These are the foundations of 21st century science and politics

In law (my own field) a confession followed by a guilty plea removes all need for a trial. That isn't confined to law, they simply use a universal method themselves as it is a simple way of reaching the truth with little need for additional research. In rare occasions there will be false confessions, nearly all weeded out by detectives who have evidence they can't be genuine, but a guilty plea is usually just that, and a corroborated confession, where other members of a conspiracy cough independently from the rest and say exactly the same thing then they are almost certainly telling the truth, as do all corroborated secondary evidence. So when presented with pages of confessions from 40 years ago to the present day, how can it be possible to even imagine they have not told the truth despite the 99% of their co-conspirators continuing to lie? The Mafia and other organised crime gangs like the IRA relied on this for centuries, but the climate community have so far only sacked and ostracised their own members who squealed on them, while the others tend to rub them out and some of their family to put people off in the future. But the difference here is crime gangs do not confess, they stay together for so long for that very reason, but our current gang extorting trillions from the world economy, the poorest paying the most proportionally, have what are actually their own leaders openly telling anyone who cares to listen  it is all a racket, and much like the murderers who leave a few extra clues as they get bored when the police can't work out who they are, seem to laugh at the world having been given such a clear head start yet they still haven't been caught up in 40 years. So all I can do is collect each similar confession yet again, and wonder in total mystery how 90% of people I show them to say they don't mean anything. But that seed has been planted, if and when one of these guys gets busted in the public eye, then they'll remember someone actually told them what they were up to already and they ignored it. Why would someone actually ignore their own leaders admit they are shtupping them? I only pass the information on, I can't answer the thoughts behind it. Apologies for repeating old material here, but this is the skeleton key to the door of fraud.

So yet again, hopefully in its purest form yet, here are as many confessions from those at the very top, whose combination of ideology ("The earth has a cancer, the cancer is mankind"- Club of Rome) works together with those who can make the rules politically in exchange for trillions in subsidies they then invest in, yet a single visit to a website will bust their entire mission apart. If you still don't accept it, imagine if someone on the CBS news read this out in a report and the following reactions.

----------------------I CONFESS ---------------------------------------------
Margaret Mead in 1974:

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

---------------------------------------

"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."
David Suzuki

--------------------------

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L.Mencken (1918).
-----------------
“Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many… who would actively work to defeat any elected official… undertaking Local Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. So we call our process something else such as “comprehensive planning,” „growth management‟ or „smart growth.‟”
USE WARM FUZZY WORDS:
Environment * Economy * Equity * Consensus * Affordable Housing * Friends of… * Action * Protect * Preserve * Quality of Life * Benefit of all * Sanctuary * Social/Environmental Justice * Best Management Practices * Watershed * Facilitator * Traffic Calming * Outcome Base Education * Endangered Species * Invasive Species * Restoration * Public/Private Partnerships * Common Good * Regional * Collaborative * Inter-disciplinary * Stakeholder * International Baccalaureate * School to work * Historic Preservation * Vision * Sustainable Medicine. Smart Meters.

J. Gary Lawrence, 1998 UNEP Conference, UK
----------------------------
At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment.... The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated.

1975 Endangered Earth conference
-----------------------------------------------------
 "Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence." Followed by the Guardian journalist who added "In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage."

Mike Hulme, UN climatologist.
-------------------------------------------

“Although donors must meet their commitments, it is time to look for other ways to find resources to finance development needs and address growing global challenges, such as combating climate change…
“We are suggesting various ways to tap resources through international mechanisms, such as coordinated taxes on carbon emissions, air traffic, and financial and currency transactions.” 

Rob Vos, The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey
-------------------------------------------

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Ottmar Edenhoffer, UN economist

-------------------------------------------------

"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troups entered Los angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is expecially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existance. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government,"

Henry Kissinger
-----------------------------------------
David Rockefeller, in his 2003 memoirs:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." 
-------------------------------------

The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”

• Dr David Frame, Climate modeller, Oxford University-----------------------------------

"It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true."

Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

----------------------------------------------------
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen."

Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC

---------------------------------------------
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

------------------------------------------------

Mikael Gorbachev, 1996:

  

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"

----------------------------------
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
------------------------------------------
"The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are." - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
-------------------------------------------------
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King  
------------------------------------
 

 

 

Delayed reactions

Watching well known atrocities to some people carry on apparently indefinitely, despite trying to spread the world, and then eventually one story appears in the media and everyone's on it seems to be the standard delayed reaction process within society. Even though I first heard about female genital mutilation about 30 years ago it carried on unfettered from western disapproval ever since, until suddenly only this year in 2014 there was an article about it in great detail and the celebrity scene picked it up and now something is being done about it, with Britain's first ever court case even though many thousands are carried out here alone (illegally) every year. Similarly the eating, often after being skinned alive, cats and dogs in Asia has always been well known in the west and all the big and small charities turned their backs and did nothing, possibly because China and Korea were too dangerous to get involved with so beyond their scope. But now a group in China itself has begun fighting this primitive and backward practice, as there is absolutely no attention paid to their welfare and are simply packed into cages as if they weren't alive at all.

The same phenomenon happens in the political world. We can be ripped off for years and then someone with the ear of the media works it out, although many people had already done so and knew between themselves, and once pointed out to the masses becomes common knowledge. It doesn't always work because only two experts I know of warned our government to reduce private and public borrowing before the crash, Vince Cable, who wasn't in government and totally ignored, and a stockbroker who was sacked for interfering with morale. I saw junk mail every day offering me gold cards and thousands of credit, people borrowing ten times their income or not even needing to declare their income for mortgages and borrowing up to 125% of the value of a house, and wondered why every single politician allowed this as you can't borrow or lend more than you have, which ended up with our taxes bailing out the banks, who lost our money as the government removed the regulations stopping it.

Biofuel was clearly a criminal invention, clearing land across the third world to grow corn and palms to replace food crops and burn them in engines not even designed for the purpose and producing far less power per gallon. Twenty or so years later after causing starvation in many villages where farms were sequestered for biofuel crops and people lost their livelihoods and couldn't afford the remaining food as because they had created an artificial shortage the price and availability were affected, the UN just said biofuel was not good for the environment, while the EU are about to enact a law forcing it into our fuel despite the admission it is evil. Of course the EU are not there to do good but rule with an iron hand, so they are not interested what anyone already said to expose the true nature of biofuel, but at least we can say we know they are doing wrong now and going against official advice. Many food additives were stated to be toxic but always took 10-20 years to get the material beyond the industry system of closure. They have ways to suppress all stories which expose industrial poisoning on a grand scale, so currently aspartame, statins and other conventional chemicals are being forced on millions of people, despite the evidence having already condemned them to the same dustbin as margarine (it is not that different from floor polish) and hydrogenated fats, which again are not a foodstuff but more like the foam chips used to pack fragile goods.

Eventually the truth has to come out, like a leaking nappy, as the urine is always there and however good the seal if you keep pissing eventually the seals will be stressed too much and the pee or truth will first dribble, and then burst out in a flood of material which will usually overwhelm any attempts to hold it back. So now after 30 years of scare stories of global warming the trend has reduced so much it is almost impossible for the temperature to exceed 2C, so all 'action' to pretend to try and stop it is off really as it's already stopped on its own and with CO2 rising unabated is clearly unable to make the temperature rise very much by 150 years of direct observation. A few scientists are beginning to realise if they continue to prop up what is now almost impossible to maintain as an illusion as there is nigh on nothing left to maintain, their long term credibility is going to end up the same place as the economists who ignored the warnings to change before a major crash, and would rather be the ones who admitted it was beginning to look increasingly unlikely and at least leave with some remaining honour rather than the other end who lie and say it's warming even faster when every single diagram says it's not at all.

Therefore in all areas where the small private minority discover things are badly wrong but they carry on regardless, they nearly always come to an end, but there's a built in delay mechanism for various reasons- laziness, intertia, apathy, dishonesty, but when someone who can do something about whatever it is catches on and does something, that atrocity ends pretty quickly. If the first prosecution on FGM is successful the CPS will no doubt wave through hundreds, as we do know the figures as every doctor in the country can consult their notes and pretty much name most of the victims simply from being examined. Had they been required, as is perfectly feasible, to report such crimes by law, then the thousands of victims would have become hundreds, tens and eventually hardly any at all, but the apathy and in the case of doctors protection of their own, as it's the doctors who get the worst punishment for carrying out the assault (technically causing grievous bodily harm with intent carries up to a life sentence), while inciting it would as well the court would be slightly less harsh on ignorant foreigners who quite honestly don't know any better, while breaching the Hippocratic oath would get a doctor struck off at the very least, regardless of any criminal punishment. In fact although they said FGM has a law making it illegal, GBH alone would always have covered it as simply breaking the skin not fir the purpose of medical or cosmetic purposes is a serious form of assault with no need to specify every single variation. There's no specific law for poking someone's eye out either but if a child's parents paid a doctor to do that as that's their culture they'd go down for a long stretch regardless, assuming the court weren't prevented from acting like they would in the third world.

