Hello my awakened ones, I revisited a favourite book of mine the other day and I’ve typed a couple of paragraphs from it here for you to read. You’re first thought will be that these words were written recently as they reflect perfectly what is happening today in 2015, but you’d be wrong. It was first published in 1955, a book titled “They thought They Were Free” subtitled the germans 1933-45, written by Milton Mayer. A brilliant account of what occured in Germany pre WW2, read below.
“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to be governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security….”This seperation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised as a temporary measure or assocated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes.
And all the crisis and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.” (Sound familiar ?)
Because of the dismal state of affairs worldwide, I’m having difficulty knowing what to post these days, but I’ve been listening to ukcolumn.org this week and they are so good at researching behind the murky scenes of today’s politics that they are all you need to keep abreast of life in the UK.
Also, Jim Stone and Behindthenews.com very good reporting on the incredible web of lies being fed to the masses about Syria and our disgusting role in the attempt to oust and destroy Bashar Assad. So much more to know about this fatal game of military chess. Even I, a simple, older woman from the UK can see what is happening here, the UK and the US have no intention of fighting isis, it’s Assad they want, and they couldn’t care less what they have to do to achieve their insane goal.
What on earth has it got to do with the West who governs in the Middle East ? But of course it’s of extreme strategic importance to the occultist’s plans to carve up the region and to divvy up the assets, land, oil, pipelines, minerals, people etc; and to further their grip on our freedoms through perpetuating the fear that war creates. As I write, the city of Homs, Syria has just been bombed, it breaks my heart to see such devastation and all that it entails, loss of life and homes decimated, how can grown men follow such orders ? Don’t they realise that without ‘order follower’s’there would be no wars ? God bless Syria. An uplifting event occured here this week, soldiers from previous wars returned their medals to David Cameron in defiance of the bombing campaign in Syria, great stuff.
Veterans discard medals in Syria protest
Tuesday 8 December | 1pm
Assemble Nelson’s Column |Trafalgar Square
Then to Downing Street
In protest at yet another attack on a middle eastern country, veterans of the Gulf War, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya will discard their medals at Downing Street on Tuesday 8 December.
One of the veterans, Daniel Lenham who served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014 said “In protest at the decision to bomb Syria, we will hand back medals given to us for participating in previous attacks on the Middle East.”
He continued “These invasions, occupations and attacks have caused great destruction, killed hundreds of thousands of people and have led to the destruction of societies. Bombing is never a solution it is time to stop.”
David Smith who served in the Royal Green Jackets said “I want to express my utter disgust at the decision to unlawfully bomb Syria, god help all those who are likely to suffer as a result of this action. I renounce all forms of state sanctioned Warfare and Violence.”
Kirk Sollitt who served in the Gulf War said “By bombing in Syria we are killing innocent, vulnerable sentient beings, men, woman and children. You cannot sow bloodshed and reap peace. I no longer want these medals.”
Discarding their medals in Downing Street will be:
Daniel Lenham – served in the RAF from 2002 to 2014. He deployed on operations against Iraq and Libya.
Kirk Sollitt – served in the Royal Engineers from 1987 to 1991 and the Cheshire Regiment from 1997 to 2000. He deployed to the Gulf War and N Ireland.
Phil Mace – served in the Royal Engineers from 2006 to 2012. He deployed to Helmand Province, Afghanistan.
Dave Smith – served in the Royal Green jackets from 1975 to 1981. He deployed to Northern Ireland.
Supporters are welcome to join Veterans for Peace in Trafalgar Square on 8 December.
Veterans For Peace is a voluntary ex-services organisation of men and women who have served in every war that Britain has fought since WW2. It exists to convince people that war is not the answer to the problems of the 21st century. More details: Veterans for Peace.org.uk
Contact Coordinator VFP UK: Ben Griffin email@example.com
Source: Veterans for Peace UK
My next gripe is with the climate change agenda hoax, OMG, how the psychopaths are laughing at us, I mean how does the dropping of tons of depleted uranium, phospherous, and other, cancer causing, toxic, radiated materials from our sky across the Middle east and let’s not forget poor Yemen and palestine, help in this so-called war on climate change ? It’s another big, fat, lie folks, just think about the colossal amount of pollution that war causes, and yet they have the audacity to pretend that they are discussing the detrimental effects that mankind, going about their daily lives, has on the climate ??? HELLO !!! It’s all about money and control, just follow the money everytime. There’s so much to read on this subject, please research it further, love to you all, janie, xxx
“The elementary principle of all deception is to attract the enemy’s attention to want you wish him to see, and to distract his attention from what you do not wish him to see.” General Sir Archibald Wavell, Memorandum to the British Chiefs of Staff, 1940
Climate change: the Hoax that Costs Us $4 Billion a Day
by JAMES DELINGPOLE8 Aug 20157,132
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Upton Sinclair.
