Thursday, June 27, 2013

How the greens became mainstream

There are two aspects to green politics, the obvious, where they campaign to stop pollution and protect animals, which any sensible person would also want, and the opinion politics based on the extreme view humans are a cancer on the planet, so anything which flows from that is not based on looking after our planet but restricting the activities of human beings. These views are far from a conspiracy theory, as David Suzuki, the major green campaigner, compared us to maggots, while various authors and activists regularly quote the cancer meme, based possibly on James Lovelock’s Gaia theory of an angry earth wiping out the evil humans if they treat it badly, which he has now all but withdrawn, but still doing the rounds if you look around, including an entire book, Humans as Cancer by A. Kent.

Then you have the marginal policies, ostensibly for genuine reasons, but when analysed may do little more than those very restrictions the Soviets and Cuba have done so much to wreck the lives of their own citizens with absolutely no ‘green’ agenda but an extreme one. Restricting travel is the first weapon of a totalitarian state, and under the guise of ‘restricting pollution’ the green movement at its furthest end wants to ban personal transportation in the form of private cars altogether, and many want flying restricted to almost nothing for the same reasons. Now if they really caused so much harm everyone would suffer from respiratory problems in cities already, as a genuinely dangerous level of pollution has to cause symptoms by definition, but despite the gas masks worn in Japan this is not the case, but many people have suffered cancer from nuclear fallout when power stations melted down. But dragging a misanthropic view into politics with the claim people need their actions restricted as they can’t be trusted is the same argument Benjamin Franklin pointed out that trading freedom for security means you deserve neither. The idea economic and industrial development is a bad thing, one of the basic foundations of the green movement, was always considered an extreme view as it clearly is, but for those in power who want it, the Hegelian dialectic of cause a problem which requires the very policies you want as a solution, has arguably allowed these policies through the perceived threat of global warming, albeit beyond our lifespans in 2100 for the full scenario, which is not scientific in itself as you cannot complete an experiment set too far ahead.

Such policies are now mainstream, with huge taxes on flying and fossil fuel, both hitting the poor as whether essential for survival like heating or travelling for leisure, these activities become restricted to fewer and fewer people as the taxes continue to rise, while the EU plans to ban cars in cities altogether, beginning with age limits on cars in Paris and commercial vehicles in London (despite all passing the emissions tests required for all vehicles). I will now present the major official policies of the main green movements, the Green Party, Greenpeace and quotes from their supporters to demonstrate how many are now in place across the western world to one degree or another, none of which would ever have been considered without the threat of dangerous global warming were they not carried out.

Greenpeace (from their website):

“We’re working to create a world with zero deforestation. Will you join us?” (of course, why not, very sensible)

“Marine reserves are critical to the oceans’ future.” (who can argue with that?)

“We’re working towards a clean energy future.” (what?)

As the bible rightly points out, the devil, should he exist, can’t appear evil, but must actually look even better than the genuine good people, so gains people’s trust by offering more and then slipping in something nasty afterwards. I didn’t think it up, it’s in one of the oldest books in the world, not for religious purposes but to protect people from others. Continuing beyond their headlines:

We also campaign for no new nukes, chemical security, and sustainable agriculture.

We defend the natural world and promote peace by investigating, exposing and confronting environmental abuse, and championing environmentally responsible solutions

Those are some high flying statements, but pick them apart and look closer: no new nukes So the old ones are OK then? chemical security What? Even if people could understand that what have a pressure group got to do with health and safety? sustainable agriculture This is from UN Agenda 21, the green world bible, which is as mainstream as it gets, and directly or indirectly is designed to reduce the world population, some claim by up to 90%. Clearly this in itself is a very sensible view, as the land and resources are not expanding while the population is, but besides education there are no other ways to reduce the population, but their method is called ‘managed depopulation’. Work that out for yourselves. I will get back to Agenda 21 later, but if it is quoted by any pressure group you know what they are supporting directly.

As for their general statement, it does not specify yet the details or examples, as to return to my original point then who except the companies profiting from it does not want to defend the natural world, promote peace and confront environmental abuse, and additionally this is and will always be the job of a democratic government, who ought not to need much from pressure groups to do the obviously right thing, such as Britain’s Clean Air Act, which wiped out smog permanently in the 1960s.

Taking action

Greenpeace was founded in 1971 by a small group of anti-war protesters taking nonviolent direct action against US nuclear weapons testing. Today, taking action is as important as ever to the way we campaign for a greener, more peaceful and equitable world.


