Courage, Change & Chance

It takes courage to take a chance on change.

"A good researcher should not be afraid to change his mind; he should not feel desperate because his comforting beliefs leave him as soon as he begins to think critically. "

Jacques Vallée - Passage to Magonia

Lenon Honor

Time always tells the truth.

Translate

Follow by Email

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

The Futile Quest for Climate Control - Part 1

By Robert M. Carter

Quadrant No. 451 (Vol. LII, Number 11), p. 10-18

The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels--the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming--has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism. Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.
Marxism, Freudianism, global warming. These are proof--of which history offers so many examples--that people can be suckers on a grand scale. To their fanatical followers they are a substitute for religion. Global warming, in particular, is a creed, a faith, a dogma that has little to do with science. If people are in need of religion, why don't they just turn to the genuine article?
Paul Johnson

Introduction

Climate change knows three realities. Science reality, which is what working scientists deal with on a daily basis. Virtual reality, which is the wholly imaginary world inside computer climate models. And public reality, which is the socio-political system within which politicians, business people and the general citizenry work.

The science reality is that climate is a complex, dynamic, natural system that no one wholly comprehends, though many scientists understand different small parts. So far, science provides no unambiguous evidence that dangerous or even measurable human-caused global warming is occurring. Second, the virtual reality is that computer models predict future climate according to the assumptions that are programmed into them. There is no established Theory of Climate, and therefore the potential output of all realistic computer general circulation models (GCMs) encompasses a range of both future warmings and coolings, the outcome depending upon the way in which they are constructed. Different results can be produced at will simply by adjusting such poorly known parameters as the effects of cloud cover. Third, public reality in 2008 is that, driven by strong environmental lobby groups and evangelistic scientists and journalists, there is a widespread but erroneous belief in our society that dangerous global warming is occurring and that it has human causation.

Bill Kininmonth (Illusions of Climate Science; Quadrant, Oct. 2008) has summarized well the nature of the main scientific arguments that relate to human-caused climate change. Therefore, I shall concentrate here a little less on the science, except as background information that relates to how we got to where we are today. My main aim is to explain the need for a proper national climate change policy that relates to real rather than imaginary risk, a policy position that neither the previous nor the present Australian government has achieved. Instead - in response to strong pressure from lobby groups whose main commonality is financial or other self-interest, and a baying media - our present national climate policy is to try to prevent human-caused global warming. This will be a costly, ineffectual and hence futile exercise.

THE REALITIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE

Science reality

My reference files categorize climate change into more than 100 subdiscipline areas of relevant knowledge. Like most other climate scientists, I possess deep expertise in at most two or three of these subdisciplines. As Canadians Essex and McKitrick have observed "Global warming is a topic that sprawls in a thousand directions. There is no such thing as an 'expert' on global warming, because no one can master all the relevant subjects. On the subject of climate change everyone is an amateur on many if not most of the relevant topics". It is therefore a brave scientist who essays an expert public opinion on the global warming issue, that bravery being always but one step from foolhardiness. And as for the many public dignitaries and celebrities whose global warming preachings fill out our daily news bulletins, their enthusiasm for a perceived worthy cause greatly exceeds their clarity of thought about climate change science, regarding which they are palpably innocent of knowledge.

In these difficult circumstances of complex science and public ignorance, how is science reality to be judged? This question was first carefully thought through in the late 1980s by the senior bureaucrats and scientists who were involved in the creation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Key players at the time were Bert Bolin (Sweden), John Houghton (UK) and Maurice Strong (Canada), the two former persons each going on to become Chairman of the IPCC. The declared intention of the IPCC was to provide disinterested summaries of the state of climate science as judged from the published, refereed scientific literature. Henceforward, in the public and political eye, science reality was to be decided by the authority of the IPCC. Accordingly, in four successive Assessment Reports in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007, the IPCC has tried to imprint its belief in dangerous human-caused warming on politicians and the public alike, steamrollering relentlessly over the more balanced, non-alarmist views held by thousands of other qualified scientists. Inevitably, and despite the initial good intentions, what started in 1988 as a noble cause had by the time of the 4th Assessment Report (2007) degenerated into a politically driven science and media circus.

As Essex and McKitrick have accurately written: “We do not need to guess what is the world view of the IPCC leaders. They do not attempt to hide it. They are committed, heart and soul, to the Doctrine (of human-caused global warming). They believe it and they are advocates on its behalf. They have assembled a body of evidence that they feel supports it and they travel the world promoting it.

There would be nothing wrong with this if it were only one half of a larger exercise in adjudication. But governments around the world have made the staggering error of treating the IPCC as if it is the only side we should listen to in the adjudication process. What is worse, when on a regular basis other scientists and scholars stand up and publicly disagree with the IPCC, governments panic because they are afraid the issue will get complicated, and undermine the sense of certainty that justifies their policy choices. So they label alternative views "marginal" and those who hold them ‘dissidents’”.

The basic flaw that was incorporated into IPCC methodology from the beginning was the assumption that matters of science can be decided on authority or consensus; in fact, and as Galileo early showed, science as a method of investigating the world is the very antithesis of authority. A scientific truth is so not because the IPCC or an Academy of Science blesses it, or because most people believe it, but because it is formulated as a rigorous hypothesis that has survived testing by many different scientists.

The hypothesis of the IPCC was, and remains, that human greenhouse gas emissions (especially of carbon dioxide) are causing dangerous global warming. IPCC concentrates its analyses of climate change on only the last few hundred years, and has repeatedly failed to give proper weight to the geological context of the 150-year long instrumental record. When viewed in historical context, and assessed against empirical data, the greenhouse hypothesis fails. There is no evidence that late 20th century rates of temperature increase were unusually rapid or reached an unnaturally high peak; no human-caused greenhouse signal has been measured or identified despite the expenditure since 1990 of many tens of billions of dollars searching for it; and global temperature, which peaked within the current natural cycle in 1998, has been declining since 2002 despite continuing increases in carbon dioxide emission.

Therefore, science reality in 2008 is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming has been repeatedly tested and failed. In contrast, the proper null hypothesis that the global climatic changes that we observe today are natural in origin has yet to be disproven. The only argument that remains to the IPCC – and it is solely a theoretical argument, not evidence of any kind - is that their unvalidated computer models project that carbon dioxide driven dangerous warming will occur in the future: just you wait and see! It is therefore to these models that we now turn.

Virtual reality

The general circulation computer climate models (GCMs) used by the IPCC are deterministic. Which is to say that they specify the climate system from the first principles of physics. For many parts of the climate system, such as the behaviour of turbulent fluids or the processes that occur within clouds, our incomplete knowledge of the physics requires the extensive use of parameterisation (read ‘educated guesses’) in the models, especially for the many climate processes that occur at a scale below the 100-200 km2 size of the typical modelling grid.

Not surprisingly, therefore, the GCMs used by the IPCC have not been able to make successful climate predictions, nor to match the observed pattern of global temperature change over the late 20th century. Regarding the first point, none of the models was able to forecast the path of the global average temperature statistic as it elapsed between 1990 and 2006. Regarding the second, GCMs persistently predict that greenhouse warming trends should increase with altitude, especially in the tropics, with most warming at around 10 km height; in contrast, actual observations show the opposite, with either flat or decreasing warming trends with increasing height in the troposphere.

The modellers themselves acknowledge that they are unable to predict future climate, preferring the term “projection” (which the IPCC, in turn, use as the basis for modelled socio-economic “scenarios”) to describe the output of their experiments. Individual models differ widely in their output under an imposed regime of doubled carbon dioxide. In 2001, the IPCC cited a range of 1.8 to 5.6 deg. C warming by 2100 for the model outputs that they favoured, but this range can be varied further to include even negative outputs (i.e. cooling) by adjustment of some of the model parameters. Indeed, the selected GCM outputs that IPCC places before us are but a handful of visions of future climate from amongst the literally billions of alternative future worlds that could be simulated using the self-same models.

