Sovereign Being.

Ironic-Enviro-Facists

2010-10-04T05:45:00.001-07:00

Been a little while since I posted owt. Gunna try get back on it.

In years to come I hope people realise the harm all this propaganda has done. It's meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, but they really are intent on hammering that message home (Human life is not as important as this metaphysical threat of global warming/climate change/carbon emissions). So there you have it, Environmentalism via Eugenics.

Shock and Awe tactics combine with systematic brainwashing [ kids have even been taught the happy global warming song in schools ], in a convoluted sacrificial worship of Gaia - a repackaged mother nature Pagan God.

But it's absurd and ironic, so one cannot form a rational discourse without it being degraded into an emotional argument. The "weak minded" heretics who cannot conform will be brutalised, in a cultural and historical cleansing which will wipe the slate clean for the new man...

The Soviet Story

2010-06-21T05:34:00.000-07:00

A really excellent watch :

http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/Sealxd75_MQ/

The offical site: www.sovietstory.com

"Your life does not benefit us"

2010-03-10T09:41:00.002-08:00

"You must all know half a dozen people at least who are no use in this world, who are more trouble than they are worth. Just put them there and say Sir, or Madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence, if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat, if you’re not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then, clearly, we cannot use the organizations of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us and it can’t be of very much use to yourself." George Bernard Shaw, British Fabian.

Wow, people are gunna love socialism. This particular brand of elitism is so easily veiled as being for the benefit of an ill-conceived (and vaguely defined) greater good, it’s hard for the public to extract much truth. That is of course, any truth to which the authorities do not consider necessary or desirable. The danger here is that this world view, particular to those in an already established position within “civil society” (cradle to grave), leads to ultimately tyranny. They will have to go along with it because livelihoods will be at stake. That is how you control a society. This is what progress means to the elite. In the face of such ideals, we should be reminded that Socialism was the doctrine of both the Nazi’s and the Bolsheviks. Both of which justified mass murder.

H.G Wells downplays the impact that the radio rendition of “The War of the Worlds, put action by Orson Wells, had on the American public in 1930’s

Huxley makes reference to “Techniques” which would be more prevalent in controlling populations in the future. I.e. mass entertainment, mass media, Tell-Lie-Vision, etc.

Divide et impera

2010-03-10T09:37:00.001-08:00

"It seems to me that the nature of the ultimate revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude."
- Aldous Huxley

There’s no need for conspiracy theories when their own writings and words speak volumes. Yet most "lefties" are conditioned to think that they are kicking against the system, not realizing than we're actually moving into a feudal type capitalist system, which has been blended with the communist system of strong governance. They call it commutarianism, the 3rd way (the whole public-private partnership in the U.K being a good example of this.)

Global warming or climate change are some of their primary techniques of changing society - decided on thanks to the Club of Rome, who were given the specific task of dreaming up a scenario which could be used to unite the world.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill ... All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, consultants to the UN

CoR are an off shoot off, a specific arm of the One World Government, agenda. Well connected with all the usual “conspiracy” buzzwords like the Bilderburgs, Council of Foreign Relations, etc. And yes, it is an agenda. I think the whole branding of "conspiracy theory" is a kin to the communists who called everything "bourgeoisie" when it didn't fit their agenda. Or the right wing who branded everything under the sun "communist" while failing to realize that the big (tax except) foundations in Amerika were funding what appeared to be left-wing groups - in order to lay the ground work to merge the U.S with the Soviet system ('rule by council'). Please check out the Reece Committee.

Here is an interview 1982 by G. Edward Griffin regarding the time he spent as the head researcher for the Reece Committee

But ultimately people should be aware we are ruled by deception and to question everything. This agenda I speak of has it's fingers in many pies; even the "alternative", current New Age authors. I am thinking specifically of James Lovelock, who is nothing more than new age charlatans in my opinion. This idea that the world in a living organism called "Gaia", I’ll admit, sounds really appealing. It's almost like, how can this chap be a threat? Well in reality he's not. But it's more the mindset that it promotes, which goes hand in hand with the "sustainability" and "greening" agenda heavily promoted by the U.N, (which is essentially wolves in sheep’s clothing). This involved reducing the world population and bringing down the standard of living in the so-called "developed world". But the new world order needs its new religion for the next generations. Debating the impact of this often doesn't take into account the education system that is already in place in our schools, (i.e. they have it planned out, well in advance) thanks to UNESCO. My 4 year old nephew coming home from school with the question “What does it mean to be a good global citizen?” being a real world example of this. Keep your eyes open for the indoctrination, all I'm saying...

