Climate Change hysteria through the ages

H/T Old Holborn

You put the temperature up, put the temperature down, in out up down shake it all about, you do the hoke-coke and you give us all your taxes, that's what it's all about!

Past Climate Change Beliefs

Copenhagen Has Established A World Government

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Friday, Dec 18, 2009

Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having failed, Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.

“That is the one thing that they are definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.” the British politician, business consultant, policy adviser exclusively told the Alex Jones show yesterday.

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

“The first thing they will do, and the one thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference is to agree to establish what will be delicately called ‘the institutional framework’. Now that is a code word for world government.”

Lord Monckton explained that although the word “government” has been dropped from the treaty, all the interlocking bureaucratic features of a world government are still present in the final draft of the treaty, which also legislates for a global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank.

“These are the new entities that they are going to bring into being in order to create this world government” he said.

“Ban Ki Moon, the head of the UN is clearly expecting that part of the treaty to go through because he is saying that we are going to have to set up a structure of global governance just to handle the enormous amounts of money which we are going to be getting from the countries of the West, once this agreement goes through at Copenhagen.” Monckton added

Ban Ki-moon made those comments on Wednesday in an interview with the LA Times in which he also said that a formal treaty would be signed by mid-2010.

“They are expecting to get this through,” the British peer stated, “so all the reports you see about how the parties are fatally deadlocked, China has walked out, the African countries have walked out… all of these things are the traditional window dressing to try to disarm those of us who don’t want any of this to succeed because we’d rather like to see our national sovereignty preserved.”

Monckton explained that there is still a great deal of hope in fighting the establishment of an unelected world government:

“What has been going on over the last ten days is they have been trying to see whether they can get a binding treaty, and more or less at the outset they realised they would have to abandon that because it would never pass the U.S. Senate.”

“If they call it a treaty it requires two thirds of the U.S. Senate to vote for it and there are just too many blue dog Democrats, as well as sensible Republicans, who will not vote for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, the establishment of a world government, for the bankrupting of the United States, the destruction of working people’s jobs right across the industries of the U.S.”

“If they declare that they are going to do this and they do not have the constitutional authority to do this, and that will certainly be the case in the United States, then it is possible to fight it.” Monckton added.

Following president Obama’s announcement that he would attempt to circumvent the legislative process and bypass Congress to implement a cap and trade system on carbon emissions, Lord Monckton noted “If he tries to do that he will be impeached.”

“He had better tread very carefully indeed or he will be out of office and in prison before he knows it. There are constitutional constraints which, thank god, may yet save not only America but the rest of the world from what you rightly describe as a tyranny.”

“World government is coming because the leaders of the West have given up. They no longer care about democracy, they know longer care about the truth about the climate.” Monckton said. “They are willing to go along with this world government because they see roles for themselves in that world government in exactly the same way as the leaders of the EU did.”

“They can get more power as unelected leaders than they can at home.” Monckton added.

The British peer also spoke of the physical attacks on skeptics at Copenhagen by UN security, police and other demonstrators, adding that he himself was attacked and knocked out by a Danish police officer acting under UN authority after not allowing him access to a forum at the summit.

Watch the interview here.

Hey Doc! Global Governance - UN

From my Scribd archive.
Setting the Agenda for Global Governance - UN

Summary of dominant ideologies

Just posted this as a comment on a Guardian article.

"Copenhagen may be the last chance to get communist ideals back onto the global stage." - Tariq Ali
 
"the threat of environmental disaster will be the key that unlocks the new world order." - Mikhail Gorbachev
 
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ...The real enemy then, is humanity itself.? - Club of Rome

Believe me, the desire to achieve a totalitarian socialist world government using the 'environment' as the victim component of the dialectic is very, very old.

Socialism > Wealthy - evil, Poorer - victim -- therefore capitalism must be controlled by the State.
 
Communism > Bourgeoise - evil, Proletariat - victim -- therefore Bourgeoise (capital centres) must be controlled by the State. 

Feminism > Men - evil, Women - victim -- therefore Men (dominant capital creators and protectors of sovereignty) must be controlled by the State. 

And the final nail in the coffin...

Environmentalism > Human race (MANkind) - evil, Earth (MOTHERearth) - victim -- therefore the human race must be controlled by the Global State.