Often, environmental problems – like climate change or forest destruction - are widely acknowledged, but governments, corporations and international bodies all duck or dismiss the solutions. Our solutions work promotes open, informed debate about society’s environmental choices, and involves industries, communities and individuals in making change happen. Whether the solutions are political, social or technological, we believe that they should be both environmentally responsible and globally equitable.

Analysing these statements begins with their history, clearly absolutely nothing to do with the environment at all but anti-war, another laudable and totally obsolete political movement, since most western countries both hold nuclear weapons and invade other countries on a regular basis. So they didn’t get very far there since 1971 did they? But the environment? That’s the exact other story. The rest is fairly general and can only be interpreted after the event looking at their actual activities.

The Green Party:

This is a worldwide party with few variations wherever they operate, and varying success in parliaments, holding the current (2013) balance of power in Australia, and having many of their policies adopted in Britain by all three of the mainstream parties, which they themselves acknowledge is far more important than political power for them itself. Besides the woolly liberal economic policies which are pretty much utopian pie in the sky suitable for parish councils at the most, here are the big ones which kick ass:

We will support cooperative, diverse and resilient local economies to meet our needs while “ reversing the status-seeking wealth concentration that is deepening social divisions and destroying the natural world. We will regulate, tax and invest to protect workers’ rights, support socially beneficial businesses and safeguard the ecosystems on which we rely

Here’s a good one- you have to imagine when you read paragraphs you highlight the important bits: “reversing the status-seeking wealth concentration” To me that doesn’t seem very relevant to the environment, but simply stating the standard socialist position common to all others. We will regulate, tax and invest to protect workers’ rights Straight from Das Kapital?

So now they’ve laid out their economic stall somewhere around Marxism, which is fair enough if enough people vote for it, as a perfectly valid social model, but I would argue marginal for many decades and designated to remain so unless there was a particular reason to raise it from the past Soviet history. But before they even reach the meat, the bread in the sandwich is already seen to be bright red, clearly setting out the political wing and foundation behind the party, and possibly the movement altogether.

How will they do it then?

 By nurturing low-carbon industries and community economies, and by making polluters pay, a prosperous and resilient Green economy will thrive in harmony with our environment.

There you go, the exact policies the EU and UN (and since the 25th of June 2013, by executive order no less, the US) are now implementing. Along with half the remaining western world. Coincidence or what?

I don’t think I need go any further into their own details, as half way down the page what used to be a fringe pressure group recognised by most except their own supporters as way past the reasonable level of politics, and now these policies are growing by the day (look at the carbon floor price as an example). I won’t create an entire piece on UN Agenda 21 here as it’s all over the web, but being top of the pyramid, they are now running over 200 country’s policies worldwide who have signed up to it, carrying out pretty much all the above, and could be no more mainstream than that.

To summarise, the green movement shares the majority of policies to one degree or another, divided between the bleedin’ obvious such as not pumping chemical waste and sewage into the water system, to the marginal, to the politically way out. The usual list of quotes which drove the movement from the 1960s onwards may not represent the rank and file of the movement, but they did not make the policies, but accept the lot, from the lovely furry ones to the ones which only have one result, depopulation. Examples include biofuel, a great hobby horse of the entire movement, gaining an entire page on WWF’s page,

”We are delighted to provide biofuel operators with a truly comprehensive standard and a broad range of online tools to help streamline the compliance process from crop to tank.”

Bearing in mind biofuel is both many times more expensive than fossil fuel, and mainly made from the food crops palm oil and corn, wiping out huge areas of rain forest for its growth and pushing many farmers off their land, it is a proven disaster and could only ever be justified by trying to avoid an even worse problem (you know the one I mean). But no doctor would ever treat someone with a medicine with worse side effects than the illness itself. WWF were officially set up for exactly what it says on the tin (quite unlike Greenpeace), but have drifted so far from their original plans since being involved in such activities as land clearance for green projects, which a German paper discovered is often at the expense of the people who lived on the cleared land and are now refugees. They wouldn’t of course refer to this directly in their material as it may put a few (million possibly) of their followers off, but instead refer to:

Given limited resources, restricted funds and the fact that we’re running out of time, WWF is focusing its efforts on 13 Global Initiatives.

