COP 22 – Marrakech

With all the hoopla surrounding COP 21 in Paris, you’d think there would be some media coverage of COP 22 in Marrakech. Not a word. That always makes me nervous. Huge deals signed in the dark always will.

I’ve always wondered how the cities get picked for these events. Today, Julian Assange let slip that King Mohammed VI of Morocco has given the Clinton Global Initiative twelve million dollars (24:52). On the other hand, that means nothing. Maybe there is a better reason to hold it there. There is a lot of dissent in Morocco, at the moment, and might prove to be a good staging area against populism in Africa. That’s a legitimate reason. You see, not everything has to be a conspiracy.

Then again, there could be more to it than that… there always is.

Morocco Buys Hillary Clinton and Western Sahara Suffers

*Update*

BOMBSHELL – NOAA whistleblower says Karl et al. “pausebuster” paper was hyped, broke procedures

via WUWT:

“In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.”

Assange Bakes HRC’s Beans

Another must watch video, this one features world-renowned journalist and film-maker John Pilger, interviewing Julian Assange about the recent email dump.

A concise summation of the email question, the thread that runs through them all, and why it is so important.

 

Secret World of US Election: Julian Assange talks to John Pilger (FULL INTERVIEW)

(24:52)

.

The story behind this, and ignoring Weiner’s sexting (coulda’ been a set-up – man’s got his kinks – distraction piece,) Anthony Weiner seemed to be some sort of errand-boy for the Clintons. A subordinate with those perversions says much about their level of tolerance to such things. He is married to ‘Huma’. This is the real story. Huma Abedin’s mother and father are very interesting characters as well, and Huma’s rise was exceptional. Working for HRC is the only job she’s ever had in the USA. Her husband was Bill Clinton’s introduction. I’m not sure that ‘arranged marriage’ is the appropriate term here, but…

It was opined that a vagina nearly took out Bill Clinton. It now seems that a Weiner might take out Hillary. Bill Maher will then murder Mr. Weiner, presumably on air.

Clinton knew that Saud and Qatar financed terror, had terrible human rights records, treated women very badly, tortured prisoners… but accepted their cash and favours to the Clinton Global Initiative – which appears to be a giant money-laundering fraud. Even Chomsky said NGOs like them were the real problem in Haiti, although he didn’t name them.

Huma worked by HRC’s side for twenty years, she knew everything. Did she keep the back-ups on Weiner’s ‘puter for protection, as some sort of way to avoid jail? Some say she’s a planted spy or that HRC is really a secret muslim or a witch or a pervert?!? Well, at this point, nothing would surprise me. Would it shock me? Sure, but it wouldn’t surprise.

Of course, I will not go into the more sordid details of occult practice and paederasty said by some to be enjoyed by the Clinton inner circle, and really, the entire Washington inner circle, for that matter – see the film, “Conspiracy of Silence” (55:13). No surprise where Bill is concerned, but HRC’s involvement brings it to another level, entirely. You’d want your eyes wide shut for that.

Now, what if HRC wins? A woman whose mentor was KKK chapter founder and senator who tried to prevent the passing of the Civil Rights Act, Robert Byrd. For one, Bill might be appointed US ambassador to the UN. That’s been their plan all along according to Larry Nichols. That’s where the real money is after all, Brussels. (see the documentary “The Brussels Business.”)

After his term, Justin Trudeau could be appointed Secretary General. António Guterres only had to wreck Portugal’s economy to get the job, and severe economic times are foreseen for Canada. Wrecking your own countries’ economy is the ultimate test of loyalty. His father, Pierre, privatized money creation in Canada, I wonder what JT has in store. He has the drive, he’s definitely going for it. It’s just a matter of time. Youngest SecGen ever? Who else would it be in eight to ten years after Guterres? Surely not a woman. GAWD !! Say it ain’t so…

Unveiled in Syria

Kerry’s got some ‘splainin’ to do:

MUST WATCH: American peace delegation goes to Syria, sees opposite of what MSM reports. No civil war in Syria; Syria united under Assad.

(49:34)

See here for clarification on the barrel bomb question (by the obviously biased reporter who didn’t identify herself.)

And see here for some back-up from Global Research.

Change…

…pocket change that is, is changing.

One dollar coins (Loonies) were popular as a forgotten novelty; two-dollar coins (Toonies) were not. I remember working in the service industry back in those days. Everyone complained about the amount of change they would have to carry around in those money belts. The money belts grew more robust. Waiters today are in for a surprise.

The nickel and the quarter will be eliminated in favour of a twenty cent piece, called a “Twenny.” (I don’t know that for sure, in fact, I just coined the phrase. Nevertheless, I think it sounds catchy. In France they are called “des pièces de vingt centimes” but then everything takes more words to say in French… maybe that’s what makes it romantic.)

This move, on it’s own, will likely lighten waiters’  loads (and necessitate another re-design of the money belt,) but there’s more.