Copenhagen with the curtain pulled back

UN addresses delegates in Copenhagen Summit

So, the Copenhagen summit has kicked off and with it the most corporate media attention I can remember ever seeing for anything. I mean, how easy is it for international media to collude on an agenda these days! Now, I intend on sticking to the subject that inspired this post, but the more I read this emotionally charged drivel doing my research, the more I want to just keep inserting quotes and ravaging them, just like 'climate change^tm' will "ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security." Keep that quote in mind, because what I am about to tell you will show you that, in true double-speak, it is this 'solution' that will do the ravaging.

First, a few introductory points to get out of the way. Although The Chosen One intends on declaring it a 'public danger', CO2 is a naturally occuring gas. It is vital for photosynthesis and, combining the output of the entire human race along with all other systems of the earths' biosphere, comprises approximately 0.038% of the atmosphere.

Also consider that people like Tariq Ali are saying illuminating things such as “Copenhagen may be the last chance to get communist ideals back onto the global stage.” Or that communists like Gorbachev have said that "the threat of environmental disaster will be the key that unlocks the new world order." Or that the Club of Rome stated "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ...The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Just so you know the direction they are coming from.

This post will deal with two things. What they want this summit to achieve, and how it will be enforced.

According to this Guardian Copenhagen page, these are the critical goals (with my answers);

What does the summit hope to achieve?

According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, the four essentials needing an international agreement in Copenhagen are:

1. How much are industrialised countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?

CO2 is directly related to industry, (and also to human life). To reduce it would be to de-industrialise. So this really means 'how far are these nations willing to roll back their industry, wealth and quality of life.' Now according to this page, they want to aim for a less than 2C change from pre-industrial levels. Not that the human race can change the climate of course, that would be preposterous, but as you will see, that is not really the agenda of this 'summit'.

2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions?

Same mechanic as the above. How much are they willing to limit their development. The larger difference here is that the East has many emergent economies and they could theoretically present competition to the super-capitalist/ communism elite crowd who stand to benefit from these talks. And we all know these people believe 'competition is a sin'.

3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed?

Note the language. Industrialisation of the developing countries is not even an option, so why call them developing? They are swamped by debt to global banking cartels like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where "the developing world now spends $13 on debt repayment for every $1 it receives in grants." Their answer to this problem is not cancelling the debt (of course, it never is), but by siphoning trillions from the West to the nations of perpetual development, which can go back into the coffers of international finance. This will also function as an international version of Britain's welfare state (pulling ever increasing funds from a productive group to fund the unproductive, only in this case, they have half a trillion dollars in debt payments to make). The only effect of a welfare state is the eventual 'equalisation' of the productive with the unproductive, forcing them down to the lowest common denominator, thus weakening the entire society and widening the gulf between the haves (elites) and the have-nots (everyone else).

4. How is that money going to be managed?

Well let's see shall we? "Climate change deal must be legally binding in six months" says Gordon Brown which, judging by his track record, will hopefully result in its utter failure, crashing and burning (and releasing lovely plant food in the process). The 'contract' they want 192 nations to sign is called the COP15 negotiating text, see some extracts from it here and of probably no surprise is administered by the United Nations, that entity set up by the Rockefellers to take on the role of world government when the time was/ is right.

That is what this is really about. World government. As with the EEC to Union to Federal State of Europe (economic, political to legal), this is happening globally with the environmental campaign, and if you want to have an idea of where your opinion enters into these plans for the rest of your life;

In Washington, the Obama administration is poised to declare carbon dioxide a public danger, sending a powerful signal that America will act on global warming – with or without a law in Congress – by 2010.

Checks and balances are for nation-states and for free individuals. They are old-fashioned concepts. You are free to do as you are told by people you didn't ask your permission, even if the reason they claim to be doing it for isn't actually happening and they get sued for fraud. But with all of their schemes, their end justifies our means.

UPDATE: UN wants trillions redistributed, property rights of planet.

Scribd Archive

As you can see from the link in the sidebar (under Resources) I have a Scribd account. I am in the process of uploading approx. 100MB of documents that I have collected during my years of research. Alot of these documents are no longer in circulation, with their originating sites having been taken down. If you find something interesting, I suggest you download it for safekeeping in case something happens to this account.

They are organised into four folders;

EU
Marxism
Global Control Networks
Science

When it is complete, this page will organise the documents so it is easy to find what you are looking for but for now, I will present this little morsel.

Rothschild

The EU as Global Government 'testing ground'

What follows are selected quotes from Pascal Lamy, the Director-General of the WTO. The full speech (dated 9th November 2009) is available on the WTO site.