Of course you can keep rationalizing this to yourself, “well that’s a good thing that they (the kids) are aware that the world is bigger than just their city”. One has to look at it from a point of view children are easily influenced, and this is a deliberate attempt to not only change their perspective on the world, but to lay blame upon their parents for the state of the world. Especially if an idea is presented to them in the best possible light, and couple that with the encouragement to get their children to see how much (or little) their parents currently recycle. All for the purpose of saving the environment, obviously. But it’s a similar technique which has been used for generations in order to cut out vital knowledge of “how things were” and facts or opinions about history – not just the official party line. This is why generations are divided - they are easier to manipulate if they have no real historical grounding.

Who in their right mind doesn’t want clean air and clean water? It really is the dream scenario for change. Some of the literature put out by the British government about sustainability and the green-economy make it state openly that they are well aware that it is business as usual as far as they are concerned, and those who smell which way the wind is blowing (i.e. opportunists) will tow the party line. That’s why you see all the so called green energy companies, the private business’s cashing in on middle class guilt to turn your house “Carbon Free”, which is pretty inconvenient considering it’s the main gas human beings breathe out. This list is endless.

Yet if you fail to step outside the simple “pro or anti” paradigms we’re offered when trying to understand these issues, you run the risk of being branded a “Global Warming Denier”. Lovely use of Neuro-linguistic Programming (i.e. getting you to accept an idea or theory without much questioning) – you wouldn’t possibly associate the word “Denier” (albeit subconsciously), with those that are labeled “Holocaust Denier”, would you?

This is the new soviet system.

BBC - Masters of Double Think.

2010-01-10T08:52:00.000-08:00

More troops being sent to Iraq earlier would have saved British lives.

Why do we continue to offer this nation’s young men and woman as sacrifice? The debate about the war has disappeared from the eye of the mainstream. The fact it’s an illegal war, which a large proportion of the population could not get behind when it broke out, matters not. It’s being played out like any good war propaganda film – the battle goes on so long that the people forget why it started. War is peace and all that, and who’s funding it?

Just like the UN’s “Peace Keeping Force”. A super police force that supersedes the nation states, to protect the interests of (wait for it) not country, but a Corpration. That’s what the UN is; a legal entity. If you think this sounds too wild, bare in mind the following: the EU, with the aid of the Lisbon treaty, conned the Irish and the Czech people into voting (twice, to get the right answer) essentially giving this super-state “legal” status as EU. This has huge regulatory and economic implications. This is far beyond the comprehension of most of the public; we’re lead to believe this is the only natural solution (i.e. the persistent consolidation of power – but with the same names and shadow government orchestrating the moves). The chess players never sit on the chess board.

“The mandate of United Nations Police is different in each mission. In some missions, the mandate has been limited to monitoring the local police services. In more complex missions, the mandate includes advising, training, helping establish local police services and enhancing their work, and, in some cases, law enforcement. This complexity is compounded by the need to integrate all components of the criminal justice system to ensure comprehensive and sustainable rule of law.” – Official U.N Website

The aforementioned integration comes in the form of a partnership between a private body of international data, known as Interpol, and the man power of the U.N. Ultimately to fulfil what the representatives call “a visionary model”. A global police force. Imagine the scenario; the UN throwing accusations at you and your family for being anti-social global citizens – you didn’t recycle for a whole year, you produce too much waste and what’s more – you carelessly didn’t unplug your electrical applications when you went on holiday! Which by the way, you used your friends carbon credit-card because you’d used yours visiting family earlier in the year. Oh by the way the footage was recorded by your fellow citizens, are you calling them liars? [citation needed… okay here you go]

“Despite popular misconception, the organization maintains no police force of its own. Each member nation maintains and staffs a National Central Bureau to direct Interpol intelligence, while local authorities investigate and prosecute criminals according to national laws” – from wikipedia or something.

And how do you transcend national laws? The U.N, that’s how.

“The police will be trained and equipped differently with resources… when they stop someone, they will be consulting global databases to determine who they are stopping.” Ross Noble [ Interpol and U.N. Back ‘Global Policing Doctrine ]

It’s too late for the concept that “they could never do that”. The fact is they’re doing it, incrementally, Fabian-style, to bring order out of chaos. They are never satisfied. The old Masonic doctrine, the ones the big boys know all about; out of many, one. UN is one is French. One world. You hear that frequently in the Eco friendly type adverts (“raising public awareness”, that means the money pumped into these NGO campaign’s has a specific purpose – to make you believe).

E Pluribus Unum — "Out of Many, One."

Make believe. Carbon taxing (World Economy), global warming (Global Governance), terrorism (Step this way, please), swine flu (World Health Organisation). A good set of myths to keep the public in a state of fear (perpetual war) while chasing their own tale, looking for the answers. All the while, allowing those who write the script to pass whatever laws they want.

EDF for example – the let it be known, we do not vote for these companies who act as “lobby groups”. They are presented to the public as a voice of the people. Notice the Alphabet soup names as well (Environmental Defense Fund). They are generally stuck in a perpetual state of demanding that certain laws be put through parliament – all for the greater good and virtuous causes they support. All good and well. Not so when you realise these are primarily (especially, unsurprisingly the ones mandated by the U.N) set up in the first instance by huge international bankers.

