More must-read articles. Currently focused on the COVID-19 ‘plandemic’

 

This post relates to the massive global Coronavirus fraud and connections to the similarly-fraudulent climate change and planned financial reset fiascos. Note: The full text of the first link is below. Many more articles are linked at the end of this post.   

COVID-Vaccinated Can ‘Shed’ Spike Protein, Harming Unvaccinated

COVID-Vaccinated Can ‘Shed’ Spike Protein, Harming Unvaccinated  By ampprojec.org, principia-scientific.com, 8 May 2021

In their latest issue brief, America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) warned how spike proteins resulting from experimental COVID-19 gene therapy vaccines have the capacity to 1.) pass through the “blood-brain barrier” causing neurological damage, 2.) be “shed” by the vaccinated, bringing about sickness in unvaccinated children and adults, and 3.) cause irregular vaginal bleeding in women.

Released last week and titled “Identifying Post-vaccination Complications & Their Causes: an Analysis of Covid-19 Patient Data,” the stated purpose of the document is “to provide additional information for concerned citizens, health experts, and policymakers about adverse events and other post-vaccination issues resulting from the three experimental COVID-19 vaccines currently administered under EUA (emergency use authorization)” by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The non-profit organization highlighted the thousands of adverse events which are related to these “vaccines” and captured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). “Yet these complications have received a fraction of the attention paid to J&J’s blood-clotting controversy,” they lamented with dismay, asking, “Why?

In taking a closer look at this data, AFLDS presents “some major categories of concern as-yet publicly unaddressed by either the FDA or CDC,” asserting that failure of these regulators “to consider these and other ‘known unknowns’ is a dereliction of basic medical research.

They breakout their general categories of concern as shown below:

First, there are significant fears regarding the wide distribution of these new vaccines, which employ a new technology and remain only experimental without full approval from the FDA. Instead of employing an attenuated antigen response – as happens with conventional vaccines – these experimental agents introduce something called a “spike protein” into one’s system.

It takes years to be sure something new is safe,” the AFLDS document confirms. “No one knows definitively the long-term health implications for the body and brain, especially among the young, related to this spike protein. In addition, if documented problems with the protein do arise, there will never be any way to reverse the adverse effects in those already vaccinated.

Second, unlike conventional vaccines, these spike proteins, along with “lipid nanoparticles” have the capacity to pass through the “blood-brain barrier” which provides special protection for these sensitive areas of the body.

There simply has not been enough time to know what brain problems and how often a brain problem will develop from that,” the document warns.

Risks from such penetration include “chronic inflammation and thrombosis (clotting) in the neurological system, contributing to tremors, chronic lethargy, stroke, Bell’s Palsy and ALS-type symptoms. The lipid nanoparticles can potentially fuse with brain cells, resulting in delayed neuro-degenerative disease. And the mRNA-induced spike protein can bind to brain tissue 10 to 20 times stronger than the spike proteins that are (naturally) part of the original virus.

Third, as these experimental vaccines produce many trillions of spike proteins in their recipients, these vaccinated individuals “can shed some of these (spike protein) particles to close contacts,” causing disease in them.

In an email correspondence with LifeSiteNews, Dr. Simone Gold, the founder of AFLDS, directed this writer to an April 29 tweet where she posted a document from Pfizer’s experimental trials in which the pharmaceutical giant “acknowledges this mechanism” of potential shedding, she wrote.

As the document states, one can be “exposed to [the] study intervention due to environmental exposure,” including “by inhalation or skin contact” with someone involved in the study, or with another who has been exposed in the same way.

And this, according to AFLDS, can be dangerous. As the issues brief continues, “the spike proteins are pathogenic (‘disease causing’) just like the full virus.” Furthermore, these “spike proteins bind more tightly than the fully intact virus” and thus cases around the world of “pericarditis, shingles, pneumonia, blood clots in the extremities and brain, Bell’s Palsy, vaginal bleeding and miscarriages have been reported in persons who are near persons who have been vaccinated.” Such shedding also “appears to be causing wide variety of autoimmune disease (where the body attacks its own tissue) in some persons.

In addition, other more serious dangers to even the unvaccinated are possible due to the fact that these “spike proteins can cross the blood brain barrier, unlike traditional vaccines.

Fourth, such shedding leaves children vulnerable if they are in proximity to parents and teachers who have received these experimental vaccines. While the threat of COVID-19 to the young is rightly described as “irrelevant,” including a 99.997% survival rate for those under 20 years of age, AFLDS is concerned some children may become symptomatic due to such proximity to the vaccinated.

At such point there is a danger that “public health bureaucrats” might use such cases to “speculate that a child’s illness is related to a SARS-CoV-2 ‘variant,’” when it is a result of contact with vaccinated adults.

Our other concern is that children could develop long-term chronic autoimmune disease including neurological problems due to the fact that children have decades ahead of them and trillions of the spike proteins mentioned above.

Fifth, “AFLDS is aware of thousands of reports involving vaginal bleeding, post-menopausal vaginal bleeding, and miscarriages following COVID-19 vaccination as well as anecdotal reports of similar adverse events among those in close contact with the vaccinated.” While at this point the independent physicians organization “cannot comment definitively on the close contacts” other than to mention they “have heard reports of this worldwide,” the many reported incidents of post-vaccination vaginal bleeding establishes a clear “connection between the vaccine and irregular bleeding.

Despite this clear-cut evidence, menstrual-cycle changes were not listed among the FDA’s common side effects in its phase-three clinical participants. Women’s reproductive health needs to be taken seriously rather than waved away by agenda-driven public health officials,” the brief reads.

Finally, acknowledging the “irrepressible economic incentive among pharmaceutical companies” to market unnecessary and dangerous childhood COVID vaccinesboosters, and the like, AFLDS insists “Public health experts should stop and assess data on possible vaccine side effects and related post-vaccination questions before it is too late.

See more here: lifesitenews-com

======================

The Truth About The ‘Covid Crisis’ In India

The Truth About The ‘Covid Crisis’ In India  By lockdownsceptics.org, 27 April 2021

Editor’s note: Click the link above to view the diagrams within the article.

Now that Chile is settling down a bit, the latest Covid cautionary tale is India, which never seems to be out of the news at the moment as its positive cases and deaths have rocketed in the past few weeks.

Even the usually level-headed Kate Andrews in the Spectator has been painting the situation in lurid colours.

As it happened, the UK’s worst nightmares were never realised. The Nightingale hospitals built to increase capacity were barely used. But what the British Government feared most is now taking place elsewhere. India is suffering an exponential growth in infections, with more than 349,000 cases reported yesterday, as well as nearly 3,000 deaths. Hospitals are running out of oxygen for patients and wards are overflowing. There are reports of long queues as the sick wait to be seen by medical professionals. It’s expected the situation will deteriorate further before it gets better.

Jo Nash, who lived in India until recently and still has many contacts out there, has written a very good piece for Left Lockdown Sceptics putting the current figures in context – something no mainstream outlet seems to have any interest in doing.

Jo makes the crucial point that we need to keep in mind the massive difference in scale between India and the UK. At 1.4 billion people, India is more than 20 times larger than the UK, so to compare Covid figures fairly we must divide India’s by 20. So 2,000 deaths a day is equivalent to a UK toll of 100. India’s current official total Covid deaths of approaching 200,000 is equivalent to just 10,000 in the UK.

Image: Our World in Data

Image: Our World in Data

In a country the size of India and with the huge number of health challenges faced by the population, the number of Covid deaths needs to be kept in perspective. As Sanjeev Sabhlock observes in the Times of India, 27,000 people die everyday in India. This includes 2,000 from diarrhoea and 1,200 from TB (vaccinations for which have been disrupted by the pandemic). The lack of adequate hospital provision for Covid patients may be more a reflection of the state of the health service than the severity of the disease.

Jo Nash also points out that poor air quality plays a role.

Delhi, the focus of the media’s messaging, and the source of many of the media’s horrifying scenes of suffering, has the most toxic air in the world which often leads to the city having to close down due to the widespread effects on respiratory health…

Respiratory diseases including COPD, TB, and respiratory tract infections like bronchitis leading to pneumonia are always among the top ten killers in India. These conditions are severely aggravated by air pollution and often require oxygen which can be in short supply during air pollution crises…

According to my contacts on the ground, people in Delhi are suffering from untreated respiratory and lung conditions that are now becoming serious. I’ve also had breathing problems there when perfectly healthy and started to mask up to keep the particulate matter out of my lungs. I used to suffer from serious chest infections twice yearly during the big changes in weather in India, usually November/December and April/May. When I reluctantly masked up that stopped. My contacts have reported that the usual seasonal bronchial infections have not been properly treated by doctors afraid of getting Covid, and people’s avoidance of government hospitals due to fear of getting Covid. Undoubtedly, these fears will have been fuelled by the media’s alarmist coverage of the situation. Consequently, the lack of early intervention means many respiratory conditions have developed life-threatening complications. Also, people from surrounding rural areas often travel to Delhi for treatment as it has the best healthcare facilities and people can go there for a few rupees by train. This puts pressure on Delhi’s healthcare system during respiratory virus seasons.

Positive cases look like they may be peaking in many regions now.

One mystery, as yet unexplained, is why India, which has not experienced a strong surge like this so far, suddenly did in March and April. Adding to the mystery is that the simultaneity of the surge across the regions is unexpected in a country as large as India and contrary to earlier outbreaks last year. Nick Hudson from Panda suggests it means there must be something artificial about it as it is not a natural pattern, since viruses naturally spread across the country with some delay and variation evident between regions.

It hasn’t escaped people’s attention that one novel factor is the nationwide vaccine programme rollout, beginning in January and accelerating during March. Is this a further example of the post-vaccine infection spike seen in the various trials and population studies, possibly caused by temporary suppression of the immune system?

Testing is another possible factor, as the number of tests being carried out surged in March and April – though so did the positive rate, suggesting this can’t be the only explanation.

Whatever is going on, it’s a pity there is not more curiosity among our scientists and journalists. Instead, it’s just the usual scaremongering driven by the misrepresentation of data.

Stop Press: Former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations Professor Ramesh Thakur has been in touch with a comment he left on a story in the Australian.

Some context and perspective. India’s Covid deaths yesterday were 2,163 (seven-day rolling average). India’s average daily death toll is 25,000 from all causes.

Second, despite this surge, as of now India’s Covid mortality rate is 140 dead per million people. This compares to 401 for the world average, 1,762 for the US, and 1,869 for the UK. It puts India 119th in the world on this, the single most important statistic for comparison purposes.

Third, the crux of the problem in India is not the proportion of cases and deaths from Covid. Rather, it is the lack of a fit-for-purpose public health infrastructure and medical supplies of equipment and drugs.

Fourth, although Government neglect of public health while prioritising vanity projects like a new Parliament building during the pandemic, building temples and statues etc. is a contributory factor, the real cause of a poor public health system is poverty. Put bluntly, poverty is the world’s biggest killer.

Fifth and finally, this is why a strong economy is not an optional luxury but an essential requirement for good health.

See more here: lockdownsceptics.org

=====================

MAGIC: Seasonal Flu Doesn’t Exist Anymore, Only COVID-19

 

MAGIC. Seasonal Flu Doesn’t Exist Anymore, Only COVID-19  By S.D.Wells, HAF, 22 April 2021

 

Best part about Covid is that there aren’t any other sicknesses anymore. They’re all magically gone.

Got a headache? Covid. Got a sore throat? Covid. Coughing frequently? You’ve got Covid. Fever? Definitely Covid. Even all deaths are labeled Covid-caused now. Did someone jump off a 10-story building? Covid. Did someone choke to death on a big hunk of steak? Covid.

Yes, the CDC has suspended ALL data collection for the seasonal flu since the Covid plandemic was set in motion, and anyone who dies from the flu, from here on out, will be labeled a Covid-caused death.

Hospitals across America are being paid in large swaths of cash for every death registered as Covid.

By now, nearly every American has been exposed to Covid, and probably built up antibodies already, that’s why the tests are invalid, false-negatives, false-positives – it’s all just one big boondoggle to keep the sheeple confused, but obeying orders.

Notice The Switch From Massive Flu Numbers And Recommended Flu Vaccines To Only Covid-19 And Deadly MRNA Vaccines

Yes, flu numbers magically disappeared beginning in March, 2020. No more fear-mongering about catching influenza. No masks were ever recommended for that, nor social distancing, just yearly multi-dose mercury injections to keep the populace dumb and slow-suffering from “Mad Hatter Syndrome.”

Big question: When the Covid masks cause bacterial infections of the mouth, leading to pneumonia, do the hospitals call that Covid also?

Television stations and newspapers across the country literally verified that hospitals get reimbursed for anything coronavirus related, so no matter the disease, disorder, dysfunction, poisoning, suicide – everyone gets tested for Covid antibodies, and if you have them (or you get a false-positive) then bam! You’re being treated for Covid and will probably die from Covid.

It only makes sense with the money game all US hospitals engage in. It’s unethical. It’s immoral. It’s illegal, but nobody’s pressing charges.

This is being reported on across the country, not to mention doctors blowing the whistle who don’t approve of forging and falsifying medical records for the sake of Marxist Plandemic reimbursements.

“ABC10 can verify that hospitals do get reimbursed for coronavirus related care, which unfortunately includes deaths,” admits Sacramento’s ABC10 TV station during a health news segment.

For example, if you’ve been dying of pancreatic cancer for 5 years and doctors tell you that you have two weeks to live, if you test positive during those 2 weeks for Covid, then when you die, you died of Covid, on paper.

Get it? Even if the chemotherapy killed you. This is how the number got so hyped and the deaths got so scary.

This was all planned from the beginning, and that’s what separates truth news from mass media and social media.

It’s all about the mRNA deadly Trojan horse, and over 100 million Americans are standing in line for the “Kill Switch” jab that comes next.

Marxist Plandemic ERASES The Seasonal Flu Like Magic

Daily Covid-19 death data is so far off, nobody even has a gauge. The US government is not transparent about what is being counted as a Covid-19 death.

There’s no more flu data, and why is that? What happened to “FluView,” that weekly influenza “surveillance report” that brought so much shock and awe to the flu shot campaigns across America?

Sure, the flu is still alive and well in the USA, it’s just not being reported on or even paid one ounce of attention by the press or the medical industrial complex.

No more reporting on co-morbidities either. Remember that? Those were folks with preexisting health conditions who tested positive for Covid-19, but died LATER ON, who were still counted officially as Covid-19 deaths.

