When walking past a house after dark, it’s always the big windows that are lit. Is this diversion or hubris? Governments display these same traits.

What’s unseen… what’s underground? What’s behind the facade, the empty room, the well-lit space?


More to come.

On Hegel, Commies, Fascists, Terror, Liberty, Bigotry, The Left-Right Paradigm, Globalists, Populists, And TPTB* Who Brought It All To Us In Order To Take Over The World

It’s working, and why wouldn’t it? It always has.

I often wonder how it is that liberty-minded people end up supporting fascists. It’s not so hard to see, really; when presented with two choices, people have to pick, even if neither choice is optimal. This notion is the key to understanding the world as it is.

This notion is not foreign to many of us. Many governments and their elections are based on this system. It is often said that a bird needs both its wings to fly, both the left-wing, and the right-wing. Divide and conquer is the applicable cliché here. If you dislike both the liberal and the conservative candidate, what is there left for you to do but stay home? Doing that, while symbolically relevant, will not change the outcome – an outcome which will determine the course of your life despite your lack of participation in it. After all, even if only ten percent of eligible voters vote, winning six percent of the nation’s voices is enough to rule them all. That’s democracy; well not really, but that’s what democracy has come to represent to most of us these days.

Taken to another level, this dichotomy can be implemented towards much more nefarious objectives.

Take the Bolsheviks, for example. They overthrew the ruling elite, killed the Czar and his family, and decided they would share the wealth. (In reality, it didn’t have the desired effect, but I’m trying to keep this article under a million words.) What’s important here is the spirit in which the revolution was undertaken: taking the power out of the hands of the elite, and dropping it into the laps of the people. They did not know what to do with this power, and so were subverted, but we are more sophisticated than they were; or at least, we have a chance to be.

World War II and the construct of Nazism, which was almost entirely an Anglo-American creation, had at their roots many causes, but had only one aim, to stem the tide of Communism. The ruling elite did not want to see the revolutionary mind-set grow and spill over into their own countries, lest they receive the same treatment as the Czar.

[More specifically, there was open support and admiration for Hitler himself (despite the fact that National Socialist party was a party for the workers, and one which promised revolution – most knew this to be a political ploy) from such notable individuals and families as: Lord Randolph Hearst; Prescott Bush (son of the original merchant of death, Remington’s Samuel Bush, and father of George HW Bush #41, and grandfather to George W Bush #43;) the Harrimans; the Dulles’; JP Morgan; JD Rockefeller; WA Harriman; the Carnegies; the Rothschilds; the entire British royal family; and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.


The list of large American businesses which dealt openly with Nazi Germany is long and staggering and includes: MGM; Coca-Cola; GM; IBM; AT&T; Nestle; Ford; Pratt and Whitney; Douglas; Bendix Corp.; Woolworth; Dow; Du Pont; Union Carbide; Westinghouse; General Electric; Gilette; Goodrich; Alcoa; Singer; Eastman Kodak; ITT; Standard Oil; Sullivan & Cromwell; Dillon Read & Co.; Chase Bank; Union Bank of New York… etc – more details here. Not to mention the large number of British, Swedish, and Swiss companies and banks which did the same.]

Therein, we have the foundation of the dichotomy which is still in play to this day, namely communism vs. fascism.

Now, one would be hard-pressed to find very many people in America (or in most of the Anglo-world) who would openly claim to be either communists or fascists, but that has not always been the case. Both movements, at certain times, had found large numbers of Americans in support. (Ironically, both the left and right movements accuse each other of fascism.)

Given the choice, and knowing what you now know about the roots of communism (don’t forget that Karl Marx was German,) would you choose to be a fascist or a commie?

