosure of the common lands, which was going on from about 1600 to 1850, the land-grabbers did not even have the excuse of being foreign conquerors; they were quite frankly taking the heritage of their own countrymen, upon no sort of pretext except that they had the power to do so.
– George Orwell.”
Rack-rent denotes two different concepts:
1. an excessive or extortionate rent, or
2. the full rent of a property, including both land and improvements if it were subject to an immediate open-market rental review
The second definition is equivalent to the economic rent of the land plus interest on capital improvements plus depreciation and maintenance — the normal market rent of a property—and is not inherently excessive or extortionate. Also, this may be different from the rent actually being received.
Historically, however, rack-rent has often been a term of protest used to denote an unjustly excessive rent (the word “rack” evoking the medieval torture device), usually one paid by a tenant farmer. The two conceptions of rack-rent both apply when excessive, extortionate rent is obtained by threat of eviction resulting in uncompensated dispossession of improvements the tenant himself has made. I.e., by charging rack-rent, thelandowner unjustly uses his power over the land effectively to confiscate, and then to charge the tenant interest and depreciation on, the capital improvements the tenant himself has made to the land and is expected to maintain. This sense of the term is economically meaningful, and distinct from the market rent. It was commomly used in Scotland and Ireland in the 18th-19th centuries by landlords.
The Handmaid’s Tale is set in the near future in the Republic of Gilead, a country formed within the borders of what was formerly the United States of America. It was founded by a racist, male chauvinist, nativist, theocratic-organized military coup as an ideologically-driven response to the pervasive ecological, physical and social degradation of the country. Beginning with a staged terrorist attack (blamed on Islamic extremist terrorists) that kills the President, a movement calling itself the “Sons of Jacob” launched a revolution, ousted Congress, and suspended the United States Constitution under the pretext of restoring order. Taking advantage of electronic banking, they were quickly able to freeze the assets of all women and other “undesirables” in the country, stripping their rights away. The new theocratic military dictatorship, styled “The Republic of Gilead”, moved quickly to consolidate its power and reorganize society along a new militarized, hierarchical, compulsorily-Christian regime of Old Testament-inspired social and religious orthodoxy among its newly-created social classes.[citation needed]

In the year 2019, Lincoln Six Echo (Ewan McGregor) lives in an isolated compound which strictly regulates its inhabitants’ lives. Overseers control every aspect of the residents’ lives, from diet and free time activities to social relationships. The inhabitants hope to win a lottery to go to “the Island”, the only place on Earth not contaminated by a deadly pathogen. Lincoln tells Dr. Merrick (Sean Bean) of his discontent with the plain white clothes everyone is given and the strict social controls. Concerned about strange dreams Lincoln experiences about a speedboat and other unfamiliar items, Merrick inserts probes into Lincoln’s body to monitor his cerebral activities.
While illicitly visiting a construction site accompanied by his friend, the technician James McCord (Steve Buscemi), Lincoln discovers a live moth in a ventilation shaft, leading him to deduce that the outside world is not contaminated. Lincoln follows the moth to another section, where he witnesses two recent lottery winners being killed, one after giving birth and the other in the process of having his liver harvested. As Lincoln rescues Jordan Two Delta (Scarlett Johansson), a friend who has just won the lottery, Merrick discovers that Lincoln knows the truth.
Lincoln and Jordan learn that both the contamination of the outside world and the Island are myths, and that the residents are clones of wealthy sponsors who intend to use them for spare parts or surrogate motherhood. Merrick’s technology allows clones to incubate directly into adulthood. He tells sponsors and the government that the clones do not gain consciousness, but when Merrick hires Frenchmercenary Albert Laurent (Djimon Hounsou) to kill or capture the escapees, he admits that the organs of unconscious clones inevitably fail, making them useless. Thus, he needs the clones conscious in the compound.

The Island is a 2005 American science fiction action film directed by Michael Bay and starring Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. It was released on July 22, 2005 in the US. It was nominated for 3 awards including the Teen Choice award.
It is described as a pastiche of “escape-from-dystopia” science fiction films of the 1960s and 1970s such as Fahrenheit 451, THX 1138, Parts: The Clonus Horror, and Logan’s Run. Set in the year 2019, the movie’s plot revolves around the struggle of Ewan McGregor’s character to fit into the highly structured world he lives in, and the series of events that unfolds when he questions exactly how truthful that world really is.
The film, which cost $126 million to produce, earned only $36 million at the United States box office, but earned $127 million overseas, for a $172 million worldwide total. The original score for the film was composed by Steve Jablonsky.