How convenient they get to cherry pick all the deaths now, all for more statistical propaganda that’s scaring people so well that they’re willing to suffocate, go bankrupt, isolate, wreck their businesses, take the dirty vaccines, and vote for more punishment soon.

Get ready to have your genes edited so that your immune system shuts down and can’t fight Covid-22.

===================

NIH Stanford Study Proves Face Masks Worthless Against Covid

NIH Stanford Study Proves Face Masks Worthless Against Covid  By americanconservativemovement.com, 22 April 2021

The diapers most of us are wearing on our face most of the time apparently have no effect at stopping Covid-19. This explains a lot.

Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biotechnological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.

Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.

He was quoting directly from the NCBI publication of the study. The government website he linked to features a peer-reviewed study by Stanford University’s Baruch Vainshelboim. In it, he cited 67 scholars, doctors, scientists, and other studies to support his conclusions.

The sentence Cortes quoted from the study’s conclusion reads: “The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.

Twitter messaged Cortes demanding he delete the Tweet, citing that he broke Twitter rules specifically for, “Violating the policy on spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19.

Vainshelboim drew many conclusions from the vast information he compiled, but arguably the biggest bombshell in it can be found in the “Efficacy of facemasks” section [emphasis added]:

According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25]. Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask

This study isn’t the only one out there that demonstrates scientifically the inefficacy and dangers associated with constant use of face masks. One would think that considering the source, this type of information would be acceptable to even Big Tech tyrants. After all, they constantly chide us about following the science. Well, here’s the science.

Leaders in Democrat-led states should rejoice at this information since it explains why their Covid case numbers keep going up despite their ongoing lockdowns while Republican-led states are doing better. The real science gives them the answer that Dr. Anthony Fauci fails to grasp.

We’re posting the study for posterity; one never knows when the government or their puppetmasters in Silicon Valley will determine it needs to come down:

Facemasks In The COVID-19 Era: A Health Hypothesis

Abstract

Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established.

Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.

Introduction

Facemasks are part of non-pharmaceutical interventions providing some breathing barrier to the mouth and nose that have been utilized for reducing the transmission of respiratory pathogens [1]. Facemasks can be medical and non-medical, where two types of the medical masks primarily used by healthcare workers [1], [2]. The first type is National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified N95 mask, a filtering face-piece respirator, and the second type is a surgical mask [1].

The designed and intended uses of N95 and surgical masks are different in the type of protection they potentially provide. The N95s are typically composed of electret filter media and seal tightly to the face of the wearer, whereas surgical masks are generally loose fitting and may or may not contain electret-filtering media. The N95s are designed to reduce the wearer’s inhalation exposure to infectious and harmful particles from the environment such as during extermination of insects.

In contrast, surgical masks are designed to provide a barrier protection against splash, spittle and other body fluids to spray from the wearer (such as surgeon) to the sterile environment (patient during operation) for reducing the risk of contamination [1].

The third type of facemasks are the non-medical cloth or fabric masks. The non-medical facemasks are made from a variety of woven and non-woven materials such as Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk. Although non-medical cloth or fabric facemasks are neither a medical device nor personal protective equipment, some standards have been developed by the French Standardization Association (AFNOR Group) to define a minimum performance for filtration and breathability capacity [2].

The current article reviews the scientific evidences with respect to safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks, describing the physiological and psychological effects and the potential long-term consequences on health.

Hypothesis

On January 30, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced a global public health emergency of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) causing illness of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) [3]. As of October 1, 2020, worldwide 34,166,633 cases were reported and 1,018,876 have died with virus diagnosis. Interestingly, 99% of the detected cases with SARS-CoV-2 are asymptomatic or have mild condition, which contradicts with the virus name (severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2) [4].

Although infection fatality rate (number of death cases divided by number of reported cases) initially seems quite high 0.029 (2.9%) [4], this overestimation related to limited number of COVID-19 tests performed which biases towards higher rates. Given the fact that asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic cases is several times higher than the number of reported cases, the case fatality rate is considerably less than 1% [5].

This was confirmed by the head of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from US stating, “the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 are similar to those of severe seasonal influenza” [5], having a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1% [5], [6], [7], [8]. In addition, data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and general public indicate that the majority of deaths were among older and chronically ill individuals, supporting the possibility that the virus may exacerbates existing conditions but rarely causes death by itself [9], [10]. SARS-CoV-2 primarily affects respiratory system and can cause complications such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), respiratory failure and death [3], [9].

It is not clear however, what the scientific and clinical basis for wearing facemasks as protective strategy, given the fact that facemasks restrict breathing, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia and increase the risk for respiratory complications, self-contamination and exacerbation of existing chronic conditions [2], [11], [12], [13], [14].

Of note, hyperoxia or oxygen supplementation (breathing air with high partial O2 pressures that above the sea levels) has been well established as therapeutic and curative practice for variety acute and chronic conditions including respiratory complications [11], [15]. It fact, the current standard of care practice for treating hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is breathing 100% oxygen [16], [17], [18].

Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases [2], [14], [19]. Therefore, it has been hypothesized: 1) the practice of wearing facemasks has compromised safety and efficacy profile, 2) Both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to reduce human-to-human transmission and infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, 3) Wearing facemasks has adverse physiological and psychological effects, 4) Long-term consequences of wearing facemasks on health are detrimental.

Evolution Of Hypothesis

Breathing Physiology

Breathing is one of the most important physiological functions to sustain life and health. Human body requires a continuous and adequate oxygen (O2) supply to all organs and cells for normal function and survival. Breathing is also an essential process for removing metabolic byproducts [carbon dioxide (CO2)] occurring during cell respiration [12], [13]. It is well established that acute significant deficit in O2 (hypoxemia) and increased levels of CO2 (hypercapnia) even for few minutes can be severely harmful and lethal, while chronic hypoxemia and hypercapnia cause health deterioration, exacerbation of existing conditions, morbidity and ultimately mortality [11], [20], [21], [22].

Emergency medicine demonstrates that 5–6 min of severe hypoxemia during cardiac arrest will cause brain death with extremely poor survival rates [20], [21], [22], [23]. On the other hand, chronic mild or moderate hypoxemia and hypercapnia such as from wearing facemasks resulting in shifting to higher contribution of anaerobic energy metabolism, decrease in pH levels and increase in cells and blood acidity, toxicity, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, immunosuppression and health deterioration [24], [11], [12], [13].

Efficacy of facemasks

The physical properties of medical and non-medical facemasks suggest that facemasks are ineffective to block viral particles due to their difference in scales [16], [17], [25]. According to the current knowledge, the virus SARS-CoV-2 has a diameter of 60 nm to 140 nm [nanometers (billionth of a meter)] [16], [17], while medical and non-medical facemasks’ thread diameter ranges from 55 µm to 440 µm [micrometers (one millionth of a meter), which is more than 1000 times larger [25].

Due to the difference in sizes between SARS-CoV-2 diameter and facemasks thread diameter (the virus is 1000 times smaller), SARS-CoV-2 can easily pass through any facemask [25]. In addition, the efficiency filtration rate of facemasks is poor, ranging from 0.7% in non-surgical, cotton-gauze woven mask to 26% in cotton sweeter material [2]. With respect to surgical and N95 medical facemasks, the efficiency filtration rate falls to 15% and 58%, respectively when even small gap between the mask and the face exists [25].

Clinical scientific evidence challenges further the efficacy of facemasks to block human-to-human transmission or infectivity. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 246 participants [123 (50%) symptomatic)] who were allocated to either wearing or not wearing surgical facemask, assessing viruses transmission including coronavirus [26]. The results of this study showed that among symptomatic individuals (those with fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose ect…) there was no difference between wearing and not wearing facemask for coronavirus droplets transmission of particles of >5 µm.

Among asymptomatic individuals, there was no droplets or aerosols coronavirus detected from any participant with or without the mask, suggesting that asymptomatic individuals do not transmit or infect other people [26]. This was further supported by a study on infectivity where 445 asymptomatic individuals were exposed to asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier (been positive for SARS-CoV-2) using close contact (shared quarantine space) for a median of 4 to 5 days.

The study found that none of the 445 individuals was infected with SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by real-time reverse transcription polymerase [27].

A meta-analysis among health care workers found that compared to no masks, surgical mask and N95 respirators were not effective against transmission of viral infections or influenza-like illness based on six RCTs [28]. Using separate analysis of 23 observational studies, this meta-analysis found no protective effect of medical mask or N95 respirators against SARS virus [28].

A recent systematic review of 39 studies including 33,867 participants in community settings (self-report illness), found no difference between N95 respirators versus surgical masks and surgical mask versus no masks in the risk for developing influenza or influenza-like illness, suggesting their ineffectiveness of blocking viral transmissions in community settings [29].

Another meta-analysis of 44 non-RCT studies (n = 25,697 participants) examining the potential risk reduction of facemasks against SARS, middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS) and COVID-19 transmissions [30]. The meta-analysis included four specific studies on COVID-19 transmission (5,929 participants, primarily health-care workers used N95 masks). Although the overall findings showed reduced risk of virus transmission with facemasks, the analysis had severe limitations to draw conclusions.

One of the four COVID-19 studies had zero infected cases in both arms, and was excluded from meta-analytic calculation. Other two COVID-19 studies had unadjusted models, and were also excluded from the overall analysis. The meta-analytic results were based on only one COVID-19, one MERS and 8 SARS studies, resulting in high selection bias of the studies and contamination of the results between different viruses. Based on four COVID-19 studies, the meta-analysis failed to demonstrate risk reduction of facemasks for COVID-19 transmission, where the authors reported that the results of meta-analysis have low certainty and are inconclusive [30].

In early publication the WHO stated that “facemasks are not required, as no evidence is available on its usefulness to protect non-sick persons” [14]. In the same publication, the WHO declared that “cloth (e.g. cotton or gauze) masks are not recommended under any circumstance” [14]. Conversely, in later publication the WHO stated that the usage of fabric-made facemasks (Polypropylene, Cotton, Polyester, Cellulose, Gauze and Silk) is a general community practice for “preventing the infected wearer transmitting the virus to others and/or to offer protection to the healthy wearer against infection (prevention)” [2].

The same publication further conflicted itself by stating that due to the lower filtration, breathability and overall performance of fabric facemasks, the usage of woven fabric mask such as cloth, and/or non-woven fabrics, should only be considered for infected persons and not for prevention practice in asymptomatic individuals [2]. The Central for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) made similar recommendation, stating that only symptomatic persons should consider wearing facemask, while for asymptomatic individuals this practice is not recommended [31].

Consistent with the CDC, clinical scientists from Departments of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology in Australia counsel against facemasks usage for health-care workers, arguing that there is no justification for such practice while normal caring relationship between patients and medical staff could be compromised [32]. Moreover, the WHO repeatedly announced that “at present, there is no direct evidence (from studies on COVID-19) on the effectiveness face masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection of respiratory viruses, including COVID-19”[2].

Despite these controversies, the potential harms and risks of wearing facemasks were clearly acknowledged. These including self-contamination due to hand practice or non-replaced when the mask is wet, soiled or damaged, development of facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis or worsening acne and psychological discomfort. Vulnerable populations such as people with mental health disorders, developmental disabilities, hearing problems, those living in hot and humid environments, children and patients with respiratory conditions are at significant health risk for complications and harm [2].

Physiological effects of wearing facemasks

Wearing facemask mechanically restricts breathing by increasing the resistance of air movement during both inhalation and exhalation process [12], [13]. Although, intermittent (several times a week) and repetitive (10–15 breaths for 2–4 sets) increase in respiration resistance may be adaptive for strengthening respiratory muscles [33], [34], prolonged and continues effect of wearing facemask is maladaptive and could be detrimental for health [11], [12], [13].

In normal conditions at the sea level, air contains 20.93% O2 and 0.03% CO2, providing partial pressures of 100 mmHg and 40 mmHg for these gases in the arterial blood, respectively. These gas concentrations significantly altered when breathing occurs through facemask. A trapped air remaining between the mouth, nose and the facemask is rebreathed repeatedly in and out of the body, containing low O2 and high CO2 concentrations, causing hypoxemia and hypercapnia [35], [36], [11], [12], [13].

Severe hypoxemia may also provoke cardiopulmonary and neurological complications and is considered an important clinical sign in cardiopulmonary medicine [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Low oxygen content in the arterial blood can cause myocardial ischemia, serious arrhythmias, right or left ventricular dysfunction, dizziness, hypotension, syncope and pulmonary hypertension [43]. Chronic low-grade hypoxemia and hypercapnia as result of using facemask can cause exacerbation of existing cardiopulmonary, metabolic, vascular and neurological conditions [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42].

Read the rest here: americanconservativemovement.com

=============================

18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a COVID Vaccine

 18 Reasons I Won’t Be Getting a COVID Vaccine  By Christian Elliot, The Defender, 19 April 2021

“I’m not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I’ve read, my lingering questions and explain why I can’t make sense of these COVID vaccines.”

The Defender is experiencing censorship on many social channels. Be sure to stay in touch with the news that matters by subscribing to our top news of the dayIt’s free.

A few friends have asked my thoughts on the COVID jab(s) so I thought it was time to write an article on the topic.

Knowing how contentious this issue is, part of me would rather just write about something else. But I believe the discussion/news is so one-sided that I should speak up.

As I always strive to do, I promise to do my best to be level-headed and non-hysterical.

I’m not here to pick a fight with anyone, just to walk you through some of what I’ve read, my lingering questions and explain why I can’t make sense of these COVID vaccines.

Three ground rules for discussion:

If you care to engage on this topic with me, excellent. Here are the rules. I am more than happy to correspond with you if:

  • You are respectful and treat me the way you would want to be treated.
  • You ask genuinely thoughtful questions about what makes sense to you.
  • You make your points using sound logic and don’t hide behind links or the word “science.”

If you do respond, and you break any of those rules, your comments will be ignored/deleted.

With that out of the way, let me say this: I don’t know everything, but so far no one has been able to answer the objections below. So here are the reasons I’m opting out of the COVID vaccine:

  1. Vaccine makers are immune from liability

The only industry in the world that bears no liability for injuries or deaths resulting from their products are vaccine makers.

As first established in 1986 with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, and reinforced by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, vaccine makers cannot be sued — even if they are shown to be negligent.

The COVID vaccine makers are allowed to create a one-size-fits-all product, with no testing on sub-populations (i.e. people with specific health conditions), and yet they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for any adverse events or deaths their products cause.

If a company is not willing to stand behind its product as safe, especially one rushed to market, I am not willing to take a chance on that product.