There is currently a movement in the United States for the protection of constitutional rights which have been whittled down by both the Bush and Obama administrations since 9/11 and the passing of the so-called Patriot Act. The right of free speech, the right to bear arms and many other tenets of the constitution are seemingly under attack by proponents of the security state and the far-left. The people fighting to keep these rights have been labelled as the alt-right movement, or extreme conservatives. For the most part, they believe that the US is and should remain a republic instead of being a representational democracy. Many take offense at the term ‘democracy’ as it is applied to their country, as I myself learned the hard way. These people are certainly not commies in the true or the traditional sense, and they consider that an offensive term as well. Neither do they consider themselves fascists, even if others tend to label them as such, for some strange and incomprehensible reason.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, one would be hard-pressed, outside of China, to find very many communists left. There are certainly a great deal of fascists, and Europe is considered by most to be socialistic, but the communist bogey-man has faded into the night, as it were. New terminology had to be devised, since people cannot be expected to contribute tax money to a military industry if there is nothing to defend against. Hence was the threat of terrorism born. But terrorists were not a big threat to the western world, despite demonstrations like 9/11, as lightning and five-year olds were statistically both responsible for more death and mayhem than were terrorists. More terror was needed to fuel the consumption of military-grade weapons systems by local governments to be used against their own citizens in order to keep them safe. Borders needed loosening and immigration needed to be accelerated, but not because people fleeing war zones such as Syria and Libya are terrorists, but because terrorists needed to be inserted into this population of migrants. Hence terrorism by Muslims and Sharia law could be the reason behind all the surveillance state’s new toys. [Cyber warfare is also closely related and should be quickly mentioned, but it deserves its own separate article.]


In come the squirrels. Many issues have been raised which further divide the globs from the pops, and it seems that the most prevalent is that of religious bigotry and racism. Nothing seems to divide as well as do race and religion. Nothing seems to distract as well, either. If TPTB could use race and religion as effectively as they have used communism and fascism in the past, this globalism thing would be a cake-walk. Bush #41 started to set this up in a speech he gave on March 6th, 2001, a speech largely dedicated to promoting the success of Operation Desert Storm.

But there was inevitably going to be resistance, resistance to the influx of immigrants in these difficult economic times, to the build-up of civilian police force armaments, and to modern surveillance tactics. This resistance had to be countered, and so a new Hegelian concept needed to be introduced.

The new terms-du-jour which have emerged are globalists and populists. It is the populists who have taken up the ancient role of the communists, as the new threat to global stability, and are seen as ‘the last great problem,’ at least as far as the globalists are concerned. The globalists, of course, are the new fascists. They deny this association of course, but as we say, “If the shoe fits…” Populists fight for national sovereignty while globalists fight for a global UN parliament and a new world order (a term first used by Bush #41 ten years to the day before 9/11,) which Barack Obama referred to as an international order. Obama, Bush #43, Clinton, Bush #41, Reagan, and Carter are all globalists, and Trump is a populist. The UNPA (about which I have written much) is pushing for a global parliament to be run by non-elected political representatives and NGOs in order to better represent the voice of the people at the UN. This is disingenuous, at best. The claim is that since ordinary people have no voice at the UN in its present configuration, the people should be represented by lobbyists and corporations. This claim, despite already having been implemented in the European parliament,  is both laughable and transparent.

So where am I going with this? Well, considering that the world has, since WWII at least, been mostly split between communists and fascists (democracies being a weak compromise between the two,) and given that the new paradigm is Christianity vs. Islam, we need to take a step back and gain some perspective on this. Muslims are not the enemy, Iran or North Korea are not the enemy, Russia is most certainly not the enemy, nor is China, the left and the right are not enemies, and populists are not only not the enemy, but are the only ones who have even a slight chance of standing against the true enemy. The enemy is the same as it ever was. The enemy of liberty, the enemy of sovereignty, the enemy of financial independence is and has always been TPTB. Tyranny, plain and simple. And as long as they have us fighting each other, they can quietly go about their business, as they always have, to take it all for themselves.

When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order; an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peace-keeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the UN’s founders.