So in the end I think nothing that bad can carry on forever. Suttee and thuggee in India were wiped out by the British in India (who said the colonists never did any good) although sadly the caste system is still going strong in many areas despite decades of effort to wipe it out entirely. But in the end once someone important decides to do something it seems to be very quickly when it is, and all the energy could have been building up to be released all in one go when they do. I see global warming following at some point, as the truth is now diverging further and further from the claims, and one by one the scientists have realised they can't maintain an illusion much longer when their original calculations had been about 80% too high compared to reality. One can only hope anyway.

The great EU parliament illusion

I wasn't sure whether to put this under information or fraud as it's really both, but everyone needs to know what those phenomenally well-paid members of the EU parliament can actually do. Now here is the official 2014 definition, bearing in mind it includes the phrase these powers are far greater than they were originally- imagine how little they could do before:

"The European Parliament has been steadily gaining power over recent decades and now acts as a co-legislator for nearly all EU law. Together with the Council, the Parliament adopts or amends proposals from the Commission. Parliament also supervises the work of the Commission and adopts the European Union's budget. See how it all works here.
Beyond these official powers the Parliament also works closely with national parliaments of EU countries. Regular joint parliamentary assemblies allow for a better inclusion of national perspectives into the Parliament's deliberations."

Can they make law? No. Can they initiate law to be made? No. Are the actual lawmakers elected as well? No.

Therefore calling such an expensive and large scale group a parliament (bearing in mind its common meaning of a legislative body) is a lie, a major scam and fraud, and means the EU process has to both hide behind a fake body of power which just discusses, makes minor suggestions and rubber stamps the real laws made above, mainly in secret, by the unelected civil servants of the Commission. It has less power than the House of Lords and probably a little more than the royal family, although that would be debatable as information of their actual influence is protected by the law. They can administer the budget, but that is an accounting procedure few if any voters would know how to follow let alone decide on so only a technical rather than parliamentary power, given (although it is planned) as yet they do not actually have a tax budget as countries would. They choose the commission members but cannot participate directly in their process.

Summary

Again, "However there are some differences from national legislatures; for example, neither the Parliament nor the Council have the power of legislative initiative (except for the fact that the Council has the power in some intergovernmental matters). In Community matters, this is a power uniquely reserved for the European Commission (the executive). Therefore, while Parliament can amend and reject legislation, to make a proposal for legislation, it needs the Commission to draft a bill before anything can become law"

This further implies the separation of powers, designed to avoid tyranny, has never been present in the EU administration as technically the executive must also share the powers of the legislature rather than have a genuine function and balanced scrutiny. So they are passive, and sit and wait for the random jottings and mental wanderings of the cabal to arrive before they spend as long as they feel like turning it over, possibly suggest a few changes (if it's within their power), and according to this actually reject some. Really? I will see. Meanwhile the true function is described far more accurately here by an outsider, something not referred to in their own site's definition at the start:

"The Parliament also has a great deal of indirect influence, through non-binding resolutions and committee hearings, as a "pan-European soapbox" with the ear of thousands of Brussels-based journalists."

Condensed down, it means they are a PR front to spread the word of what a great job they're doing and do their best to hide any serious policies being introduced to replace yet another national function, eg European income taxes which are their latest project. Journalists. That is the fluorescent highlighted word in the sentence. It is there to feed journalists to spread how good and really helpful the EU really is, ie they are protecting themselves and their jobs, ultimately at our loss and expense (see Greece and worse still Cyprus), especially if like Britain you are a net contributor (read 'loser').

"There is also an indirect effect on foreign policy; the Parliament must approve all development grants, including those overseas. For example, the support for post-war Iraq reconstruction, or incentives for the cessation of Iranian nuclear development, must be supported by the Parliament. Parliamentary support was also required for the transatlantic passenger data-sharing deal with the United States.^[47] Finally, Parliament holds a non-binding vote on new EU treaties but cannot veto it."

