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.

coke-nazis-640x657

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.]

wOp1Nn1

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

Benji’s Plight

In 1971, the French sent a gunboat to New York harbour to get their gold back because the USA was over-extending itself as per the Bretton-Woods agreement. It was President Nixon who was not playing by the rules. In this example, it was the Vietnam war which was being funded but without enough gold to back the expenditures. The US was inflating its own currency. Since the Franc was pegged to the dollar and the dollar was pegged to the gold that America held, there wasn’t enough gold to maintain the value of the French currency. This is why the French acted. This was essentially the beginning of what we now know as central bank money, or modern fiat money.

Why mention all this? Well it seems to me that the Chinese are de-evolving in monetary terms, going back to a Bretton-Woods type system in order that they can play the role that the US played but with their allies, instead. For that to happen, they need to back their currency with gold, and so they will need as much as they can get. Russia has also spoken about a gold-backed ruble.

Gaddafi was in the process of creating a gold-backed pan-African currency, but Libya did not have the clout to withstand the American onslaught, and we all know what happened after that. China does.

If we exclude QEII, the largest land-owners in the world are Russia, China, the King of Saud, the King of Thailand, the King of Morocco, and the King of Oman. All of these countries have large Muslim populations; even Russia is about 15% Muslim. All of them have been involved with some form of gold-backed currency, or are currently talking about implementing one. China is going to do it for them, and unite Asia in the process.

This is why Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev said, at the UN, that the IMF must go and that the world reserve currency should no longer be dollars. He also said that the UN should be based in Asia. Kazakhstan is hugely rich in natural resources (oil, gold, uranium…) He gave this speech on the same day as Obama and Putin spoke, but nobody was listening.

This, in my opinion, is what we are seeing in China now. They are slowly trying to shed dollars without causing too much commotion. If they do it too quickly, they would lose a great deal of value in the process. Eventually, though, the dollar will be dumped. China did just get into the IMF’s basket, for credibility and support if nothing else, but this may be short-lived and not for the reasons most would think.

With Turkey looking east, they could collectively control all the oil and gas flowing into Europe (Turkish Stream pipeline,) and most of the water flowing into the middle-east. The east would have Europe by the short-and-curlies.

This is also why they want to ‘easternize’ Europe with a large influx of migrants. Terror is a serious issue for all these actors, not just an excuse for expansion like it is for America. Russia has an outpost called Ingushetia to guard against Chechen fighters. Even China has terror at its back door.

Energy-poor Europe really has no choice in the matter and America is powerless to stop it. This is what made Ukraine such a target. Russia is diverting all pipelines into Europe through Turkey instead of Ukraine, making the entire exercise there moot. This is what makes the middle-east, the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, North Korea, and Lithuania so important to the west. This is why the west (and NATO) is trying to encircle Russia and break up Eurasia, but what’s the expression again…? A day late and a dollar short (pun definitely intended.)

One could draw a line from Beijing to Moscow and cross only one country, Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan may be where the new Prime Meridian passes, where the new UN headquarters might be located, and is where the world’s monopoly of low-enriched uranium (LEU) is kept. Buffett knows it, too. Kazakhstan is land-locked and so is very easy to defend.

It’s over.

China is starting to unwind, all of Eurasia will be dumping the dollar very soon (?this summer/fall?) the petro-dollar’s days are numbered (Saud has been in negotiations with Russia for years now over this very issue) and if America doesn’t wake up to this incontrovertible fact, war will be the only option. If the USA and NATO and the EU start making preparations now, perhaps there could be a way to draw this out nicely enough not to have to crash the western economy. They could also all be working behind the scenes together, east and west, knowing that the inevitable is coming. Hey, ya’ never know.

As it happens, last year, American private equity fund KKR bought Mexico’s Pemex Oil. They have secured rights to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, and now they are moving even further south. Venezuela seems to be the next target now that the Americans know they have lost the middle-east, and will soon have to leave.

“Seventy percent of Petropiar is owned by the state-run Petróleos de Venezuela, and 30% by its overseas partner, Chevron. The government has now offered to sell a portion of its shares to the Russian Rosneft, along with a stake in the rights to extract oil from the premium-grade Orinoco Oil Belt. This, of course, is no less than a stab in the back for Chevron. (Rosneft faces sanctions from the US, which, of course, Chevron does not.)