They act as a smoke screen for things like Carbon Taxing. You’d be forgiven for thinking the U.N isn’t behind that. They’re incredibly behind it, like a full blown assault on what the human body produces (we breathe out carbon). The ideal world citizen has to be “producer/consumer”, according to the U.N’s utopian doctrines. This means if you aren’t working (lets say you’re too old or have a disability), you’re just consuming and therefore it equates that you are a useless consumer (a burden on the world, no less!). And who are these people who will make such decisions? Well thanks largely to mass media all being on board or too damn ignorant, most of us aren’t too savvy with any of the faces behind the new geopolitical structure which is being hurried into shape. By that I mean they want us to want what they have planned for us, without really being aware of the implications.

EDF has a section of their website – facts and myths about Global Warming. Just so happens it’s almost identical to the Royal Society’s. Even if it is all true, and they successfully manage to kibosh any scepticism you may have, is it still just a co-incidence that all this one sided propaganda is forcing us into a corner. “Too late for talk, we must act” – that’s often been the mantra of radical environmentalists, now it’s mainstream and has unquantifiable financial backing. What does that mean for us?

E.U, on the other hand, is rumoured to feature (as president, no less) the man responsible for passing Britain’s anti-terror laws. Along with running the country right into the pockets of the internationalists and shit-hound bankers, his Fabian inspired “New Labour” was lost on most of us. He represents the working man, with five houses. Exit stage left, Tony Blair. Re-surface a few years later on the world stage leaving ol’ mouth breather Golden Brown to face the music. so we now know he didn't get the position, we got Herman Van Rompuy. (who? Exactley.)

Van Rompuy related to global governance by stating: "2009 is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of a financial crisis; the climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet." Van Rompuy referred to the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009. No shit, we're all on board! NWO bound.

It’s a clever empire they’re building – history repeats it’s self but because we’re too in the thick of it, it’s hard for us to state it openly – without coming across as one of them “conspiracy nuts”*. But of course – the Club of Rome talked about this years ago – a world run by experts. It didn’t matter if these experts didn’t have anything resembling a human soul – they’re the scientists on the payroll, so we should listen to them alone.

Look at the propaganda machine that is Hollywood (Holy-Wood, the magicians wand) did you realise that the Pentagon funds the majority of war movies? Here’s the deal – we’ll give you the most intense looking modern weapons and technologies to use in your movie, you can then manipulate them with enhancing graphics (Iron Man, for example). But the catch is; we (the U.S Military, or rather, the money behind) get the final word on the script. That is an example of war propaganda. I don't know how clear it could be.

I think, deep down, we know that there is a lot wrong (you could say soulless) with these megalithic brainwash tactics, but we can justify it all with some token Freudian psychology and say “hey, it’s just appealing to human’s violent nature”. Right, yeah. Or it’s convincing us that the power structure already in place has your best interests at heart, and there’s experts taking care of it. The sad fact is, the people pulling the strings have a deeper understanding of psychology as a powerful a tool for social control then they let on.

All the big Sci-Fi writers are aware of this element to their “fiction”. HG Wells, Aldous Huxley - big believers is a scientific based dictatorship. Look into them for yourselves.

That’s why they train us to get used to ideas; it’s called predictive programming. All sounds far out, I know, but then why go through the hassle of having all the best “experts” in these fields on the payroll?

It is often futile to comprehensively rationalise how geo-politics works, because these people use any excuse under the sun to justify what they have done, and will do. Power is non-negotiable. It doesn’t matter if we have any interest in the occult, the fact is they do – what’s more they rub it in our faces to prove the point. I believe there are very ancient religions behind these ideas of a new world order – nothing like what we can learn about without a fair amount of studying and proper reading. The out right denial of any occult origins, combined with inconsistent, convenient explanations from official sources, speak volumes. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear will understand what I’m referring to, but for now I’ll stick with the current agenda.

Remember seeing sci-fi films which feature (albeit, antiquated in appearance, but Gattaca springs to mind) biometric systems, which have everyone’s data on them? Do you genuinely think this has anything to do with stopping crime? Sure it will make reductions here and there. But in actuality, its preliminary objective is concerned with knowing your every move. They already have a lot of this data, and the new UN police force will also have access to this data. Predictability within society has always been one of the key aims at the top of the pyramid, and Sci-Fi has been used for years as method of predictive programming. That’s why the RFID chip is receiving minimal airplay with maximum $ to aid the research (IBM on board- I’ve heard they’ll lend you some brass if it aids the NWO…)

If there has ever been an era more defined by governments us selling out, it’s probably now. But we’ve been sold a culture of irony, schizophrenic nonsense, a culture that’s taught us “Hey, history does repeat it’s self and that’s just the way it is...”