Lincoln and Jordan escape the compound and find themselves in the Arizona desert. They find McCord, who helps them to the Yucca railway station, and gives them the names of their sponsors in Los Angeles. After Laurent’s mercenaries find and kill McCord, Lincoln and Jordan ride the train in hopes of finding their sponsors, surviving Laurent’s attacks. Jordan Two’s sponsor, famous model Sarah Jordan, cannot help as she is in a coma following a car accident. Lincoln Six’s sponsor, Tom Lincoln—the owner of the speedboat in Lincoln’s dreams—agrees to help expose the truth about the organ harvesting, but secretly turns against his clone by informing Merrick about the situation. Merrick sends the mercenaries to the location, but Lincoln Six tricks Laurent into killing Tom and assumes Tom’s identity. As Lincoln and Jordan plan to liberate their fellow clones their feelings for each other change from friendship to romance, and the two have sex for the first time.
Posing as Tom Lincoln, Lincoln Six returns to the compound in order to destroy the holographic projectors that hide the outside world from its residents. With help from Laurent—who has moral qualms with treating the clones as if they are not human—and Jordan, Merrick is killed and the clones are freed. The film ends with Lincoln and Jordan together on the deck of the speedboat.
Historiography and explanations of the English Civil War
In the early decades of the 20th century the Whig school was the dominant theoretical view. They explained the Civil War as resulting from a centuries-long struggle between Parliament (especially the House of Commons) and the Monarchy, with Parliament defending the traditional rights of Englishmen, while the Stuart monarchy continually attempted to expand its right to arbitrarily dictate law. The most important Whig historian, S.R. Gardiner, popularized the English Civil War as a ‘Puritan Revolution’: challenging the repressive Stuart Church, and preparing the way for religious toleration in the Restoration. Thus, Puritanism was the natural ally of a people preserving their traditional rights against arbitrary monarchical power.
The Whig view was challenged and largely superseded by the Marxist school, which became popular in the 1940s, and which interpreted the English Civil War as a bourgeois revolution. According to Marxist historian Christopher Hill:
The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords, Parliament beat the King because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about.
—Christopher Hill[132]
In the 1970s, a new generation of historians, who would become known as Revisionists challenged both the Whig and the Marxist theories.[133] In 1973, a group of revisionist historians published the anthology The Origins of the English Civil War (Conrad Russell ed.). These historians disliked both Whig and Marxist explanations of the Civil War as long-term socio-economic trends in English society, producing work focused on the minutiae of the years immediately preceding the civil war, thereby returning to the contingency-based historiography of Clarendon’s famous contemporary history History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England. This, it was claimed, demonstrated that factional war-allegiance patterns did not fit either Whig or Marxist history.[citation needed] Puritans, for example, did not necessarily ally themselves with Parliamentarians.[citation needed] Many members of the bourgeoisie fought for the King, while many landed aristocrats supported Parliament. Thus, revisionist historians have discredited some Whig and Marxist interpretations of the English Civil War .[133][not in citation given]
Jane Ohlmeyer discarded and replaced the historical title “English Civil War” with the titles the “Wars of the Three” and the “British Civil Wars”, positing that the civil war in England cannot be understood isolated from events in other parts of Great Britain and Ireland; King Charles I remains crucial, not just as King of England, but also because of his relationship with the peoples of his other realms. For example, the wars began when King Charles I tried imposing an Anglican Prayer Book upon Scotland, and when this was met with resistance from the Covenanters, he needed an army to impose his will. However, this forced him to call an English Parliament to raise new taxes to pay for the army. The English Parliaments were not willing to grant Charles the revenue he needed to pay for the Scottish expeditionary army unless he addressed their grievances. By the early 1640s, Charles was left in a state of near permanent crisis management; often he was not willing to concede enough ground to any one faction to neutralise the threat, and in some circumstances to do so would only antagonise another faction. For example, Charles finally agreed upon terms with the Covenanters in August 1641, but although this might have weakened the position of the English Parliament, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 broke out in October 1641, largely negating the political advantage he had obtained by relieving himself of the cost of the Scottish invasion.[134]