A few more details on what they can spend those billions they collect from us on, which really are taxes as the £55 million a day the country pays to be in at all is taken from our taxes instead of paying doctors to work a few more hours in the evening a day. But when you ultimately take the things they can do and remove them from the main cake there's still most of that cake remaining, all those really major regulations like the green taxes and open door border policies, and rather than spend an unpaid hour or more looking I'll leave you the small task of finding any actual proposed legislation they have rejected. It shouldn't be too hard. But in the end calling something a 'parliament' which is essentially an archetypal second chamber while the actual parliamentary work your national parliament carries out is nearly all carried out by civil servants, appointed vicariously for 12 years, debate mainly in secret, and therefore carry all the requirements of a totalitarian system as the parliament is just the front for the dictators behind, like in Iran where the president changes but the Ayatollah remains regardless and runs the show.

The true nature of the EU

Guest post by Solomon Moshi (Law/economics graduate).

The EU is a German debt death machine. UK must leave.

The EU snares up countries with free money Euros ( which it prints anyhow) then it calls in the loans and they can't pay. The poorer counties can't export the euro is very expensive compared to their own original currencies ( cite the Lira, punt, Peseta etc ) at the same time whilst making tourism very expensive. The ECB calls in the loans on its worthless printed Euros - like the Mafia. The poor countries can't pay and end up being owned by the ECB. They are forced to install puppet Technocratic governments such as Monti in Italy, Spain, Ireland, Greece and national assets are owned. The EU ( Located convenvinetly in Brussels out I harms way of the angry European unemployed youth ) is Germany's front man. Germany has benefitted the most from the EU and the Euro:: Makes their exports very cheap as te euro is cheap. No one would by a German car if it was in Deutche marks would cost double. Also German sovereign debt is very cheap compares to Euro debt. Also also the the EU red tape is import protectionist protecting Germany's capital intensive manufacturing infrastructure from Asian imports.

The EU blocks global trade!

For the UK a trading nation. EU is a disaster

People should wake up. The EU together with their backers: banks and corporates want mass migration. It leads to national services collapse. Once everything collapse the uk has to go to the eu s bank the ECB for loans to fix things. This money is printed anyhow. The UK then takes the loans and ends up not paying the loans back like Greece. The the EU owns your country by debt !! Greece Spain is an example. Then property and wealth taxes like Cyprus then finished. The EU ( Germany )has achieved domination of Europe through debt ( printed money) without even going to war. All run by faceless comittees in Brussels. Mass federal socialism. Well done Blair brown major mandelson all traitors.

The system is set up for it to go bust leading to national bail outs leading to ownership of debt by the EU ( Germany ). Then mass wealth taxes confiscation of wealth Cyprus and soviet style dictatorship. We will all be eating out of state shops soon including the middle class. The wealth will be gone to the EU elite class and their backers the banks. So obvious. Like the Nazis did except by debt not war and camps. Also there is now mass surveillance something the nazis never had. A dream for a world socialist.

The EU wants to Put Tobin taxes on UK financial transactions which will kill the City.

As immigration. Yes and no. Immigration should be controlled. You can't have people
coming who want to contribute nothing and set up Jihads and impose Sharia law on a happy secular place. As for Eastern Europeans great they are Christians and work. The rest who just want to drain the system and take social security and other transfer payments are a disaster!! It also dis-employs the local working poloulation causing further strife.

Also the EU prevents very capable skilled migrants entering the UK such as Indian doctors and nurses as they are not European.

Also also EU has made energy very expensive with their climate change scam.

In short UK has to get out of the EU to survive! And prosper. The EU is the issue not immigration. Only UKIP offers a withdrawal.

If not the UK citizens like their European counterparts will end up in a Fox conn European factory.

The single cake theory of socialism

I just saw this response to a Ukip supporter, and here was mine below.

"Hoarding wealth is the single biggest problem with this world. With an average lifespan of 85 years, it's daft to hoard so much material wealth."

This is the classic cynical socialist mindset, a combination of the shortage mentality "there's not enough, we must take some away!" with the sheer envy and misunderstanding of basic economics which have oppressed nations since the dawn of communism. Do you really think Karl Marx would have agreed with you? He was more concerned with a class war, believing the bourgoisie and ruling classes had stolen or cheated to get where they were and should be taken down in any way which was effective, hopefully to allow the same standards for all. Not to cut everyone down to the average, which flies in the face of every single element of freedom we have in our lives.