The global climate change industry is worth an annual $1.5 trillion, according to Climate Change Business Journal. That’s the equivalent of $4 billion a day spent on vital stuff like carbon trading, biofuels, and wind turbines. Or — as Jo Nova notes — it’s the same amount the world spends every year on online shopping.
But there’s a subtle difference between these two industries — the global warming one and the online shopping one. Can you guess what it is?
Well, it’s like this. When you go to, say, Charles Tyrwhitt to buy a nice, smart shirt, or Amazon to buy the box set of Game of Thrones, or Krazykrazysextoy.com to replace your girlfriend’s worn out rabbit, no one is holding a gun to your head. You are buying these things of your own free volition either for yourself or for someone you love. You have paid for them, out of your own money, because you have made the calculation that they will make your life that little bit better. Better than it would, say, if you’d kept the money in your bank account or spent it on something less desirable — a novelty dog poo ornament, say, or a handknitted sweater with Jimmy Savile’s face on it and “I HEART paedos” picked out in gold lamé lettering.
When, on the other hand, you buy stuff from the climate change industry, you have no choice in the matter whatsoever. It’s already priced into your taxes, your electricity bills, the cost of your petrol, the cost of your airfare, the cost of every product you buy and every service you use. It is utterly inescapable, this expenditure. Yet unlike your online shopping — which, remember, costs roughly the same as you spend each year on the climate change industry — you get precisely nothing in return.
No, it’s worse than that. You get less than nothing. You get stuff forced on you that you really don’t want: bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes looming on your horizon, keeping you awake, trashing your property values; fields of solar panels where they used to grow wheat or you used to walk your dog; prissy missives from your local council expecting you to be grateful for the fact that now you’ve got to separate your trash into seven different recycling bags rather than the previous five, and that they’re only going to collect your rubbish once a fortnight instead of once a week; teachers filling your kids’ heads with junk science propaganda; free parking slots for electric cars you don’t own but which you subsidise for richer friends who do; feel-bad nature documentaries about how it’s all your fault that this stuff “may” soon disappear; energy-saving lightbulbs that take your nocturnal home back to the kind of sepulchral gloom Western civilisation thought it had bade farewell to in the 1890s; the Prius, the car which recalls the style and comfort of the cars the fall of the Berlin Wall was supposed to have ended; yawning gaps where used to grow the woods which have been chopped down and chipped to create biomass for burning in power stations which used to run more cheaply and efficiently on coal…
Then there are the people who benefit financially from this $1.5 trillion climate change industry: the carbon traders; the dodgy academics; the vulture capitalists pecking on the bloated carcass of renewable energy; the environmental NGOs; the environmental consultancies who specialise in giving “expert” testimony at planning appeals, arguing on the most spurious grounds that no the bats and birds in this area aren’t going to be affected by this new wind turbine they’re going to be happier than ever no really; the sustainability officers at every level of local government; the green advisers attached to every business who advise them how to reduce their CO2 count; the PR companies that specialise in green awareness; Dale Vince….
These people do not deserve your money. Not a penny, a cent, or a sou of it.
Look, I don’t begrudge anyone the right to earn a living — just so long as they’re providing someone, somewhere with something they actually need. Not a single person working in the climate change industry fulfils this criterion. Not one. If you scrapped Michael Mann’s job tomorrow the world would not suffer the slightest loss and science would be all the better for it.
Sure, you might argue, there’s some kind of trickledown effect as the money we’re force to pay these shysters and bludgers and charlatans and scroungers via various taxes and tariffs feeds back into the economy. But you could make the same argument were these people paid the same amount of money by the government to dig holes in the ground and fill them up again — which would be a vastly preferable use of tax payer money because then these utterly useless parasites would be reminded every day how pointless the “work” they do actually is, whereas as things are, many of them suffer under the delusion that their green non-jobs are somehow virtuous and important.