No liability. No trust. Here’s why …

  1. The checkered past of vaccine companies

The four major companies who are making COVID vaccines are/have either:

Moderna had been trying to “Modernize our RNA” (thus the company name) for years, but had never successfully brought any product to market. How nice for the company to get a major cash infusion from the government to keep trying.

In fact, all major vaccine makers (save Moderna) have paid out tens of billions of dollars in damages for other products they brought to market when they knew those products would cause injuries and death — see VioxxBextra, Celebrex, Thalidomide and opioids as a few examples.

If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market — when they can be sued — why would we trust any product where they have no liability?

Three of the four COVID vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result.

Given the free pass from liability, and the checkered past of these companies, why would we assume that all their vaccines are safe and made completely above board?

Where else in life would we trust someone with that kind of reputation?

To me that makes as much sense as expecting a remorseless, abusive unfaithful lover to become a different person because a judge said deep down they are a good person.

No. I don’t trust them. No liability. No trust. Here’s another reason why I don’t trust them …

  1. Ugly history of attempts to make coronavirus vaccines

There have been many attempts to make viral vaccines in the past that ended in utter failure — which is why we did not have a coronavirus vaccine in 2020.

In the 1960s, scientists attempted to make an RSV (respiratory syncytial virus) vaccine for infants. In that study, they skipped animal trials because the trials weren’t required then.

In the end, the vaccinated infants got much sicker than the unvaccinated infants when exposed to the virus in nature, with 80% of the vaccinated infants requiring hospitalization. Two of them died.

After 2000, scientists made many attempts to create coronavirus vaccines. For the past 20 years, all ended in failure because the animals in the clinical trials got very sick and many died, just like the children in the 1960s.

You can read a summary of this history/science here. Or if you want to read the individual studies you can check out these links:

  • In 2004, attempted vaccine produced hepatitis in ferrets.
  • In 2005, miceand civets became sick and more susceptible to coronaviruses after being vaccinated.
  • In 2012, the ferretsbecame sick and died. And in this study, mice and ferrets developed lung disease.
  • In 2016, this studyalso produced lung disease in mice.

The typical pattern in the studies referenced above is that the children and the animals produced beautiful antibody responses after being vaccinated. The manufacturers thought they hit the jackpot.

The problem came when the children and animals were exposed to the wild version of the virus.

When that happened, an unexplained phenomenon called antibody dependent enhancement, also known as vaccine enhanced disease, occurred where the immune system produced a “cytokine storm” (i.e. overwhelmingly attacked the body) and the children/animals died.

Here’s the lingering issue: The vaccine makers have no data to suggest their rushed vaccines have overcome that problem.

In other words, never before has any attempt to make a coronavirus vaccine been successful, nor has the gene-therapy technology in mRNA “vaccines” been safely brought to market.

We might assume that because the companies received billions of dollars in government funding, they must have figured out that problem.

Except they don’t know if they have …

  1. The ‘data gaps’ submitted to FDA by vaccine makers

When vaccine makers submitted their papers to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the Emergency Use Authorization (which is not the same as a full FDA approval), among the many “data gaps” they reported was that they have nothing in their trials to suggest they overcame that pesky problem of vaccine enhanced disease.

They simply don’t know if the vaccines they’ve made will also produce the same cytokine storm (and deaths) as previous attempts at such products.

As Dr. Joseph Mercola points out …

Previous attempts to develop an mRNA-based drug using lipid nanoparticles failed and had to be abandoned because when the dose was too low, the drug had no effect, and when dosed too high, the drug became too toxic. An obvious question is: What has changed that now makes this technology safe enough for mass use?”

If that’s not alarming enough, here are other gaps in the data — in other words, there is no data to suggest safety or efficacy regarding:

  • Anyone younger than age 18 or older than age 55.
  • Pregnant or lactating mothers.
  • Autoimmune conditions.
  • Immunocompromised individuals.
  • No data on transmission of COVID.
  • No data on preventing mortality from COVID.
  • No data on duration of protection from COVID.

In case you think I’m making this up, or want to see the actual documents sent to the FDA by Pfizer and Moderna for their Emergency Use Authorization, you can check out this, or this respectively. The data gaps can be found starting with page 46 and 48 respectively.

For now let’s turn our eyes to the raw data the vaccine makers used to submit for emergency use authorization …

  1. No access to raw data from trials

Would you like to see the raw data that produced the “90% and 95% effective” claims touted in the news?

Me too. But the companies won’t let us see that data.

As pointed out in the BMJ, something about the Pfizer and Moderna efficacy claims smells really funny. There were “3,410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed COVID-19 in the overall study population, 1,594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1,816 in the placebo group.”

Wait … what? Did they fail to do science in their scientific study by not verifying a major variable?

Could they not test those “suspected but unconfirmed” cases to find out if they had COVID?  Why not test all 3,410 participants for the sake of accuracy?

Can we only guess they didn’t test because it would mess up their “90-95% effective” claims?

Would it not be prudent for the FDA to expect (demand) the vaccine makers test people who have “COVID-like symptoms,” and release their raw data so independent third parties could examine how the manufacturers justified the numbers?

It’s only every citizen of the world we’re trying to get to take these experimental products — why did the FDA not require that? Isn’t that the entire purpose of the FDA anyway?

Good question. Foxes guarding the hen house? No liability. No trust.

Bottom of Form

 

  1. No long-term safety testing

With products that have been on the market only a few months, we have no long-term safety data.

In other words, we have no idea what this product will do in the body months or years from now — for any population.

Given all the risks above (risks that all pharmaceutical products have), would it not be prudent to wait to see if the worst-case scenarios have indeed been avoided?

Would it not make sense to want to fill those pesky “data gaps” before we try to give this to every man, woman and child on the planet?

That would make sense. But to have that data, they need to test it on people, which leads me to my next point …

  1. No informed consent

What most who are taking the vaccine don’t know is that because these products are still in clinical trials, anyone who gets the shot is now part of the clinical trial — part of the experiment.

Those (like me) who do not take it, are part of the control group. Time will tell how this experiment works out.

But, you may be asking, if the vaccines are causing harm, wouldn’t we be seeing that all over the news? Surely the FDA would step in and pause the distribution? (Editor’s note: federal health officials on Tuesday paused the Johnsons & Johnson vaccine over concerns related to blood clots).

If the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) — the government-run system for reporting deaths and injuries after vaccines — worked, maybe things would be different, but …

  1. Under-reporting of adverse reactions and deaths

According to a Harvard study (commissioned by our own government), less than 1% of all adverse reactions to vaccines are actually submitted to VAERS.

While the problems with VAERS have not been fixed (as you can read about in this letter to the CDC), at the time of this writing, VAERS reports over 2,200 deaths from the current COVID vaccines, as well as close to 60,000 adverse reactions.

If those numbers represent only 1% of the total adverse reactions (or .8% to 2% of what this study published recently in the JAMA found), you can do the math — but that equates to somewhere around 110,000 to 220,000 deaths from the vaccines to date, and a ridiculous number of adverse reactions.

Bet you didn’t see that on the news.

That death number would currently still be lower than the 424,000 deaths from medical errors that happen every year (which you probably also don’t hear about), but we are not even six months into the rollout of these vaccines yet.

If you want a deeper dive into the problems with the VAERS reporting system, you can check out this or this.

But then there’s my next point, which could be argued makes these COVID vaccines seem pointless …

  1. The vaccines don’t stop transmission or infection

Aren’t these vaccines supposed to be what we’ve been waiting for to “go back to normal”? Nope.

Why do you think we’re getting all these conflicting messages about needing to practice social distancing and wear masks after we get a vaccine? The reason is because these vaccines were never designed to stop transmission or infection.

If you don’t believe me, I refer you again to the papers submitted to the FDA I linked to above which show that the primary endpoint (what the vaccines are meant to accomplish) is to lower your symptoms.

Sounds like just about every other drug on the market right? That’s it … lowering your symptoms is the big payoff we’ve been waiting for. Does that seem completely pointless to anyone but me?

  • It can’t stop us from spreading the virus.
  • It can’t stop the virus from infecting us once we have it.
  • To get the vaccine is to accept all the risk of these experimental productsand the best it might do is lower symptoms?

There are plenty of other things I can do to lower my symptoms that don’t involve taking what appears to be a really risky product.

Now for the next logical question: If we’re worried about asymptomatic spreaders, would the vaccine not make it more likely that we are creating asymptomatic spread?

If it indeed reduces symptoms, anyone who gets it might not even know they are sick and thus they are more likely to spread the virus, right?

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard many people say the side effects of the vaccine (especially the second dose) are worse than catching COVID.

I can’t make sense of that either.

Take the risk. Get no protection. Suffer through the vaccine side effects. Keep wearing your mask and social distancing … and continue to be able to spread the virus.

It gets worse …

  1. People are catching COVID after being fully vaccinated

Talk about a bummer. You get vaccinated and you still catch COVID.

In reality, this phenomenon is probably happening everywhere, but those are the ones making the news now.

Given the reasons above (and what’s below), maybe this doesn’t surprise you, but bummer if you thought the vaccine was a shield to keep you safe.

It’s not. That was never the point.

If 66% of healthcare workers in L.A. are going to delay or skip the vaccine … maybe they aren’t wowed by the rushed science either.

Maybe they are watching the shady way deaths and cases are being reported …

  1. Overall death rate from COVID

According to the CDC’s own numbers, COVID has a 99.74% survival rate.

Why would I take a risk on a product, that doesn’t stop infection or transmission, to help me overcome a cold that has a .26% chance of killing me — which actually in my age range is has about a .1% chance of killing me (and .01% chance of killing my kids).

With a bar (death rate) that low, we will be in lockdown every year … i.e., forever.

But wait, what about the 500,000-plus deaths, that’s alarming right? I’m glad you asked …

  1. Bloated COVID death numbers

Something smells really funny about this one. Never before in the history of death certificates has our own government changed how deaths are reported.

Why now, are we reporting everyone who dies with COVID in their body, as having died of COVID, rather than the co-morbidities that actually took their life?

Until COVID, all coronaviruses (common colds) were never listed as the primary cause of death when someone died of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, auto-immune conditions or any other major comorbidity.

The disease was listed as the cause of death, and a confounding factor like flu or pneumonia was listed on a separate line.

To bloat the number even more, the World Health Organization and the CDC changed their guidelines such that those who are suspected or probable (but were never confirmed) of having died of COVID, are also included in the death numbers.

If we are going to do that then should we not go back and change the numbers of all past cold and flu seasons so we can compare apples to apples when it comes to death rates?

According to the CDCs own numbers, (scroll down to the section “comorbidities and other conditions”), only 6% of the deaths being attributed to COVID are instances where COVID seems to be the only issue at hand.

In other words, reduce the death numbers you see on the news by 94% and you have what is likely the real numbers of deaths from just COVID.

Even if the former CDC director is correct and COVID-19 was a lab-enhanced virus (see Reason #14 below), a .26% death rate is still in line with the viral death rate that circles the planet every year.

Then there’s this Fauci guy. I’d really love to trust him, but besides the fact that he hasn’t treated one COVID patient, you should probably know …

  1. Fauci and others at NIAID own patents on the Moderna vaccine

Thanks to the Bayh-Dole Act, government workers are allowed to file patents on any research they do using taxpayer funding.

Tony Fauci owns more than 1,000 patents (see this video for more details), including patents being used on the Moderna vaccine … for which he approved government funding.

In fact, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — which oversees the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), of which Fauci is the director — claims joint ownership of Moderna’s vaccine.

Does anyone else see this as a major conflict of interest, or criminal even?

I say criminal because there’s also this pesky problem that makes me even more distrustful of Fauci, NIAD, and the NIH in general …

  1. Fauci is on the hot seat for illegal gain-of-function research

What is “gain-of-function” research? It’s where scientists attempt to make viruses gain functions — i.e. make them more transmissible and deadlier.

Sounds at least a touch unethical, right? How could that possibly be helpful?

Our government agreed, and 2014, banned the practice.

So what did the Fauci-led NIAID do? They pivoted and outsourced the gain-of-function research (in coronaviruses no less) to China — to the tune of a $600K grant.

Mr. Fauci, you have some explaining to do … and I hope the cameras are recording when you have to defend your actions.

For now, let’s turn our attention back to the virus …

  1. The virus continues to mutate

Not only does the virus (like all viruses) continue to mutate, but according to world-renowned vaccine developer Geert Vanden Bossche (whom you’ll meet below if you don’t know him) it’s mutating about every 10 hours.

How in the world are we going to keep creating vaccines to keep up with that level of mutation? We’re not.

Might that also explain why fully vaccinated people are continuing to catch COVID?

Why, given that natural immunity has never ultimately failed humanity, do we suddenly not trust it?

Why, if I ask questions like the above, or post links like what you find above, will my thoughts be deleted from all major social media platforms?

That brings me to the next troubling problem I have with these vaccines …

  1. Censorship and the complete absence of scientific debate

I can’t help but get snarky here, so humor me.

How did you enjoy all those nationally and globally televised, robust debates put on by public health officials, and broadcast simultaneously on every major news station?

Wasn’t it great hearing from the best minds in medicine, virology, epidemiology, economics and vaccinology, from all over the world. as they vigorously and respectfully debated things like:

  • Lockdowns
  • Mask wearing
  • Social-distancing
  • Vaccine efficacyand safety trials
  • How to screen for susceptibility to vaccine injury
  • Therapeutics, (i.e. non-vaccine treatment options)

Wasn’t it great seeing public health officials (who never treated anyone with COVID) have their “science” questioned?

Wasn’t it great seeing the FDA panel publicly grill the vaccine makers in prime time as they stood in the hot-seat of tough questions about products of which they have no liability?

Oh, wait … you didn’t see those debates? No, you didn’t. Because they never happened.

What happened instead was heavy-handed censorship of all but one narrative.

Mark Zuckerberg can question vaccine safety, but I can’t? When did the First Amendment become a suggestion?

It’s the FIRST Amendment, Mark — the one our founders thought was most important.

With so much at stake, why are we fed only one narrative. Shouldn’t many perspectives be heard and professionally debated?

What has happened to science?

What has happened to the scientific method of always challenging our assumptions?

What happened to lively debate in this country, or at least in Western society?

Why did anyone who disagrees with WHO, or the CDC get censored so heavily?

Is the science of public health a religion now — or is science supposed to be about debate?

If someone says “the science is settled” that’s how I know I’m dealing with someone who is closed minded. By definition science (especially biological science) is never settled.

If it was, it would be dogma, not science.

I want to be a good citizen. I really do.

If lockdowns work, I want to do my part and stay home.

If masks work, I want to wear them.