The five dollar bill will be replaced by a coin. $5 bills represent just under 2% of the Canadian money supply. [It won’t be long now for the tens.] A two-hundred dollar bill will also be introduced. And all this for 2017. What ever happened to banning the ‘C’-note? In the cancellation of a bill, is a demand for it not being created? As they cancel more and more bills, and create new ones, won’t they be feeding the monster they wish to slay? Getting people to hoard cash is not good for banks. The Bank of Canada eliminated the thousand-dollar bill in 2000 for this purpose, and put the blame squarely on drug-runners and money-launderers. Movement of physical cash is closely watched at the borders and at all points of entry. Are they developing cover for a digital monetary system? Are they really going to ban cash? These recent actions lead us to believe that they will not, but sometimes an event must be manufactured with nothing but ‘good intent’ behind it acting as a catalyst to ensure it’s quick demise. Kissinger might find it easier to pop the balloon rather than let it deflate on its own. That would require intervention. Intervention always incurs cost.

Either this brings us closer towards the European system, or the people at the Mint are preparing for inflation. You don’t think of the economy in the same way if it costs a million of something to buy a loaf of bread. Being a millionaire is easy in some places. Debasing currency (by lowering the cost of production,) even fiat, always leads to inflation. The central banks have been struggling to find a way to increase inflation to keep this sham system afloat, and it looks like this turned out to be their best-worst option. Will this replace the need for ‘helicopter money‘ or is it just an addition? Perhaps it’s all been scripted in order to introduce a global [?digital?] currency. Either way, UNPA member Justin Trudeau is paving the way for his ascension through the UN. [Read the “Welcome” message in the UNPA link.]

Portugal had to wreck its economy for the former Prime Minister (1995-2002) António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres (a notable socialist, ECFR, and Club of Madrid member – not to mention his long list of distinctions) to be elected Secretary General of the UN. That’s quite a cover charge for entry to the big boys’ club. I wonder if it was on a dare or a bet, or if it was just an initiation, of sorts. With that against him, his loyalty would be assured. Amongst other positions, he had previously served as the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.

Is Canada next? The Asian money doesn’t seem to think so, but the Canadian government’s recent action in the Vancouver housing market was a clear signal for Asian markets to ‘keep away.’ The manipulation practiced by Wells-Fargo, Shkreli, Volkswagen, and the gold market pale by comparison. Where’s RICO when you need him?

It looks like the Lone Ranger is gonna’ need some more silver bullets, and gold ones; or maybe Dorothy could just click her heels… rubies and sapphires might have some value, but emeralds are not a good investment.

Advantage

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

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.

 

 

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?”

Бейбітшілік пен келісім сарайы - Astana

Astana Mean-Time?

Kazakhstan is an interesting place with a broad and diverse history. From Genghis Khan’s invasion to Stalin’s deportation of undesirables from the west of the country (which contributed to the region’s ethnic diversity) as inmates of the gulags to the unilateral dismantling of their nuclear program in the post-Soviet era, Kazakhstan has been down a long road to its present form of democracy/dictatorship.

The image above is of the The Palace of Peace and Reconciliation, a.k.a. Pyramid of Peace and Accord. Among its many features are stained glass panels at the top showing three doves in the middle triangle, two doves on the right, and two doves on the left. This motif is echoed below by lozenges, again three in the middle, two on the right and two on the left.

The Pyramid was specially constructed to host the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions. It contains accommodations for different religions: Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism and other faiths. It also houses a 1,500-seat opera house, a national museum of culture, a new “university of civilization”, a library and a research center for Kazakhstan’s ethnic and geographical groups. This diversity is unified within the pure form of a pyramid, 62m (203ft) high with a 62x62m (203x203ft) base. The building is conceived as a global center for religious understanding, the renunciation of violence and the promotion of faith and human equality.”

1368351596_11!!-!!12 Park640

Kazakhstan has, of late, been on a building spree which would put pre-crisis Spain to shame. Financed by Kazakh supplies of oil, gold, and uranium (the world’s second largest producer and America’s largest supplier) as well as massive amounts of foreign investment (from the likes of Warren Buffet, no less,) universities, infrastructure projects, religious institutions, and sky-scrapers have all been popping up at a phenomenal rate. But there’s more. They have been building trade deals and international relationships, as well.

One of these deals was the foundation of the IAEA Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) Bank in Oskemen. “The IAEA LEU Bank, operated by Kazakhstan, will be a physical reserve of LEU available for eligible IAEA Member States. It will host a reserve of LEU, the basic ingredient of nuclear fuel, and act as a supplier of last resort for Member States in case they cannot obtain LEU on the global commercial market or otherwise.”

“The establishment and operation of the IAEA LEU Bank is fully funded through US $150 million of voluntary contributions from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the United States, the European Union, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Norway and Kazakhstan.”

Strangely enough, there are some other ‘improvements’ of note, which may seem, at first glance, contrary to the Kazakh stance on WMD. The USA is funding a bio-weapons research lab with the goal of fighting global terror. The lab will also serve as a storage facility for some of the most harmful and virulent strains of disease known (such as bubonic plague, yellow fever, anthrax, cholera, smallpox et al..) The BSL-2/3 (the highest level is BSL-4) lab will not only protect the diseases studied within from being stolen, but also protect the bio-chemists and engineers (and the knowledge they possess) from being hired by shady groups. There has been much unemployment in this field since the collapse of the Soviet Union, after all.