After the decision to send more British troops to aid the occupation of Iraq, the BBC news reporter posed the question to the military representative:

“Wouldn’t we have saved more British troops if we had made the decision to send them to Iraq earlier?”

Now this kind of statement craftily leads you down one path: the troops are going; all that’s left to discuss is should we have sent them earlier?! Do they have enough weapons?!

For a start, as much as it is an inconvenience, these are people, (souls, if you will) not just troops. So sending them earlier would have saved them, I understand now!

So extending their time in the line of fire - would have saved more lives. War is peace!

It’s clear that we, the public, have very little say on these kinds of matters concerning the vast military-industrial complex – even more so once the ball is rolling. We’re treated as too silly, emotional, and irrational to have a proper opinion. That said, I find it even more insulting when they suggest that sending more troops, by the act of a miracle, saves more lives. It’s possible to argue this case; but you’d be staring into a bottomless pit of philosophical double-think

More soldiers; more British men and woman coming home in body bags. More mothers loosing children

And for what? No body can answer me that.

NB:

*(But that’s how disinformation works – you take a genuine, good idea, with integrity, and shit right in the middle of it and lead people into some kind of new age phoney make believe. A lot of these people are paid to do just that – whether they’re aware of it or not – more on that later)

Humanist-Dehumanization

2010-01-06T06:51:00.000-08:00

Thanks to one of Santa’s little Elves helping everyone out and trying to blow up an airplane on Xmas day… the public get new full body airport scanners purchased and installed almost without the blink of an eye. Some people are debating if it will save passengers time or not are missing the point, I think. It’s nothing to do with safety or efficiency; it’s another example of dehumanizing, master-slave relationship. It is similar techniques to those which have been in use in prisons and the military for years. You don’t own the right to your body; that belongs to your master. You have to obey the master because there is no choice and those who refuse will subject to even more harassment, one could imagine. All in the name of combating the war of terror, they cry. The perpetual war that you can get things done, i.e. completely reshape and mould society in the image of your Grand Master, under the watchful all seeing eye…

The Transport Security Administration are a bunch of under qualified, over empowered (and now even more highly equipped) clown shoe motherfuckers, let’s have it right.

Theres plenty more, as HG Well’s put it, “Things to Come”, that the shareholders are going to want to flog to the Transport Security Administration (I don’t like alphabet soup TLA’s… that’s three letter acronyms to you and I) I don’t like it because it assumes you know who and what they are referring to, without explaining that’s all The Government The mainstream news is riddled with these. Have you ever watched THX 113? George Lucas’s 1971 sci-fi classic about a worker based, drug controlled future dystopia. They refer to everything as numbers, or codes in that film, helping to disassociate and dehumanize everything (yet revealing to those who have eyes to see.

[for the full film go here]

So the Pentagon, via the TSA, are going to purchase more technocratic shite…

“CarScan is being funded by Technical Support Working Group ("TSWG") an agency of the government and will allow vehicles approaching a checkpoint or gate to drive slowly through the inspection system, enabling screening without the driver or passengers leaving the vehicle.” - San Diego Security Technology Companies to Join Forces

Check out the website for the SuperIntenseNewCameras, made by the same people.

Edward Bernays : on Propaganda and Public Relations

Edward Bernays and the Art of Public Manipulation

Please note; these techniques are still used on the public, it’s not all past tense like the language in the second video. It is important to see how these techniques are still used. Like with the Greening agenda; people can be lead literally up the garden path in order to keep up the pretense that they are “doing their bit” for the environment. Black is White, etc.

“The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.” from What is the Hegelian Dialect?

Recommended: Adam Curtis’ other BBC documentaries. Here is part one of “Century of the Self”.

"Fifty years is ample time in which to change a world and its people almost beyond recognition. All that is required for the task are a sound knowledge of social engineering, a clear sight of the intended goal - and power." -- Arthur C. Clarke, Childhood's End.

Population control is pretty good business for the Rockefellers.

2009-12-23T08:20:00.001-08:00

I’m not suggesting its part of their plan; I’m saying it's their words, their own writings; they openly promote it as part of the agenda. People like Cecil Rhodes, the council on foreign relations, the royal institute of international affairs; all the Anglo-American round table groups that pull the strings and control practically every aspect of our life at the moment. You can just look into their own writings to see what kind of things these philanthropists pursue. all under righteous, charitable fronts; which in reality are foundations set up for the pursuit of things like Eugenics.

Carbon taxing is a great business plan as well. The UN dreamed that up. and guess who gets the biggest cut of it. The same people who have fucked up our world are posing as saviors. Same old story, really.

When I referee to the new world order, I’m meaning the so called shadow governments: the people who understand how geopolitics really works. These people have been in control for literally, Ages. They are involved in everything from the military-industrial complex to biometrics.

Of course, you can argue that the NWO doesn't really exist - but in the same way that a corporation doesn't really exist - it's merely a legal creation, on paper only, for the generation of individual profit (minus individual responsibility) for any damages incurred.