If social distancing is effective, I want to comply.

But, if there is evidence they don’t (masks for example), I want to hear that evidence, too.

If highly credentialed scientists have different opinions, I want to know what they think. I want a chance to hear their arguments and make up my own mind.

I don’t think I’m the smartest person in the world, but I think I can think. Maybe I’m weird, but if someone is censored, then I really want to hear what they think. Don’t you?

To all my friends who don’t have a problem with censorship, will you have the same opinion when what you think is censored?

Is censorship not the technique of dictators, tyrants and greedy, power-hungry people?

Is it not a sign that those who are doing the censoring know it’s the only way they can win?

What if a man who spent his entire life developing vaccines was willing to put his entire reputation on the line and call on all global leaders to immediately stop the COVID vaccines because of problems with the science?

What if he pleaded for an open-scientific debate on a global stage?

Would you want to hear what he has to say? Would you want to see the debate he’s asking for?

  1. World’s leading vaccinologist is sounding the alarm

Here is what may be the biggest reason this COVID vaccine doesn’t make sense to me.

When someone who is very pro-vaccine, who has spent his entire professional career overseeing the development of vaccines, is shouting from the mountaintops that we have a major problem, I think the man should be heard.

In case you missed it, and in case you care to watch it, here is Geert Vanden Bossche, explaining:

  • Why the COVID vaccine may be putting so much pressure on the virus that we are accelerating its ability to mutate and become more deadly.
  • Why the COVID vaccines may be creating vaccine-resistant viruses (similar to antibiotic resistant bacteria).
  • Why, because of previous problems with antibody dependent enhancement, we may be looking at a mass casualty event in the next few months/years.

If you want to see/read about a second, and longer, interview with Vanden Bossche, where he was asked some tough questions, you can check this out.

If half of what he says comes true, these vaccines could be the worst invention of all time.

If you don’t like his science, take it up with him.

I’m just the messenger.

But I can also speak to COVID personally …

  1. I already had COVID

I didn’t enjoy it. It was a nasty cold for two days:

  • Unrelenting butt/low-back aches
  • Very low energy
  • Low-grade fever

It was weird not being able to smell anything for a couple days. A week later, coffee still tasted a little “off.”

But I survived.

Now it appears (as it always has) that I have beautiful, natural, life-long immunity — not something likely to wear off in a few months if I get the vaccine. In my body, and my household, COVID is over.

In fact, now that I’ve had it, there is evidence the COVID vaccine might actually be more dangerous for me.

That is not a risk I’m willing to take.

In summary

The above are just my reasons for not wanting the vaccine. Maybe my reasons make sense to you, maybe they don’t.

Whatever does makes sense to you, hopefully we can still be friends.

I for one think there’s a lot more that we have in common than what separates us.

  • We all want to live in a world of freedom.
  • We all want to do our part to help others and to live well.
  • We all want the right to express our opinions without fearing we’ll be censored or viciously attacked.
  • We all deserve to have access to all the facts so we can make informed decisions.

Agree or disagree with me, I’ll treat you no differently.

You’re a human just as worthy of love and respect as anyone else. For that I salute you, and I truly wish you all the best.

I hope you found this helpful. If so, feel free to share.

If not, feel free to (kindly) let me know, in the comments below, what didn’t make sense to you.

Originally published by TRUE Whole Human.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

===========

Doctors, Aussie MP Battle Pharma mafia for anti-COVID drugs that work

Doctors, Aussie MP Battle Pharma mafia for anti-COVID drugs that work  By Editor, CairnsNews, 17 April 2021

“What is being revealed in my opinion, about the world of global public health, public health in general, is being run like a mafia. There’s a Don somewhere and he’s got all these families that go by NGO names … world body names. These are like Mafia families and they are using money laundering and extortion and a kind of protection racket scheme to cripple nation states and at the same time of course, enrich themselves.” – Independent researcher Polly St George aka “Amazing Polly” 

By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
IN March 2020 a group of critical care doctors called Frontline Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, embarked on a project to compile research and trial results on ivermectin, an anti-parasitic medicine commonly used on animals, but also to treat COVID-19 (SARS_Cov2).

Over four months the group, led by Professor Paul E. Marik. found and reviewed numerous, controlled clinical trials from multiple centers and countries worldwide that reported consistent, large improvements in COVID patient outcomes when treated with ivermectin. A comprehensive scientific review of the trials is available at the Open Science Foundation pre-print server.

The summary of the research notes that an independent meta-analysis calculated the chances that ivermectin was ineffective in COVID-19 to be 1 in 67 million. By the most conservative estimates, that’s at least 67 times less than the chances of getting a serious or fatal COVID vaccine reaction (nearly 4000 post-vaccination deaths so far in Europe).

The enthusiastic doctors could see great promise in widespread ivermectin treatments and were given a hearing in the US Senate Homeland Security Committee. But FCCCA members were insulted by Democrat senator Gary Peters who ignorantly suggested the claims about ivermectin were a “conspiracy theory” and left the hearing without asking questions. The dismissals of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (HCL), the latter supported and used by another group called America’s Frontline Doctors, have been fueled by mainstream media who have been pushing the narrative that “only a vaccine can save us from COVID”.

The fact that President Trump suggested the use of HCL also helped drive the nonsensical, rabid opposition to COVID treatments as opposed to vaccines that didn’t even exist. This included several bogus “studies” attacking HCL that were seized upon by the anti-Trump media. One of the studies got as far as The Lancet but had to be retracted.

This diabolical, profit-motivated narrative that led to HCL being banned by American and Australian states, has cost thousands of lives that could have been saved by use of both of these drugs. HCL was in fact used very early in the pandemic by New York doctor Vladimir Zelenko with a nearly 100% success rate. Other doctors across the US also spoke of its high rates of success.

Around this time, eminent Australian medical research professor Thomas Borody, who developed a globally used triple-therapy treatment for peptic ulcers, began to advocate for ivermectin as a COVID treatment. In August he released a triple therapy treatment that is legally available for prescription but studiously ignored by Australian health authorities like Australian Chief Health Officer Dr Paul Kelly, who oversaw the banning of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 treatment. Another Australian medical academic, Professor Peter McCullough, is also advocating for ivermectin and early drug treatments.

Meanwhile, last January, 700 doctors in South Africa, following the example of thousands of colleagues in the US, Europe, Panama, Brazil and other nations, called for ivermectin to be legalized as it was already widely sold on a black market. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa agreed, but the medical authorities would only make it available through a restrictive, time-consuming process.

The South African doctors (and others worldwide) in effect sent a middle-finger message to the Gates-Rockefeller global pharmafia and their “only vaccines can save us” narrative, but the South African Health Products Regulation Agency, which is part of the recently established global network of health products regulation agencies, resisted.

In sharp contrast, Panama’s Health Ministry had in January already sent out more than 67,000 Covid Kits containing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine tablets to people who had tested positive for Covid. That’s a brave move for a vulnerable central American country. Australian federal MP Craig Kelly

has been raising the examples of South Africa and Panama on social media and has recently had close to a million views.

“The results are now in, they show that Panama’s Covid Kits have crushed the nation’s death rate, saving thousands of lives in that country,” said Kelly in a social media post. “Panama’s decline in death rates have been one of the most successful in the world. And Panama did this when health bureaucrats in Australia were using their powers to threaten jail to anyone in Australia who did similar.”

Kelly went on to blast Australian Labor politicians and media: “And while Panama was saving lives with these kits, Albanese and Bowen where mocking and ridiculing these treatments – and they were being supported by the ABC and other left wing media. “Nasty little hate groups got their kicks from attacking me for posting the evidence and the peer-reviewed science on FB (Facebook).

“Even today, despite Panama’s obvious success and the overwhelming evidence of the published studies for Ivermectin (50 out 50) and early treatment HCQ studies (30 out 30), both these treatments are still demonised and ridiculed by the medical mafia and their useful idiot supporters, because if you follow the money, it’s never been about people’s health, it’s only ever been about selling expensive experimental and novel treatments, which have made a few billions.”

Despite the abundance of evidence for ivermectin, late in March the mainstream media jumped on the South African issue with the BBC blatantly lying “Ivermectin: South African medics using unproven worm drug to treat COVID-19”. BBC news has been given a massive $53 million “grant” (a bribe really) by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for “supporting governance and providing health advice”. BBC are certainly living up to the expectations of the lunatic eugenicist Gates and his pharma-tech empire.

The BBC’s big lie echoed the South African medical bureaucrats who claimed “There is insufficient evidence for or against the use of Ivermectin in the prevention or treatment of Covid-19.” By any reasonable definition of the word “insufficient”, the statement is complete nonsense, and no doubt driven by Gates and his vaccine-pushing operation.

BBC also quoted Dr John Nkengasong, director of the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: “They should not use it. They should be relying on resources that are tested through controlled, clinical trials.” He said reports that the drug is effective are “anecdotal reports and are not scientifically driven.”

The stupid and extremely embarrassing statement, coming from the man who heads the African CDC, is consistent with misinformation spewed by Dr Anthony Fauci, America’s chief pandemic promoter. Fauci is up to his eyeballs in pharma royalties paid to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which he has run since 1984. He claims he donates his share of royalties to “charities”.

NIAID also happens to be involved in a global vaccine project launched in 2010 by the Gates Foundation in collaboration with the World Health Organization. NIAID has received $18 million from the Gates Foundation.

And surprise, surprise, the EU’s medicines regulator announced in the Medical Xpress (March 22nd) that it “advised against using ivermectin for coronavirus outside clinical trials”, claiming only headlines were “touting it as a miracle cure”. Again, more lies from a crooked, compromised arm of the global health mafia that makes the actual Mafia look like rank amateurs.

=============================

Vaccine Passports were in place in 2018

Vaccine Passports were in place in 2018  By greenmedinfo.com , 8 April 2021

Euro Plans For ‘Vaccine Passports’ Were In Place In 2018. Coincidence?

With the world being told that so-called ‘vaccine passports’ will be required for all international travel in future, and in many countries even to enter shops, restaurants, bars, gyms, hotels, theatres, concerts and sports events, the impression we are being given is that the measure is a direct result of the coronavirus pandemic. In Europe, however, which hosts 8 of the top 10 pharmaceutical exporting countries, planning for vaccine passports began at least 20 months prior to the start of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Apparently, the pandemic conveniently provided European politicians with the ‘excuse’ they needed to introduce the idea.

The ‘European Commission’ – the executive body of Europe – first published a proposal for vaccine passports on 26 April 2018. Buried deep in a document dealing with ‘Strengthened Cooperation against Vaccine Preventable Diseases‘, the proposal was essentially ignored by the mainstream media.

roadmap document issued in early 2019 subsequently set out specific plans for implementing the European Commission’s proposal. The primary action listed in the roadmap was to “examine the feasibility of developing a common vaccination card/passport” for European citizens that is “compatible with electronic immunization information systems and recognized for use across borders.” The plan aimed for a legislative proposal to be issued in Europe by 2022.

Interestingly, the roadmap uses several terms that, while relatively uncommon in most countries prior to the pandemic, have since become heard on a daily basis in the mainstream media. Perhaps the most notable of these is ‘vaccine hesitancy’. Supporting European countries in “countering vaccine hesitancy” is listed in the document as one of the key action points.

The possibility of pandemics and “unexpected outbreaks” occurring is also referred to in the roadmap. Revealingly, specific reference is made to supporting the authorization of “innovative vaccines, including for emerging health threats.” Stating that the “vaccine manufacturing industry” has a “key role” in meeting the aims described in the document, the roadmap lists “improving EU manufacturing capacity” and stockpiling vaccines as further action points to be considered.

Towards strengthening “existing partnerships” and “collaboration with international actors and initiatives,” the roadmap also refers to a global vaccination summit meeting that took place in September 2019. A close examination of the attendees and subject matter for this meeting is revealing.

The 2019 Global Vaccination Summit

Unreported by most mainstream media outlets, a ‘Global Vaccination Summit‘ was hosted in Brussels, Belgium, on 12 September 2019. Organized by the European Commission in cooperation with the World Health Organization, the meeting took place just 3 months before the coronavirus outbreak began. Significantly, this was also only 36 days before the now infamous coronavirus outbreak simulation exercisesupported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundationthe World Economic Forum, and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, which took place on 18 October 2019.

An invitation-only event, the vaccination summit participants included political leaders, high-level representatives from the United Nations and other international organizations, health ministries, leading academics, scientists and health professionals, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations.

The summit was structured around three round tables entitled ‘In Vaccines We Trust‘, ‘The Magic Of Science‘, and ‘Vaccines Protecting Everyone, Everywhere‘. Notable panel members for these round tables included Nanette Cocero, Global President of Pfizer Vaccines; Dr. Seth Berkley, CEO of GAVI, the Global Vaccine Alliance – an organization that has received vast amounts of funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; and Joe Cerrell, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Managing Director for Global Policy and Advocacy.

Pandemic planning was clearly in evidence at this summit meeting. Key documents distributed to the participants included reports on ‘Pandemic influenza preparedness planning‘, ‘A pandemic influenza exercise for the European Union‘, ‘Avian Influenza and Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Planning‘, ‘Pandemic influenza preparedness and response planning‘, ‘Towards sufficiency of Pandemic Influenza Vaccines in the EU‘, and ‘A “Public Private Partnership” on European Pandemic influenza vaccines‘.

Across all these documents, the goal of strengthening collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry is repeatedly stressed, as also is the message that a global pandemic was now inevitable.

Vaccine passports: who really benefits?

Who really benefits from vaccine passports? Certainly not ordinary people, for whom sharing their health records and other personal data could soon become mandatory merely for participation in society.

Instead, the chief beneficiary will be the multinational pharmaceutical industry. With global drug and vaccine sales already forecast to reach $1.5 trillion this year, pharmaceutical companies and their investors are salivating at the prospect of vaccine passports becoming mandatory worldwide.

The total market for COVID-19 vaccines is predicted to be worth $100 billion in sales and $40 billion in post-tax profits. Annual vaccinations against mutations of the coronavirus could raise these numbers still further. Unless we resist vaccine passports and instead ‘vote for reason‘, drug and vaccine makers could force the world into long-term economic and political dependency. Our urgent goal must therefore be to replace the greed-driven pharmaceutical ‘business with disease‘ with a healthcare system based on truly preventive approaches.

Accepting the pharmaceutical industry’s alternative to this is simply unthinkable.