§         Amazon

§         Arctic

§         China for a Global Shift

§         Climate & Energy

§         Coastal East Africa

§         Coral Triangle

§         Forest and Climate

§         Green Heart of Africa

§         Heart of Borneo

§         Living Himalayas

§         Market Transformation

§         Smart Fishing

§         Tigers

Of course like the others this is a mixture of the obvious and dubious. Adding snippets afterwards, Arctic is clearly now a direct spinoff of the global warming scare, as until then it was ice with bears and seals and doing very well. So well in fact the polar bear population, despite a massive rise in temperature of about 0.2C, has risen from 5,000 in 1975 to 25,000. So clearly the bears aren’t bothered by the shrinking ice even if WWF are. Climate and energy. Now what exactly has that to do with wildlife? Yes, if the climate went tits up everything (including wildlife of course) would follow, but even if it was possible, it isn’t really the field of a wildlife group to concern themselves with promoting ways to control the climate. Unless I’ve missed something. In fact on the bullet points tigers is the only one directly relating to animals. Unlike the sinister sounding ‘Market transformation’ they slipped in, again, making a sandwich of love with a cockroach hiding inside. They put it in, not me, blame them.

Using their own argument, Trade and economic growth have improved the quality of life for millions of people around the world, but it has come at a high cost to the environment.

ie business is OK until you infringe on the environment. My original point, the governments in civilised (as stopping pollution is a feature of civilisation) countries already do this. Yes, it’s fine to encourage them, but. Today,

§         over-fishing

§         deforestation

§         species loss

§         pollution

§         water scarcity and

§         climate change

...are critical environmental challenges linked to the production and consumption of basic commodities that are both renewable (e.g. timber, crops, livestock and fish) and non-renewable (e.g. minerals, oil and gas).

Oh dear, we are in trouble. If you focus on it anyway. So you start by protecting animals, and then stray into politics and economics, ostensibly for the benefit of the animals. Despite the fact (I repeat) governments already do this in civilised countries so little point pushing the policies here. Preventing over-fishing is already a massive EU policy, sending many multi-generational family fisheries into unemployment, but at least the fish will not die out. Deforestation of course is one of the old ideas we all agree with, which is a given, as is species loss. Pollution again is something every decent person should care about, and more so every decent government. Water scarcity is an economic not an environmental problem, as given the money everywhere accessible in the world could have mains water. But when did climate change get in? As soon as it became the means to initiate many of their other less wildlife-related aims, such as the restrictions they clearly believe are necessary on trade and economic growth which would never have been carried out otherwise. Besides the ‘lunatic fringes’ (as they were previously considered to be), who else would ever want to restrict economic growth and development?

So, assuming the major also represent the minor and offshoots, before we even look at the direct quotes, it can clearly be seen that the climate is the string available to pull the policies they all want besides the environment (you know, the economic and political ones not connected with the environment at all, like Greenpeace’s “reversing the status-seeking wealth concentration”). We are talking about charities here, and political campaigns, based on opinion rather than helping those in need, are specifically banned from being charities. Technically that should mean being ordered to remove such clearly ideological views or lose their status. But looking now at some of the classic quotes from the 60s onwards, we will see how our lords and masters want these policies and have clearly used the environmental movement to promote them:

“ 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 any more...”

“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalisation. The climate summit at Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War”.

Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist of the UN IPCC

“…’self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists—and politicians—must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”

Mike Hulme

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Dr Stephen Schneider

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace

“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

report of the Club of Rome in 1991, The First Global Revolution :

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
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 behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

“…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations…”

Maurice Strong:

These quotes all have something in common. They want to reduce economic activity, and they are using the threats of environmental disaster, something we would all be aware of if present, to justify the resulting policies, which coincidentally belong to the extreme left/ green movement. I’d say it was a pretty open and shut case.

The big picture explained

Having seen the greatest and widest extent of organised corruption, and done all I could to expose it with no acceptance besides from those who already knew, I have had to accept the benefit I gained (and no one else) was the knowledge itself, and the ability to see the big picture now which is a rare one indeed. It also means I am able to deal with political questions, as the big picture is the big picture and it relates to every aspect of life, which I now believe I am capable of providing advice on, as I understand enough of the related facts to do so. It's hardly a sudden revelation, rather 53 years building up until a picture was completely formed. I am curious and take an interest in everything, and if you keep looking for answers as a result eventually you will find them all.