But you’d be living in the early stages of denial. I believe that are new “leaders” are close to declaring them selves to the public (the useless eaters.)

"Keep your hands off my bargains"

2009-12-23T08:17:00.001-08:00

GM food will constantly be presented as a great answer to food shortages. I'd even say they will go as far as creating further shortages - perhaps ones to effect this country, in order to really hurry along a complete compliance with anything GM.

It's the bigger picture we have to consider here.

They are asking us to employ some high level double-think in order to think of bargains as environmental waste!

In reality, I personally feel there should be a lot less packaging on foods in general - I remember comparing various mainstream brands at school in Geography when I was about 15 - we had to say which elements of the food packaging were purely aesthetic as a pose to ergonomic. It's been clear as daylight for years is what I’m saying.

But back to GM - has anyone heard about how some of the GM farms effected the competition? The 'modified' yields spread there seed, ended up growing on other farms not authorised to grow GM foods. The same companies which we’re involved with the setting up and growth of these plants has the audacity to slam a fine or compulsory license for the farms which were simply in the way. What we are faced with is the concept of people actually owning a patent for nature i.e. the seeds that grow the crops which are in everything you eat. Even things you wouldn’t normally consider…

Please read:

http://permaculture.org.au/2009/04/17/the-global-spread-of-gmo-crops-2/

Then tell me you are convinced by the utopian values presented to us by GM mongers.

NWO is OWO

2009-12-23T08:16:00.001-08:00

I believe the NWO has [partly] revealed it’s self and is now posing as our saviours, as they always have done through out the ages.

We are being led up the proverbial garden path via the big issues; terrorism, global warming and the (engineered) banking crisis. The solutions have been drafted and agreed upon long before these issues hit the headlines.

The same people who have been manipulating society and populations for hundreds of years are now telling us, openly in the mainstream press, that yes, the shadow government is not a conspiracy.

We live in such a parallel world sometimes; TV is so surreal you cannot get any kind of constructive information about what is really going on. So when they deny the existence of that a world government is forming, while at the same time embracing the concept, people are either in a state of denial, hoping for the ‘old days’ (which I think is the intention – even if non exist), or they are screaming ‘I told you so’. Either way, I believe that this kind of surreal, disenfranchised, apathetic model of society has been crafted to be this way. The farse of democracy has been made more believable by selling us lifestyles, consumer society and a certain level of comfort which pacified us into a state of inertia. Lets be honest; the only reason were allowed to vote is to stop any real, bottom-up revolution. We’re too stupid for that, after all.

People like David Ike, Alan Watt, Alex Jones, Ian Crane – all people who have been ridiculed by the establishment for spreading the truth about the real globalist agenda, which we are, in tern, expected to accept as the only viable option for progress.

Everything revolves around progress; we’re taught this at an early age. Our society always has to be progressing to the next level. But we never quite know what that means. Same with change. Always change and hope. What change, and hope for what? Changing into a world government and hoping it’s for the best maybe?

Here’s some of what I believe we are heading for over the next 10 years:

The cashless society .

Large scale implementation of biometrics (having its roots in Eugenics) – in the UK we’ve already had this hit hard in the schools. It’s just so great and convenient not to worry about cash. It’s all on the finger print. You pay for “credit” on your account. Nothing worrying or sinister here at all. No mark of the beast. You’d be a “Christian fundamentalist” for thinking such a thing!

This is the basic blueprint for how cashless society would work. It’s a huge way of controlling the consumer. Remember we’ve already been indoctrinated into the idea that a computer can have say over what we able to achieve in society. Credit Cheques? Medical Records? All at the click of a button. So why would be taken by surprise with Biometrics? We wouldn’t. I think they’ll be little protest, and if there is the issues will be simplified to the point of not even being relevant (e.g. should kids under 13 be allowed to choose how their “credit” is spent? Says The Sun. Well yes I think this is a good thing, or no I think Government or social works should be given access as well, to make sure the moneys not going to fund illegal pursuits… ) That kind of debate, you know the ones that don’t even scratch the surface.

By this I mean when computers just say no. Think of the possibilities. “you have gone overboard with your carbon consumption this week… you are not allowed to purchase… ”

Lend me your finger?

----

Unification of the Americas

World government – accompanied with the new religion which is a combination of science and “new age” earth worship – which is really a fraud because when you look into which foundations are funding these things, you realise it’s the same people who have been pulling the strings since at least the first world war.

The UN is being set up as a front for the new world government. Their tag line says it all, classic example of double think: “we the people… a stronger UN for a better world” Let this be clear; it ain’t nothing to do with “we the people!”

Nature has turned against us – Club of Rome “we much teach the people that man is the enemy of the world” If you you do not see the relevance of this, you need to clear your blinkers (Gordon Brown practically parroted it, saying it would unite the world). Check out the propaganda put out by this Government to do with “Climate Change” – 6M to make sure we believe! [ref]

Obey authorities – predictive programming – in relation to vaccines which will for everyone.