The confidence that can be placed on GCM climate projections is indicated by the disclaimers that CSIRO always includes in its climate consultancy reports. For example:

‘This report relates to climate change scenarios based on computer modelling. Models
involve simplifications of the real processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly,
no responsibility will be accepted by CSIRO or the QLD government for the accuracy
of forecasts or predictions inferred from this report or for any person’s interpretations,
deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this report.’

It is clear from all of this that climate GCMs do not produce predictive outputs that are suitable for direct application in policy making; it is therefore inappropriate to use IPCC model projections for planning, or even precautionary, purposes, as if they were real forecasts of future climate. Notwithstanding, it remains the case, amazingly, that IPCC’s claims of a dangerous human influence on climate now rest almost solely on their unrealistic, unvalidated GCM climate projections. Which makes it intriguing that during recent planning for the next (5th) IPCC assessment report, due in 2015, senior U.K. Hadley Centre scientist, Martin Parry, is reported in a recent Nature article as saying: "The case for climate change, from a scientific point of view, has been made. We're persuaded of the need for action. So the question is what action, and when”. Well, the IPCC may be so persuaded, but the key question, of course, is what about the rest of us?

Public reality

The answer to that question is that opinion polls show that most of the rest of us have become severely alarmed about the threat of human-caused climate change. Therefore, public reality, as perceived by the Rudd administration at least, is that the Australian electorate now expects the government to “do something” about global warming, i.e. to introduce a carbon dioxide taxation system. This means that there exists a strong disjunction between climate alarm as perceived by the public and the science justification for that alarm. How come?

The means by which the public has been convinced that dangerous global warming is occurring are not subtle. The three main agents are the reports from the IPCC that I have already described; incessant bullying by environmental NGOs and allied scientists, political groups and business; and the obliging promulgation of selectively alarmist climate information by the media. Indeed, the combined alarmist activities of the IPCC, crusading environmental NGOs, some individual leading climate scientists and many science agencies and academies can only be termed a propaganda campaign. However, because all of these many interest groups communicate with the public primarily through the gatekeepers of the press, it is the press that carries the prime responsibility for the unbalanced state of the current public discussion and opinion on global warming.

Global Warming: The Fraud, the Fools and the Science

By Jean Bush

The global warming debate, now dubbed “climate change,” since no one can agree on its proper name, since naming it defines it, continues to rage across the planet, culminating in the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Many people, already confused by this debate, have determined that global warming is a fact due to: “This is the hottest summer we’ve ever had.” “Look at that drought in Australia, must be global warming.” “Scientists say the ice caps are melting, too much carbon dioxide in the air.” And on and on ad nauseum. Extrapolating localized weather patterns into world wide climate changes, only adds fuel to an already out of control fire that’s burning up intelligent, scientific discoveries regarding the truth of our always changing climate.

Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity. He said the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the sun and the earth were in a similar cycle.

Medieval Warm Period
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) or Medieval Climate Optimum was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region, lasting from about AD 800–1300. It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. The MWP is often invoked in discussions of global warming. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.[1]

Little Ice Age
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period. While not a true ice age, the term was introduced into scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[1] Climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. Some sources confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid-19th century.[2] It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[3] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes areas affected by the LIA:
Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[4]
(Italics mine)

As you can see, trying to determine the climate patterns of the entire earth, for any extended period, is practically impossible.

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes.

Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks. As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared. (Wikipedia online)

Not quite the bogyman you were expecting? Would reducing such destroy what little plant life we have left? Do you want your scientists fiddling around with the very air you breathe?

The term "carbon dioxide" has been used as a hypo-trigger by the media on the uninformed masses making them believe that all this "dirty air" is falling on their very heads. Through various publicly displayed protests and lawsuits, the environmentalists, now known as the green movement, has prevented power companies from expanding to meet the ever growing needs of the United States. Meanwhile, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is suing major utilities for not spending untold millions of dollars on redundant apparatus to "clean up" their emissions.This is the same EPA who, 2 days after 9/11, declared the air clean and safe, thus assuring rescue workers and clean-up crews they could work with impunity. Now these workers are dying in droves from eye and lung diseases from the unseen but persistent particles of dust that remained in the air and the government refuses any and all medical help or money for these brave but haggard workers who gave their lives on the word of their lying, corrupt and inhuman government. The now re-christened Green movement has made a new religion out of worshipping the earth. "Reduce your carbon footprint" is their commandment and Gaia is their goddess. Under the direction of the Elites, they have hi-jacked an entire planet. These illiterate and compliant slaves cannot stand the notion that entire populations are using electrical power to improve their lives. It is too polluting, according to their insane ideology. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reports that 79% of Americans have cable or satellite TV, 59% have home computers; 16% have DVD players. Add to that refrigerators, electric can openers, lights and other comfort devices and you have a populace totally plugged into the matrix of easy living.Scrambling to prevent third world countries from tapping into current technologies developed by the West, they are fighting to keep these wretchedly poor and desperate people from raising their standard of living. And in turn, they are admonishing and pushing the well off and well fed people of the West to reduce and curtail their consumption of the greatest discovery of all time that has brought health, safety, inventiveness and the advancement of civilization; that gift that Prometheus sacrificed himself to steal from the gods to benefit all mankind: that fire from the sky: electricity.

I would now like to introduce my newest guest columnist, Professor Robert M. Carter, of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. He is a brilliant scientist and one of the few lone voices shouting into the wind of this global warming madness.


He has written a detailed and very excellent piece entitled: The Futile Quest For Climate Control. As it is very long, I will be presenting in several parts. His science and study of this problem is unparralled anywhere. I urge all my readers to read and pass this vital information along to others.

I leave you now with a final word from Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher:

“As anybody knows who follows the opinion polls in Britain and Australia and the US, in the last few weeks and months there has been a rapid collapse in the global warming chimera so while we still have our freedom, let us speak out.”




Thursday, December 3, 2009

Philip Jones - A Warrior For Our Times

From the album of the movie "Troy." Sung by Josh Groban

Remember, I will still be here
As long as you hold me, in your memory.

Remember, when your dreams have ended,
Time can be transcended
Just remember me.

I am the one star that keeps burning, so brightly,
It is the last light to fade into the rising sun.

I'm with you
Whenever you tell, my story
For I am all I've done.

Remember, I will still be here
As long as you hold me, in your memory;
Remember me...

I am the one voice in the cold wind, that whispers,
And if you listen, you'll hear me call across the sky.

As long as I still can reach out and touch you,
Then I will never die.

Remember, I'll never leave you
If you will only remember me.

Remember me...

Remember, I will still be here
As long as you hold me
In your memory.

Remember, when your dreams have ended,
Time can be transcended;
I live forever
Remember me.

Remember me
Remember...me....

Rest in peace, beloved warrior, I will see you soon.

Jean

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Philip John Jones 1958-2009

Dear Readers,

It is with the greatest sadness that I must tell you that Philip Jones died this morning at the University Odense Hospital in Denmark.

He was loved by all who knew him and he will be dearly missed.

Men are haunted by the vastness of eternity, and we ask ourselves: will our actions echo across the centuries? Will strangers hear our names long after we are gone and wonder who we were, how bravely we fought, how fiercely we loved? If they ever tell my story, let them say I walked with "Giants." Men rise and fall like the winter wheat, but these names will never die. Let them say I lived in the time of Hector, tamer of horses; let them say I lived in the time of Achilles.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Philip Jones

Philip Jones, my inspiration and dearest friend in the world, is dying of cancer. His doctors say he has only a few months left.

He will spend the remainder of his days in Denmark at home with his wife.

This news devastates all of us who know and love him. We will lose a brilliant and dedicated man who fought for us and warned us endlessly of the coming New World Order. Those of us who know him will continue this battle, not only on our behalf, but for him also.