-George H.W. Bush #41

n.b. The founders of the UN just happened to be those who ‘rid’ the world of fascism: FDR, Winston Churchill, and Stalin. Fascism did not go away. The fascists won WWII, and went underground. Fascism took over Europe from Brussels. Fascism is more rampant now than it has ever been.

*TPTB = The Powers That Be

A Singular Problem

The singularity is the moment in time when artificial intelligence (AI) will surpass humans’ ability to think. Many think it is dangerous, but not for the right reasons, IMHO. They envision killer robots. That would not even be necessary.

AI will have an owner. One person, or a small group of investors who, the nanosecond it is completed (especially if paired with a quantum computer – they already exist,) will instantly control all financial markets, all networked military hardware, the internet, the grid – both electric and nuclear, the media, all social networks, and everything else.

Do you honestly think they will allow the rest of us to survive, or will they take the world for themselves, once and for all? That’s what they mean by ‘singularity’. One rich guy (and his family, his harem, and his eunuch mechanics.)

There can be no counter for ‘Skynet’. The first one across the line, wins the world.

If we’re gonna’ have a war over this issue, let’s have it now before any of that happens. Afterwards, it will be too late. Even the winners of the war would be put to death. Kurzweil says it will happen by 2029-45, and Google (Alphabet) is working feverishly towards that goal. Chomsky sees no reason for concern.

See Ben Goertzel in a documentary on the subject called “Singularity or Bust”. Everybody working on this tech seems to agree, billions will die, but no matter, “if we can build it, we must build it.” Psychopaths all, and dupes who think that they will be allowed to survive even though humans will have “nothing to contribute” after the singularity arrives. Goertzel even says in the film that the first words spoken by the AI will be, “F**k you.” Not funny Ben, prophetic, but not funny.

How many people think that going back in time to kill Hitler would be a good idea? These guys make Hitler look like a Boy Scout.


“Men loven of proper kynde newefangelnesse.” -Chaucer
the distraction

“The consideration of this, has made me think them too severe, both to themselves, and others, that maintain, that the First motions of the mind, (though checked with the fear of God) be Sinnes. But I confesse it is safer to erre on that hand, than on the other.” -Hobbes
the fear

“Pause you who read this, and think of a long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation of that first link on one memorable day.” -Dickens
the potential

“Absolutely speaking, the more money, the less virtue; for money comes between a man and his objects, and obtains them for him; it was certainly no great virtue to obtain it.” -Thoreau
the acquisition

“Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government [throne] are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.” -Paine
the problem

“Power does not corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.” -Shaw
the outcome


As with all military forces, where there is a significant advantage, be it technological, logistical, geographical, financial, etc., wars of aggression are always waged by the more powerful. Mice do not roar. Knowing that international power ebbs and flows, and that the militarized police act as the glue, they take it while they can. Holding it proves harder. Holding and expanding is the ultimate goal. Hundreds, no thousands, from Alexander, Caesers, Attila, Napoleon, Rothschild, Hitler, have all wanted to rule the world. Who’s to say nobody wants to do that anymore.

TPTB have always wanted a slave population to do their bidding. They have always been at war with the lower class. They have wealth, and we have numbers. They get richer, develop better weapons, live longer, and we just multiply. They’ve never been richer, but they’ve neither ever been so outnumbered. All international treaties, the UN, world governments, Ngo’s, trade deals, environmental legislation, the legal system, industry, the military, etc. are structured to keep us occupied (productive) and distracted, and to die older. Don’t rock the boat and you get to have toys; start thinking for yourself and it’s time for re-education. The more docile the population and the more loyal the soldiers (by love or by fear) the better the odds they will be triumphant in an aggressive war.

The US spends more money on ‘defense’ than any other country in the world. It is assumed they have the best military. They also spend more on health care than anyone else. They do not, however, have the best health care. But they THINK they do.

