This includes not only public sector entities, but also any entity in receipt of state subsidies such as train services, and tax breaks such as CostCo. It would be easy to enforce subsidized and tax relieved enterprises as any subsidies and tax relief could simply be made conditional on a no strike policy, one which employees would have to sign up for from the outset.

Unions insult our intelligence when they try to draw comparisons between their justifications for modern day strikes and the abuse of child coal miners. The differences are immeasurably huge in both severity and nature, so I will condense them to the few most relevant highlights. Aside from the obvious use of child labour being absent in the modern public sector, other significant differences in working conditions, hours, pay, vulnerability and benefits arise in any honest comparison. However, we shouldn’t need any of those to justify a ban on public sector strikes. All we need is in my use of the term “public sector” and its implications.

Striking in the private sector is a matter between the striking employees and their employers, with the person or persons in charge of the business being able to determine how to respond, and crucially, bear direct financial responsibility of the decision they make. This is all fine by me. You are free to strike provided your employer is free to fire you if they find your action unacceptable. This is not the case in the public sector, where there is a disconnect between the decision makers (Government) and those paying the bill (Taxpayers). We can’t fire the strikers, and judging by the outcries for driverless trains I think it is safe to say many would sack the lot if they could. This highlights the injustice I am talking about. Those who are forced to pay the cost of the decision have no say in what decision is made. Unions are greedy and duplicitous in their exploitation of this disconnect – reaching into taxpayers pockets by government proxy, then have the gall to play the victim. Those who did make the decision don’t have to bear the cost of it after they simply give themselves a raise at taxpayer’s expense, while those who paid for it had no say and are still stuck with sub-standard services.

Those who argue in favor of capitulation do so as a form of virtue signaling, as though they are somehow on the side of “the people” – but it is easy to be “charitable” with other people’s money. I am willing to bet if these same people had to pay the cost themselves as a matter of private enterprise they’d change their tone pretty quickly. How fair is it for them to make the decision for everyone else? How fair is it to hold critical infrastructure to ransom for a few extra bucks? Police and Soldiers are banned from striking on the basis that their services are essential to the nation, so are politicians indirectly admitting that other public sector entities like the NHS are non-essential? I agree, the difference is that I say it outright, while politicians accidentally let it out in a legislative Freudian slip. Either a service is essential and strikes should be banned, or it is non-essential and should not be funded by the taxpayer, directly or indirectly.

I cannot recall a single moment in my life where I have ever considered "Global Warming" to be anything other than an embezzlement scheme orchestrated by tyrants, corporate and hostile state actors alike, to make life harder and more expensive for the general population while lining their own pockets with the proceeds of "green" taxes. The closest thing I have ever had to believing in it was a dream I had, where everything was calm at night, but as dawn drew closer, tensions grew. The ozone had completely collapsed and we all needed to be back in covered facilities before the sun rose, lest we get barbecued like Sarah Connor's T2 Nuke dream. There weren't enough facilities so it ended up being like a deadly game of musical chairs. The facility I had found didn't have enough room so I was shoved out. I walked to the top of a hill, glanced back at the facilities, then turned to the rising sun and prepared to meet my fate before waking up. Thinking about it now maybe it was my mind telling me that there never was a threat, and you only realize that once you "wake up", either that or my unconscious mind was just overreacting to the summer sun shining on my face while I slept in the middle of the day during summer holidays as a child. The second closest I have come was when I was very young, under 10, just learning that electricity was produced by fire, and fire is hot and too much fire will make the world too hot... but I digress.

Even if it was a problem, the solution is to just ignore it. Considering how much hydrocarbon fuel has been burned, and what remains as subterranean coal, oil and gas, it can all be burned up long before there is any meaningful impact. We'll have to move over to renewables anyway, and climate catastrophism only causes an expensive, destructive and unnecessary rush to short term non solutions like lithium and other precious metals whose extraction have their own environmental problems. The most environmentally friendly thing to do is plan long term with the deadline based on projected scarcity rather than doomsday predictions from false prophets. Hydrogen fuel gives all the power and range vehicles need, is infinitely recyclable, and can be stored from solar for overnight supply. The solutions are expensive, so it is better to get as much economic benefit form hydrocarbons while they're still available and use the proceeds to invest for a time they are not so abundant.