Please continue to direct your friends and readers to his site, Righteous Alliance.

Pray for him if you can.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Unemployment, Poverty And The Death Of America

By Jean Bush


Unemployment figures in the United States are bandied about with all the abandon of baseless rumours. According to the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics:

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- AUGUST 2009


Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline in August (-216,000),
and the unemployment rate rose to 9.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today. Although job losses continued in many of the
major industry sectors in August, the declines have moderated in recent
months.

Household Survey Data

In August, the number of unemployed persons increased by 466,000 to 14.9 million, and the unemployment rate rose by 0.3 percentage point to 9.7 percent. The rate had been little changed in June and July, after increasing 0.4 or 0.5 percentage points in each month from December 2008
through May. Since the recession began in December 2007, the number of
unemployed persons has risen by 7.4 million, and the unemployment rate
has grown by 4.8 percentage points. (See table A-1.)


The real unemployment figures are never reported in the Elite owned media outlets.

Only those who are signing up or have signed up are counted. Real unemployment includes those whose benefits have run out, those who must wait weeks or months to sign up and receive checks as the system continues to break down and the Unemployment websites crash from overwhelming usage and people spend hours and days trying to phone through the endless busy signals of their local offices. The real count also includes those who have simply given up.

Our economy continues to crash. Blockbuster Video may close as many as 960 stores. All of these employees will soon be out of work and adding to the swelling ranks of those seeking unemployment benefits.

Reuters) - The U.S. economy has not begun to climb out of the worst recession since the Great Depression but the "terror" that followed last year's near-collapse of the financial system is gone due in part to government intervention, billionaire investor Warren Buffett said on Tuesday.


Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Tuesday that the worst U.S. recession since the Great Depression was probably over, but the recovery would be slow and it would take time to create new jobs.
"Even though from a technical perspective the recession is very likely over at this point, it's still going to feel like a very weak economy for some time," Bernanke said after giving a speech at a Brookings Institution conference.

Reuters)- President Barack Obama promised struggling autoworkers on Tuesday he was committed to rebuilding a thriving U.S. auto industry and said the world's largest economy was on the mend. "It's going to take some time to achieve a complete recovery," Obama said during a visit to General Motors Co's sprawling Lordstown plant in Ohio.

Bernake, Buffett and Barack, the Three Stooges, or whatever these Illuminati sock-puppets are being called these days, are continuously assuring and increasingly desperate public that despite all the signs of collapse, the economy is actually recovering, but it will take time. What does that mean? How much time, what is recovering? Where are the new jobs? Who is spending money to prop up the slumping retail sales?

Certainly not the new middle class homeless. As jobs are lost, benefits run out and homeowners and renters are unable to keep up with the endlessly rising housing costs, more and more people are finding themselves and their families living out of cars or shelters. Some find help with friends and relatives, but these very safety nets are in danger of collapsing themselves. Retirees and those living solely on Social Security are increasingly finding that inflation, that subtle thief in the night, is stealing away what little purchasing power the dollar still has. Many of them are looking to go back to work just to survive. The choice many face between food and medicine, is not living, it is starving. However, there is little work to be had. Seniors often find themselves competing with high-schoolers looking for part-time work and summer work at various fast food franchises.


The stock market has been used by investors and the public alike as a barometer of the economy's health. However, this is not what is really happening. The market has always been manipulated into boom and bust cycles, managed by the Plunge Protection Team aka Working Group on Financial Markets. According to Wikipedia :

The Working Group on Financial Markets (also, President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Working Group, and colloquially the Plunge Protection Team) was created by Executive Order 12631,[1] signed on March 18, 1988 by United States President Ronald Reagan.The Group was established explicitly in response to events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987 ("Black Monday") to give recommendations for legislative and private sector solutions for "enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of [United States] financial markets and maintaining investor confidence".[1]As established by Executive Order 12631, the Working Group consists of:
The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee (as Chairman of the Working Group);
The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;
The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and
The Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or his designee.
"Plunge Protection Team" was originally the headline for an article in The Washington Post on February 23, 1997,[2] and has since become a colloquial term used by some mainstream publications to refer to the Working Group.[3][4] Initially, the term was used to express the opinion that the Working Group was being used to prop up the markets during downturns.[5][6] Financial writers for British newspapers The Observer and The Daily Telegraph, along with U.S. Congressman Ron Paul and writers Kevin Phillips (who claims "no personal firsthand knowledge" and is "not interested in becoming a conspiracy investigator") [7] and John Crudele,[8] have charged the Working Group with going beyond their legal mandate. Claims about the Working Group, which are labeled conspiracy theories by some writers, generally include that it is an orchestrated mechanism that attempts to manipulate U.S. stock markets in the event of a market crash by using government funds to buy stocks, or other instruments such as stock index futures-acts which are forbidden by law. In August 2005, Sprott Asset Management released a report that argued that there is little doubt that the PPT intervened to protect the stock market.[9] However, these articles usually refer to the Working Group using moral suasion to attempt to convince banks to buy stock index futures. [10]Former Federal Reserve Board member Robert Heller, in the Wall Street Journal, opined that "Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole." His statement has been used to claim that the Fed actually did act in that way. Mainstream analysts call those claims a conspiracy theory, explaining that such claims are simplistic and unworkable.[11][12]Despite the fact that these theories about direct market intervention have circulated for over a decade in the tabloid press and on the internet, none of the conspiracy theorists has been able to produce even a single piece of evidence or first-hand testimony that would document such trading. Given the massive electronic and human audit trail generated by trading on the futures and stock markets, experts say that, if the so-called PPP interventionist theories were true, it would be impossible to conceal documentary evidence of such transactions.

Market Crisis of 2008
Executive Order 12631 -- Working Group on Financial Markets
Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee;(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and(4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.(b) The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, shall be the Chairman of the Working Group.Sec. 2. Purposes and Functions. (a) Recognizing the goals of enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of our Nation's financial markets and maintaining investor confidence, the Working Group shall identify and consider:(1) the major issues raised by the numerous studies on the events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987, and any of those recommendations that have the potential to achieve the goals noted above; and(2) the actions, including governmental actions under existing laws and regulations (such as policy coordination and contingency planning), that are appropriate to carry out these recommendations.(b) The Working Group shall consult, as appropriate, with representatives of the various exchanges, clearinghouses, self-regulatory bodies, and with major market participants to determine private sector solutions wherever possible.(c) The Working Group shall report to the President initially within 60 days (and periodically thereafter) on its progress and, if appropriate, its views on any recommended legislative changes.

In actual fact, this secret branch of government has a sophisticated war room using every state of the art technology to monitor markets worldwide. It has emergency powers. It doesn't keep minutes. There is no freedom of information access to its deliberations.

This financial management (read manipulation) team is controlled and directed by the Illuminati. The current general rise in stocks is nothing but smoke and mirrors to lull the public into thinking a recovery is upon us.

The economy of the US is deliberately being crashed by the Illuminati and their Satanic lapdogs so they can usher in the North American Union in advance of their New World Order.

President Bush was pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.Secretly, the Bush administration was pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wanted is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.The blueprint President Bush followed was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:"At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action."Now President Obama also supports this, saying in his candidacy that:"Starting my first year in office, I will convene annual meetings with [Mexico's President] Mr. Calderon and the prime minister of Canada. Unlike similar summits under President Bush, these will be conducted with a level of transparency that represents the close ties among our three countries. We will seek the active and open involvement of citizens, labor, the private sector and non-governmental organizations in setting the agenda and making progress." Source: Rususa.comThe target date for full implementation is 2010. More information can be found at the Security and Prosperity Partnership website.

This destruction of three country's national sovereignty will insure that disease, poverty and illiteracy will overwhelm the indigenous people and legal citizens of each.

Poverty:
1.
the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

2.
deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc.: poverty of the soil.

