21st century politics

I felt like giving up, and then one person said I'd taught her a lot about politics online, followed by a second. I stopped considering giving up as one new person woken up is comparable in educational terms to the raising of Lazarus when it comes to humanity. It simply isn't the norm. The good news is I am now seeing actual media- national TV and papers, sharing my observations on the graft going on in modern politics and how they are seeing through it and exposing it for exactly what it is, rather than the opposite which it claims on the surface, much like artificial sweeteners that taste like dirt and eat you away from inside.

The Australian interview of one of the icons of the Green movement, David Suzuki, was a possible turning point in the 'we've had enough' movement, as when actually questioned on his pet topics came across as an ignorant student activist who wanted to be Jesus. Jesus he ain't, possibly the third handmaiden to Satan on a bad day but Jesus, nope. BBC Question Time now actually has some panellists who disagree with the EU, and may even challenge the mainstream view of global warming if we wait long enough. I get messages from leftist organisations every now and again like Avaaz pleading with me to stop oil production, as many of them genuinely believe the added CO2 will totally screw the climate, you know, like it has already after adding a whole 50% more. Or not. I think that mindset is still the majority, but cracks are now showing, firstly driven by the stubborn force named reality, that which will eventually melt away all illusions like ice in the sun. But the reactions are still as strong as before, although the world is not really warming, the same responses repeat, apparently ad infinitum, although the physical energy of warming has gone the mental processes are still running.

But the general picture, that of a world run generally on a planned long term international arrangement, with more than the sort of evidence of George Soros short selling the pound and breaking an entire economy for a decade or more, taking the entire profit himself, Al Gore becoming a billionaire from selling nothing which he called 'carbon credits', the same 'energy credits' which got the board of Enron jailed for fraud before Clinton legalised it. Had his timing been different the whole thing could have gone down as a ground breaking enterprise to save the planet rather than a bunch of greedy crooks running a company stealing billions. Like Al Gore. No, this circumstantial evidence is overridden by direct statements from the UN, David Rockefeller, the Club of Rome and all the other independent groups made up of the same few hundred world business and political leaders. Including some supposed to be at war with others, with the greatest crime on earth possibly being selling arms to both sides of a war, as you are jointly responsible for all the deaths made possible by you directly. I've addressed all those directly in great detail already, but the picture became clear to me and now I pass it on to others. Like my old college essays, I needn't even provide conclusions, in fact we were discouraged from doing so as they were academic and supposed to be balanced. But if I give the material you can draw your own. Australia have set the precedent this month in voting the first leader in a democratic country who did not believe entirely in global warming. Of course the greens are convulsing over this event, and despite the world level of CO2 rising steadily since the first carbon tax was instituted, believe if they now drop it the world will fall apart as a result. But the leader represents the people, and in Australia they have woken up.

Nobody wants to be cheated, stolen from, lied to and generally treated like dirt. If your governments say they are saving the planet, raising your energy costs and restricting many of your freedoms, had they done exactly the same things with no good reason you'd kick them out if you could and bring in a government who cared about and looked after the people. You need a damn good reason to treat your citizens like dirt, so more effort goes into creating the good reasons to do so (hence the requirement for the regular Bilderberg, Club of Rome and Trilateral Commission etc. meetings). So if you decide (whatever the reasons, as do you ask a mugger why they did it so you can get a better understanding of the situation?) you want to get far more money from the taxpayers than before (although they are meant not to keep the money themselves so why would they?) you can't just do a Henry the 8th (or whichever old king did that sort of thing in the past) and send the bailiffs out to collect it at gunpoint, you need people to believe they need to have it taken. So when you see the beggars on the street, each with a better reason to give to them, a dog, a child, a car that's run out of petrol, they've lost their wallet or whatever, this is the same on a national and international scale, currently named 'carbon taxes'. People regularly do give the man who accosts them (as he did to me but was turned down) saying he needs £5 for the train to take his girlfriend to hospital or whatever, until the second or third time when they realise why is he still there and asking two weeks later when you'd already given it to him? Like paying 20 years of carbon taxes to reduce it (which is totally pointless anyway) and it doesn't, so what do they do but make them even higher even though they've proved over 20 years they don't work. It's no different to an employee taking a day off for his fifth grandma's funeral in a different job where they wouldn't have known about the last four. But we do know in these cases.

I will enclose tonight's example of the fight we have on our hands, as like fleas, when you see one in the house you know you're infested. Here's a big momma of a fat flea.

See, I didn't accost him, I addressed an audience of TV programme watchers, and he challenged me. Besides the personal insult, which compared to 'baby killer' is quite mild, the real killer here was his statement "Global warming needs to be tackled, don't you think?".

Now this breaks every rule, of law, of logic and of life itself. It is a leading question, like '"Have you stopped raping your daughter yet?", and one on a par with "We all hate black people, so...", named a false assumption. No, we don't all hate black people, or all like travelling abroad or going to restaurants. These are advertising and propaganda tricks used to draw weak minded individuals in to their traps. So we have a false premise which he has attempted to force a false conclusion, which when declined resulted in a personal attack.

I don't care about idiots as the world is full of them, look at Kenya this week ripped to pieces by a bunch of Muslim scum. No, not all Muslims are scum, these scum were Muslims, OK? But this idiot is a representative idiot, a sample of world 'useful idiot' opinion driving mainstream politics and opinion, and so severe this particular idiot doesn't even believe it's up for question. Bringing things round nicely in a circle, this particular Richard (make your own jokes folks) echoes the deliberate known ignorance displayed in part one by David Suzuki, who not only should know better but almost certainly does know better (he was a professor you know), while the troops do not, as our friend here Richard, who I guarantee doesn't make a penny from his activism (not like us, we're paid for by big oil of course) but does it as he's been manipulated by crooks like Soros and Suzuki to do so for them.

But we're beginning to come back at them. Watch this space.