Right Wing - Left Wing, Conservative - Liberal, Big State - Small State... The only political scale that matters to me is Tyranny - Liberty, and when it comes to financial systems, only one represents Liberty to me. History shows that systems which take away economic power from the individual, such as Communism/Socialism/Fascism, result in mass poverty, genocide, and tyranny like the USSR, Nazi Germany, Communist China and so on, but you shouldn't need these examples to know they aren't worth trying again - all you really need is an understanding of what they actually are beneath the surface. Often apologists will try to convince you that Socialism, Fascism and Communism are different, but the differences are superficial compared to the core similarities. They are all simply 3 heads of the same beast, an economic trident of tyranny designed specifically to take away our ability to transact freely. In practice, the Trident is based on removing economic power form the individual and handing it to a centralized authority, and although some personal wealth may remain in socialism and fascism, the decision as to who can have and enjoy it is entirely at the discretion of the central authority. Capitalism is the opposite, an economic tool for liberty, regardless of how much tyrants try to convince you otherwise. All 4 financial models share a few things in common - wealth inequality, a form of labor, and a system of governance. However within each of these similarities lies an extremely important distinction between the Trident and Capitalism.

Wealth inequality occurs in a Capitalist system by natural causes, absent of the legislative diktats found with the Trident. Trident politicians decide through wealth distribution and lucrative public contracts who the economic winners and losers are, regardless of their performance or merit, resulting in the "failing upwards" of institutions like the NHS in the UK. Absent of a profit motive to do any better, the NHS fails and is rewarded with more money for doing so. Socialists somehow manage to keep a straight face when confronted with such glaring self contradictions, touting public sector corruption as a "fair" panacea for inequality, making sure to project blame for public sector financial corruption on capitalism with their use of the phrase "crony capitalism". Likewise, they attempt to use Orwell's 1984 to promote socialism, & proclaim the deepest distrust of the political class while promoting a system that hands "The Establishment" total financial control, seemingly unaware of the word "irony". Their ideal of equality has never been achieved, nor will it ever and I don't believe it was ever truly the goal.

The idea of capitalism is to accept that people will always do what they consider to be in their best interest, and instead of treating the instinct for economic self preservation as an evil it utilizes this instinct for good by providing a system which rewards positive acts with currency with which other services can be purchased. In its ideal form, those who are willing to work the hardest and be the most creative in terms of business acquire the most money. Competition means that the profit motive gives better outcomes, with each business trying to outdo one another in order to acquire the most custom and therefore wealth. There are law breaking exceptions such as theft of both physical and intellectual property, and monopolies of essential systems do need to be prevented, but the general trend is toward improvement through productive selfishness. You also have more freedom to determine what service you provide under capitalism than under authoritarian systems. Essentially it is a system built on karma, with currency being the positive return for positive deeds. Trident economics are a deliberate attempt to destroy this mechanism.

In capitalism good practice is rewarded & the fruits of your labor are yours in as much as possible, and you get to help determine who the economic winners are by voting with your wallet for those who create the products you most wish to buy. Limited taxation remains, as required for the structures and institutions necessary to uphold capitalism itself - defence, law and order, physical infrastructure all come at a cost, but the scope of government spending (and therefore the amount of taxation) is reduced to things of this nature. As you tend towards the Trident, both the legislative remit and cost of governance rise dramatically. The fruits of your labor are no longer yours, they belong to someone else, either to the state, government cronies, or some vague sense of the "community".

It is also worth mentioning that FOSS like Linux is not a communist or socialist endeavor, anyone who claims otherwise clearly misunderstands either Linux, or the financial systems mentioned here. Linux is a capitalist venture because the original developer made a free choice to offer it under the GPL, this is common capitalist charity. Many fall for the lie that things are free in Trident systems, and capitalism is about pure greed, and confirmation bias prevents them from seeing that capitalist nations are in fact the most generous, and nothing is truly free in socialism. If Linux was part of the Trident, it would be the case that if Torvalds wanted to sell Linux for a profit, he would have been forbidden from doing so and the kernel would have been requisitioned to state ownership against his wishes. Trident policies are defined by their removal of choice, Linus had a choice thanks to capitalism. Companies like Apple and Microsoft are far more in line with the definition of socialism due to the enormous profits brought in through social public contracts - the state's removal of choice from the taxpayer to vote with their wallets.

Some may like the idea of social handouts, personally I'd rather have the money and opportunities the state either stole from me directly, or were stolen indirectly by individuals taking advantage of state intervention -especially since these will be terminated anyway once the state has removed any viable capitalist alternative and there is nothing you can realistically and reasonably do about it.