The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (VII of Scotland and II of Ireland) in 1688 by a union of English Parliamentarians with an invading army led by the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange) who, as a result, ascended the English throne as William III of England together with his wife Mary II of England.
The crisis facing King James II came to a head in 1688, when the King fathered a son, James Francis Edward Stuart on 10 June (Julian calendar).[nb 1] Until then the throne would have passed to his daughter Mary, a Protestant, the wife of William. The prospect of a Roman Catholic dynasty in the kingdoms was now likely. Already troubled by the King’s Catholicism and his close ties with France, key leaders of the Tories united with members of the opposition Whigs and set out to resolve the crisis by inviting William of Orange to England.[1]
The expression “Glorious Revolution” was first used by John Hampden in late 1689,[2] and is an expression that is still used by the British Parliament.[3] The Glorious Revolution is also occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately. In England there were two significant clashes between the two armies, and anti-Catholic riots in several towns.[nb 2] There was also the Williamite War in Irelandand Dundee’s rising in Scotland.[nb 3] The revolution also led to the collapse of the Dominion of New England and the overthrow of Maryland’s government.
The Revolution is closely tied in with the events of the War of the Grand Alliance on mainland Europe, and may be seen as the last successful invasion of England.[4] It ended all attempts by England, in theAnglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century, to subdue the Dutch Republic by military force. However, the personal union and the co-operation between the English and Dutch navies shifted the dominance in world trade from the Dutch Republic to England and later to Great Britain.
The Revolution permanently ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England. For British Catholics its effects were disastrous both socially and politically: Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over 100 years afterwards, were denied commissions in the army, and the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or marry a Catholic, a prohibition which continues to this day. The revolution led to limited toleration for nonconformist Protestants, although it would be some time before they had full political rights.
It can be argued that James’s overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: never since has the monarch held absolute power, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain.
The Bill of Rights
The proposal to draw up a statement of the subjects’ rights and liberties and James’s invasion of them was first made on 29 January in the Commons, with members arguing that the House “can not answer it to the nation or Prince of Orange till we declare what are the rights invaded” and that William “cannot take it ill if we make conditions to secure ourselves for the future” in order to “do justice to those who sent us hither”. On 2 February a committee specially convened reported to the Commons 23 Heads of Grievances, which the Commons approved and added some of their own. However on 4 February the Commons decided to instruct the committee to differentiate between “such of the general heads, as are introductory of new laws, from those that are declaratory of ancient rights”. On 7 February the Commons approved this revised Declaration of Right, and on 8 February instructed the committee to put into a single text the Declaration (with the heads which were “introductory of new laws” removed), the resolution of 28 January and the Lords’ proposal for a revised oath of allegiance. It passed the Commons without division.[85]
The Declaration of Right was in December 1689 enacted in an Act of Parliament, the Bill of Rights 1689. It listed twelve of James’s policies by which James designed to “endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom”.[86] These were:
by assuming and exercising the dispensing power;
by prosecuting the Seven Bishops; by establishing of the court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes;
by levying money for the crown by pretence of prerogative than the same was granted by Parliament;
by raising and maintaining a standing army in peacetime without the consent of Parliament;
by disarming Protestants and arming Catholics contrary to law;
by violating the election of MPs;
by prosecuting in the King’s Bench for matters cognizable only in Parliament and “divers other arbitrary and illegal courses”;
by employing unqualified persons to serve on juries;
by requiring an excessive bail for persons committed in criminal cases;
by imposing excessive fines and “illegal and cruel punishments inflicted”;
by making “several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the person, upon whom the same were to be levied”.[87]
The Bill of Rights also vindicated and asserted the nation’s “ancient rights and liberties” by declaring:
the pretended power to dispense with Acts of Parliament is illegal;
the commission for ecclesiastical causes is illegal;
levying money without the consent of Parliament is illegal;
it is the right of the subject to petition the king and prosecutions for petitioning are illegal;
maintaining a standing army in peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal;
Protestant subjects “may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and allowed by law”;
the election of MPs ought to be free; that freedom of speech and debates in Parliament “ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”;
excessive bail and fines not required and “cruel and unusual punishments” not to be inflicted;
jurors in high treason trials ought to be freeholders;
that promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal;
that Parliament ought to be held frequently.[88]
On 13 February the clerk of the House of Lords read the Declaration of Right and Halifax, in the name of all the estates of the realm, asked William and Mary to accept the throne. William replied for his wife and himself: “We thankfully accept what you have offered us”. They then went in procession to the great gate at Whitehall. The Garter King at Arms proclaimed them King and Queen of England, France and Ireland, whereupon they adjourned to the Chapel Royal, with Compton preaching the sermon.[89] They were crowned on 11 April, swearing an oath to uphold the laws made by Parliament. The Coronation Oath Act 1688 had provided a new coronation oath, whereby the monarchs were to “solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same”. They were also to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed faith established by law.[90
Magna Carta is an English charter, originally issued in the year 1215 and reissued later in the 13th century in modified versions, which included the most direct challenges to the monarch’s authority to date. The charter first passed into law in 1225. The 1297 version, with the long title (originally in Latin) The Great Charter of the Liberties of England, and of the Liberties of the Forest, still remains on the statute books of England and Wales.
The 1215 Charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties, and accept that his will was not arbitrary, for example by explicitly accepting that no “freeman” (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right which is still in existence today.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited.
Despite its recognised importance, by the second half of the 19th century nearly all of its clauses had been repealed in their original form. Three clauses remain part of the law of England and Wales, however, and it is generally considered part of the uncodified constitution. Lord Denning described it as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.[1] In a 2005 speech, Lord Woolf described it as “first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status”,[2] the others being the Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, and the Act of Settlement.