In the headline I call the climate change industry a hoax. That’s because, on any objective level it is. I don’t mean that all the scientists and businesses and politicians promoting it are abject liars — just most of them, even if it means that in order to keep earning their living they have to be dishonest with themselves about something they know in their hearts not to be true.
Alex Epstein, author of the Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, sets out the fundamental problem with the climate change industry here:
..Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent has not caused and is not causing catastrophic runaway global warming. Dishonest references to “97 per cent of scientists” equate a mild warming influence, which most scientists agree with and more importantly can demonstrate, with a catastrophic warming influence – which most don’t agree with and none can demonstrate.
That’s it. If you accept the validity of that statement — and how can you not: it is unimpeachably accurate and verifiable — then it follows that the $1.5 trillion global warming industry represents the most grotesque misuse of manpower and scarce resources in the history of the world.
Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Breitbart London, Climate Change, Environment, Michael Mann, $1.5 trillion, Jo Nova
This is the first time such a senior government official has admitted the utter futility of American carbon dioxide emissions cuts. That’s a consequential admission even if you believe the claims of climate alarmists about the danger of emissions.
Several years ago, Sen. James Inhofe had coaxed former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson into admitting that U.S. emissions cuts would make little difference to global climate. Current EPA administrator Gina McCarthy has admitted that the point of EPA’s new carbon dioxide rules aimed at power plants is really to show global leadership on the issue. But Kerry’s clear, frank and even emphasized admission is simply astounding.
The admission should have legal as well as political consequences. In the 2007 Supreme Court decision giving EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, the Supreme Court was careful to note that, although EPA couldn’t solve the global warming problem all at once or by itself, it was allowed to make incremental progress on the problem. Kerry’s admission shows that the U.S. government knows that such progress is simply not possible.
This admission should find its way into the ongoing litigation of EPA power plant rules and it should blow them up.
Steve Milloy publishes JunkScience.com (Twitter: JunkScience).
By Elmer Beauregard
The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.
I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.
1. Record Ice
In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.
2. Record Snow
2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.
3. Record Cold
In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”
4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted
Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.
5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.
6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.
7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.
8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man
In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.
9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.
If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.
10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players
One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.
With the Paris final talks entering their final week, it is worth noting the surreal disconnect between all the international handwringing over the abstract global warming accord and the reality that the U.S., Britain, France and Russia are bombing Syria’s oil fields into the stone age.
Even while the leaders of these nations pose as green stewards of the planet, making carbon reduction promises not even legally binding a generation from now, their bombers are pounding a country that with every additional air sortie becomes more of an oil soaked dead zone.
“These kinds of military activities are exempt from environmental review and the National Environmental Policy Act,” says Michael Edelstein, professor of environmental psychology at Ramapo College and author of “Contaminated Communities” and “Disaster by Design.”
“This becomes a form of acceptable collateral damage but it generates a long term ecological degradation that can lead to the death of a place,” Edelstein explains.
Here at home we fret over separating our recyclables and getting permits to fill our backyard wetlands. Meanwhile, overseas we are blowing up oil fields and continue to pummel the most stressed parts of the planet with bombs to make ourselves “more secure.”
Yes, ISIS has to be defeated, but you can’t do it in a way that insures the only future for Syrians is not in their native land, but in filling Germany’s workforce requirements.
We can’t ignore the gathering clouds of regional military conflicts that extend across several countries and two continents already feeling the impacts of global warming and the disruption of agriculture it brings. These forces of disequilibrium, violence and environmental destruction, have a synergy and we can’t get ahead of it until we understand how the two feed each other.
Last year even the Pentagon recognized this when they classified climate change as a “threat multiplier.”
Years before the Syrian civil war started, that country was feeling the combined impact of a long term decline in rain fall and poor land use policy on the Badia steppe rangelands, which make up 45 percent of Syria’s landmass.
For generations, nomadic Bedouin tribes were able to not only sustain themselves, but supply urban centers with meat products produced on this vast portion of Syria that got little rainfall. Post-World War II, this sustainable model of existence, which had viable for centuries, was upended by central state planners. The system of tribal grazing rights broke down and the fragile land was caught up in a free-for-all where it was pressed beyond its carrying capacity.
The viability of these rangelands was undermined as they were pressed into agriculture that the region could not sustain. Livestock farmers, once able to just let their flocks graze in rotation, increasingly turned to transporting in water and feed to sustain their stocks. With the exponential increase in motor vehicles and farm machinery traffic, the subtle balance between human intervention and nature was lost.