3.
scantiness; insufficiency: Their efforts to stamp out disease were hampered by a poverty of medical supplies.
Synonyms:1. penury. Poverty, destitution, need, want implies a state of privation and lack of necessities. Poverty denotes serious lack of the means for proper existence: living in a state of extreme poverty. Destitution, a somewhat more literary word, implies a state of having absolutely none of the necessities of life: widespread destitution in countries at war. Need emphasizes the fact that help or relief is necessary: Most of the people were in great need. Want emphasizes privations, esp. lack of food and clothing: Families were suffering from want. 3. meagerness.

The endless illegal immigration, soon to be legal if this NAU goes through, will insure that entire populations will become destitute as cheap labor drives wages and living conditions ever further downward. Poverty will most certainly become the only class. The Elites, living above billionaire status and ruling the rest of us on the backs of our desperation, will soon kill off the last of America' spirit and greatness.

As our country lies gasping its last, many will look around in wonder and ask what the hell happened; I can tell you: the security, comfort and mindless amusements you traded your freedoms and vigilance for has come round at last to bid you a fond farewell. You have been warned endlessly and chose instead to wrap your chains more snugly around you. Why complain now? You have always found them to be a good fit.

Monday, August 17, 2009

Debt, the Devil and the Details of Destruction

by Jean Bush
In a letter to Philip Jones - Righteous Alliance

USURY: from the Middle English - usurie, from Anglo-French and Medieval Latin - usuria, an alteration of the Latin usura. 1. the lending of money with an interest charge for its use; especially: the lending of money at exorbitant interest rates. 2. an unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest; specifically: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of the money.

An ancient word, Philip, a word that has come through the ages slashing and killing, bleeding dry whole nations, driving people from their homes into destitution and despair. The credit card industry, once based solely in the US, but now worldwide, has trapped millions of people into insurmountable debt. Out of control interest rates or usury, add an excess of payments that can never be caught up on. Constant fee hikes and sudden credit limit cuts have destroyed thousands of lives through decimated wages and financial ruin. One man reported that although he always paid on time and always more than the minimum required, found his interest rate jump from 9.9% to a whopping 39%! They also cut his credit limit from $10,000 to $5,000, which of course, put his remaining balance over this new limit, so he is being charged $75 a month in over-the-limit fees until he can bring his balance down past this $5000 mark. God help him if he has any kind of emergency.

The Quran has this to say:

Those who charge usury are in the same position as those controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God. As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide forever (Al-Baqarah 2:275)
God condemns usury, and blesses charities.God dislikes every disbeliever, guilty. Lo! those who believe and do good works and establish worship and pay the poor-due, their reward is with their Lord and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. O you who believe, you shall observe God and refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew. (Al-Baqarah 2:276-280)

O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over and over. Observe God, that you may succeed. (Al-'Imran 3:130)

And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the disbelievers among them painful retribution. (Al-Nisa 4:161)

The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth, does not gain anything at God. But if people give to charity, seeking God's pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold. (Ar-Rum 30:39)

And now we come to that other devil driven debt, the US dollar. People seem to think that inflation is complicated and cyclic. But at its essence, it is merely the printing of excess paper dollars. The more dollars in circulation the less they are worth. At this point, it is said the US dollar is worth about 9 cents. I believe it is less. At our current rate of inflation we will soon need a truckload of bills just to buy a loaf of bread.

The dollar, now being printed for decades by the Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel established in 1913, instead of Congress, has become nothing more than another instrument of debt. Nearly anything can be bought and sold on credit, which creates instant debt, which can be repaid only in cash. And as wages are frozen or slashed, and jobs continue to be lost, this debt on debt cycle will spiral ever downward, dragging the entire country with it.

As we crash and burn, the Illuminati agenda of total destruction of the United States will be complete. And as they usher in their New World Order, complete with a one world currency, desperate people from all walks of life will clamor for it in relief, falling to their knees in worship of the only gods they have ever known: comfort, security and money.

Friday, August 7, 2009

The Power Dimmers

by Jean Bush
From a letter to Philip Jones - Righteous Alliance

Your very angry article, Corporate Fascism-Danish Style, most certainly struck home with me.
The Department of Water and Power here in the US, is the only source of electricity for the city of Los Angeles, CA. It was established in 1902 to deliver water and in 1916 began to service electricity to its small but growing public. The control grids, while having been upgraded periodically, are still very old and fragile. They have rarely expanded these grids to accommodate Los Angele's frantically growing population, including all of the illegal aliens that continue to pour over our unguarded and uncaring borders. Every summer when temperatures soar over 95 degrees for 2 or more days in a row, we have to suffer brown-outs: a temporary reduction in electrical flow; and black-outs: meaning a cut in power for a few hours a day altogether. These cuts are rotated throughout the city and while warnings are given, most people cannot believe this is happening and usually are ill prepared.
We have here, in the US, the Illuminati backed, funded and controlled "environmentalists" who, according to their subtle but consistent agenda, have fought, sued and prevented power companies and fuel suppliers from expanding their search for more fossil fuels. According to published reports going back several years, we have enough coal, oil and gas reserves to last us another 100 years. And as yet undiscovered and untapped resources that could release us, finally, from the death grip of OPEC. However, Al Gore, another Illuminati sock-puppet, has been either allowed or ordered to steer the lumbering but steady environmental movement into promoting the false-flag alarm of global warming, supposedly caused by human generated carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2) is a chemical compound composed of two oxygen atoms covalently bonded to a single carbon atom. It is a gas at standard temperature and pressure and exists in Earth's atmosphere in this state.Carbon dioxide is used by plants during photosynthesis to make sugars, which may either be consumed in respiration or used as the raw material to produce other organic compounds needed for plant growth and development. It is produced during respiration by plants, and by all animals, fungi and microorganisms that depend either directly or indirectly on plants for food. It is thus a major component of the carbon cycle. Carbon dioxide is generated as a by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels or the burning of vegetable matter, among other chemical processes. Large amounts of carbon dioxide are emitted from volcanoes and other geothermal processes such as hot springs and geysers and by the dissolution of carbonates in crustal rocks.As of March 2009[update], carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere is at a concentration of 387 ppm by volume.[1] Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared. (Wikipedia online)

Not quite the bogyman you were expecting? Would reducing such destroy what little plant life we have left? Do you want your scientists fiddling around with the very air you breathe? The term "carbon dioxide" has been used as a hypno-trigger by the media on the uninformed masses making them believe that all this "dirty air" is falling on their very heads. Through various publicly displayed protests and lawsuits, the environmentalists, now known as the green movement, has prevented power companies from expanding to meet the ever growing needs of this country. Meanwhile, the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is suing major utilities for not spending untold millions of dollars on redundant apparatus to "clean up" their emissions.

This is the same EPA who, 2 days after 9/11, declared the air clean and safe, thus assuring rescue workers and clean-up crews they could work with impunity. Now these workers are dying in droves from eye and lung diseases from the unseen but persistent particles of dust that remained in the air and the government refuses any and all medical help or money for these brave but haggard workers who gave their lives on the word of their lying, corrupt and inhuman government. The now re-christened Green movement has made a new religion out of worshipping the earth. "Reduce your carbon footprint" is their commandment and Gaia is their goddess. Under the direction of the Illuminati, they have hi-jacked an entire planet. These illiterate and compliant slaves cannot stand the notion that entire populations are using electrical power to improve their lives. It is too polluting, according to their insane ideology. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reports that 79% of Americans have cable or satellite TV, 59% have home computers; 16% have DVD players. Add to that refrigerators, electric can openers, lights and other comfort devices and you have a populace totally plugged into the matrix of easy living.
Scrambling to prevent third world countries from tapping into current technologies developed by the West, they are fighting to keep these wretchedly poor and desperate people from raising their standard of living. And in turn, they are admonishing and pushing the well off and well fed people of the West to reduce and curtail their consumption of the greatest discovery of all time that has brought health, safety, inventiveness and the advancement of civilization; that gift that Prometheus sacrificed himself to steal from the gods to benefit all mankind: that fire from the sky: electricity.
As third world countries stagnate and collapse, and the West is reduced to third world status and worse, the Illuminati Satanic agenda of destruction and death continues unabated. Unless we wake up and take back our lives, we will end up in the rubbish heap of past civilizations, as the persistence of evil convinces those without faith and without hope, to give up.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Leviathan's Plan For Emergency: No Thanks!

by Gary D. Barnett

While the concept of government-run, military-style detention centers is not a new idea, another and new step toward this end has recently taken place. Should we be worried and watchful? I think we all should be very worried, and that without a doubt this plan should be stopped in its tracks before it goes any further! These are the united States after all, not communist Russia or Nazi Germany of old.