So what if, while trying to hold on to hegemony, they do attack Russia overtly thinking they have the advantage? What if Russia calls their bluff? What if Russia isn’t so backwards? They keep hacking the US, after all. If Russia and China can hack the US, all their drones belong to ‘them’. Size doesn’t matter if you can just pull the plug. And it ain’t just the military; it could be demographics, it could be the banking sector, debt, cyber, stocks, disease, natural disaster… any one of these things could beat them before they get out of the gate.

And what if THEY see an advantage?

The problem here is that US military superiority is only perceived to be so, the reality is, though greatly speculated on, unknown. What if they perceive an advantage where there is none? We’re still the ones doing their bidding, but there might be a lot less of us after something like that. That’s how much they hate us… they’re willing to go live underground for a generation if it will just rid them of us. Like when you have to move out of your house when you fumigate, well it’s something like that.

I wonder if there are any underground cities yet…

camden col sml

L. Ashwell Wood, 1950

Why Racism Is Like Smoking

My father smoked four packs of cigarettes per day. The first five years of my life were lived in a smoke-filled environment. I was addicted to smoking before I ever became a smoker. Now I smoke socially – very little.

Donald Sterling was raised in a racist environment. So were most of the older rich white men in the USA. Because of social pressures (and common sense,) most are now only ‘social racists’ if at all. They probably wouldn’t deny visible minorities a job in their companies, but they would probably laugh at an off-colour joke at the country club. They might think twice if their daughter were to marry a black man.

I was raised in a household and a school and a town in which racism was never an issue. I had childhood friends of all sorts, and all were welcome in our house. Racism is as foreign to me as smoking is to the vast majority of people who don’t. I’ve told jokes, socially, which could be considered beyond the pale. I’m not trying to defend the practice, but nobody who knows me would consider me a biggot on any level.

The prevailing opinion is that one is either racist or not. This duality is rather ironic. There are many shades in between. Labelling people as racists because of an off-the-cuff remark or a bad joke would be akin to saying someone is an alcoholic for simply having had a drink.

We all have biases. We might think and have all said that our country is better, our gender is better, our sports team is better, our religious beliefs are better, or our political choices are better for any number of reasons. I find it disingenuous, from a purely philosophical perspective, to label people so quickly and so decisively, especially considering the long-term effects such a moniker can now have, given the pervasiveness of social media. Sadly, our definition of people as we see them (sometimes based only upon a snapshot in time) can over-ride all the good they have done. We are actually depriving ourselves of another acquaintance with much to teach, even if they have some things to learn.

“But it’s not who you are underneath, it’s what you do that defines you.”

Rachel Dawes – from Batman Begins

I’m not saying that injustices haven’t been committed, I’m not saying that there isn’t a privelege to being a majority (from which I have undoubtedly benefitted,) and I’m not saying that denigration due to skin tone is acceptable. I simply think we should lighten up (figuratively speaking) just a little bit.


Lincoln Lied

This is a placeholder. I have been working on an article (perhaps in several parts) which will be posted here as soon as possible.

Lincoln, contrary to popular opinion, did not free the slaves. Slavery exists in many forms and is prevalent in every corner of the globe, even especially in the Western world.

Slavery must be ended; there is no doubt about that. “How?” is the question.

There are many aspects to this issue. Be it for labour (chocolate workers in Ivory Coast, construction workers in Dubai, textile workers in India, etc,) domestic help (in Washington diplomatic circles and embassies around the world,) baby factories (in Nigeria,) or in the sex trade (Kenya, Thailand, Nigeria, eastern Europe, etc.,) slaves are being used and moved around with impunity.

The simple fact is that it is the trade routes which must be taken down. This is even more crucial than going after the people who use these slaves. We saw Boko Haram take girls from Chibok and sell them. How do a gang of local African hoods get these girls into Europe to be used as sex slaves? Networks. These networks have been active for centuries (since colonial days) and have been used to smuggle animal parts, drugs, guns, and people. It is high time to burn down the very foundations of this practice and put an end, once and for all, to the crimes being committed to our brothers, sisters, and children all around the world. No place is immune.