See more here: greenmedinfo.com

=======================

Why do so many refuse to take the COVID vaccine

Why do so many refuse to take the COVID vaccine  By Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution, 3 April 2021

The Top Four Reasons Why Many People, Doctors & Scientists Refuse To Take The COVID Vaccine

Editor’s note: Click on above link to view graphics in this article

When you ask somebody why they are choosing to take the covid vaccine or why they are wearing a mask, they may respond, “because science.” The next question to ask is, how many of these people have actually gone through the science of vaccines and whether or not masks may be an effective tool for limiting the spread of COVID?

From what I see, the majority of people receive their information from mainstream media organizations, which are organizations that have strong ties to pharmaceutical corporations and governments, and are known for presenting one perspective that favours a particular agenda while completely ridiculing the other. They sometimes go as far as labelling another perspective as a “conspiracy theory” despite the fact that there is ample, credible evidence to support the claims of that perspective. Do people simply believe things because they feel that everybody else believes it too? What are the social and cultural implications of not being in alignment with the majority?

Due to reliance on a single media source, many people are not shown information and perspectives that tell a different or more complete story, especially when it comes to “controversial” topics. Often times, these topics are avoided using ridicule in place of addressing points brought up from other perspectives. We’ve seen a lot of this with COVID, an unprecedented amount of censorship of science has taken place with regards to all things COVID, and many academics have been speaking up about it for quite some time.Buy New $24.99 ($2.08 / Count)(as of 03:33 EDT – Details)

A quote I often like to use to demonstrate this, and one I’ve used many times before, comes from Dr. Kamran Abbasi, a recent executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open. He recently published a piece in the BMJ, titled “Covid-19: politicization, “corruption,” and suppression of science.”

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.

I also recently wrote an article about Vinay Prasad MD MPH, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco. He is one of many experts in the field during this pandemic who has been criticizing Facebook fact-checkers for their missteps in claiming content is false when it is not.

One of the best examples of suppression is “anti-lockdown” rhetoric. Multiple dozens of studies have shown and concluded that lockdowns do not reduce COVID infection, will kill more people than COVID due to lack of access to health care, starvation and more, and cause a wide range of other health and economical issues. Regardless, the experts who have been publishing and sharing this information have been heavily censored. And culturally, we’re pretending that there’s no science to oppose lockdowns.

recently wrote an article by Dr. Sunetra Gupta, an Oxford professor who is regarded by many as the world’s pre-eminent infectious disease epidemiologist. She is one of many who explains that lockdowns have done nothing to protect people from COVID, and that they have caused a great deal of harm.

Why is it that such an alarming amount of respected experts who oppose the measures being taken to combat COVID, are being ridiculed, ignored, and unacknowledged, yet a political doctor, somebody like Anthony Fauci, can get all of the air time he pleases? Why aren’t all perspectives, science and data shared equally? Why have effective “alternative” treatments been ignored and the vaccine made out to be the only option?

Below are the top four reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy is at an all time high among people of all backgrounds.Buy New $13.70 ($0.11 / Ounce)(as of 03:33 EDT – Details)

  1. A Lack of Trust In Government & Pharmaceutical Companies.

First I’d like to draw your attention to a quote taken from a paper published in the International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy by professor Paddy Rawlinson, from Western Sydney University.

Critical criminology repeatedly has drawn attention to the state-corporate nexus as a site of corruption and other forms of criminality, a scenario exacerbated by the intensification of neoliberalism in areas such as health. The state-pharmaceutical relationship, which increasingly influences health policy, is no exception. That is especially so when pharmaceutical products such as vaccines, a burgeoning sector of the industry, are mandated in direct violation of the principle of informed consent. Such policies have provoked suspicion and dissent as critics question the integrity of the state-pharma alliance and its impact on vaccine safety. However, rather than encouraging open debate, draconian modes of governance have been implemented to repress and silence any form of criticism, thereby protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny. The article examines this relationship in the context of recent legislation in Australia to intensify its mandatory regime around vaccines. It argues that attempts to undermine freedom of speech, and to systematically excoriate those who criticise or dissent from mandatory vaccine programs, function as a corrupting process and, by extension, serve to provoke the notion that corruption does indeed exist within the state-pharma alliance.

There are many examples that illustrate why so many people simply cannot trust these institutions when it comes to anything, let alone health. Another one comes from comes from a paper published in 2010 by Robert G. Evans, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Vancouver School of Economics, UBC.  The paper, titled “Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR”  is accessible through the National Library of Medicine (PubMed), and it outlines how Pfizer has been a “habitual offender” constantly engaging in illegal and criminal activities. This particular paper points out that from 2002 to 2010, Pfizer has been “assessed $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards” and has set records for both criminal fines and total penalties. Keep in mind we are now in 2021, that number is likely much higher.

A fairly recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine focuses on outlining why those injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) because COVID is still an “emergency.” It also brings up the topic of vaccine hesitancy.

It mentions that among African Americans, many are hesitant to get their COVID vaccine because of events like the Tuskegee syphilis study. The study used African Americans to see how syphilis progressed. The people with syphilis were told they were receiving free treatment, but they were really receiving nothing. This also happened after the discovery of a cure, the people were still not given the cure or any other known treatment. They were lied to.Buy New $3.96 ($0.07 / Ounce)(as of 03:33 EDT – Details)

It wasn’t until a whistleblower, Peter Buxtun, leaked information about the study to the New York Times and the paper published it on the front page on November 16th, 1972, that the Tuskegee study finally ended. By this time only 74 of the test subjects were still alive. 128 patients had died of syphilis or its complications, 40 of their wives had been infected, and 19 of their children had acquired congenital syphilis.

The study in the NEJM points out:

In a Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted in August and September 2020, it was found that 49%of Black respondents would probably not or definitely not take a Covid-19 vaccine, as compared with 33% of White respondents. Similarly, a Pew Research Center poll from November found that although 71% of Black respondents knew someone who had been hospitalized or died from Covid-19, only 42% intended to get a Covid-19 vaccine when it became available. These findings indicate a need to provide strong safety nets and supports to encourage Covid-19 vaccine adoption in vulnerable communities, including adequate injury compensation.

One study estimates up to 31 percent of  surveyed Americans may not take the vaccine. That’s a lot of people if you extrapolate it out to the entire population. And it’s hard to really know how many people won’t. CNN has made it seem as if Donald Trump supporters will not be taking the shot, if this is the case that could be more than 50 percent of Americans, or at least all those who voted for Trump, which is a big number.

There are countless examples, it’s not just within the black community. Multiple polls in Canada and the United States have shown that what seem to be quite a large minority will not be getting the vaccine. This also includes medical professionals. For example 50 percent of healthcare workers and hospital staff in Riverside County are refusing to take the COVID-19 vaccine. Keep in mind that Riverside County, California has a population of approximately 2.4 million. A survey conducted at Chicago’s Loretto Hospital shows that 40 percent of healthcare workers will not take the COVID-19 vaccine once it’s available to them.

Vaccine hesitancy among physicians and academics is nothing new. To illustrate this I often point to a conference held at the end of 2019 put on by the World Health Organization (WHO). At the conference, Dr. Heidi Larson a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project Emphasized this point, having  stated,

The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers. We have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. That’s a huge problem, because to this day any study I’ve seen…still, the most trusted person on any study I’ve seen globally is the health care provider.

  1. The Virus Has A 99.95 Survival Rate.

Buy New $11.76 ($0.10 / Ounce)(as of 03:33 EDT – Details)Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.  This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. This correlates with data from Sweden as well.

Jonas F Ludvigsson a paediatrician at Örebro University Hospital and professor of clinical epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute has published research showing that out of nearly 2 million school children, zero died from covid despite no lockdowns, school closings or mask mandates during the first wave of the pandemic.

There is a perception out there that COVID is no more dangerous that other severe respiratory illnesses, which are the second leading cause of death worldwide, and that covid is similar to already existing coronaviruses that have circled the global for decades affecting hundreds of millions of people a year and killing tens of millions.

Another issue raised by many, which is a matter of public record now, is the fact that it’s very unclear as to how many deaths marked as COVID are, and were, actually a result of COVID.

These are reasons why people view the vaccine as unnecessary. In some cases, people feel that the risk of vaccine injury is greater than the risk of dying from COVID, which may actually be quite true. This is a completely separate debate, but here is data from the (US) Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS):

This system (VAERS) has been known to only capture about 1 percent of vaccine injuries. A 2010 HHS pilot study by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research (AHCR) in the United States found that 1 in every 39 vaccines causes injury, a shocking comparison to the claims from the CDC of 1 in every million. For example, From 1990 to 2007 there were about 80,000 US cases of Kawasaki disease; during the same period just 56 US cases were reported to VAERS–0.07%. (Hua et al, Pediatr Inf Dis J 2009: 28:943-947) The cause of KD is unknown; it is rare, it is very serious, and it is prevalent among young and frequently vaccinated children. If any event deserves prompt reporting to VAERS it is Kawasaki disease, but this does not happen.

Keep in mind that approximately 100,000 million people in the U.S. have had at least one shot.

On top of this you have reports of deaths all over social media. There seem to be hundreds of examples but at the end of the day, there is not a proper system in place to properly track adverse reactions and deaths. The mainstream is not at all interested in that conversation either.

  1. Some People Don’t Know How Safe And Effective The Vaccine Is

Dr. Peter Doshi, an associate editor at the British Medical Journal published a piece in the journal issuing a word of caution about the supposed “95% Effective” COVID vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. It outlines multiple reasons why the effectiveness claimed by the pharmaceutical companies is called into question.

You can also read a piece that dives deeper into this question that we recently published, here.

The vaccine is being heavily marketed as a saviour, which is the case with almost all vaccines despite many concerns being raised over the years. One great example is with regards to aluminum containing vaccines. Scientists have discovered that injected aluminum is very different from ingested aluminum. Injected aluminum doesn’t exit the body, and can be detected within the brain years after injection. Is this “anti-vax”? No, it’s just science, these are legitimate concerns.

When it comes to the COVID vaccine, there are concerns, especially since the mRNA technology used in many of the vaccines is new.

A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

A few years ago, a team of Scandinavian scientists conducted a study and found that African children inoculated with the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis) vaccine, during the early 1980s had a 5-10 times greater mortality than their unvaccinated peers.

They state:

It should be of concern that the effect of routine vaccinations on all-cause mortality was not tested in randomized trials. All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis.Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

I’m placing this study here to show that some vaccines may have unknown long term health consequences, even if they do offer some protection to the targeted disease.

  1. There May Be Protection From Infection

As with most viruses, the host gains immunity from infection. Take the measles virus. A child has a 0.01 chance of dying from the measles, yet if they survive the virus, they have lifetime protection against the virus, a strengthened and more evolved immune system, and may even have more possible protection from a select few cancers.

Furthermore, it’s very questionable whether the MMR vaccine is effective. There is a long history of measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations. Children are required to get one shot, then the antibodies run out so they are required to get a second. A third one seems to be in the works. It’s not even clear if the vaccine is more dangerous than the measles or not.

Martin Kulldorff, a medical professor at Harvard university and vaccine safety expert recently tweeted,

After having protecting themselves while working class were exposed to the virus, the vaccinated #Zoomers now want #VaccinePassports where immunity from prior infection does not count, despite stronger evidence for protection. One more assault on working people. 

He also recently tweeted:

Trust in #vaccines is declining, but don’t blame the tiny group of anti-vaxxers. It is those pushing #VaccinePassports, arguing that all must be vaccinated, and those censoring vaccine discussions that are undermining trust in vaccines.

There are multiple studies hinting at the point the professor makes, that those who have been infected with covid may have immunity for years, and possibly even decades. For example, according to a new study authored by respected scientists at leading labs, individuals who recovered from the coronavirus developed “robust” levels of B cells and T cells (necessary for fighting off the virus) and “these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time.” This is just one of many examples. There are studies that suggest infection to prior coronaviruses, which prior to COVID-19 circled the globe infecting hundreds of millions of people every single year, can also provide protection from COVID-19.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, there are ample concerns about the COVID vaccine, its effectiveness, the safety of it in the short term and in the long term. Despite these concerns, the vaccine is heavily marketed as unquestionably safe and effective. A fifth category could have been added to this article, and that’s the ridicule and acknowledgments of other, cheap effective treatments that have shown to have a tremendous amount of success. It seems these treatments would have rendered the vaccine useless and unnecessary, but the vaccine is a multiple billion dollar product.

We have to consider these things in this day and age. Would the “powers that be” really prevent and ridicule treatments that could have saved many lives, and can save many lives and render it useless and dangerous, despite so much evidence that says otherwise, to make the vaccine perceived as the only solution.

Do we really want to live in a world where we give a small group of people the ability to mandate vaccines in order to have access to certain freedoms we enjoyed prior to COVID? Is this right? Is this ethical? If we allow them to do this, what else will we allow them to do in the future?

========================

The ‘Covid’ Vaccine Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction!

 

The Covid Vaccine Is a Weapon of Mass Destruction   By Gary D. Barnett, March 31, 2021

 

“Saying that a state or regime is a murderer is a convenient personification of an abstraction. Regimes are in reality people with the power to command a whole society. It is these people that have committed the kilo- and megamurders of our century, and we must not hide their identity under the abstraction of the ‘state,’ ‘regime,’ ‘government,’ or ‘communist.’”

Rudolph Rummel (1994) “Death by Government”

 

Due to Rummel’s book title, some might take this quote to be contradictory, but it is not. People murder or purposely allow murder; so only identifying the killers by way of identity abstraction is akin to blaming a gun for shooting and killing on its own instead of blaming the actual murderer that pulled the trigger. It is a way of hiding blame in the form of psychological trickery. This can only be an effective strategy when used by the ruling class as propaganda for fools.

Government’s are made up of people, and these people called politicians come from the ranks of the general population, and they are the worst of mankind. Is this then an indictment of all humanity? I would not go quite that far, and those in government are murderers, but complicity by mass voluntary servitude and support of the state in the murder of others is a major factor in the persecution, genocide, and democide of innocents.

Today, we are witnessing the atrocious results of this dynamic, as people around the world are participating in the plot with their chosen governments to exterminate large numbers of society by their cooperation, support, indifference, and especially their silence. The ‘state,’ ‘regime,’ and ‘government’ are certainly murderers in whole, but it is important to attach names to all that take part in the wholesale slaughter of others.

The extermination of societies through genocide and democide is achieved in many ways, from war, forced starvation, psychological destruction, mass imprisonment, and sterilization; from chemical agents, bombs, nuclear weapons, and now the killing will be due to ‘vaccination.’ Surely I jest you say, but I do not, as the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of millions or billions of people around the world at the hands of the powerful is sought. Some call it population control, some call it depopulation, but it is simply planned mass murder to benefit the agendas of the few. The tool being used to accomplish this goal is the untested, experimental, mind-altering, gene-changing, toxic poison called the Covid-19 ‘vaccine,’ and it is the newest weapon of mass destruction.