On January 22nd, 2009, just a couple of days after the new "ruler" (Obama) took the place of the old "ruler" (Bush), Alcee Hastings (D) of Florida introduced a new bill; H.R. 645: National Emergency Centers Establishment Act. This bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services. The bill is "To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish national emergency centers on military installations." This bill introduced by Congress combines Homeland Security, national emergency centers and the military in one package. The makings of this toxic concoction could prove to be dangerous to liberty.

According to the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish not fewer than 6 national emergency centers on military installations. Supposedly, these centers are to provide temporary housing, medical, and humanitarian assistance to individuals and families dislocated due to an emergency or major disaster. I emphasize emergency and disaster due to the fact that these terms, while not defined in this bill, are defined, as referenced in Sec. 6, in Title 42 > Chapter 68 > Subchapter 1 > U.S. Code 5122. "The definitions are as follows:

1. Emergency. "Emergency" means any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.

2. Major disaster. "Major disaster" means any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts and available resources of States, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.
In addition to these definitions, local governments, federal agencies, public facilities and private non-profit facilities are also defined. It is evident given these additional definitions that the government has jurisdiction anywhere and everywhere, and for any given reason. Actually, after reading all the definitions that are relevant to this bill, it is very apparent that there are really no rules at all. On the president’s say alone, these centers can be activated. This is not acceptable!
In my opinion, the wording and so-called intent of this bill will make it easier for Congress to gain support from the masses. This is certainly not unusual nor is it coincidental, but in this case it could be deadly. It will be sold as a panacea for natural disasters like Katrina and of course, for "national security." It will also, if passed, open up previously closed military bases; that an easy sale, due to the fact that those who were once working on these bases are clamoring for relief. Since these bases already exist, and the infrastructure is fully in place, the proponents of this bill will not have to request as much taxpayer money at the onset. It will be sold as an inexpensive way to protect Americans from all harm. The requested amount of money for this project according to the bill is $180,000,000.00 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010; a total of $360,000,000.00. This is but a mere pittance compared to the trillions being awarded by government to their favored campaign contributors. This in my opinion is by design.

This bill comes at a time when federal combat troops have already been deployed domestically; that an atrocity in and of itself. This happened on October 1st of 2008 when the 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team went under day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies, including terrorist attacks. In addition, 20,000 more troops are to be positioned inside the U.S. soon. If one were to connect the dots, it is easily discernable that these things are not coincidental. One does not have to be a conspiracy nut to see the "slippery slope" we’re on considering the linking of the military, Homeland Security, domestic disaster and emergency and government holding centers.

Add to this the current economic debacle caused fully by the government and the Federal Reserve, and what is to be expected? Citizens are losing jobs, losing their savings and retirement assets, losing their homes and the conditions continue to worsen as government continues to spend and inflate to protect their buddies on Wall Street and in banking. Is civil unrest a possibility in our future, and if so, what will be the consequences?

Considering the timing of these events that I’ve mentioned here, is this government expecting the worst and in turn preparing for civil disobedience? I obviously can’t say for sure, but I think studied precaution is advisable.

It is not out of the question that given the current state of affairs and the very real possibility of a long-term depression on the horizon, that crime rates may escalate, inner cities may implode, mass discontent may gain ground and civil unrest might be the result. Should it get to this, or even be expected to get to that level, what will government’s attitude be? Will our "civil servants" do the right thing and quit spending, quit nationalizing the private sector, quit destroying our money, and return to sound policies? If not, what then?

It is apparent to me that this bill if passed is not for safety or security, but for the real possibility that many Americans will have to be rounded up in the future. Considering all that has already happened and is continuing to happen, what other conclusion can be reached? This is simply legislation to allow control and restraint of the citizenry should that be necessary according to the all-powerful government. The timing is eerily suspicious and the intent alone is loathsome. This bill, as well as all other containment measures proposed by the government, could set the stage for a true police state. This scenario is simply too disastrous to consider, much less allow!
March 6, 2009

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown, Montana.
Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Monday, August 3, 2009

Depression, Dementia and the Dialectics of Disaster

From a letter to Philip Jones
By Jean Bush

When I read your article DK Ultra, I was appalled at the ease with which state engineered experimental mind control was slipped over Denmark and its neighbors. This netting has the effect of herding an entire populace into the same pre-fabricated personality identity group, whose markers remain the same from birth to death. Easily identified with each other, these people remain conformed into familiar groups that neither raise nor lower the status quo. Children are taught that acceptance, familiarity, comfort with peers, and lack of moral judgments will keep them from the shame of being different, pointed out and ostracized. Individuality, the hallmark of the reasoning and thinking being, is suffocated and dispersed until parents can barely tell their own children apart from their schoolmates.

Here in the West, and particularly America, many of us manage to retain some form of our individuality, but it is being eaten away, as in Denmark, by poisoned food, GMO crops, contaminated water and the electronic confiscation of our own brainwaves.

Here in Southern California, we learned last November that the Dept of Water and Power was planning (and probably had been long doing) to fluoridate our water supplies. It has since officially been done. Here is what one website called Battery-Rechargeable-Charger had to say about fluoride:

The Fluoride Myth about putting fluoride in drinking water

You may think that fluoride is put in your drinking water to save your teeth, but guess again!
Actual studies, like the one by the National Institute of Dental Research on 39,000 children show no significant difference in number of cavities on those who were drank fluoridated water vs those who didn't. In fact fluoride can give you "dental fluorosis" a sophisticated name for brown, pitted teeth.

ANOTHER FACT: In 1954, the Christian Science Monitor surveyed all 81 Nobel Prize winners in the fields of chemistry, medicine and physiology on their opinion regarding water fluoridation. Seventy-nine percent failed to endorse water fluoridation.

A little fluoride goes a long way, because it accumulates in the bones, teeth, in food chain and in the environment. Fluoride water additives often contain other highly toxic materials
The fluoride that is most likely added to your water supply is really hydrofluorisilicic acid in a hazardous waste liquor" which contains also lead, mercury, beryllium, radioactive material, arsenic and other pollutants.

The Cover-Up

"Fluoridation is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant, with government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums. The fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand." says Gladys Caldwell, author, "Fluoridation and Truth Decay", 1974.
As far back as April of 1950 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol 40:440, a study by G. J. Cox and H.C. Hodge, "Toxicity of Fluorides in Relation to Their Use in Dentistry", made it clear that fluoride is a poison: "Some of the basic and necessary metabolic processes in the cell are stopped by concentrations of fluorides such as are found in acute poisoning. These changes are comparable to those seen in high-grade anoxia (lack of sufficient oxygen in the body tissues) and are the basis for describing fluorides as general protoplasmic poisons." Fluorides have also been used historically for mind control:

Charles Elliot Perkins, research scientist sent by the US government to take charge of I.G. Farben chemical plants in Germany discovered that " The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty." In his report to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research in October of 1954, he said, "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him."

Inuring a population into accepting slavery cannot be accomplished by guns alone. Slowly introducing body and mind altering devices into civilian life, will allow any dictatorship to control with ease an already submissive population who, distracted by government controlled media, and the promise of government comfort and security, willingly hold out their wrists for shackling, blissfully unaware that it was their minds that were imprisoned first.