It is long and boring so I shall only post the most pertinent quotes and provide brief comments, translating the language. Text in bold is my emphasis.

Whether public or private, governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive.

It also needs to provide legitimacy, which is essential to ensure ownership over decisions which lead to change. Ownership to prevent the in-built bias towards resistance to modify the status quo.

This world government must control all decisions as your own feelings or thoughts about not having ownership of your own life represents 'resistance' to their ownership of your life, whether this be economically, culturally or otherwise.

The first challenge stems from the difficulty to identify leadership. Who is the leader? Should it be a super power? A gathering of national leaders? Selected by whom? Or should it be an international organization?

Not selected by you, dear reader, lest your 'in-built bias' influence their ownership of the decision making process. When was the last time you had a vote in EU matters?

In these troubled times for the European Union it is no easy matter to present it as a new paradigm of global governance. And yet the European construction is the most ambitious experiment to date in supranational governance.

"And I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God." - Bill of Rights 1688/89, regarding Supremacy

My starting point is the building of Europe as work in progress. It is not complete in any of its dimensions. Not in that of geography. Not in its depth, that is, in the powers conferred by its member states to the European Union. And certainly not in the sense of identity that provides the glue which holds any human society together.

The European Union seeks to create its own identity, its own culture and modus operandi that will be imposed upon the people of Europe. Now there is more meaning behind 'ownership to prevent in-built bias'. By geography, he means EU expansion into the Middle East and North Africa.

Indeed, other paradigms are also emerging around the world which reflect their own specific conditions.

Here, he means the North American Union, Africa Union and Asia Union. Beginning (like the EU did) with trade agreements such as NAFTA and SAFTA.

What marks the essence of the European governance paradigm is the coming together of a political will, a goal to be attained as well as an institutional set up. It is the combination of these three elements and not the specific method of governance used. Not that we should underestimate the technological leap forward in the building of Europe.

A political will, but not an individual will (which would be exercised by voting). He proceeds to explain exactly how much power the EU has over you.

The fact that Community law takes precedence over national law. The creation of a supranational body such as the European Commission that has been given the monopoly of initiating legislation. A European Court of Justice whose decisions are binding on national judges. A Parliament composed of a senate of member states and a house of representatives elected by the European “demos” and which has gained in competences over the years.

The European Commission is explained on Wikipedia.

There is one Commissioner per member state, though Commissioners are bound to represent the interests of the EU as a whole rather than their home state. One of the 27 is the Commission President appointed by the European Council. The Council then appoints the other 26 Commissioners in agreement with the nominated President, and then the 27 Commissioners as a single body are subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.

So you see, you have no choice in the matter. Back to the speech and a very interesting statement;

The anthropological dimension of supranationality has probably been underestimated. Once the imminence of the menace of a new war has disappeared from our horizon, it is as if the glue that holds Europe together as a community will also disappear. As if there were no common myths, dreams and aspirations.

Is he suggesting that the theater of war, against an enemy real or imagined, is useful in maintaining the cohesion he keeps mentioning, to direct the population to a common purpose? "We need a common enemy to unite us" - Condoleezza Rice, March 2000. For a 'green' slant to this, read; "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. ...The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” - Club of Rome Report. For more info, read this PJC Journal article.

He continues, explaining the role the UN will have in the endgame, something researchers have been saying for decades, only to be shouted down as 'conspiracy theorists'.

In the longer term, we should have both the G20 and the international agencies reporting to the “parliament” of the United Nations. In this respect, a revamping of the UN Economic and Social Council could lend support to the recent resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on a UN-system wide coherence. This would constitute a potent mix of leadership, inclusiveness and action to ensure coherent and effective global governance. With time, the G20 could even be a response to the reform of the UN Security Council.

As I have said in previous articles elsewhere, this is how they would operate. Create ever larger institutions with ever greater power and eventually merge them. The remaining global 'blocs' can then be easily placed under the control of the United Nations. By doing this, it will inherit the physical and intellectual property of the planet, which will have already been taken away from you.

Indeed it already has. The final quote I will post is the following.

It is a commendable effort to provide a “new global economic contract”, to anchor economic globalization on a bedrock of ethical principles and values which would renew the trust that citizens need to have that globalization can indeed work for them. It is a signal of our times that this initiative comes from Berlin, Germany, today a re-united country at the heart of Europe.

Ah, the empire never left, and our connection between the EU and the Fourth Reich comes full circle.

If you made it to the bottom of this article, I thank you. Have a cup of tea and a Toberlone.