Sometimes tyrants will try to control the narrative through “controlled opposition” – figureheads who claim to represent “the other side” but are in total control of its direction. For example, Europhiles Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings claiming to be Brexiteers to control the Brexit narrative and the central campaign, remove actual skeptics from the finances and attention of the official campaign, which they then attempted to ruin with ludicrous statements and unhelpful promises “on the side of a bus” to send the Brexit Bonanza to an embezzlement scheme that self identifies as a health service. Further, in the event that they failed to lose the referendum, the method would provide a contingency where IngSoc retained control of the narrative and government, make a right hash of things so Brexit could be blamed for the country’s woes, thus providing a pretext for a repeat referendum. Given polling results at the time, it seems the majority disagreed with me, but I said some of what I say will age well, and it seems it has.

Similarly with anti-monarch movement “Republic” in the UK, who terrorize horses thinking it would be seen as acceptable because it is something the Suffragettes did, except without the very important contexts of these events making it a ludicrous false equivalence. Suffragettes were facing totalitarian censorship, it was another age without internet and mass media coverage with a thousand TV channels. It was extremely difficult to get their message out, in print their very important campaign was swept into obscure pages that very few read. Actual censorship was holding them back, and drastic action was thought to be the only way to break through it, they didn’t need to justify their acts with “X did it, therefore Y doing it is also fine”. With Republic’s case, nobody is censoring them, phony republicanism just doesn't resonate with people. This controlled opposition to the monarchy takes attention away from the more reasonable republican voices, giving us a bad name by association with their idiotic acts and statements, and if they ever got their way, will almost certainly manage the seemingly impossible task of ensuring we end up with an even worse system.

Similar to what has happened to the "Conservative Party" in the UK, I also consider Trump's effect on the Republican party in the US to fit into this category. Framing himself as the saviour of the Republican Party, he looks like he may well end up being its destroyer, at least in principle. If the Republican party ever needed saving, it was in 2008 when popularity was at an all time low and it would have taken a miracle to take on the charismatic Obama (before his corruption and ineptitude were exposed) - but that would have been actual competition, much easier for him to face off against an obvious criminal and a deranged child hair sniffer, riding the tidal wave of rising Republican popularity and plummeting trust in the "Democrats". His policies seem like they were tailored to maintain the appearance of conservatism, but behind the scenes ensured crucial Dem policies remain, such as dismantling the F22 program using the exact same excuses which fly in the face of established history and basic economics:

Opponents inflated the cost of the F22 by Amortizing R&D costs over very few aircraft, had the full plan of 750 Raptors been built, cost per unit would have been close to $120M per unit, on par with 4th Gen craft and significantly cheaper than the F14 Tomcat, there is no financial sense in canceling it after R&D costs have already been paid. Dual fleet structural overhead (additional costs of maintenance when running 2 primary aircraft simultaneously) seems to have been ignored. It ain't exactly pocket change, something on the order of $15–30B of additional costs has been incurred to "Save Money", but let's not allow irrelevancies like strategy capability, basic economics and military history interfere with anti-American confirmation bias.

So anyway, upon taking over the party through entryism, he has removed and replaced as much of the "old guard" as he possibly could. Typically I don't bother criticizing him when it can't make a difference - the majority of my criticism came during the primaries when there was genuine hope for a better alternative, and I would like to say "it will all be over soon", but it looks like the party has now reached a critical point where sensible voices no longer hold sway, and there may not be a single genuine conservative for the next primaries. I guess this is one of those things where one needs the serenity to accept what one cannot change, especially seeing as it's not even my country.

On the topic of things that will be unpopular at first but age well, I believe nearly all professional sports where physical fitness, endurance, and / or strength are the difference between winning and losing, are completely and utterly fraudulent. 99% take PEDs, the tests mean nothing - easily covered up by one or more of 3 methods: Diuretics, Therapeutic Use Exemptions, or using anabolic agents to bulk up prior to exposing the athlete to testing, so by the time they get tested, the drugs will be out of their system and there will be nothing to detect, but the “gains” remain so there is nothing to cover up anymore. From the start I have always said Lance Armstrong shouldn’t be scapegoated, but not because I want to go easy on him, but because token accountability allows Omerta to continue to this day. It is better that a form of controlled legalization be implemented (more on this in a full article later), one that makes the drugs and guidance available to all people, not just those who are chosen to be winners by corporate sponsors who claim Venus Williams' dominance is down to her expensive luxury mattress.