People nearly all want the same things (although provided by different means depending on their personal tastes) but disagree on the best means of delivering them, mainly due to a lack of understanding of the mechanisms of doing so, rather than any genuine political differences. Think about it, take away a shortage and everyone gets what they want so there's no need to apply ridiculous economic philosophies or social or intellectual rationing to eke out the most from the little there is. Those on the left are naturally suspicious of others, so as they don't trust anyone above them then they want to make sure no one has more than they do in case they've stolen it from them when they do, and everyone else is out to get more at their expense unless the state intervenes and stops them. This is easily the most cynical and restrictive world view possible, along with its old version puritanism. If you stop someone else from having more they don't give it to you, you both have less, and who's going to work harder and longer for what they want when they know they can't have it? What example is that to set for a child, to tell them it doesn't matter how many years they study or what they contribute to the world, they won't get more than a factory worker anyway. That's like clipping the wings of every bird on earth so none can fly higher than the others. The same goes for comprehensive education, the means of ensuring only the rich continue to succeed as everyone else gets the free rubbish available where before everyone had the chance for an academic training if they needed it.

The point is that most political decisions are made because of not knowing the full information to be able to know the best methods, besides the mafia style corporate or fascist rules which divert the majority to the rulers which is currently the 21st century style. They can't do it if people know any more, as we have the media to tell us and communicate with each other. The only gap is belief, that every day I pass on information people simply can't believe their government (or someone else's) would do that. Now the fact they would accept it if it had been located in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Colombia or Zimbabwe just means they are not able to accept governments are the same wherever they live as the worst rogue states of the moment. So had I taken the same story and placed it somewhere like that of course they'd have accepted it, as what else do you expect from Yemen or Sudan, but why should the USA or Germany (especially Germany of course) be any different? As there is still not just a generation alive, but a long tradition of philosophy beyond it, of course the Germans are still running the same political views as they did a century ago. Now if you go to the old Austria-Hungary the fascist movement controls part of both governments (check the Jobbik party), and have included ex-Nazis among their ministers. Now Italy and France, along with Norway were all either with the Axis powers or had many sympathisers, and Norway are now one of the most anti-Semitic countries in Europe, and actively inviting Muslims in to drive the few remaining Jews away.

But details aside, if people throw a question at me now I can usually provide an answer, as they are all based on a single view. And there is no place in the world why anyone needs to gain at someone else's expense, as that is no difference to con men becoming rich from lying to an old lady about an imaginary investment. That's the shortage mentality, people who believe there isn't enough for everyone and the best way to get it is off other people rather than creating it yourself. That's the economic side, while unless you believe in religion which wipes out virtually all and every logical point to a higher authority (so they're told) there is no place in law for moral judgements, as either someone is hurt by an action which must become illegal, or they don't, in which case who's to say their choice of right or wrong is any better than yours, like the age of consent which varies in every single country as there is no right answer at all.

In practical terms, where does this knowledge get me? It certainly doesn't set me up as a teacher, as people don't like having their personal heroes and beliefs questioned. When I present a dossier on Barack Obama or Julia Gillard with enough material to sink a stranger connected with it, the fact they believe they are next to being the messiah means few supporters will believe a word said against them despite massive evidence to say so. That is a barrier I have decided to leave alone, and the sole benefit now for me, besides the biggest of having the knowledge itself, is to further my media career. I've looked at enough journalists to know how few have the view of the big picture, whether in existing politics or more so the political totality. One is a simple matter of investigation, which I have carried out, the other is a full awareness of the scope of life and how to run it, which is probably much rarer. There is no element of ego here, as like any other professional you don't use false modesty or false pride, you just know something from studying it. You don't have a solicitor saying they don't really know much law, they were just lucky in their exams- who would use one who said that? So likewise when you know something stand by it and say so. You can easily demonstrate your knowledge and even at the basic level of essay marking if two teachers mark the same essay they will nearly always agree, as the requirements are known. The same goes for any academic statement and knowledge, and that stands alone regardless of the individual who provides it. I've never looked into David Icke's qualifications but he taught me half of what I know and how to find more.

So this is the point I have reached. I know I know what I know, and have tested as many aspects as I could to check it's watertight, and is as good or better than any other I've tested, and had to write many tens of thousands of words for my own courses which pretty well train you to stick to the proper method in future. No one pays me for it, no one outside the academic world publishes it, but that is because the media is based on who you know more than anything else, unless you've spent your entire career in the media directly. I chose the entertainment route before college initially, and when it became impossible to perform the required hours as well as doing a degree to get the union ticket to entertain professionally, had to let that one drop after spending much of the following 12 years at college one way or another with a few gaps in between. So obviously an academic career would logically follow, but having not been aiming in the writing direction as the alternative way in have never made more than the single connection based on my experience with alleged alien abductees. But you won't be able to cross over from that into politics and philosophy unless you get in a daily paper minimum, and my single article wasn't selected by the editor although carried out by one of their own who wrote it based on an interview with me. But I'm no longer involved in expecting to use this information to change the faults in the world, I've tried and seen that is something which takes place on its own based on a mass personal discovery, till the ones add up to tens of millions. If it happens.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Bad news every time

Despite the fact I can manage regardless of it, the news, with very few exceptions, has always gone the worst possible way over the last few years, although of course as most is based on secret political decisions as it all comes from the same shadow government behind the UN of course it should be no surprise.