Many are having horrible effects due to these injections, and many are dying. Some are dying immediately after taking this shot, some are dying after a few hours or days, others after a few weeks, and the long-term effects at this point are virtually unknown. It is as if people are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to logic, as this falsely claimed affliction called Covid that supposedly has an survival rate of 99.98%, is being treated as a deadly pandemic, and the ‘cure’ recommended is a ‘vaccine’ that kills many more than the purposely created fake virus scam.

The agendas of the so-called claimed elites are clear, as evidenced in just these few quotes of many below. The desire to eliminate much of the population has been voiced over and over again, but the people still refuse to listen, and in fact, stand in line to take the state’s poison for something that has never once been separated, purified, properly isolated, or identified, and has not even been proven to exist.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” ~ Ted Turner

“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.” ~ Jacques Yves Cousteau

“If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full.” ~ Bertrand Russell

“The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it.” ~ Margaret Sanger

“A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

“Population control will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.” ~ Hillary Clinton

“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”. ~ Henry Kissinger

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” ~ Bill Gates

While the ruling segment of society, including all the political pawns in government, are behind this push to depopulate the world in order to gain total control, there are many aspects to this plan. Much of the focus has been on the deliberate destruction of the natural immune systems of populations at large, as this alone will be responsible for extreme sickness, dependability, the loss of functional existence, and large-scale death. This has already been essentially accomplished due to lockdowns, quarantines, dangerous mask wearing, job losses, isolation, distancing, lack of exercise, loss of vital vitamin D, and all the extreme stress caused by these absurd and evil mandates. In other words, the trap is set, and due to the much-weakened state of the general health and immunity of the ‘public,’ the deadly vaccine will be the driver of undue mortality, just as is desired by those attempting to take over the planet. A perfect storm has been devised in order to bring down this country and the world, and it is now going forward with little resistance.

All will be blamed on a ‘virus’ of course, but it will not be this bogus Covid strain being propagated by the political class, the medical establishment, and the media, it will be blamed on fabricated new strains mislabeled as ‘mutant variants’ of this bogus ‘Covid-19.’

Thousands upon thousands are already dying due to taking this poisonous concoction, and many more have had horrible adverse reactions such as Bell’s Palsy, paralysis, loss of bodily functions and speech, anaphylactic shock, cardiac arrest and arrhythmia, deadly autoimmune reactions, and a myriad of other detrimental side effects. In Israel, the most highly vaccinated population to date, the Pfizer vaccine has killed “about 40 times more (elderly) people and 260 times more of the young than what the COVID-19 virus would have claimed in the given time frame.” As more and more line up for this toxic lethal injection, the death counts will continue to rise, and every ensuing shot will cause more death. As time goes by, and as subsequent vaccines are claimed to be necessary, the death count will explode.

The government, all its enforcers, the medical establishment, the pharmaceutical cartels, and the mainstream media, are all to blame, but so are all of you that have voluntarily given them this power over you that you now refuse to take away. Without resistance and dissent, the blame for the coming carnage will lie at the feet of all who stood by and allowed this to happen without saying no.

This is a war against the people; the chosen tool to gain the submission of the masses has been a lie called Covid-19, and the weapon of mass destruction being used to accomplish the death of millions is the ‘Covid vaccine!’

If you cherish your family, your freedom and your life, refuse to wear a mask, refuse all orders by the state, and refuse to take this murderous injection wrongly called a ‘vaccine.’

Source links:

Deployment of Covid ‘vaccine’

 

Covid vaccine destroys your immune system

Covid vaccine causes death 

The Covid depopulation ‘vaccine’

Depopulation agenda

Experimental ‘vaccine’ deaths in Israel

Death by government

CDC ignores vaccine deaths

The Best of Gary D. Barnett

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son. Visit his website.

=========================

Previous articles

August 2016

July 2016

June 2016

May 2016

April 2016

March 2016

February 2016

January 2016

December 2015

November 2015

October 2015

September 2015

August 2015

    •  A sea of frothing, sweary, often pompous, intolerance  By Tim Black, Spiked Online, 29 August 2015

July 2015

June 2015

May 2015

April 2015

March 2015

February 2015

    •  

January 2015

 

Environmentalism and ‘Science’: Failures, gravy trains, lies, hidden agendas and alarms such as 5G and GSMs.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles; links to previous articles follow.

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens

The Australian Academy of Drama Queens  By Tony Thomas, Quadrant Online, 3 May 2021

The green-left Australian Academy of Science has produced another outburst of climate doomism: “The risks to Australia of a 3 degC warmer world.” Nearly 50 years ago the same Academy was assessing the risks to Australia of a cooling world that climate scientists feared might nip crops and leave us shivering under our Doonas. Who would deny that climate science is a slave to fashion? [1]

The Academy report of last March opens and closes with scary pics of fire-blackened bushland. It’s a vanity project, with the authors citing their own works multiple times, especially chair Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (16 self-citations), Mark Howden (11 times) Lesley Hughes (10 times), Will Steffen (10 times), and David Karoly and John Church (8 times). Even Sarah Perkins-Kilpatrick, who is supposed to be reviewing the document, is reviewing herself as she’s cited seven times in the references.[2] Reviewer Jason Evans is cited nine times. Another reviewer is Martin Rice, who works for Tim Flannery’s propaganda outfit Climate Council, but he features only four times in the body of the report.

Perkins-Kilpatrick is convinced by her climate models that warming is turbo-charging everything (but apparently not our cool summer of 2020-21, nor the current deep freeze in the Northern Hemisphere).[3] She’s so confident about the modelling that she’ll mortgage her house and happily bet her kids lives on it.[4] I will necessarily win this bet as the RCPs (Representative Modelling Pathways or official scenarios) she uses are discredited and climate models have overshot actual warming to date by a factor of at least two.[5] I’ll enjoy her house but I promise not to slay her kids.

The above-mentioned Will Steffen’s co-authored piece on “climate tipping points”, was headlined, “The growing threat of abrupt and irreversible climate changes must compel political and economic action on emissions.” The Nature paper included political rodomontade like:

In our view, the consideration of tipping points helps to define that we are in a climate emergency and strengthens this year’s chorus of calls for urgent climate action — from schoolchildren to scientists, cities and countries.

The Australian Academy’s 3deg scare paper in March, also co-authored by Steffen, draws on that Steffen et al Nature article and re-produces its text and graphics of tipping point “domino effects”. Five months after the Nature paper was published, the journal had to grovel horrifically because the seven apex climate scientists had screwed up.[6] Here’s the grovel – try to restrain your mirth (emphasis added):

Correction 09 April 2020: The figure ‘Too close for comfort’ in this Comment incorrectly synthesized and interpreted data from the IPCC. The graph labelled the temperatures as absolute, rather than risesmisrepresented the levels of riskmisinterpreted data as coming from a 2007 IPCC report; extrapolated the focus of a 2018 report; and was not clear about the specific sources of the data. The graphic has been extensively modified online to correct these errors.

Mercifully, Hoegh-Guldberg, Steffen et al have pasted the corrected graphic into their Academy report, not the discarded FUBAR version.[7] Maybe climate science isn’t so “irrefutable” after all.

Just in case, the Academy has given itself a free card to exaggerate and scaremonger:

We adopted the precautionary principle: if a potentially damaging effect cannot be ruled out, it needs to be taken seriously.

The Academy’s authors failed to heed the devastating critique of their scenario methods in a paper last May led by Roger Pielke of University of Colorado, titled “Systemic Misuse of Scenarios in Climate Research and Assessment.”  The Academy paper has about 20 mentions of official but discredited scenario RCP8.5 and about 50 mentions of other RCP scenarios. Typical:

RCP8.5 assumes little mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and is associated with global warming of 4°c or more above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Up to now, anthropogenic emissions have tracked the RCP8.5 pathway most closely…

Graphics misleadingly show the various scenarios as consistent and comparable. And RCP8.5 is used in the body of the report to imagine horrible warming outcomes, e.g. hailstorms, p32.

Pielke, who is not a climate sceptic, says that, at worst, the extreme and implausible projections of RCP8.5 are touted as “business as usual”. He wrote:

The misuse of scenarios in climate research means that much of what we think we know about our collective climate future may be incomplete, myopic or even misleading or wrong, and as such, ‘uncomfortable knowledge’.

Pielke tracked 4,500 scientific papers misusing the most extreme scenario RCP8.5. The dud scenario featured in 16,800 scholarly articles since 2010. In January-February 2020 alone, more than 1300 studies quoted RCP8.5, at the rate of about 20 per day, with serious misuse at the rate of two studies per day.

The consequences of RCP scenario misuse include a myopic perspective on alternative futures and a correspondingly limited view on policy alternatives, the creation of a vast academic literature with little to no connection to the real world, and an unwarranted emphasis on apocalyptic climate futures that influences public and policy-maker perspectives.

The objective of understanding scenario misuse is not to apportion or assign blame, but to understand how such a pervasive and consequential failure of scientific integrity came to be on such an important topic, how it can be corrected and how it can be avoided in the future.

Pielke and co-author Ritchie sheet some blame home to the incestuous connections among prominent climate scientists.

The IPCC scenario process has been led by a small group of academics for more than a decade, and decisions made by this small community have profoundly shaped the scientific literature and correspondingly, how the media and policy communities interpret the issue of climate change.

The Academy paper, with its incestuous group of self-citing authors-cum-IPCC-contributors, could be a case in point.

Their chair Hoegh-Guldberg is a climate activist par excellenceAs the ABC put it in a fawning interview in 2009 “Hoegh-Guldberg’s work has been embraced by the likes of Al Gore and David Attenborough” and “his mission now is to travel the globe as he fights to raise awareness of what we stand to lose.” He’s been forecasting the bleaching death of the Great Barrier Reef from climate change since 1998, when his modelling put the Reef’s demise as early as 2030 – less than a decade from now. He lamented that his science peers were giving his research bad reviews: “They were meant to be anonymous but someone slipped them to me, and they were very scathing …” Climategate’s cynical emails of 2009 threw plenty more light on this “anonymous” and gamed peer-review system.

In the same 2009 interview Hoegh-Guldberg forecast the disappearance of Arctic sea ice by 2019. He argued with Andrew Bolt: “This is four million kilometres square of ice that’s disappearing. It’s not a tiny thing! But wouldn’t you say that’s a bad sign?” Fact Check: Hoegh-Guldberg confused square miles with square kilometres – but in any event the ice extent last month was 5.7 million square miles or 14.8 million square kilometres. (Hoegh-Guldberg’s “This is four million kilometres square of ice” could not be more wrong. What he said, but doesn’t mean, is a square with sides of 4 million km to give a total area of 16 trillion sq km.)

The ABC interviewer spliced in tape of Hoegh-Guldberg addressing a conference in Saudi Arabia (of all places) and saying, “Let’s now change the world.”

Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has provided detailed history on Professor Hoegh-Guldberg, under the header, The WWF Activist in Charge at the IPCC (March 30, 2014). Among other things, she accuses him of using “drama queen language”, such as this (you be the judge):

The world is currently facing the greatest challenge of all time … Humanity is at the crossroads. The message is quite simple and the choice stark: act now or face an uncertain, potentially catastrophic future … World leaders can change the history of the planet and directly influence the survival of millions upon millions of people … Basically, the future is looking very gloomy unless we act immediately and decisively.

Laframboise wrote,

The fact that he has spent his career cashing cheques from Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was no impediment to him participating in the latest [Fifth] IPCC assessment. The geniuses there decided he wasn’t merely lead-author material, but that he deserved to be placed in charge of a chapter it’s called  The Ocean.

WWF Australia published a spiffy, 16-page brochure titled “Lights Out for the Reef”. Hoegh-Guldberg’s photo and biographical sketch are one of the first things you see. In the foreword, he says that unless we “increase our commitment” to caring for the Great Barrier Reef, it “will disappear.” He knows what the future holds – and he knows it’s apocalyptic. Not content to merely express his own opinions, he presumes to lecture the rest of us. We need to “take action” and “act now.” We need to “deal decisively with climate change.” Behind all of this, of course, lurks a threat: if we don’t follow his advice, we’ll be really, really sorry.

Hoegh-Guldberg’s Queensland University biography lists four reports he did for Greenpeace from 1994-2000. After Laframboise’s post, Hoegh-Guldberg penned yet another tract for WWF, “Reviving the Ocean Economy – the Case for Action – 2015” and the following year he conducted a WWF seminar. The president and CEO of WWF (US), Carter Roberts, recalled schmoozing with him on a diving trip and:

Ove showed us maps tracking elevated levels of CO2 in the oceans, and how those levels corresponded with the declining health of the world’s coral reefs. If current trends continue, he told us, we will watch corals around the world wink out year after year until the only reefs left alive are found in a small remote spot in the South Pacific…

James Cook University’s Professor Peter Ridd was sacked in 2017 for demanding audits of alleged systemic flaws in Barrier Reef scientists’ methodology. He’s now taken his case to the High Court. As a further example of contested reef science, researcher Dr Jennifer Marohasy has challenged the standard methodology of assessing GBR coral die-back from the window of an aeroplane overflying at 120 metres. She says this is too high to give realistic results and when she has dived or used a drone on the same reefs, she’s found the corals perfectly healthy.

None of the Academy folk doing the 3deg report noticed that they were reinventing the (square) wheel. In 2007 climate guru of the era Dr Barrie Pittock wrote a 16,000-word tract for WWF headed: “Dangerous Aspirations: Beyond 3degC warming in Australia”. It’s full of the same guff and doomism as that of the Academy’s folk, who toiled a year over their “Risk to Australia of a 3degC warmer world” lookalike.[8]

The supposedly dispassionate Academy paper makes no mention whatsoever of nuclear power, and just one passing mention of China – whose emissions will swamp whatever cuts Australia tries to make.[9] The Academy paper appears even more ridiculous when set against the views this month of Obama’s chief scientist of the Energy Department, physicist Steven Koonin, who is by no means a sceptic. He expects only 1degC more warming this century – hardly worth spending trillions to combat and easy to adapt to. Further, he says the scientists, politicians and the media have generated a narrative that is absurdly, demonstrably false. That includes the “extreme weather” meme which the IPCC itself rates as “low confidence” – and which the Academy paper touts at least 27 times. The models can’t even agree on the current actual global temperature to within 3degC while claiming 1 per cent precision on key variables. The modellers’ guesses on the temperature impact of doubled  CO2 have not improved in 40 years and are now diverging even more widely, Koonin gripes.[10] The darling of catastrophists circa 2019 was David Wallace Wells with his scare book The Uninhabitable Earth. But even he is calling on fellow activists to revise their advocacy “in a less alarmist direction.”