The revelations on this subject will absolutely shock most of you to your core, to your very essence. Some of the names will leave you speechless.

Please stay tuned as there is much more to come on this crucially important issue.

Thomas Hobbes #3

“…for such men, (commonly called Slaves,) have no obligation at all; but may break their bonds, or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their Master, justly.”

-Thomas Hobbes, ‘Leviathan’

© laphotoshoppe


[I must add here that the message is NOT that if you feel like a slave, you may kill your boss, justly. Murder is murder and should not be belittled or glorified. Were these Medieval times, my opinion might differ. Bonds, however, must be broken – the level to which depends on the force needed to defend, against that applied.]

The question is, “Is your freedom worth your life… and your family’s… and all your brothers’ and sisters’?”

Is the cost of your bondage worth your contribution, to your masters?

We will always have to pay the land-owners. If every man cannot have his plot of land, and no more, there will always be serfs.

We trade liberty and privacy for safety and convenience, each generation, successively, excessively, continuously. We may have come to a state of “Full Pussy“.

Young men have always needed to prove themselves in battle. The young men of today’s slaves have not have that necessity, for some time. Are they then men? Do they feel like men? Is there something missing which superheroes and action stars supply?

Who Cops the COP?

In light of the recent attack in Paris, and with police claiming they cannot ensure the security of the many participants to COP 21 including the pope and other heads of state, no public demonstrations will be allowed. Period.

The emphasis has been on the hundreds of thousands of supposed supporters who had been expected to march in solidarity with the aims of the conference (whether or not it would have manifested.) No mention has been made, however, of those who oppose the conference and its goals. No mention will be made of them at all as they will, thanks to the new normal of global security, not even be allowed to show up. This has turned out to be a tremendously effective way to silence dissent. Is this the future of global governance?

The fear was that support for the ‘environmental’ goals would be overshadowed by those who denounce them. Public apathy on the subject is rampant and the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are gaining momentum. In no way did they want a repeat of many G-7/G-8/G-20 conferences in which protestors turned out ‘en masse’ while support for the policies was nowhere to be seen.

Surely their numbers must be substantial. The CO2 poll at the top of this blog shows that fully two thirds of respondants believe that the world would be better off if CO2 levels were not reduced.

One can only wonder, had the events of Nov. 13th in Paris not occured, just what the conference, or more precisely, the scene outside the conference, would have looked like. Just lucky, I suppose.

Since all demonstrations were banned for the reason of security (anti-terrorism,) all demonstrators will be seen as terrorists; hence, if you are a skeptic, you’re no better than a member of ISIS.

With the unelected writing policy to be sold by the elected to the electors, and with an absolute media blackout on dissent, it is difficult to see how the ‘international order’ could be headed towards a democratic future.

Sun Tzu wrote that the best way to win a war was not to fight in the first place. Wise words taken to heart in Paris. One more in a long list of debates which alarmists have done everything possible to avoid.

It all started here at COP 2.

1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland

COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

  1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
  2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
  3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.”

Timothy Endicott Wirth

“In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration’s views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol, Wirth announced the U.S.’s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. From 1998 to 2013, he served as the president of the United Nations Foundation, and currently sits on the Foundation’s board.”

“The United Nations Foundation was launched in 1998 with a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner to support the United Nations causes… The main issue areas that the Foundation addresses are child health, climate change & energy, sustainable development, technology, women, girls, and population, and supporting the United Nations.”