Interest rates are proved to hurt the citizens, and have been kept at a record low for an indefinite period, although twice as many people who save lose compared to the borrowers. Every Euro member country has voted not to default, despite no possible sanctions as Iceland proved when they did as non-EU members. This implies the Greek and Cypriot politicians are gaining personally as they have both sacrificed their citizens' welfare to maintain the status of the EU.

UK immigration is expected to be increasing, despite a change in government, as nowadays unless you vote a new party in all the old ones work for the UN and only vary the intensity of the same policies to give the impression of being different. Ed Miliband is the only weak link, as if he leads the party to the next election he simply can't win as he's a twat. His apparent knowledge of anything connected in politics gives the impression he learnt his job from a combination of playground cat fights and UN sound bites he doesn't even understand. After spending the best part of a year campaigning online to stop Obama getting re-elected, he is beginning his attack on his country on Tuesday by implementing climate policies officially for the first time, bringing the greatest country in the world (yes, they are much better off than Britain economically) to its knees, and will see the equivalent of a great professer living with Alzheimer's. By the end of his term energy prices will double or triple, wages will grind to a halt, and manufacturing will be crossing the borders like Syrian refugees.

I can't get involved now. I remember the 70s when the only news I cared about were the power cuts, as the rest simply didn't affect me directly, besides staying in the EU which I knew would lead to a political loss to the Fourth Reich as has happened since. I see every decision go the wrong way, votes for greater EU integration lose so they run them again and people do actually change their votes (or something about the way they were counted?), and being what is described as politically aware, realise how our freedom and democracy is going by the week worldwide as each country legislate more and more into the realm of totalitarianism. With Obama putting climate laws in place then every straggler will be pressured into following them, while existing waverers will be pressured to follow America now they've made the most powerful country in the world low carbon, which is another way to describe an economy bled white like a wounded soldier. They won't get that money or prosperity back, they'll end up like Britain, cycling to work as they can't afford public transport, and killing thousands of poor people each winter who can't pay the heating costs. The house prices will go up and average wage go down, as green taxes eat into incomes and force the normal people out of the housing market, handing it over to the mafia who are immune, or collecting the taxes, who will launder their gains in massive properties they hardly ever visit, just as they did 20 years ago in London.

I've seen the world's second greatest country fall to pieces in the last 50 years already, the population has risen by millions and many don't speak English who have arrived, and have many more children to increase the proportions. Our roads have become cancerous with humps and restrictions, filling a car with petrol costs as much as a day's wage, we've lost grammar schools so only rich people can afford a decent education, exams and degrees have been lowered so half the people can now pass (a degree was fixed at around 5% under the 1962 Education Act) and hospitals let every foreign health tourist have their babies and kidney transplants free and collect the money from visitors using the car parks. Besides pointing it out to people who either know already or don't care what can anyone do? Of course I'll vote UKIP as they are the only open door out of this dire strait, as many others will. Personally I have heard the local libraries invite voluntary lecturers as they are very popular, so I may get the word across on a small scale that way, but actually worrying and caring about it is just a lesson not to. I must follow the lotus, live on the mud but not in it, and as some teachers say, when you turn your attention away from the slurry it goes away. Worth a try, looking at it doesn't help.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Dump the climate lunatics

Having read a few little words of advice today I think the direction is clear. I may know what is going on around the world where many do not, but I don't need it to be my problem. The only two benefits picking apart the conspiracies in the world has done for me is to teach me how to investigate and understand politics fully, and possibly use the material for my media career. But don't expect to teach a single thing to a single person as they have already made up their minds. Memes are deadly viruses. Al Gore says we must destroy the world's economy for our unborn grandchildren, and years later people quote him verbatim (I didn't of course) whenever you challenge the fact the climate is doing anything bad or odd at all. I don't use the A-Z of swear words when some twat (note, it's not being aimed at any individual) bleats the world is frying meme, I just explain why it isn't, and they swear at me:

Renew Comm'ty Power @RenewCP 7h
Because its already affecting me and will destroy my children's future you selfish prick.
I get this every week, every month of every year, as once someone's brain is bleached (washing is a good thing and leaves everything as it should be) you can't get anything in. I'll carry on replying if people ask me, but won't bother volunteering anything, as these are the same boys who hung you out of a window or stole your lunch money at school. They are the grown up strong bodied but weak minded bullies, or weak bodied who won over strong bodied idiots to do the strong stuff for them. They are across the spectrum of mental weakness to mental illness in full blown paranoid delusions, of other's makings but fully matured and accepted.
So, the consequences of doing nothing mean:
My fuel bills will continue to rise, but I can afford them.
It will become harder to drive as more restrictions will be created.
Travelling will become more expensive, but I rarely travel.
The general economy will not be able to grow, but I can manage on the little I get.
Things will get worse for sure, and when we get the inevitable power cuts I will suffer, but can I stop them? No.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Test your intuition

This is a test we can all take. The only difference is to what degree we can relate to it, but the principle is universal and will expand once recognised. Anyone with a cat will also have witnessed this, they often either attach themselves to or avoid certain visitors, with nothing you can usually tell about why, but over months and years the regulars will always get the same response every time they arrive, with the cat going in one or the other direction.

In life, we feel the vibration of people and places, some more sensitive than others, but otherwise only a matter of degree. If someone or something is really wrong nearly everyone can feel it, and then just imagine extending that downwards almost indefinitely. Then extend that to situations, where everything on the surface appears to be fine but some people sense something's wrong, and given the opportunities will investigate and nearly always find reasons why they were right.

My background is based in law. That forces you to learn and provide evidence, and taught me to investigate and also, like the police also in the same area, sense when something's wrong before we have collected the evidence. All those apparently normal cars and drivers the old hands spot on TV when a small detail alerts them to the fact all may not be well. So I have the combination of the training, the sensitivity and the years of searching my leads since being equipped with the internet, although before then just the papers gave me enough to know I was on the right track on a number of news stories.

There are always scams going on, and they are, being based on nothing, only too easy to spot once used to it. The only difference today being the number and level being unprecedented, certainly in modern times. During the last war it's now almost certain many countries knew about the concentration camps but ignored them as had they done anything to try and liberate them it would mean they were exposed to attack and would ruin their long term strategies, so in effect they colluded with the Nazis no differently to the French and Norwegians who did a lot of their dirty work for them, partly as many agreed with their policies. What is the point of fighting a war if you allow its existing victims on your side to knowingly die  as well as the enemy? These sort of selective helping, or passive killing in this and other cases, are part of a greater pragmatism, based on having personal interests above those of the citizens you are working for.

I have studied these examples in such detail over the years, from a lifelong fascination, to gain both a practical understanding of how they operate and try and exploit the lack of intuition of others to maintain the smokescreen, and additionally mobilise the believers to attack those who can see through it. But if you simply teach people intuition without any logic or law, they can pick up the same bad vibes as others do and reject the people creating the illusions directly. To return to my own experience, I can spot a bad 'un almost instantly, seeing them steal and cheat from friends who couldn't see it, and could only become wise after the event, but at what a cost, and it won't protect them from the next one as all the direct knowledge does is show them a single example, not develop a latent ability.

So what I do is feel if something feels wrong. It's a very clear feeling, the same one everyone gets when they realise someone's concealed a weapon, or they tell you someone's died or the like, just before the actual event. So start with the familiar feeling you've just heard or seen something terrible, and then collect some pictures and names of people and news stories, and pass each one across your vision until you receive a clear shudder. Now if you can then check up and see that is indeed a nasty story or person then you have proved it works. And once you recognise it then use it and it will become clear, reliable and automatic.

The hard part is (and something I do not recommend to anyone) trying to share this information with others. The nature of intuition, something not reserved for bad stuff but often strongest as it's for survival, is designed as the highest level of knowledge, and once would have been directly accepted as such, but nowadays is not even recognised. So all I can ask is to recognise and use it, and then accept it from others (the way you discern of course is very simple, use your own intuition to tell if someone else is correct) and gradually more and more people will take it on as an accepted form of sensing.

So currently I and millions of others can tell certain individuals and policies are pure evil and wrong, but we can't quite prove it despite plenty of real evidence appearing over time to show we were indeed correct. But this inbuilt delay allows them to keep stealing and hurting people until they get exposed in the usual way. One can only hope that if people's intuition is greater, they will follow it and get more proactive work done to bust these disgraces rather than let them drift for decades or more by which time the damage is done and half the suspects are dead anyway.

Sunday, June 09, 2013

Who benefits from global warming?

Someone just asked the standard question 'What possible benefit could anyone get for making up global warming'. Here is my answer:

Climatology was created for global warming, till then it was meteorology, with the climate being a sideline in geology or geography. Now everyone with a BSc is a climatologist, and share the billions in grants and huge amounts of publicity and policy making amongst each other.

