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.

Barack Obama's climate data

Obama's last speech quoted increases in every imaginable weather disaster from global warming, even though the UN state the frequency is unlikely to increase, only the intensity of events. After a 2C rise mainly, which we'll never live to see. But his claims of each increase, easily checked in moments but clearly not by him or anyone after, can show he lied. Again. That is because Barack Obama is a paid liar, paid by his slave masters Soros, Rockefeller, and according to his latest plans to fund the first official geoengineering project, Bill Gates. So the second question is if this information is so easily discovered, how did he both manage to make such clearly dishonest claims, and was never once called on them in any media, not even to my knowledge Alex Jones who really ought to have won the race to expose one of the worst examples of abuse of authority since Stalin. Some have only been available for continents, others the entire world, but the lack of any increase (the tornados total have, but look at the strength in red which does the actual damage). However, the separate major tornado graph shows the specific picture. Thanks to Anthony Watts for saving many of these for us all to bust the liars at the top.

world cyclones

Moral dilemmas

This is a famous situation, probably investigated since the time of Greek philosophers. What if you are in government, and are in a position to sacrifice people right now for a possible profit in the future? What should they do?

In the 40s Churchill and others knew about the concentration camps, but made the decision if they tried to liberate them then Hitler would discover they'd broken his code and would weaken the war effort, so they allowed millions to die in case they saved even more in the future. The formula is fairly simple, as if you know exactly what will happen by your current actions you must then decide if certain deaths or losses are worth the chance of saving possibly more in the future, also bearing in mind it is impossible to see the future outside a linear system.

Run things ahead to the 1990s, with the Kyoto Protocol. This and Agenda 21 have led to many thousands of deaths, from starvation in the third world where land grabs for biofuels have put many farmers out of business and caused whole villages to starve, and poor people dying of cold every winter, 3,000 in Britain and many more in hospital from raising energy bills. All this is supposed to prevent possible global warming in around 2100 (when we'll never be here to know anyway), as well as spending trillions worldwide which could have been spent on saving lives and related project such as providing clean water in the third world and clearing the swamps of malaria, but has now been diverted to wind turbines (which have standbys working in parallel permanently so add no new power themselves as each watt is cancelled by the wasted one provided by the standby and vice versa) and subsidies for similar projects worldwide despite the temperature having barely risen after a 50% rise in CO2.

People do not either learn from history, study simple philosophy, or if they do, do not care about its messages as their own psychopathic aims are stronger than the knowledge of benefitting the most people overall using the principle of utilitarianism. Where you know the consequences in a linear system then sacrifices can be made, and some laws recognise this, so various times plane crash survivors have killed and eaten others as otherwise none may survive and this way it guaranteed the most people would last as long as possible in case they were found in the future, rather than all dying sooner if they did not. That is one of the only examples where such an action could be justified as you know by halving the numbers and eating the remainder the total lifespan will be increased. Otherwise you are almost certainly colluding in murder and other atrocities.

Positive feedback has been called off.

Global warming relies on two things, which the media never mention. All we get from them is the catalyst, CO2, which alone is unlikely ever to add more than 1C as that is its total absorption spectrum which needs to double until it becomes saturated per 1C rise. It has already risen 50% since 1850 and the (already rising) temperature has gone up 0.8C. In fact the real greenhouse gas is water, in the form of humidity/vapour in the atmosphere. That is the positive feedback required from oceanic evaporation remaining in the atmosphere, but can either form that (warming) or clouds (cooling). The satellites (in the present) as opposed to the models (in the future) have shown the water vapour to be falling while the cloud cover rises, explaining totally the lack of consequent warming and reasons for it since CO2 has continued to rise.

As the media fail to mention the vital second element required for more than a single degree of harmless warming, plus the fact we already know it is not just absent but replaced by cooling cloud cover then it explains pretty fully that temperatures have risen about 80% less than the UN forecast in the 1990s and growing further and further away from their sharply rising estimates every year. There is no known or expected delay mechanism whereby anything would change, but the oceans evaporate and we can only observe the results after the event. In fact the layers of atmosphere have different effects for both types of water vapour, some warm and some cool, and as a result such phenomena are impossible to model at all so can't be known until after the event. As we now do.

Full details here