Fear mongering for ‘swine flu’. More and more confusion. The creation of chaos, the order of which will be the agreement that WHO should have more “authority” in these matters, something along the lines of streamlining. EU anyone? Heard that idea before? Yeah, same deal.

Communitarianism.

2009-12-23T08:11:00.000-08:00

I think what should be clearly open for debate is how much the individual is directly responsible, you know? Are we content with just allowing this thing to escalate?

Or, if you except that what the human body emits should be limited, where does one draw the line in terms of legislation? We breathe OUT Carbon Dioxide.

Would you, for example, be happy at surveillance (we got more than China, remember) being used to see if people aren't recycling? Or if they are trading Carbon Credits that aren't theirs to trade? Or maybe it’s just fine to see if people are applying for the “wrong” schools in this post-democratic federation.

Significant portions of the global agenda is tied up with the entire scam; e.g. The Optimum Population Trust. The UN views China as a model state. I'm sure from their point of view, looking down, it is. They would like that kind of mindset to be fully accepted here (Europe). Oh and guess what - you can use the Carbon Emission Incentive in this instance as well... bloody babies, polluting the air!

There was a time when Carbon wasn't even considered a pollutant. I'm not saying fighting for the environment isn't necessarily a just cause; I’m just curious as to why we look at the business men and global elite to assume such responsibilities. Too much rests on it as far as what they have lined up, so the Copenhagen is a done deal, at least the economic side anyway - 6 months ago.

In reference to the “Climate Gate”… a little quote from the main scientist involved

“My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well." – Phillip Jones.

Garden Path.

2009-12-23T08:09:00.001-08:00

In light of the recent “Climate Gate” scenario: I really don’t think people are fully aware of the scam that’s being perpetuated in front of their eyes.

Here’s an a good article featuring some great quotes.

Here’s what Al Gore says himself:

Denies any need for suspicions regarding the scientific evidence. All the quotes were taken out of context, blown out of proportion and he even uses a smug little quote from Shakespeare (Bacon?) to shrug off any uncertainty people might have.

There was a time when carbon dioxide was not strictly considered a pollutant; now it seems it’s a central pivotal point on the whole consensus as to whether or not the government funded research into the human causes of global warming / climate change myths. An inconvenient truth maybe that the whole Carbon Trading schemes were dreamed up by big business, for the benefit of the same companies they were aimed at taxing.

So the dialectic, Hegelian world view that’s so often presented by our ever more reliable, mainstream media, is that you’re either a denier (with all those connotations) or a skeptic… or, on the winning side with your friends wisdom and altruism: you want to save the environment, stop climate change and end world poverty (and save the polar bears, etc). Hardly much room for any other perceptual manoeuvre within the confines of years of government funded research. Tow the line or be prepared to be labelled a “skeptic” or worse, a “denier” or worse, anti-climate change. This infers that you are a total nut and is slanderous towards scientists (or anyone) who seek more openness about the data and motivations behind certain conclusions.

Being "branded" right-wing is another tactic.

That’s because too much rests on people forgetting about these things pretty soon. Just go on with it, surly the science will come out eventually? Then next time these international heads of state, bankers and other self perpetuating ego-centric frauds meet, they can take it that step further while we forget as they move us into whatever next crisis is going to take centre stage.

And then papers like the Guardian, who are oh so liberal and forward thinking, put in full page adverts urging “our leaders” to sign the treaty, to prevent an imminent climate catastrophe. And we still think our papers are representative of the people, or at least some kind of moral majority? The real players are charlatans. Most people don’t understand they want to tax us on the same “emissions” that we breathe out. Your spirit which flows in and out of your physical body each day is damaging the environment. Can we see what else this might lead to? The legitimate public discussions of such well disguised eugenics-inspired programs like the Optimum Population Trust, perhaps? We’ve already had the trust worthy granddad that is Attenborough spouting his support for this think tank, on the BBC’s Horizon, which features a constantly increasing population counter on their website. How alarmist, you might cry. But then wouldn’t you also be lumped in with the climate change sceptics? Well surely, as the doctrine goes, if you can’t see the correlation between a newborn and Carbon Dioxide emissions, you must be of ape like intelligence!

Here’s a smashing little article from Spiked magazine online. Note the use of the term eco-Malthusianism – very important in understanding an elitist world view.