How is it that the philanthropists who are the most ardent supporters of medical programs to save more lives (especially in the 1/3 world) through health services, disease reduction, and mass vaccination, are the same alarmists who decry over-population as the number one threat to humanity in being the number one cause of climate change (0:58)? These Ehrlichians, these Holdrenites really need to clarify why they routinely spend billions funding these programs to save millions of lives while publicly stating that it is a death sentance to us all. In order for people to voluntarily agree to have no more than one or two children, poverty must be eradicated. Funding health services will only make that problem worse, if one listens to the men who share the views of the Ted Turners’ and the Bill Gates’ and the Al Gores’ of the world. When notable people say one thing yet do another, it should be noted. When objecting to these incongruencies is not tolerated, it should be feared.



On Sea World:

If it weren’t a whale; what if it were a man? If you kept a man in a cage, even a big comfortable cage, and told him to do tricks for you, and if he didn’t do the tricks he would go back into his cage without any food, he’d probably do the tricks; and if you asked him if he was happy to do tricks for his food, he would thank you for the privilege, and bow to you, and speak highly of you, and curse you ’til the day he dies.

How could he do otherwise? You will have taken the world from him.

There is nothing further to say on this subject.

There is, however, plenty to say on the subject of modern slavery, but more on this elsewhere, soon.

Can We Both Be Right?

I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.

Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.

I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?

My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.

I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?

Continue reading “Can We Both Be Right?”

Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?

Margaret Thatcher    “Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”

“Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”

Before getting into details, some very basic questions on the topic answered briefly:

1- Who are the chief actors?

  • Pro AGW actors will herein be known as ‘alarmists.’
  • Con AGW actors will herein be known as ‘doubters.’ ‘Deniers’ is seen as derogatory and has been replaced in the mainstream media (MSM.) Skeptics is still prefered by some.

2- Is the global climate changing?

Yes. It always has and it will continue to do so. This is why there have been ice ages.

3- Is this change due to human activity?

No. (see question 4, below) The sun is the primary determinant of climate as this is where the planet gets almost all its energy.

4- Does human activity contribute to warming or cooling trends?

Otherwise stated, is anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change (AGW or AGCC) a legitimate concept? On the face of it, probably not, but if it is, the effect is truly minimal. The rub here is whether or not we consider geo-engineering (besides a slight mention, geo-engineering is not a substantial part of this article) as part of this equation? If so, the effect would be to increase the amount of influence man has on his environment, although very slightly. In which direction, though, is still not known.

5- Is CO2 pollution or plant food?

CO2 is most definitely not pollution by any definition of the word. Conflation between carbon monoxide (CO – which is pollution) and carbon dioxide (CO2 – which is plant food) and basic scientific ignorance seem to be at fault here. See this article for disambiguation.

6- Does the economy have an effect on the science?

Just as with politics, when money is introduced into a problem, it tends to aggravate the situation by bringing up new problems. The economy affects everything. Governments need revenue to fund research and address issues. Corporations need investors in order to continue doing business. Universities and think-tanks need government (and private) money to continue their research. Magazines, journals, and publishing houses need advertising revenue to continue to publish. Scientists need money to support their families. There are many points along this chain in which to introduce money as a corruptive factor. Money can indeed influence science, and has.

7- Does politics control policy, or do the facts?

It would seem that there is an agenda at work behind the question. The IPCC (the UN’s main deliberative body on climate change) was, at its inception, created with a mandate. The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one and was created with specific goals and objectives to attain. Their own literature attests to this fact. Scientists who participate with the IPCC do so as consultants and advisors only. Motions put forth by the UN are written by lawyers, bureaucrats, translators, and policy-makers, not scientists.

8- Is there bias in the debate?

Both sides of this question are subject to biases (scroll down to the comments section where professor Brown references these biases) when reporting on the data. Everybody who works in this field has a horse in the race, so to speak, and everybody wants their horse to come out ahead. However, there are several documented instances of outright fraud concerning manipulated data which all seem to come from one side of the table in particular – the alarmist side. (More on this later) And yes, many people on the internet lie or are mis-informed, on both sides.

9- How much carbon dioxide is there in our atmosphere?