Without the threat of global warming the extreme left and green movement would have remained forever on the lunatic fringe where they belong. Now they are mainstream.

Energy companies now receive billions in renewable subsidies, and the price of fossil fuel has shot up since governments have put restrictions on its production and distribution. Therefore they get money for nothing for wind farms that don't work, and more for their existing reserves. Win-win for all.

Assuming there was already a one world government plan in place, they need a reason or people will reject it. The UN now have in place a global carbon tax and global carbon currency which, like the Euro, will need full political integration to implement. Agenda 21, also created on the back of global warming, is accepted by over 200 countries, the first informal step to world government.

The entire third world are racing ahead economically while the west restrict carbon emissions and they can produce free of regulations.

I'm sure I could go on for ages but that's quite enough to cover the main areas.

Tuesday, June 04, 2013

Judge the science by its fruit

Wind turbines could be used as an indirect indication of the entire global warming belief movement, as unlike the complex climate with diverse methods of measurement, huge gaps in direct information and vast variations in figures for the same areas and periods depending which ones they used and how far they were 'adjusted', their entire performance, from setup costs to annual output, plus maintenance, electrical inputs and peripheral issues including permanent backup.

Power generation follows a few very simple rules, based on constant supply and reaction to demand. The supply can also exceed demand if not regulated, thus generating power which is wasted as not used immediately to run any electrical equipment. Staff and automatic machinery are employed round the clock to ensure this does not happen, and the power is wound down to match lower periods of demand. as a consequence, unless the fuel itself runs out or there is a technical failure, our lights (and life support machines) will stay on. It is as simple as that.

Now look at wind turbines. They generate power randomly, the wind is random. They only generate in a band of around 10-30mph, below is not sufficient to do so, and above will burn them out so they have to be stopped altogether. They generate when the wind chooses to blow, regardless of the demand, so when they produce power outside peak times it is wasted as no one is around to take it. The amounts they produce would never be capable of supplying anywhere on their own, and when they do work are limited to the conversion factor from movement to electricity. That means it is possible to calculate the total possible output, should the conversion factor be perfect at 1 (it is well below that and unlikely to rise much further), and as the wattage generated at full power is still far below the equivalent we use now, their ultimate potential even if running at maximum efficiency are limited by design.

So we have weak generators (as compared with current ones) which work as and when the wind provides the right band of speed. Which by sad coincidence is lower when it is the coldest and most required (much like solar powers don't work at night when most required). The power is often wasted and the power stations required as permanent backup also waste their power as unlike wind turbines they don't go on and off when stimulated, but take weeks to start up and must stay on permanently to be able to draw power when required. So while the wind turbines produce the power stations' power is wasted, and vice versa. You are using and paying for both now instead of simply using the one reliable one.

Then we learn wind turbines consume electricity, the blades need to face the wind so use electric motors, brakes when the wind is too fast, and powerful heaters when they freeze as they are damaged by ice. And if one goes wrong, the maintenance cost offshore for a man to go out on a helicopter and fix it eats up a huge amount of any power its ever produced in its lifetime. Not to mention the costs of wiring the new grid offshore and onshore, which is wasted the 20 or so years later when the turbines come to the end of their lifetimes (actually many wear out far sooner than that, there are miles of rusting examples in early adopter's locations such as California).

Therefore wind turbines:

Produce small random amounts of power
This power is often wasted
Power stations are required as backup and waste much of their power
They require electricity to run
They are limited by their construction to total potential generation per unit
Maintenance costs are phenomenal
Build and infrastructure costs are phenomenal and load the equation from day one before a profit can be considered to cover it in the future.
They are limited to random weak generation by their nature
They can never be used on their own
They actually produce far less per year than previously claimed by their brochures

So the fact it is possible to generate power from a windmill, but only when the wind blows within a certain range, does not mean it is sensible or practical. It is also possible to generate constant power from an orange or an onion, albeit only enough to power a small bulb, but if someone cared to run the figures it may produce as much that way than the equivalent amount spent on a wind turbine. But no one I am aware of has considered vegetable powered stations, (although they do now burn food for fuel, another atrocity made possible through the myth of global warming) so can only assume as the figures are so clear and exactly measurable, anything which can lead to the very existence of wind turbines has to be wrong.