The charter was an important part of the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law in the English speaking world, although it was “far from unique, either in content or form”.[3] In practice, Magna Carta in the medieval period did not in general limit the power of kings, but by the time of the English Civil War it had become an important symbol for those who wished to show that the King was bound by the law. It influenced the early settlers in New England[4] and inspired later constitutional documents, including the United States Constitution.[5]
Clauses still in force today
The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta which are still on statute are
Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church.
Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the “ancient liberties” of the City of London.
Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process.
1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[42]
Clauses still in force today
The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta which are still on statute are
Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church.
Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the “ancient liberties” of the City of London.
Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process.
1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[42]
Clauses still in force today
The clauses of the 1297 Magna Carta which are still on statute are
Clause 1, the freedom of the English Church.
Clause 9 (clause 13 in the 1215 charter), the “ancient liberties” of the City of London.
Clause 29 (clause 39 in the 1215 charter), a right to due process.
1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.
9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.
29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.[42]
In Conflict of Laws, the term lex loci (Latin for “the law of the place”)[1] is a shorthand version of the choice of law rules that determine the lex causae.
Lex fori (Latin for the laws of a forum) is a legal term used in the conflict of laws used to refer to the laws of the jurisdiction in which a legal action is brought.[1] When a court decides that it should, by reason of the principles of conflict of law, resolve a given legal dispute by reference to the laws of another jurisdiction, the lex causae, the lex fori still govern procedural matters.[2]
The lex loci arbitri is the Latin term for “law of the place where arbitration is to take place” in the conflict of Laws. Conflict is the branch of public law regulating all lawsuits involving a “foreign” law element where a difference in result will occur depending on which laws are applied.
When a case comes before a court and all the main features of the case are local, the court will apply the lex fori, the prevailing municipal law, to decide the case. But if there are “foreign” elements to the case, the forum court may be obliged under the Conflict of Laws system to consider:
whether the forum court has jurisdiction to hear the case (see the problem of forum shopping);
it must then characterise the issues, i.e. allocate the factual basis of the case to its relevant legal classes; and
then apply the choice of law rules to decide which law is to be applied to each class.
The lex loci arbitri is an element in the choice of law rules applied to cases testing the validity of a contract. As an aspect of the public policy of freedom of contract, the parties to an agreement are free to include a forum selection clause and/or a choice of law clause and, unless there is a lack of bona fides, these clauses will be considered valid. If there is no express selection of a proper law, the courts will usually take the nomination of a forum as a “connecting factor”, i.e. a fact that links a case to a specific georgraphical location. For these purposes, one of the “forums” that may be selected is arbitration. Hence, the fact that the parties have chosen a stateas the place of arbitration is an indication that parties may have intended the local law to apply. This indication will be weighed alongside other connecting factors. The state that has the largest number of connecting factors will be the lex causae applied to resolve the dispute between the parties. If there is a tie, the connecting factors which relate to performance will be given a greater weighting.
Nineteen Eighty-Four (sometimes written 1984) is a 1948 dystopian novel written by George Orwell, about an oligarchical, collectivist society. Life in the Oceanian province of Airstrip One is a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, and incessant public mind control. The individual is always subordinated to the state, and it is in part this philosophy which allows the Party to manipulate and control humanity. In the Ministry of Truth, protagonist Winston Smith is a civil servant responsible for perpetuating the Party’s propaganda by revising historical records to render the Party omniscient and always correct, yet his meager existence disillusions him to the point of seeking rebellion against Big Brother, eventually leading to his arrest, torture, and reconversion.
As literary political fiction, Nineteen Eighty-Four is considered a classic novel of the social science fiction subgenre. Since its publication in 1949, many of its terms and concepts, such as Big Brother, doublethink,thoughtcrime, Newspeak, and Memory hole, have become contemporary vernacular. In addition, the novel popularized the adjective Orwellian, which refers to lies, surveillance, or manipulation of the past in the service of a totalitarian agenda.
In 1998, the Modern Library ranked Nineteen Eighty-Four 13th on its list of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century.
Animal Farm is a dystopian allegorical novella by George Orwell. Published in England on 17 August 1945, the book reflects events leading up to and during the Stalin era before World War II. Orwell, ademocratic socialist,[1] was a critic of Joseph Stalin and hostile to Moscow-directed Stalinism, especially after his experiences with the NKVD, and what he saw of the results of the influence of Communist policy (“ceaseless arrests, censored newspapers, prowling hordes of armed police” – “Communism is now a counter-revolutionary force”),[2] during the Spanish Civil War. In a letter to Yvonne Davet, Orwell describedAnimal Farm as his novel “contre Stalin”.[3]
The original title was Animal Farm: A Fairy Story, but the subtitle was dropped by the US publishers for its 1946 publication and subsequently all but one of the translations during Orwell’s lifetime omitted the addition. Other variations in the title include: A Satire and A Contemporary Satire.[3] Orwell suggested for the French translation the title Union des républiques socialistes animales, recalling the French name of theSoviet Union, Union des républiques socialistes soviétiques, and which abbreviates URSA, which is the Latin for “bear”, a symbol of Russia.[3]
Time magazine chose the book as one of the 100 best English-language novels (1923 to 2005);[4] it also places at number 31 on the Modern Library List of Best 20th-Century Novels. It won a Retrospective Hugo Award in 1996 and is also included in the Great Books of the Western World.
The novel addresses not only the corruption of the revolution by its leaders but also how wickedness, indifference, ignorance, greed and myopia destroy any possibility of a Utopia. While this novel portrays corrupt leadership as the flaw in revolution (and not the act of revolution itself), it also shows how potential ignorance and indifference to problems within a revolution could allow horrors to happen if smooth transition to a people’s government is not satisfied.
Corporations masters of the new Dystopia
Many African governments are defensive about the deals. Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi is expected to talk on the subject in Davos this week; in the past he has argued that investment in African agriculture is crucial to improve the continent’s low agricultural productivity. He has argued that foreign investors bring in mechanisation and expertise which is vital for development. Many campaigners would agree that investment is badly needed, but insist that the future for African agriculture is not mechanised monocultures for export but supporting sustainable smallholder agriculture. They argue that the latter is far more likely to ensure food security for the poorest Africans.

