“Aversion wee have for things, not onely which we know have hurt us; but also that we do not know whether they will hurt us, or not.”
“Aversion wee have for things, not onely which we know have hurt us; but also that we do not know whether they will hurt us, or not.”
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…
L. Ashwell Wood, 1950
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, 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.
“…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’
[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?
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.
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:
“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.
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.
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?
“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?
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:
If you only click one link in this entire article, make it the following:
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 war
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.