There is also the possibility that the US is funding the lab with other intentions in mind…

Russia Questions Peaceful Nature of US Biological Research

*Update* The CDC reports unususally high rates of bubonic plague (black death) in the US.

“The United States must target all attributes of the biothreat, using all available tools–from the cognitive realms of transparency and partnerships which have the potential to shape and dissuade, to the firm reality of denial and punishment through vaccinations and kinetic responses as necessary.”

But more on this later. *Update – some evidence of this plan coming to light: America has attacked a power plant and a water treatment facility in Aleppo, Syria with no military value against ISIS. This could lead to an outbreak of cholera.

Russia currently pays Kazakhstan $115 million annually to use Baikonur Cosmodrome, plus $50 million every year for maintenance, under a deal signed in 2004. That agreement is slated to expire in 2050.” This is a pretty good deal considering the following, “NASA Administrator Charles Bolden sent a letter to Congress Wednesday saying the agency would need to pay $490 million to Russia for six seats on Soyuz rockets for U.S. astronauts to fly through 2017. That comes to nearly $82 million a seat, up from $71 million a seat. Since the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011, NASA has relied on Russian federal space agency Roscosmos to provide seats on its Soyuz spacecraft to send U.S. astronauts to the space station.” Further, “At the moment, Russia is the only nation capable of launching astronauts to the International Space Station. Russia’s crew-carrying Soyuz spacecraft all launch from Baikonur…” In addition, the US buys its rocket engines used for satellite launches from Russia and will need to do so for years to come. The American space program seems to be completely dependant on both Russia and Kazakhstan. What would happen if they decided to cut the Americans off?

See also: “US Badly Needs Russia’s Technology to Keep Its Space Program Afloat

With all the new investment opportunities (mostly from the USA) as well as the very close ties to Russia, it seems odd that Nursultan Nazarbayev (who also attended a NATO summit on Afghanistan in 2010) would say the things he said at the UN during a speech he gave on September 28th (which, oddly enough, is not on the UN’s video channel,) to wit:

  • That the world should move towards a global currency (thus stripping the USA of its reserve currency status.)
  • That the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should be removed from USA control and folded into the UN.
  • That the headquarters of the UN should be moved from New York to somewhere in Asia (he did not say where.)

Granted, these recommendations were to take place over a rather long period of time, nevertheless, it demonstrates either a cunning international play against the hand feeding it, or a willingness to accede to a plan already long in the making. He did sign on to help in America’s ‘War on Terror’, after all.

Putin also said, during an interview with Charlie Rose, that there could be room for change at the UN, and the French and Mexican delegations pushed for a reform of the veto rules at the Security Council’s meetings, as well. It would seem that the winds of change are blowing squarely into American faces.

*Update

Now Putin is turning his nose up at the Saudis after a meeting in Russia. And what was Ingushetia’s Yunus-Bek Yevkurov doing there with the others’ Defense Ministers?

While You Weren’t Listening

The first and current President of Kazakhstan is Nursultan Nazarbayev. In his speech to the UN today, he made several recommendations to the council. They were monumental in scope, especially considering the limited international status of his 25 year old country. Then again, based on what Putin said about the UN (or rather, didn’t say,) perhaps there are things in the works about which we don’t yet know.

“When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991, Kazakhstan inherited 1,410 nuclear warheads and the Semipalatinsk nuclear-weapon test site. By April 1995, Kazakhstan had returned the warheads to Russia and, by July 2000, had destroyed the nuclear testing infrastructure at Semipalatinsk.”

“On 2 December 2009, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Republic of Kazakhstan designated 29 August as International Day against Nuclear Tests, anniversary of the date the Semipalatinsk test site closed in 1991.”

Kazakhstan is the largest landlocked country in Asia and has the strongest economy in central Asia. They have enormous oil reserves and are a leading exporter of uranium (ironic as that is.) It is also a world leader in coal, iron, and gold production.

Their elections have been largely considered to be unfair and anything but free in the eyes of international observers.

Kazakhstan is vying for a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council in 2017. They enjoy good diplomatic relations with both Russia and the Ukraine.

He proposed five main points:

  1. That there be one global currency to replace the favoured status of a reserve currency and the unfair advantages it confers upon the country that controls it.
  2. That the IMF be folded into the UN’s mandate removing it from US control (since they won’t have the reserve currency, anyways.)
  3. That the IAEA Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) Bank in Oskemen, Kazakhstan (agreement signed this August,) which removes the need for individual countries to enrich their own uranium by centralizing the distribution thereof, be the only source for enriched uranium. A kind of central bank for fissile material. This bank would be overseen by, and indeed, folded into the UN and included in its mandate.
  4. That nuclear weapons be banned, outright.
  5. That the UN headquarters be moved out of the US and into Asia.

Given that France and Mexico et al. have proposed that the veto right of the permanent members of the UN Security Council be severely limited, It doesn’t look like the world is going to leave a lot of meat on the bone for the US to cushion its fall from grace. Could this be the impetus for WWIII which the UN was formed to avoid?

There is a short follow-up article here.