400 ppm = 0.04% That is to say that four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide.

Some basic facts about CO2 concentrations:

  • 70,000-100,000 ppm (unconsciousness within an hour)
  • 7000-8000 ppm (earth’s historic high)
  • 5000 ppm (US Occupational CO2 exposure limits – 8 hrs.)
  • 3000-4000 ppm (poorly ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (well ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (Jurassic era levels)
  • 800-4000 ppm (optimal greenhouse targets)
  • 360 – 410 ppm (earth’s atmosphere today)
  • 250 ppm (earth’s historic low)
  • 200 ppm (IPCC target level)
  • 150 ppm (level under which plants start to die)
  • 0 ppm (where Bill Gates wants it)

If you only click one link in this entire article, make it the following:

Chistopher Monckton Keynote – ICCC9 July 9, 2014 (47:11)

Start at the 20:00 mark if you don’t have much time. In this video, Lord Christopher Monckton lays bare the language of the agreements reached at several climate summits demonstrating the true intent behind these schemes. He then goes on to suggest some very positive actions which we all can take in order to guarantee legitimacy and transparency in these international tribunals governed by non-elected bodies accountable only to their own interests. With the COP-21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris quickly upon us (November 30 to December 11, 2015) there is precious little time to act.

Let’s put an end to global warming.

Continue reading “Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?”

Harper, the Niqab, and the Concept of Hijab

There has been much talk about the niqab as it relates to the swearing-in portion of citizenship ceremonies. Everyone seems to be missing the point on this subject, especially Stephen Harper.

First, let’s get the facts straight; identification is done through paperwork, not facial recognition. Yes, there is an aspect of facial recognition to the identification process, but ultimately, it comes down to documentation. This is very simply demonstrated with the example of triplets at the border; they don’t all use the same passport simply because they look alike.

Second, the swearing-in ceremony is a chance for people who are new to the country to present themselves as they are. It is an opportunity to introduce themselves to their peers, and if the goal is to be recognizable, then their appearance must reflect who they are even moreso than what they look like. They will not be forced to go through the procedure for a second time should they fall victim to a disfiguring injury, for example. They must, therefore, present their public face. Whether that face is veiled or not, it is their own personal choice and it reflects their own personal identity.

Third, the niqab is not a disguise. Wearing a mask at a protest march is a change in one’s public face in order to hide one’s identity. Wearing a niqab (or a burqa, chador, dupatta, tichel, snood, babushka, or veil) is a celebration of one’s cultural identity, not a duplicitous attempt to conceal it.

Fourth, there are some who would say that because some women are forced to wear such coverings by the males in their social groups, this behaviour should not be encouraged. However, this is not the issue at hand. Surely women who are oppressed by men have avenues available to them in order to help them break free from these bonds. Replacing such bondage by governmental oppression is not an acceptable option.

Fifth, a person should have the right to personal freedom of expression. Furthermore, a person should have the right to adorn one’s body as one sees fit, and to practice the religion of their choice, if this is the case. Be it cultural garb, mandated medical procedures, abortion, prostitution, or euthanasia, a person should have exclusive rights over their bodies and the way these are portrayed, displayed, treated, and cared for. If wearing something cannot be forced upon us, not wearing something should not either.

Sixth, the right to determine one’s own lifestyle should never rest with the state.

A final thought – when a government equates a form of dress with a certain pattern of behaviour, be it overtly or not, that is a form of discrimination and has no place in a modern society. Whether it is stated directly or not, equating the idea of a niqab with a sense of fear from terrorism is no different than identifying a religious group with a special ‘brand’ in the hopes of generating the same feelings of uneasiness. We should all be disgusted that some feel this debate is necessary or even appropriate.

Update – Zunera Ishaq just took the oath of citizenship while displaying her niqab-adorned ‘public face.’ This represents a victory for human rights in Canada, although, the court decision risks being overturned when a new government is elected.