And that is the mantra they are pressing onwards with, without a second thought. These misanthropes consider the “useless eaters” simply that: useless. Unless of course, you are a useful idiot, for example a dogmatic, hard-line activist working for one of the big foundations like (example) who are badgering our “representatives” (or is it Ministers?) for change. This works on a level that makes activism appear legitimate and grassroots, when quite often if that kind of activism was taking place, independent of big money, it would receive little attention. Also known as AstroTurfing (i.e. referring to the fake grass which is used instead of genuine grass) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

The idea of “act now or it will be too late” was often the mantra of genuine eco warriors, trying to stop companies like Enron from dominating the world’s gas and oil supplies, but now it’s the cry of these same villains who want to tax us all over again – and gradually redesign our slavery. After all it was us who personally ruined the world for everyone, wasn’t it? We’re all in this together. How very convenient and communist.

Because the government funded research & propaganda regarding climate change sets its tone with countless examples of an imminent catastrophe, or wide scale death, it also leaves the people in control of this data huge scope to manipulate the results in a way which shows them to be “right”, even in the case of a natural disaster. Of course they wouldn’t do that, would they? I imagine this would hit the front pages without any reference to the military applications and experience of weather manipulation while simultaneously screaming out “we need to act NOW”.

This is the real fear mongering. Not the sentient beings who wish for a more open discussion on the long terms plans of these elites who threaten us all with destruction with out even batting an eyelid, in order for us to obey and keep the “Queens Peace”. Example at hand being Gordon Browns 6 million he’s recently pissed away on the awareness raising campaign of global warming. When they raise awareness, they are seeking your consent, or at least your acceptance of, certain modes of thought which they want you to be on board with. Granted in some cases this is in regards to drink driving, or not using mobiles, or speeding – I feel there is little point demolishing these. But when it comes to “not revving your engine” and the untimely apocalyptic vision of the future presented on the recent “awareness raising” advert for climate change – one can’t help but feel the whole thing is a complete and utter scam designed to make children ask parents questions about the future they can’t answer.

Which is a shame for genuine environmental movements.

I believe they are well under way in the implementation of this “global, uniting force” they keep talking about, being elevated to the position of a religion. Now this isn’t going to happen in a sense of “what a great religion – sign me up” I think it will be a gradual transition, a mind set, a paradigm shift you hear the New Agers talking about. That’s what they always intended; the ball has been rolling significantly on this one since the first earth summit in 1992. A new form of earth worship which replaces the pagan gods and ancient archetypes of antiquity with the very real focus of “Gaia” or Mother Earth. It is occult, to say the least. And funded by huge money.

Literally just found this article as well. Wow, pretty speechless:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6812981/Copenhagen-climate-summit-global-warming-sceptic-scientist-has-heart-attack-live-on-TV.html

Links:

www.john-daly.com - A Lukewarm View of Global Warming founded by John L. Daly

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts - Henrik Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

Tow the line.

2009-12-23T08:03:00.000-08:00

I wrote this as a fairly hurried response to Mark Lynns' recent addition to "Climate Gate"

The theft and web publication by climate change deniers of private emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit is an extremely worrying development in the tortured politics of global warming.

Theft? Everything I’ve read seems unsure if it was a leak or a theft. A security breach, perhaps. I guess Theft has a more provocative tone and immediately insinuates guilt, so that works.

Although high-profile individuals have been targeted and unfairly vilified before – Pennsylvania University's Michael Mann comes to mind, with his "hockey stick" palaeoclimate graph – most of the ire of the denial movement has so far been reserved for big-hitters like Al Gore. Gore can take it. Politics is his job.

Yeah. The hockey stick graph is a joke. And Al Gore is a charlatan. He is pretty much the sole person responsible for getting this “message” out to the public, particularly in the U.S. Right on.

But the "exposure" of private correspondence from a much larger group of scientists – and the out-of-context quotation of certain sentences as "revealing" some hidden subterfuge – suggests a dangerous shift in strategy. Instead of targeting the science communicators (myself included), the deniers are now declaring war on the scientists themselves. Like the creationists they unconsciously mimic, they make no distinction between the political and the scientific sphere – it is open season in both.

Strategy? Targeting? War? People want truth, man.

The CRU (Climate Research Unit) was set up back in the 1970s. Big funding from Rockefellers (that’s banking royalty to you and I) and huge support from the Royal Society. The rabbit hole goes incredibly deep on this one. Club of Rome and other big elitist think tanks (made up of industrialists, diplomats) openly discussed ways to unite mankind through the threat of famine, pollution etc as literally “the best they could come up with” – back in 1972.

As far as they’re concerned now it’s business as usual and just a case of damage control after this scandal – thankfully the years of propaganda and everyday threats of catastrophe seems to have etched its way into the true believers psyche. Hense why these true believers will sometimes, given the right dialectical circumstance, referrer to weather as climate, to further their cause. Oh dear.

Enter stage left the official “Independent Report” of the whole “Climate Gate” scandal. Might be a case of the Fox looking after the chicken hut, again. But we’ll see. Too much rests of this whole farse for anything to fundamentally change.
Science is the new priesthood. Priests never give away all their knowledge to the profane. You just keep on praying the sun will come up…

And the strategy is simple. Given that scientists are one of society's most trusted groups (unlike journalists or politicians), the climate denial movement has begun a battle to undermine public trust in climate scientists themselves. No more will the legions of anonymous researchers who collect and interpret data from meteorological stations, satellites and ice cores be considered above the fray – they now run the risk of personal attacks, exposure of their private lives and vilification.