Imagine an identical world, except for one thing, CO2 had not risen. Forget the temperature and ice melts etc, as without the rise in CO2 at most they would have made a passing observation we'd had a 30 year rise in temperature but nothing outstanding, and even if it was there was absolutely nothing we could do about it as climate is driven by nature. You get a few nuts in places like China and Russia (not by any coincidence totalitarian states) who carry out cloud seeding (it's unproven) and geoengineering (toxic and not proven), which are now being tested elsewhere, but again, minus the rise in CO2 few if any scientists would have worried about a fraction of a degree C so unlikely to have been an issue. As a result CO2 generation from fossil fuel would never have been considered as a problem as whatever the amount produced (it's only a few % of the total anyhow) it would clearly have been passing through as fast as it was going in. But one more thing would be known, if CO2 generation had not been raised as a problem, then nothing would ever have been suggested as a 'solution', ie wind turbines would not exist. They would not be 'in development', as there is no more development. Unlike even the almost equally pointless solar panels, they would not have the potential for slightly more powerful compounds and designs to get more out than before, as they use direct physical, rather than chemical, linkage. You turn the blades directly with whatever wind is blowing, and they convert it to power in the same way as any other electrical motor. Their limits have been known for decades, and you can't get more out than in less the other restrictions.

Therefore, had CO2 not risen dramatically (despite no corresponding direct rise in temperature, the UN look at times around 2100, although that was in the 90s before the temperature stopped rising) there would have been no reason to consider non CO2 generating alternatives, and wind turbines would have remained in history as means to grind seeds for flour before electricity existed. Scientists do know exactly how much power they can generate (ie very little indeed), and trials for many years have shown the average range of useful wind generation is around 10% of their full capacity, wherever they are situated.

If you judge a tree by its fruit, the most low hanging fruit of all from global warming is the wind farms. Having described how they work (or technically 'don't work'), and the fact it is physically impossible to alter a single aspect of their construction and generation (for example you can't make the wind blow more often or at the correct range, or get more out than goes in), and much of the time they do produce power it isn't used, all scientists with the figures would mark it as a fail. Yet the world is covered by them, and it is physically impossible for them to make a profit, as the more you add the more it costs and can never be recovered.

Therefore, by looking at a single product (among many like it) of the global warming movement, the total lack of discretion the non-scientific advocates possess, to actually imagine the easily measurable outputs of wind farms is physically capable of producing usable power besides the rare times they run and are required, proves beyond all doubt they know nothing about any science, and are almost certainly as deluded about what they see as climate change as they are about the known and exact science of wind generation. A scientific theory which produces a known failure can only itself be a failure.

Well meaning but dangerous

Liberals/leftists have ideology based on immature emotions, which want to correct all the faults found in nature, such as survival of the fittest, which is the basis of everything living, personal wealth, which many believe must mean others have less (they don't, it means more has been created altogether), people are all equally intelligent given the same chances (why the same spread of IQ tests has been constant since they were created wherever and whenever you take them, including of identical twins who may also have been separated), and basically anything and everything they think's 'not fair', so do everything they can to beat back the tide and force nature to be different. In fact such attitudes are not just immature but extremely dangerous as the equivalent of taking a bunch of uneducated and unintelligent children and letting them rule an entire country. They become the most dangerous force in humanity, as they attack every form of personal liberty to engineer society to fit how they want it to be.

Their concept of equality is not used in its genuine sense, but prostituted to mean if anyone's doing better than you they must be cheating and to cut them down to size. This has discouraged success across the world where promoted as a value, and makes some kids feel bad when they do well at school and try not to answer too many questions as it makes them look better than the others (which of course they are). Then they try and use it to make dogs into cats and cats into dogs, as they say people are equal although everyone is actually different, and do all they can to force them to be the same when they never could be. They take every aspect of nature, which arranges everything from best to worst, and try and force it into the middle, nothing too low (impossible, it's already made that way) or too high (it would make the others feel inadequate), and basically use it as a weapon to destroy civilised society.

In reality politicians work for us, and the only way we would actually democratically elect a government to attempt large scale social engineering and economic redistribution were if enough people actually wanted it and believed it was possible. Then they'd get four or five years of the most extreme versions of taxation, positive discrimination, multiculturalism and diversity, minority rights (which usually means they have more rights than the majorities), gender neutrality, women encouraged to work and allow strangers to raise their children for them, and basically any and every area where the state can do something in a superior way to individual choice.

No doubt once enough of these policies were in place and the majority of the people lost and suffered as a consequence, it would be sufficient to see the Utopia melt away in front of their eyes and see what began as a wish to improve nature directly was the same as going into a garden and painting the flowers gold and silver. If people mess with nature they always get a mess.