Venezuela has also expropriated shares belonging to ConocoPhillips, for which it has not yet paid, at the same time as they’re negotiating with a Japanese investment bank to obtain further funding.”

These deals, in the American perspective, are worth protecting and fighting over especially if Russia’s Rosneft gets control of some of the oil in the Americas.

“The involvement of the U.S. military in an upcoming multilateral military drill in South America has raised concerns over potential ulterior motives on the part of the U.S.

 

The drill, dubbed “Operation: America United,” will involve the installation of a temporary military base on the triple border shared by the drill’s other participating nations: Peru, Brazil and Colombia.

Clearly, the Americans know that their time under the petro-dollar scheme is winding down, and they are desperately seeking alternative sources of oil. Now that Erdogan has refused the EU membership and is looking east, even the Germans are moving their troops from Incirlik to Jordan. They too must sense that something is changing within NATO and in the middle-east.

All this talk of populism vs. globalism (I was caught up in it, too) is like so many squirrels scurrying to hide their nutz. This is also why we needed the king of all squirrels, Donald Trump, to completely dominate our lives. After two years of him dominating the main-stream media scene, much of the groundwork has been done quietly, and in the shadows.

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!! /sarc) 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.)

Here is Vanessa Beeley’s blog.

Here is Eva Bartlett’s blog.

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

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.

Putin and the UN – Is Change in the Air?

Based on a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Vladimir Putin made some subtle comments regarding the status of the UN and what the future might hold in store. This is simply speculative interpretation, but did he hint at the possibility of an overhaul of the foundations of global governance? The BRICS association analogy may be a valid comparison to draw at this point.

“…I will have to say a few words about…the fact that the United Nations remains the sole universal international organisation designed to maintain global peace. And in this sense it has no alternative today.”

This is an interesting comment. Of course, everybody knows that the UN is unique, so why mention it here? Is there a plan amongst the developing economies to overhaul the UN, or is the plan to replace it with a less partisan body? His qualification of the comment with the word ‘today’ leads one to believe that tomorrow might be a different story. With Russia being a founding member (since its inception at Yalta after WWII,) and if Russia can convince the other members of the BRICS countries to follow suit, they could withdraw from the UN and create their own body to uphold international law without granting the US veto power over all its decisions. On the 25th of September, Putin met with the other members of the UN’s security council to discuss the situation in Syria, as well as current domestic policy issues. One wonders what these issues might be, but given recent comments by Putin (such as those given at Valdai) as well as those given by Assad (here and here,) not to mention the rift which is developing between Germany and France against the US over NATO’s involvement in the Ukraine and US involvement in Syria indicate that the world’s opinion about the US and its activities in the middle-east and elsewhere are changing (or worsening, depending on your point of view.)

“It is also apparent that it should adapt to the ever-changing world, which we discuss all the time: how it should evolve and at what rate, which components should undergo qualitative changes. Of course, I will have to or rather should use this international platform to explain Russia’s vision of today’s international relations, as well as the future of this organisation and the global community.”

It is very clear, based on these statements that the UN is an ever-evolving entity, but it is also clear, given the prevalence of this comment at the beginning of the interview, that there is a will amongst the participants (not including the US) to reform the role of the UN in the near future.

“…in my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter. We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only.”

This comment was clearly meant to demonstrate US support for the forces opposing Assad – ISIS/ISIL et al. – and its illegality. Will the international community continue to allow the Western forces’ ‘carte blanche’ towards the middle-east, and will it stand idly by as Syria is turned into Libya v2.0? It would not appear to be the case. China has also decided to support Assad’s forces by sending its navy to the port at Tartus in Syria. Has the BRICS military coalition started?

“There is only one regular army there. That is the army of Syrian President al-Assad.”

And in another quote from a past interview,

“It’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government [of Syria] will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya, where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq,” Putin stressed.

“There is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.”

The Russian leader stressed that US-led coalition partners need to understand that only the Syrian people are entitled “to decide who should govern their country and how.”

With this, Putin is upholding the democratic process by which Assad was elected, and legitimizes his presence in the discussion.

That which the future holds, only time will reveal, but clearly the winds of political change are blowing squarely in the face of the US, its official policies, NATO, and the UN.

*Update* Given what the Kazakh president said at his speech to the UN, there are more massive changes coming to the ‘International Order’ as we know it. Buckle up!