Why are scientists the most trusted groups? Have you ever read Brave New World?

Here's a video of Aldous Huxley talking about a scientific based government. Science would rule all aspects of your life, eventually.

If all their work (to prove AGW) is based upon the evidence provided in a couple of fundamental papers relating to climate change, only for this data to then be thrown into question because of the lack of peer related reviews (independent ones mind) and lack openess of the raw data then yes, I imagine the scientists who go along with it do run the risk or exposure or vilification. I’m just hypothesizing here. You don't need a weathergirl to know which way the wind blows.

It is important to understand the significance of this. Scientists are not politicians. They are not used to communicating publicly. They trust in their objectivity, the objectivity of their peers, and the rigour of only citing work published in learned journals. They will have private views, but are very used to keeping these out of their work – indeed the entire scientific method is based on conducting research which can be replicated by peers in order to check its accuracy and objectivity.

Like the 9/11 conspiracy theories before it, the global warming conspiracy is palpably absurd. The idea that scientists have teamed up with governments and the United Nations to foist some kind of social control project on an unwary public is laughable – it would need conspiratorial activities involving thousands of people, for a start..

from the UN’s website:

"The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change. U.N Website

It’s not a case of them teaming up – they’re one and the same. The big boys give huge grants to governments who hand in to the research institutes, set up by & for big boys. They're talking big and long term here.

None of this would matter if the public weren't fooled. But they are. Polls show climate "scepticism" is rising, perhaps even to a majority position, on both sides of the Atlantic. Presumably public trust in climate change scientists is falling commensurately. This will in turn undermine consensus in mitigating climate change – which is of course the very intention of the deniers in the first place.

We’re always being fooled. I’m personally just slightly hesitant to push through international legislation which effectively turns what I breathe out into a pollutant.

Some of the scientists whose private emails have been exposed write for the blog RealClimate, where they argue that the revealed correspondence shows "no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy ... no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data" and so on. But as George Marshall, a writer on climate change who specialises in the psychology of denial on the issue, puts it: "This is hardly the point. This is an orchestrated smear campaign and does not require balance or context."

Orchestrated by whom? The requirement for truth and honesty about where this whole agenda is leading in years to come – at the very least in terms of international legislation? No doubt there’s a whole lot of political ground at stake but this whole debacle should rise above the usual left-right prejudices we’re indoctrinated with. I don’t understand why left/liberal = climate change is real! Where as right/conservative = they must be “anti” climate change. That’s the deal we’re presented with the majority of the time.

If the lesson for scientists is that the era when they can practice their trade entirely separately from the rest of society is well and truly over, the lesson for environmentalists is equally harsh. Having spent years (once again, myself included) reminding the public of the horrifying potential consequences of climate change, and demanding major lifestyle change on the part of ordinary people, it seems that our message is not just falling on deaf ears – but may even be counterproductive.

It’s never been entirely separate from the rest of society.

We have to start accentuating the positive, rather than constantly invoking apocalypse. Getting off fossil fuels is a necessity, but that does not mean that people's lives must be made harder or more austere. Forget all the "war economy" analogies, locally grown jam and appeals to save old clothes. Our message needs to be a forward-looking one of hope, prosperity and technological progress.

Interesting choice of words. “Invoking apocalypse” is exactly what all the government funded propaganda has been doing. Calling down the powers and jealous gods of the sky to punish the ignorant masses for living too unscrupulously and being “useless eaters”.

We also have to stop trying to make people feel guilty. No, flying isn't analogous to child abuse. Polar bears won't drop from the sky. Constantly accusing normal people of immoral behaviour is perhaps a way to get noticed, but not a clever way to win converts. And the normal people in question, upset at being accused of killing babies every time they step onto Ryanair, will be very susceptible to the first conspiracy theorist who whispers in their ear: "Don't worry, it's not true."

Decided the guilt factor doesn’t work then? Did you remind your selves of the Catholic Priests who literally drained the peasants of any wealth via guilt? This is the church of the new secular religion and you must pay up.

I’m sure with a quick regrouping of all the right think tanks, they’ll be a lot more monetary and tax incentives introduced to the whole scam, of course, for the benefit of “the people”.

That last line was fairly telling. A lot of this issue centers around doubt and worry, I’d even go as far as to say it thrives of it. People can then start worrying about things they don’t actually understand – never mind no jobs and rent going up! Such is life for a worrier! But as long as big daddy government is taking care of it and uncle bank lend their guiding hands, we’re all safe. Or so goes to fairy tale.

Bottom line is – don’t be a skeptic or a denier, you simply will not fit in.