The Academy – its members are overwhelmingly taxpayer-funded – wants to force Australia’s blue-collars, tradies and non-public servant middle classes into unpalatable and dark-green lifestyle changes. One example: “large-scale adoption of EVs [electric vehicles].” Let’s check the data (the report does not).

EV sales last year were just 6,900, up a mere 182 cars on 2019. That 6,900 total was not even 1 per cent of car sales. To date in 2021, EV sales (excluding Teslas at $73,000 upwards but including hybrids) are just 0.6 per cent. Last year 50 per cent of sales were fat gas-guzzling SUVs, up from 45 per cent in 2019. The Academy wants to push us into EVs via government subsidies and by penalties/restrictions on normal cars.

Ponder the  EV handwaving by the Academy, as evident in the passage below, taken from Academy paper March 31, 2021 (emphasis added):

On current estimates, lifetime costs of electric vehicles (EVs) are similar to those of conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and are likely to fall further.

Now check back into the real world, as described in a Federal Department of Industry, Science and Energy paper published last February:

Currently, closing the total cost-of-ownership gap with battery electric vehicle subsidies would not represent value-for-money. Analysis shows that this would be expected to cost the taxpayer $195-747 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, depending on the vehicle type and usage. This is high when compared to the Emissions Reduction Fund price of $16 per tonne of carbon emitted. This translates to around $4,500 to $8,000 over the life of the vehicle, or around 10-40 cents per kilometre over a 10 year vehicle life.

The Academy leaves it to the omniscient government to fix the “adjustment challenges” to jobs and industries arising from its pro-EV policies. Otherwise, “Australia will be left with an inefficient car fleet, dependent on mostly imported oil, for many years to come.” What’s “inefficient” about my little family car Hyundai i30 (price new, $23,000)? It carries us like a charm on a whiff of petrol.

The Academy calls for “an immediate halt to new thermal coal mines and coal-fired power stations” and expects the bureaucracy to somehow find coal workers better jobs or earlier retirement. But anyway, it cites its own author, economist John Quiggin,

Thermal coal mining is not a major employer in Australia’s overall labour market and most employees in the industry have skills that make them employable in a wide range of industries. Only a small number of communities, mostly in central and northern Queensland, depend critically on coal mining…

Those thermal coal miners whom the Academy is happy to disappear, number about 20,000, out of about 40,000 coal miners in total, plus, of course, their household and commercial dependents. Nevertheless, the Academy continues:

Many coal-dependent workers and communities will be better off under a compassionate, pro-active transition program than by simply carrying on with ‘business as usual’ (Wiseman et al. 2017).”

Professor John Wiseman works at the dark-green end of Melbourne University at its Sustainable Society Institute. The title of one of his co-authored publications, “The Degrowth Imperative: Reducing energy and resource consumption as an essential component in achieving carbon budget targets” gives the flavour. “Degrowth” means reducing living standards like GDP per capita. As Wiseman’s co-author, Samuel Alexander, puts it, “And can we come together to build resilient, relocalised economies as globalised, carbon capitalism comes to an end in coming years and decades?” Wiseman’s also a writer on climate change and mental health, e.g. “And while many people feel grief and despair about the prospects of climate change, others see transformational hope…”

The Academy report starts with a full-page 230-word kow-tow to Aborigines, including a homily by Aboriginal Dr Emma Lee, one of the 15 members of the expert panel of authors. (The Academy signed up to a “Reconciliation Action Plan” in August 2019 to burnish its woke credentials). Dr  Lee told a conference in March about living in Country with ancestors “every day watching our midden sites along the coast getting washed away with increasing tides.”[11] One of the oldest-tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. CSIRO says it shows 160 years of sea rise there totalling a mere 13.5cm, or about two-thirds of my palm and fingers. A more precise study put the rise there at 1mm a year or 10cm per century. I had no idea that modern Tasmanian Aboriginals could so closely detect the tides increasing.

I checked other recent Academy reports for apologies for squatting on Aboriginal land, without success. One report reviewing “Decadal plans for Australian Astronomy” has 90 words of acknowledgements to whites but not one mention of Aborigines or the pioneering work of Aboriginal astronomers , now being dinned into Australian schoolkids by the ABC and officialdom.

How left can the Academy get? Last November it bagged President Trump and threw in its lot with the doddering fraud Joe Biden:

He will restore funding to environmental and climate programs and, most importantly for Australia, pressure other nations to raise their emissions reductions ambitions…

The [Trump] administration has also harmed the free movement of scientists and ideas. Travel restrictions have made it more difficult for foreigners from different countries to work or study in the US… Rising concerns about Chinese technological advancements have resulted in investigations into links between US-based scientists and China, leading to Chinese claims of McCarthyism—a claim familiar to Australians (My emphases).

What? Why is the Academy recycling propaganda from China intended to minimise the Communist Party’s wholesale stealing of Western know-how? I sought clarification from the Academy but got no response. [12]

And what’s behind the Academy saying that the China-alleged “McCarthyism” is a “claim familiar to Australians”? That comment appears to derive from a Senate committee hearing last October. Liberal Senator Eric Abetz asked three Chinese-Australian researchers whether they were prepared to “unconditionally condemn the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship”. One of them, a Labor candidate for Melbourne’s deputy mayor, later called the question “race-baiting McCarthyism.” [I make no suggestion that the three witnesses are in any way disloyal]. The Venona code-breaking transcripts proved that in the US, Senator McCarthy was not just imagining nests of traitors within the post-war establishment.

The Academy’s climate doomism is squandering prestige built over half a century. Someone there should have run a check on its 3degC warming nonsense before the Academy does any more damage – to itself.

Tony Thomas’s new book, Come To Think Of It – essays to tickle the brain, is available here as a book ($34.95) or an e-book ($14.95)

 

[1] The fourteen Academy people wrote sagely in 1976, “We conclude that there is no evidence that the world is now on the brink of a major climatic change. There is ample evidence that the world’s climate has changed widely during the geological past, and while there is every expectation that it will continue to change in the future, the time scale of these changes is in the range of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years rather than decades or centuries.” (My emphasis).

[2] There is scientific etiquette that a reviewer does not review his/her own prior publications, yet here we see senior climate scientists doing just that.

[3] The UK is copping its frostiest April in at least 60 years, CO2 notwithstanding, according to its Met Office.

[4] At 1.10.00secs in the video.

[5] IPCC’s Third Report 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (Chapter 14, Section 14.2.2.2. )

IPCC’s Fifth Report, 2014: 111 out of 114 model runs showed temperatures above actual data. [chapter 9, text box 9.2, page 769]

[6] “The Australian Academy of Science comprises 550 Fellows whose common link is their exceptional scientific achievement.

[7] Fouled up beyond all recognition.

[8] The Pittock biography incorrectly credits him with a share in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which the ABC’s Sophie Scott elevated even further to describe Pittock as a “Nobel Prize winner”.[8]

[9] China, pretending at the Paris talks to be a less-developed country, intends to reach peak emissions only in 2030. It’s burning more than half the globe’s thermal coal consumption and is planning or starting 247 gigawatts of new coal-fired power, six times the total coal-power use of Germany and equal to about 80 Loy Yang power plants.

[10] The last official IPCC statement was a footnote in IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. SPM page 16. It reads ‘No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.’

[11] at 1.24.40sec.

[12] In a marvellous each-way bet, the Academy’s anti-Trump document says

  • This analysis has the endorsement of the Secretary for Science Policy, President and Chief Executive of the Australian Academy of Science.
  • “Views expressed in this feature remain those of the authors.”

=======================

A Mass Deception Of Virology & Vaccines: Case Proven?

A Mass Deception Of Virology and Vaccines  By John O’Sullivan, PrincipiaScientific.com, 28 April 2021

Last year we posted an article that triggered both ridicule and debate. It dared to question the accepted narrative of viruses and vaccines; that COVID19 did not exist and terrain theory would topple germ theory when the world awakens from the nonsense of the fake pandemic. Is the passage of time vindicating us?

Today, a clear and undeniable fact persists to annoy the defenders of Louis Pasteur’s theory and undermines all the claims that COVID19 is a deadly virus requiring mass global vaccinations as a remedy.

Have you ever questioned Germ Theory? Our whole society is based on it. The whole medical profession – especially virology – is based on it. It is why they give us vaccines.

One year on, the Achilles Heel for medical science and virology remains: no lab anywhere in the world has provided a gold standard isolate of the SARS-CoV-2 virus – alleged to cause COVID19 – a supposedly novel respiratory disease but with identical systems to colds and flu.

Our own inhouse expert, Dr Saeed Qureshi, has been at the forefront of exposing that telling omission. It is why we are strong supporters of the Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI).

Moreover, as our corrupt governments and media keep telling us, cases and deaths from COVID run into the millions but we note a strange corresponding collapse in reported cases and deaths from influenza. How is that possible?

Did the novel virus somehow act as an antidote to other respiratory diseases that have plagued humans for millennia?

Hardly.

 

So, as this is the anniversary of our publication of the controversial article,  it behoves us to take stock.

Herein we post the empirical, proven outcomes. The most telling of which, in terms of discrediting virology as pseudo science, may be in this German video presentation of a controlled experiment that exposes a cornerstone of virology as not only unreliable, but patently false.

As reported in thefreedomarticles.com:

“German virologist Dr. Stefan Lanka, who won a landmark case in 2017 which went all the way to the German Supreme Court. Lanka proved in the highest court of the land that measles was not caused by a virus, and that there was in fact no such thing as a measles virus. Lanka is still busy working, and he wrote this article earlier this year (translated into English here) entitled ““The Misconception called Virus”” in which he explains the history of how mainstream science went horribly wrong with its conclusions (really assumptions) to demonize the humble virus and to falsely ascribe pathogenicity to it when there is none.”

Watch the video by Dr Stefan Lanka and Dean Braus and judge for yourselves:

If these lab tests are validated elsewhere, then it would seem that Drs Lanka, Andrew Kaufman, Judy Wilyman, Qureshi, et al. are vindicated.

They have shown us that virology incorrectly states – without proof – that viruses originate outside the body, then ‘hijack’ the RNA or DNA of the cell, and then replicate whilst attacking cells indiscriminately.

If this were true, viruses would replicate endlessly, eventually attacking all healthy cells, but they do not. We know that antibodies, a type of white blood cell, regulates the virus.

There exists no video evidence of viruses hijacking cells, except for 3D renders, and animations based on theory

As so-called “conspiracy theorist” the aforementioned mavericks stayed true to the scientific method and insisted upon actual verifiable proofs as to the nature and cause of the most economically devastating pandemic in modern human history. Their persistence and methodological acumen appear to have saved the world from an evil Big Pharma lie that has corrupted medical science for over half a century.

As thefreedomarticles.com neatly puts it:

“When modern scientists are working with diseased tissue, they think the presence of a virus is causing the disease, instead of realizing that the tissue in question has been cut off and isolated from its host, then doused with antibiotics, and that this separation and poison make it diseased and kill it, rather than any virus. Lanka writes:

“All claims about viruses as pathogens are wrong and are based on easily recognizable, understandable and verifiable misinterpretations … All scientists who think they are working with viruses in laboratories are actually working with typical particles of specific dying tissues or cells which were prepared in a special way. They believe that those tissues and cells are dying because they were infected by a virus. In reality, the infected cells and tissues were dying because they were starved and poisoned as a consequence of the experiments in the lab.”

” … the death of the tissue and cells takes place in the exact same manner when no “infected” genetic material is added at all. The virologists have apparently not noticed this fact. According to … scientific logic and the rules of scientific conduct, control experiments should have been carried out. In order to confirm the newly discovered method of so-called “virus propagation” … scientists would have had to perform additional experiments, called negative control experiments, in which they would add sterile substances … to the cell culture.”

“These control experiment have never been carried out by the official  “science” to this day. During the measles virus trial, I commissioned an independent laboratory to perform this control experiment and the result was that the tissues and cells die due to the laboratory conditions in the exact same way as when they come into contact with alleged “infected” material.”

In other words, the studied cells and tissues die with or without the presence of a virus in exactly the same way; therefore, the virus cannot be the cause of the morbidity and mortality. Interestingly, this exactly what many health experts have stated, namely that there are only two causes of disease: deficiency and toxicity.

  • Viruses are not living organisms or living microbes
  • Viruses do not have a respiratory system, nor a nucleus or digestive system
  • Viruses are not alive and viruses are not contagious
  • Thus, the fear behind COVID19 is wholly unwarranted

At Principia Scientific International, our words live or die by the scientific method. If claims cannot be verified empirically then they should be taken with a grain of salt. Viruses do not multiply on their own. When added to fertile petri-dishes that sustain cellular life, no additional viral protein structures appear.

Dr Lanka has yet to share all the experiment’s details including SOPs, copies of original run sheets, batch records, solutions, concentrations, incubation times, etc. of the CPE experiment. For that reason, we pose the title of this article as a question. It awaits wider confirmation.

Likewise, we urge the medical community to hold true to Koch’s Postulates: if there is no isolation of a virus, there is no purification. Without purification you have only speculation – and that is not solid science!

About John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI).  John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.

=====================

GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE?

 

GMO SEEDS ALREADY OBSOLETE  By Joseph P.Farrell, 3 March 2021

 

If you’re a GMO seeds proponent, or an employee of Mon(ster)santo or I.G. Farbensanto, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Our warning was that by trying to create genetically modified crops that would repel pests, that nature would adapt to the modifications faster than research laboratories could adapt GMOs to nature’s adaptations, thus rendering them not only potentially obsolete, but by creating a pest problem, endangering the food supply (and don’t forget those falling crop yields-per-acre that the University of Iowa documented a couple of years ago with respect to GMO yields: falling yields + higher costs to maintain GMO crops = GMO failure, and cost effectiveness makes natural seeds over the long term a better investment. Now it’s officially come home to roost, according to this article shared by B.:

The coming obsolescence of GMO seeds

There’s much to note about this article, but there was one thing that it stated that leaped out at me:

For the $55 billion genetically modified seed industry, the news hasn’t been good lately. The great “successes” of Bt corn and cotton seeds are turning to failure as insects such as corn rootworms and cotton bollworms are developing resistance to the GMO crops. As a result, farmers have to spray more toxic insecticides to kill the resistant insects.