Depression is rampant in this country, as the economy, deliberately being crashed by the Illuminati, continues to fall into ruin. As people lose their jobs, their homes and eventually their families, more and more are turning to drugs to treat ever worsening feelings of hopelessness, fear and despair. GlaxoSmithKline, a major pharmaceutical company in the US, has this posted on its website:

Important Safety Information About Antidepressants

Important Safety Information About WELLBUTRIN XLWELLBUTRIN XL is not for everyone. There is a risk of seizure with WELLBUTRIN XL which increases with higher doses. Taking more than 450 mg/day increases the chance of serious side effects. Don’t use it if you’ve had a seizure or eating disorder, or if you abruptly stop using alcohol or sedatives. Don’t take with MAOIs, or medicines that contain bupropion. When used with a nicotine patch or alone, there is a risk of increased blood pressure, sometimes severe. To reduce risk of serious side effects, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. Other side effects may include weight loss, dry mouth, nausea, difficulty sleeping, dizziness, sore throat, constipation, or flatulence.

WELLBUTRIN XL is approved only for adults 18 years and over. In some children, teens, and young adults, antidepressants increase suicidal thoughts or actions. Whether or not you are taking antidepressants, you or your family should call the doctor right away if you have worsening depression, thoughts of suicide, or sudden or severe changes in mood or behavior, especially at the beginning of treatment or after a change in dose (see Medication Guide: Antidepressant Medicines, Depression and Other Serious Mental Illnesses, and Suicidal Thoughts or Actions).

Seems like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Taking a drug to prevent depression that only increases it is the drug companies’ way of insuring a steady and reliable business.

Dementia is defined as: 1. a usually depressive condition (as Alzheimer’s disease) marked by deteriorated cognitive functioning often with emotional apathy. 2. Madness, insanity. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.)

Of course, madness or insanity is no longer used to define this mental condition, as it has been for thousands of years. One has Alzheimer’s or is depressed or unable to function properly in society; as if one had a simple cold or the sniffles. Easily treated by drugs whose main function nowadays is to prevent any realization of the true nature of what is happening to us.
ABCNews reported a story of a man, Jay Jones, who began to have memory problems as early as his mid forties. Now 52, he faces a life of declining mentality and health. His wife of only two years is devastated. ABC says that now about 200,000 people under 65 have this disease. I believe the figure is higher than that. And memory loss, usually the first symptom, is happening earlier and earlier.

This deliberately engineered disaster for everyone in every country is happening at such a rapid pace that we can hardly grasp its worldwide significance, much less its impact on our personal lives.

This is the legacy that the Illuminati have planned for our children and us. As we become weaker and sicker and slowly start losing our minds, the New World Order will be established while our attention is focused on the disastrous ruination of our lives and when we finally notice our slavery, we will realize, too late, that we have been coddled, captured and conditioned to love it.

Monday, July 20, 2009

An Endangered Species

The Reason Behind The British State's Institutionalised Prejudice Against Men.
By Philip Jones 5th May 2009.