Algorithim 101.
Smoothing Schochastic analysis Gaussian analysis probability and so on and so forth simple and problematical etc ets basically a procrustean approach to finding a fit wioth hidsight posterior analysis.



Stochastic (from the Greek στόχος for aim or guess) means random. A stochastic process is one whose behavior is non-deterministic, in that a system’s subsequent state is determined both by the process’s predictable actions and by a random element. However, according to M. Kac[1] and E. Nelson,[2] any kind of time development (be it deterministic or essentially probabilistic) which is analyzable in terms of probability deserves the name of stochastic process.

Bayesian probability is one of the different interpretations of the concept of probability and belongs to the category of evidential probabilities. The Bayesian interpretation of probability can be seen as an extension of logic that enables reasoning with uncertain statements. To evaluate the probability of a hypothesis, the Bayesian probabilist specifies some prior probability, which is then updated in the light of new relevant data. The Bayesian interpretation provides a standard set of procedures and formulae to perform this calculation. Bayesian probability interprets the concept of probability as “a measure of a state of knowledge”,[1] in contrast to interpreting it as a frequency or a “propensity” of some phenomenon.
“Bayesian” refers to the 18th century mathematician and theologian Thomas Bayes (1702–1761), who provided the first mathematical treatment of a non-trivial problem of Bayesian inference.[2] Nevertheless, it was the French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749–1827) who pioneered and popularized what is now called Bayesian probability.[3]
Broadly speaking, there are two views on Bayesian probability that interpret the state of knowledge concept in different ways. According to the objectivist view, the rules of Bayesian statistics can be justified by requirements of rationality and consistencyand interpreted as an extension of logic.[1][4] According to the subjectivist view, the state of knowledge measures a “personal belief”.[5] Many modern machine learning methods are based on objectivist Bayesian principles.[6] In the Bayesian view, a probability is assigned to a hypothesis, whereas under the frequentist view, a hypothesis is typically tested without being assigned a probability.


Author: rogerglewis

https://about.me/rogerlewis Looking for a Job either in Sweden or UK. Freelance, startups, will turń my hand to anything.

10 thoughts on “Unified theory of all the corporate Bull shit lies damned lies and statistics

Leave a Reply