So who, exactly, decides who has too much and who to give it away to? And of course the higher the taxation the less incentive there is to work any longer than you already do, or study or take any risks in business, as what exactly is the point if you end up in exactly the same place almost you started in? But the biggest error you have made is the slices of cake one. Socialism appears to assume the world economy is a cake and we must slice it evenly for a fair society, even when some people earned far more through their own personal effort over many years to get theirs than others. That is the emotional, ideological part of the argument. But the slices of cake one is the mathematical and factual failure. There is no fixed amount in the world, besides raw mineral resources, and everything else can be changed, grown or added to from scratch. The cake can be increased by those people you disapprove of working harder and better and actually creating more. Would you expect an author to give up writing for the rest of a year as he'd already earned his quota and would hardly get any more however much he produced? Or tell an artist to give away 80% of what his paintings were sold for? As that's exactly the sort of results your philosophy creates, and people will either leave the country, work less or cheat to pay less tax as it goes against the freedoms of life itself.

Cooking the books

Having read a UN climate report yesterday explaining why the expected warming hadn't happened, but was really, really, there, I realised exactly how they do it as it reminded me of an earlier system I had learnt at college. In accounting (and statistics, to a point), there are various ways of presenting the same figures, depending if you want a rise, a fall or no change. It isn't so easy to maintain the illusions for so long in accounting, what they usually do is hold back a profit or a loss for a year or two to avoid paying tax or give a far better impression of the company than it really is. It is totally legal, but in the end anyone with the full accounts can see the bottom line, regardless of the details. They can even be maintained indefinitely in legal tax avoidance schemes, where the profits are hidden annually ad infinitum as it is allowed.

The wealth of reasons produced by the IPCC, from 90% of the warming since 1970 (where did it go before, and why?) shooting straight into the ocean, with the real temperature being hidden by sulphate pollution (exactly how they create cooling from geoengineering) so 'the temperature was really a lot higher'.

That loss wasn't really a loss then, despite the cheque landing in the fire somehow when it went through the letterbox, we really made a huge profit and will make an even bigger one next year. We just can't pay out to the shareholders, as it's hiding in the aerosol pollution.

Now scientists know what they're talking about, and can take technically correct principles and use them, just like accountants and statisticians, to hide or present any information they need to. The principles such as temperature flows and sunlight reflection of course are real, but if they decide to use them as a weapon rather than a mechanism then how would anyone else know the difference? Like police and doctors they all band together when one of their own is in trouble, legally or otherwise, and often succeed in shutting out any attack from the outside authorities. Why would scientists be any different? And although they may be extremely highly qualified, the IPCC have broken two of their own rules. Firstly they always say the temperature where the advantages of warming may be outweighed by the problems is a rise of 2C, and secondly they clearly state you can't model the long term future as the climate is non-linear and chaotic. Then they use models to create world policy and when the temperature isn't rising anywhere close to 2C simply say it's hiding somewhere else.

This reminds me of when I was working for a firm administering bankrupt companies. Each had to write a summary of why the firm went broke, and the reasons were nearly always similar, ultimately blaming outside circumstances and not themselves. But the creditors really don't care. If they've lost their money they really don't care how. The bottom line is around zero whatever the details, even if God, Jesus or Terry Venables had come along and taken the money themselves, they still couldn't have it. If nature had buried it in the sea, or man's industrial pollution which was supposed to dangerously heat the planet was actually working to cool it, that figure still summed to a very low figure. The UN themselves had actually said the warming would come from 'Man made CO2 pollution' and would be very real indeed, but when 0.5-1C of cooling comes from sulphate pollution, as holy cow, pollution can cool as well as heat, it isn't real and the earth is really warming regardless.

If they have to stoop to such levels then it shows one certain conclusion. They cannot be trusted.

It's the economy

With all the contradictory figures on the news about the economy, here is a simple formula, based on primary accounting, to test the bullshit component of what you hear against the reality.

I remember in the 80s the formula was an average postman in America earned about three times more than in Britain, and could afford the equivalent house three times more expensive than in Britain, so the average standard of living in America was determined by how much most people earned compared with the price of a house. In Britain today the average house price is ten times above average income, from maybe four times in the 70s, while wages haven't risen for almost a decade.

In a nutshell. Whatever the politicians tell you the economy's fucked. And they did it.