I have written previously and with great foreboding on how government interference in people's lives is increasing at an alarming rate. In the UK this micromanaging of human affairs has over the past decade taken on a very sinister aspect, as the `social engineers` planners and managers, with their army of programmed social workers, invariably armed with a signed and sealed mandate from Brussels via Westminster, intrude into the most private and personal regions of individual liberty and privacy.
The question ‘When did you stop beating your wife?’ is a well known rhetorical device to illustrate the impossible situation in which whatever answer someone gives traps them into an admission of guilt.
It now appears that the British Government has updated this snare for the modern era with the question: ‘When did you stop getting beaten by your husband?’ Doctors and midwives are being told to ask all pregnant women if they are being abused by their husbands or boyfriends.
It doesn't take an Einstein to work out the implications of this behemoth of political correction. British Society now presumes that all men are inherently bad? One has to wonder what construct of human government polices pregnancy and seeks to convert doctors and midwives into `state snoopers` in such an inappropriate and intrusive manner, invading and brutalising that which is sacred and private between a man and his wife?
To aggressively probe women about their men's behaviour, without evidence of any wrongdoing, is invasive and oppressive, and breaches our fundamental right to a private life. It tramples over that very presumption of innocence, upon which historically, we British have depended upon to guarantee being able to go about our daily business without state interference and harassment, this being the very essence of a free society.
But it also raises deeper questions. How have we slid so quiescently into such an authoritarian political culture? How has it been so easy to mount such a direct assault on natural justice, men and family life? How have we allowed our values to be turned upside down? And why are we so silent when lies and distortions are presented as facts?
Just consider the premise behind this pregnancy abuse directive. The government seeks to justify it by saying that 30 per cent of domestic violence is triggered by pregnancy. This may indeed be so; and clearly, violence against a pregnant woman is an ill earnestly to be avoided.
But in itself, that statistic is meaningless. For it obviously does not mean there is a risk of violence to pregnant women overall. Only a small minority of women ever suffer violence at the hands of their menfolk. But the number of these cases has been hugely exaggerated by spurious figures compiled by feminist ideologues, claiming that one in every four women suffers from domestic violence.
The idea that a quarter of all women have been assaulted in this way is outrageous. This figure has been taken from deeply unreliable research which does not stand up to serious scrutiny. Some of it has been extrapolated from self-selected samples of individuals in battered women’s hostels. The rest is derived from research of a dubious quality, in which women are interviewed but men are not.
Even worse, the premise that men are the sole perpetrators and women always their victims is simply false. Dozens of studies have shown categorically that in domestic incidents, violence is initiated by men and women equally. Moreover, much male victimisation is hidden because many men are too embarrassed to admit to having been assaulted by a woman to report their injuries.
I accept that women tend to come off worst in such encounters because men are physically stronger. But that’s not the point. The demonisation of men as violent aggressors with women merely their passive victims is just not the case.
In the UK, even the Home Office’s own respected research unit reported recently that equal numbers of men and women said they had been assaulted by a current or former partner. Yet the same Home Office chooses to ignore or even deny such findings.
It points instead to the fact that around 100 women a year are killed by men in domestic incidents (along with about 50 men killed by women). But it does not follow that the murder of a woman by her husband or lover results from sustained domestic violence in that household - the assumption behind the question that doctors and midwives must now ask.
Many, if not most, murders of women in the home are one-off episodes of violence in which the man suddenly loses control, often due to jealousy. It is not unusual in such cases for the man to kill not just the woman but the children, and even himself, too.
Moreover, if one is looking at the main perpetrators of violence within the home, it is a fact that most child deaths happen to be caused by women. But if doctors or midwives were accordingly to view all pregnant women with suspicion, we would rightly regard this as intolerable. So why is a similar assumption about male violence justified?
Also significant is the fact that most women victims of domestic violence are assaulted or killed by men to whom they are not married. This is almost certainly because of the greater instability in unmarried relationships. So if the government really wanted to isolate the potential for abuse, it should surely be requiring doctors and midwives to ask pregnant woman whether they are married to the father of their child - and if not, place both woman and child on the ‘at risk’ register.
Just imagine, though, the outcry if anyone were to propose this. The Home Office itself has previously acknowledged that marital breakdown is a ‘key risk factor’ in domestic violence. Yet the government has nevertheless promoted the false belief that all relationships are equal in value. By thus encouraging transient relationships, it has almost certainly helped foster a culture in which domestic violence is more likely to occur. So why is it, on the one hand, apparently encouraging unfettered behaviour which leads to violence, while on the other taking intrusive measures to prevent it?
Ordo Ab Chao (Order Out Of Chaos) And The Hegelian Dialectic.
Ostensibly at least, here lies the key paradox at the heart of the regime's broader social programme. At the same time that it wants to police pregnancy in order to supposedly stamp out the ill of domestic violence, it is licensing a range of behaviour which is socially destructive and which will cause increasing chaos, harm and distress -all under the guise of trying to control it.
Its proposals to deregulate gambling, for example, will turn our cities into tawdry sleaze-pits: magnets for crime and corruption which will increase gambling addiction and in particular the misery of the poor in rising rates of poverty, debt, ill-health and family breakdown. It almost defies belief to hear ministers breezily condoning the fact that casino operators intend to bribe local authorities to grant planning permission for their expanding gambling empires.
The deregulation of gambling is all of a piece with its proposals for all-night drinking, which will merely exacerbate our already rising rates of drunken disorder, violence and crime. Even more extraordinary is the government’s relaxation of controls over soft drugs, despite overwhelming evidence of the harm they do not just to individuals but to society.
In addition, the government is flirting with the idea of ‘zones of tolerance’ for prostitution, despite the fact that these would become magnets for sex tourism and trafficking, creating seedy centres for drug-taking and other associated crimes.
Moreover, all-night drinking, gambling and clubbing - with its attendant culture of drug-taking - are heavily promoted as the basis for the regeneration of our cities. Economic prosperity is thus being pursued through the active and official marketing of vice.
In all this, ministers are systematically taking apart the outstanding social reforms of the late Victorians, who were driven by liberal and religious motives to improve society and thus elevate the human condition. This great movement of conscience to attack moral and social degradation was rooted in the Methodism which gave rise to the Labour party, and which it is now so comprehensively betraying.
For it is licensing, legitimising and promoting behaviour considered socially harmful while actively attacking married family life, the premier institution of social order. This onslaught on the family is far broader than the obsession with domestic violence, or the rigging of rape trials by weighting the burden of proof against the defendant to get more convictions.
It has used the welfare system to redefine the family as woman and child with a man as an optional extra. It undermines parental authority by providing contraceptives and abortions to under-age girls without their parents’ knowledge. And it is using the gay rights agenda to spearhead the movement to give equal rights and recognition to sexual relationships outside marriage and destroy altogether the very idea of norms of behaviour.
This is no accident. It is because ministers - many of whom have never grown out of their sixties attitudes - have absorbed the revolutionary philosophy of that decade first promoted by the Italian communist thinker Antonio Gramsci. He said that the liberal-democratic societies of the west could be overturned through the subversion of their morality and culture, in which the moral beliefs of the majority would be replaced by the free-for-all practiced by all those who transgressed those norms.
These would form a ‘coalition of oppositional groups’ which would capture all society’s institutions - schools, universities, churches, the media, the legal profession, the police, voluntary groups -and make sure that this intellectual elite all sang from the same subversive hymn-sheet.
These ideas penetrated intellectual life and shaped a generation of thinkers.The outcome was an assault on morality through a coalition of minorities promoting ‘victim culture’ in which minority demands trump majority values; an assault on the nation through multiculturalism and the wrecking of education; an assault on men and marriage through extreme feminism.
It was a process once memorably dubbed by the American senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as ‘defining deviancy down’. Whereas previously there was intolerance of unmarried mothers or homosexuality and stigma over divorce, there is now ruthless enforcement of the doctrine that all lifestyles are morally equivalent and intolerance instead of anyone who objects.
The obsession in government with ‘equal opportunities’ -which radiates outwards to other establishment institutions like the police or judiciary - is in reality an agenda to enforce minority values over those of the majority and pillory anyone who dissents.
And dissent is stamped upon - not least because, when deviant behaviour becomes viewed as normal, normal behaviour inevitably becomes treated as deviant. So, for example, sexual encounters where a woman may have second thoughts afterwards is suddenly defined as ‘date rape’. And the traditional family, that bastion of security and safety, becomes stigmatised instead as a fetid stew of child abuse, marital rape and violence against women.
As a result of decades of propaganda, intimidation and spinelessness, the ‘long march through the institutions’ urged by revolutionary thinkers has been achieved. The evidence is on display all around us: academics producing crooked research projects, zealot feminist civil servants in the Home Office, or judges whose hearts bleed for burglars rather than their victims and permit the demands of gypsies to ride roughshod over the planning laws that bind the rest of us.
Wittingly or unwittingly, such people are helping promote an agenda for legislating against virtue and in favour of vice; against self-restraint and for irregularity; against domestic order and for disorder. It is a corruption of our traditional values. The demonising of men as potential rapists, child abusers and woman-beaters is a crucial part of that agenda, and the lamentable questioning of pregnant women but its latest manifestation.
There is no doubt in this writer's mind that the UK Government is actively participating in a calamitous and treacherous game of `Hegelian Dialectics` with the lives of it's own citizens and the security and wellbeing of the whole nation. More simply put, create the problem, incite the reaction, impose the solution, and their solution always seems to include elements which erode more of our ancient rights and personal freedoms, and increases government control over our lives. The unfathomable chaos, injustice and the rapid retreat from reason we see everywhere, and which has resulted in the bewilderment and demoralisation of a whole nation has been planned and orchestrated during top secret meetings held under `Chatham House` rules and in the Masonic Lodges from whence came the motto `Order Out Of Chaos`.
Ref: Melanie Phillips : All Must Have Prizes.
Problem Reaction Solution is a term coined by David Icke.
http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html What is the Hegelian Dialectic by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich
http://catholicinsight.com/online/features/article_882.shtml The Frankfurt School
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/ The Royal Institute For International Affairs.

Mathmatics: The Final Frontier In The Feminists War Against Boys Part 2

By Philip Jones 7/26/08

Recap : Last week, The `Associated Press` proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, a survey found that girls are now as `tough` as boys in the field of Mathematics. and that this, the supposed last bastion of male dominance in education had been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests". The relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. It really doesn't take too much research and investigation in order to identify the whole movement as being one part of a cynically orchestrated `Psychological Operation` against all things male specifically, and humanity generally. This `Psy Op` although once highly covert has now become overtly obvious in it's aims, at least to those of us who have been able to see through it's facade of `righting wrongs.'

So what are the goals of 21st Century Feminism in the arena of education ? It would be easier to state what it's goals are not. Equality in it's true sense is most certainly not a desired aim. If it were so, then the `ideologues` would be as concerned with the opportunities of boys as they claim to be with those of girls. Creating a stable environment for learning is clearly not a part of their agenda either, nor is the nurturing of young people, or the encouragement of any natural balance between young males and females during their formative years. As for facilitating the increased possibilities of girls opting for careers in Engineering, Science etc. enabled by any betterment of Mathematics standards, does anyone really `swallow` that one.

I would suggest that the continued propagation of gender chaos is the primary reason that this `study` was commissioned, in the same way as all the others before it were. To `hit home` another nail in the coffin of masculinity, and further demoralise the human male psyche. Just as the `Feminazi's` have misled, manoeuvred and manipulated young women into believing that a career in the Military was a positive and viable option, now they are similarly luring girls into a career choice in the Science and Engineering fields for which not only are they mostly unsuited, but which few would even consider as being something they would naturally want to do.

This relentless campaign is not about advancing the cause of women, nor some Utopian ideal of equality. It is about destroying the `masculine` by the use of vicious anti male propaganda and vitriol, designed to deconstruct the masculine consciousness, especially in the fragile young , engendering feelings of confusion, inadequacy, failure and thereby emasculating boys entering their prime years. This in turn causes resentment and levels of implied misogyny, via pornography and other forms of disrespect towards the female, unknown, until very recently. For their part, young girls become confused as to what is expected of them. Their instinct and natures are constantly suppressed by feminist teachers agitating on behalf of a sinister ideology born (not conceived) half a century ago on the back of `Big Money` funding hateful and deranged `women` like Betty Freidan and Gloria Steinham.

This latest `victory` in the seemingly ceaseless and overwhelmingly one sided `war of the sexes` is almost certainly not the last which will be publicly heralded as yet another vindication of Feminist theory. So now, we are told, girls cannot only `Kick Ass` as good as if not better than the boys. They can `add up` too. Does anyone else sense the condescension here ?

Having discounted above what the `She Devils` agenda is not, let's identify what it is. Well, there can be no doubt that these `banshees` will stop at nothing short of total victory coupled with unconditional surrender. We are looking down the barrel of a `Fem Dom` artillery piece here. All around is chaos, and as the Freemasonic Motto goes, out of chaos comes order. Their order not ours. The goals of Feminism are the goals of the New World Order. Feminism is their `Fat Boy` and Education is the `Enola Gay` they have used to carry it.

They say you can tell a tree by it's fruits. For goodness sake people, apply that little piece of wisdom to your lives and wake up. The enemies of good knew that in order to deconstruct western society, they would need to `steal our children` and fashion them in their image not ours. Now, the Feminist `Tree` is dropping it's fruit all around us., Apples of distrust, resentment and animosity. Acorns of divorce and fatherless children. Berries of resentment, hostility, animosity, misogyny, and Pears of depopulation and a decaying civilisation. These are the fruits of Feminism, and they are bitter indeed.Divide and Conquer has been a proven technique of control down the ages. The Feminist Agenda is the `sharpest blade` in the Illuminati's Arsenal, they have divided man from his mate, and can anyone truly deny that `we the people` have been conquered.`

Mathmatics: The Final Frontier In The Feminists War Against Boys Part 1

By Philip Jones 26th July 2008.

Last week, The Associated Press proudly reported that in the `largest` study of it's kind, where Mathematics is concerned, girls are now as `tough` as boys. This last bastion of male dominance in education has been breached. Janet Hyde, of the University of Wisconsin Madison, who led the study said, " Girls have now achieved gender parity on standardised Maths Tests".

This relentless war on all fronts against the masculine has been raging for many decades now, not least in our schools and universities. I find myself asking "What is the `Femi` Brigade's` Endgame" ?. Is it to grow a penis on a baby girl and thus perfect the androgynous being they seem intent on creating by all means at their disposal ?Before I digress and go off on one of my `rants`, let's examine this business with maths and education more closely.

As some might know by now, I am British, so I will continue this article based on what is happening in my own sad country.In August, when the GCSE results come out, it is highly likely that, once again, girls will have beaten the boys at the examination game.

For years now, girls have been taking the lion’s share of success in public examinations. This year’s A and AS-level results were further evidence of the trend. Girls out-performed boys in almost every subject. They took nearly 47,000 more subjects than boys at A-level, and nearly 91,000 more at AS level. And in both exams, they achieved a higher proportion than boys of A grades in almost every subject.

Of course, it is good news that girls are doing so well. But it is worrying that boys seem to be slipping further and further behind. For this trend isn’t confined to the high-fliers passing exams. At the bottom of the system, the drop-out rate among boys is causing serious concern.

The reason is nothing other than the wholesale feminisation of the education system. In GCSEs, A-levels and increasingly degree courses too, coursework accounts for an ever greater proportion of the final marks. This in itself favours girls.Boys tend to like ’sudden death’ exams. They like taking risks, pitting their wits against the odds. Girls don’t. They prefer to work steadily and conscientiously without gambling against memory, the clock and questions from hell. Which is why at degree level boys have until now achieved more firsts and thirds than girls who tend to get safe, if dull, seconds.Nor is it surprising that girls are taking more exams than boys. For the curriculum has expanded in ways that suit girls rather than boys, with a proliferation of discursive, ’soft’ subjects like general studies, sociology or drama.

The evidence suggests that boys and girls learn in different ways. Research has found that girls gain more satisfaction than boys from understanding the work they are doing. Boys are more ‘ego-related’, gaining more satisfaction from competing with each other.

Nevertheless, education policy denies such differences and imposes instead an agenda of ‘equality’. For at least twenty years, feminist teachers have made a determined attempt to change a school system they held to be hostile to girls. The assumption was that since boys tended to opt for science, maths and technology and girls for languages, humanities and domestic science, this proved discrimination against girls.

It never occurred to them that this pattern had evolved because each sex naturally gravitated towards these subjects. The view was that boys and girls were identical, and these differences therefore had to be corrected. The result was active discrimination against boys. As James Tooley comments in his book, the Mis-education of Women, girls began to be privileged over boys at school. Teachers gave priority to girls in classroom discussions, playground space and sporting fixtures.

The ‘masculine content and orientation’ of textbooks, topics and tests was obliterated in favour of female references; teachers were forbidden to use ’sexist’ language; and male teachers’ bonding with boys through jokes or shared allusions to football had to be reprogrammed out of the system.

During the 1980s, moreover, one project followed another to get girls into studying maths, science and technology.But it wasn’t sexism that was keeping girls away from such subjects - it was their choice. For time and again it has been shown that wherever they have the opportunity, boys gravitate naturally to mechanical sciences and girls to discursive or domestic subjects.

Clearly, if any prejudice existed it would be right to address it. But this was not prejudice. It was rather that boys and girls behaved in different ways. This was never an issue in single sex schools. But once co-educational schools became the norm, the differences became striking - and feminism assumed that to be different meant inferiority and discrimination.This was not only wrong in itself. It was also disastrous for boys. For rather than men being masters of the universe as feminists contend, their sense of what they are is fragile. Unless their particular male characteristics are acknowledged and supported, they start sliding downhill and some go off the rails altogether.

In school, boys find girls intrinsically threatening, a fact generally masked at the top of the ability range but in often violent evidence at the bottom. Girls mature earlier than boys, so unless boys are exceptionally able they tend to be outclassed by girls. And if they don’t dominate, they tend to give up or drop out.

Because doing well in school involves no manual or physical activity but requires instead sitting quietly, reading and writing, the most vulnerable boys view learning as feminine and `uncool`. And being feminine is their deepest dread.This is because men’s sense of their masculinity is far more vulnerable than women’s sense of their femininity. Biology reminds girls what they are every month. Boys, by contrast, need to prove their identity and role, particularly among those with poor prospects and few confidence-boosting attributes.

But rather than celebrating male characteristics, society tells boys at every turn that its values have turned female, and that if boys want any place in it they must do so too.

Thus, male characteristics are derided. Warfare is said to be obscene. Authority is oppressive. Chivalry is a joke. Competition creates losers - taboo in education, where everyone must be a winner. Stoicism is despised; instead, tears must flow and hearts be worn on sleeves at all times.

Men, however, define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behaviour to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women.

Because girls’ success is now such a regular feature of the league table carnival, disadvantaged boys identify school failure with being macho and worthwhile. So more give up or drop out.

It is not good for either sex to be placed at a disadvantage by the other. The aim must be to make opportunity as fair as possible. But that cannot be done by confusing equality of opportunity with identical experience, the fundamental error of our age.

Boys and girls are different. It would be far better if they were educated in single-sex schools. Neither sex is well served by co-education. Neither sex benefits from coercion by the educational gender police.

Many girls resent the pressure to do science subjects. Feminists fear that if girls don’t study science in the same number as boys, they won’t have the same career opportunities later on. But girls make different choices from boys because they have different impulses and interests and calculate their life prospects very differently.

This is not an argument against girls studying engineering, or women becoming train drivers or particle physicists. It is rather that the system has become unfair and discriminatory against boys - the outcome of a philosophy that, despite its feminist credentials, does not allow girls the freedom to make their own choices, for fear that the dogma of unisex behaviour will be exposed once and for all as a big lie.

In conclusion, I would suggest that this superficial levelling of the Mathematics `playing field` has long been considered one of the goals in the endless march towards that miserable, androgynous Utopia so longed for by the Friedens, Sontags, and Gurley Browns. I would also suggest that in reality, the Exam Results are in many cases more to do with politically motivated marking and preferential treatment, rather than any increase in the aptitude of girls in the field of Calculus, Geometry et al.
Ref: All Must Have Prizes by Melanie Phillips