The situation has become so bad that the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed phasing out more than 40 varieties of Bt corn and cotton over the next three to five years as a way to reduce the insect resistance.

Meanwhile, herbicide-tolerant GMO soybeans are facing massive weed resistance problems. With U.S. farmers spraying 300 million pounds of glyphosate on their fields each year, weeds have naturally developed resistance. Monsanto and other biotech companies’ solution was to develop new GMO seeds that would work with dicamba and 2,4-D herbicides, which are more toxic than glyphosate and prone to drift, causing damage to other crops.

The result has been a disaster. Dicamba has damaged millions of acres of non-dicamba tolerant soybeans as well as other crops, fruit orchards, millions of trees, and gardens in the past four years. The largest peach producer in Missouri lost 30,000 trees to dicamba drift damage. He sued Monsanto, now Bayer, and won a $265 million settlement. One farmer even murdered another over a dicamba drift dispute.

GMO seeds are failing because GMO technology is short-sighted and supports a failing system of agriculture. GMOs still dominate U.S. corn, soybean, and cotton production but I believe their days are numbered. They are going against the trends in agriculture, which are toward regenerative and organic methods.

growing number of farmers are focusing on practices to build soil health such as planting cover crops and diverse crop rotations and grazing livestock. Because of those practices, regenerative farmers find they no longer need the GMO seeds, and they are also able to slash their use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers.(Boldface emphasis added)

“… a failing system of agriculture”: Let those words sink in. And let the other words “the result has been a disaster” sink in too. But wait, there’s more:

The main point is that soil health and regenerative practices are the leading trends in agriculture today, and as farmers journey on the path to soil health, many don’t see the need to plant GMO seeds.

GMO seed technology was designed to work with a system of industrial agriculture whose toxic effects—pesticides that threaten human health, depleted and eroded soils, polluted waterways from fertilizer runoff, greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, among others—are becoming more apparent and threatening to the world. As more farmers move away from this system toward regenerative and organic practices, the use of ag chemicals and GMOs will fall away.

Biotechnology proponents point to the emergence of gene editing, and say that new gene edited seeds and crops will be developed. They say these crops will increase crop yields, produce more nutritious foods, reduce pesticide use, and help to “feed the world.” Wait, wasn’t that the promise of the “old” GMO seeds? Gene editing supporters say the technology is precise. But a study published in Nature magazine last July found that gene editing of human embryonic cells caused “chromosomal mayhem.” That isn’t precise. Similar genetic mayhem has been seen in gene edited rice and other crops. Gene edited crops will have the same problems as the older GMO crops, and consumers will likely reject them.(Boldface emphasis added)

In other words, human genetic tinkering is creating chaos in agriculture; think of the growing number of stories about adverse reactions to the mRNA covid “vaccines” and transfer that to crops and you get the picture: we are playing with systems which in spite of our vaunted “science” we do not yet completely understand, and in our rush to “play” with them and “improve” them, are creating a mess, possibly one that could threaten the food supply. And in both cases, crops and “vaccines”, the model used is one to maximize profits of a few big corporations. Why sponsor hydroxychloroquine for covid, when it’s so cheap, when profits can be maximized for a “vaccine” which comes with all sorts of health risks. Why sponsor ordinary seeds, when GMO seeds and their associated pesticides are so much more expensive, and can maximize profits?

Similarly, note the response to these models: “organic” crops and “holistic” medicine. In other words, more and more involved in the practice of farming or medicine are turning away from technological and artificial fixes more natural ones. Note that Russia, for example, not only turned very deliberately away from GMOs, but that its vaccine is not an experimental one tinkering with messenger RNA and human genetics.

And also note the response of “Big Agribusiness” (or as we like to call it here, I.G. Farbensanto or Mon[ster]santo) and Big Pharma (or as we like to call it, Muck Pharmaceuticals) to those who’ve opposed their agendas: Mon(ster)santo would sue farmers if one of their plants was spotted on their fields (meaning that Mon[ster]santo was actually spying on people), and Muck Pharmaceuticals? Well, it’s a curious thing that so many holistic doctors were being murdered in the years running up to the covid planscamdemic, and we all saw how apopleptic some doctors and media became at the mere mention of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin d, or zinc.

So yes, perhaps we need a new model of doing things. One that isn’t anti-science, but skeptical of rushed scientism, of rushed promises of “a better world” and “cures” without adequate testing and skepticism. In this, the whole GMO panacea has been a lesson in the dangers of rushed technologies, lack of inter-generational testing, and bought-off and corrupted “corporate science” and media promising the utmost safety of their witches’ brews.

Or to put that lesson more succinctly, no more Mon(ster)santo’s, and no more “Operation Warp Speeds” either. And here’s the good news:

The good news is that a seed industry independent of the big biotech/pesticide companies—Bayer, BASF, Corteva, and Syngenta—is growing stronger, worth an estimated $10 billion. This includes organic seed companies such as Albert Lea SeedGreat Harvest OrganicsHigh Mowing Organic Seeds, and others. There are also seed companies emerging to meet the demand for non-GMO corn including SureFlex Hybrids in Minnesota, Spectrum Non-GMO in Indiana, Hybrid85 in Nebraska, and De Dell Seeds in Canada, to name a few.

Now, hopefully, we’ll see the emergence of doctors’ and physicians’ consortia that will treat their covid patients with things other than questionable “vaccines”. We’ve seen a few individuals questioning the whole narrative, but the whole idea of other points of view should, perhaps, become a business model.

======================

Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface

Senate inquiry is bringing evidence about state of Great Barrier Reef to the surface  By Professor Peter Ridd, an independent scientist, The Australian, 16 September 2020

 

Editor’s note: Professor Ridd was sacked by James Cook University, Queensland, for challenging some university colleagues regarding the accuracy of their reports concerning the Great Barrier Reef.  Ridd challenged this in court and won a resounding victory in which the judge castigated JCU. An appeal by JCU was lost based on some convoluted points.  Ridd is escalating an appeal to the highest Australian court.  Over $760,000 has been collected for Ridd’s appeal in a Go-Fund appeal. Ridd is pushing in particular for a far better level of quality control in science.

The Senate committee inquiry into the regulation of farm practices impacting water quality on the Great Barrier Reef has yielded some remarkable confessions by science institutions about the state of the reef. It has been the first time many of the scientists have been asked difficult questions and publicly challenged by hard evidence. They have been forced out of their bubble.

It was revealed by Paul Hardisty, boss of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, that only 3 per cent of the reef, the “inshore reefs”, is affected by farm pesticides and sediment. He also stated that pesticides, are a “low to negligible risk”, even for that 3 per cent.

The other 97 per cent, the true offshore Great Barrier Reef, mostly 50km to 100km from the coast, is effectively totally unharmed by pesticides and sediment.

This has been evident in the data for decades but it is nice to see an honest appraisal of the situation.

Why has this fact not been brought to the public’s attention in major documents such as the GBR Outlook Report produced by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Why has everybody been deceived about the true extent of the problem?

AIMS was also forthcoming on other important points. Records of coral growth rates show no impact from agriculture. Large corals live centuries, and have annual growth rings like trees. They record their own rate of growth. If farming, which started about 100 years ago on the reef coast, was damaging the it, there should be a slowing of the growth rate. The records show no slowing when agriculture started a century ago, or when large-scale use of fertiliser and pesticides began in the 1950s.

I have written previously that AIMS has been negligent in not updating the GBR-average coral growth data for the past 15 years. We have the scandalous situation that there is data going back centuries – but nothing since 2005. AIMS claimed coral growth rates collapsed between 1990 and 2005, due to climate change; however, there is considerable doubt about this result because AIMS changed the methodology for the data between 1990 and 2005. At the Senate inquiry, under some duress, AIMS agreed it would be a good idea to update this data if the government will fund the project.

Updating the coral growth rate data will be a major step forward. It will prove or disprove the doubtful decline between 1990 and 2005. It will also give the complete record of how the GBR has fared in the past 15 years, a period when scientists have become more strident in their claims that it is on its last legs.

Hardisty, to his credit, has recently implemented red-blue teams within his organisation to help with quality assurance of the work that AIMS produces. A red team is a group of scientists that takes a deliberately antagonist approach to check, test and replicate scientific evidence. A genuine red team is a far more rigorous quality assurance approach than the present system used in science – peer review – which is often little more than a quick read of the work by the scientist’s mates. What AIMS has done internally is similar to what I have been proposing – an Office of Science Quality Assurance that would check, test, and replicate scientific evidence used for public policy.

Unfortunately, Hardisty’s commitment to quality in science was not reflected by many other important witnesses at the Senate inquiry. Many are in denial and resorted to shooting the messengers. An extract from a letter signed by Professor Ian Chubb, a former Australian chief scientist, was read out by Senator Kim Carr.

Disputing the conventional wisdom on the reef was likened to denying that tobacco causes cancer, or that lead in petrol is a health risk. Worse still, the reason sceptics do this, apparently, is “usually money”. Scientists such as Dr Piers Larcombe, the pre-eminent expert on the movement of sediment on the reef, with decades of experience, is thus written off as a corrupt charlatan.

It is scientific “cancel culture”. It is easier than confronting Larcombe’s evidence that farming has very limited impact on the GBR.

It is customary to be very cynical of our politicians, but it was senators Roberts, Rennick, Canavan and McDonald who forced some truth from our generally untrustworthy science institutions. Only our politicians can save us from them.

The evidence about the reef will not be buried forever. All the data indicates agriculture is having a negligible impact on the reef, and recent draconian Queensland legislation against farmers is unwarranted. And this issue will be influential come the Queensland state election on October 31.

(Professor) Peter Ridd is an independent scientist.

======================

We need an inquiry into climate alarmism

 

We need an inquiry into climate alarmism  By Chris Kenny, The Australian, 29 August 2020

I hope you are sitting down; this foray into political and media madness over bushfires and climate change starts with recognising some excellent, forensic journalism by the ABC. Investigating last summer’s devastating Gospers Mountain fire, journalist Philippa McDonald took us to the very tree where the fire is believed to have been started when it was struck by lightning in a thunderstorm.

McDonald used this to give us the brilliantly counterintuitive opening line; “It began not with fire, but ice.” In a series of reports, McDonald and her team retraced the history of the fire over a number of weeks, how it was almost extinguished by rain, how bushwalkers in the wrong place at the wrong time thwarted a backburn that might have stopped it, how another prescribed burn got out of control and destroyed houses, and how a fortuitous wind change stopped it encroaching on suburban Sydney.

We might quibble with some of the alarmist language — repeating the silly new “megafire” term and pretending that when fires meet they join and get bigger when, in fact, this reduces the number of fronts and total length of fire perimeter — but overall the reporting was factual and admirable because it explained the many variables in fire behaviour and the factors that can influence whether a fire can be contained or extinguished before weather conditions turn it into an unstoppable beast. Surprisingly, and refreshingly, the reports did not dwell on climate change.

When it comes to our bushfires climate change is so close to being irrelevant, it should hardly warrant a passing reference — we have always faced disastrous bushfire conditions and always will. If climate change makes the worst conditions either marginally more or less common, it matters not; we still need to do the same things to protect ourselves.

In previous articles I have detailed the leading scientific analysis showing the main precondition for the NSW fires — a long drought — cannot be attributed to climate change. Unless climate activists want to argue Australia could do something to alter the global climate sufficiently to reduce our bushfire threat, they are exposed as cynical campaigners who used the sure bet of bushfires to advance their political scare campaign.

The NSW bushfire inquiry released this week took a dive into the climate science — as it was tasked to do — and found, predictably enough, that climate change “clearly played a role in the conditions” that led up to the fires and helped spread them. But thankfully it did not waste much time on climate in its recommendations, merely suggesting climate trends need to be monitored and factored in.

Apart from exercises in politically correct box ticking — Indigenous training for evacuation centre staff so they are “culturally competent”, wildlife rescue training for firefighters, and signs to promote ABC radio stations — most of the recommendations were practical. Better equipment for firefighters, more water bombers, more communication, public education and most importantly, a range of suggestions on fuel reduction around settled areas and planning controls on building in fire prone areas.

The bottom line has always been obvious: the one fire input we can control is fuel, so where we want to slow blazes or protect properties, we must reduce fuel. Planning is also important to prevent housing in indefensible locations, but one crucial phrase missing from the report was “personal responsibility”.

Houses on wooded hilltops or surrounded by bush cannot be protected and their residents should not expect others to risk their lives trying to do so.

People must be educated to clear extensively around properties, sufficient to withstand not a moderate fire but a firestorm, otherwise they must be prepared to surrender their homes and escape early.

“Hazard reduction is not the complete answer,” said report author Mary O’Kane. “People do need to take responsibility, they need to realise that if they live in certain areas it can be very dangerous, and we try to give a strong message of, if you are in a dangerous area and there is one of these big, bad megafires, the message, is get out.”

O’Kane is right, of course. But it seems a hell of a waste to hold a full inquiry only to be told we should do more fuel reduction, be careful where we build houses, and get the hell out of the way rather than try to fight firestorms. We knew all this.

The push for an inquiry was largely driven by the climate catastrophists. Remember, they wanted to blame the blazes on the axing of the carbon tax, and on Scott Morrison. It was inane and rancid stuff.

They will be at it again, this fire season. They love making political capital out of disasters, although they go as quiet as Tim Flannery when it comes to full dams and widespread snowfalls.

The area of land burned in the Australian summer has now been revised down by 25 per cent, and the claims about wildlife deaths revised downwards too, to factor in the mind-blowing realisation that animals actually escape fire when they can — birds fly, wombats burrow, kangaroos hop and even koalas can climb to the treetops and escape all but a crowning blaze.

Remember we had articles in The Guardian, The New York Times, and on CNN and the BBC, saying the bush might never recover. Take a drive through the Blue Mountains, Kangaroo Island or the Australian Alps and see how their predictions turned out.

The sclerophyll forests of southern Australia are not just adapted to fire, they are reliant on it. Therefore, the wildlife also is reliant on it for the rejuvenation of the vegetation — why does basic ecology escape the climate activists? If it is any comfort, the same madness is now playing out in California. Similar climate, similar history of bushfires, and the same maddening political debate. With fires burning more than a million acres in northern California this month, the state’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, sent a recorded message to his party’s national convention; “If you are in denial about climate change, come to California.” The trouble is that while these are bad wildfires, they are not unusual in the natural and settled history of that environment.

Like the Australian bush, the redwood forests that US journalists suggest are being destroyed by fire, depend on fire for propagation. Just like here, one of the issues has been the suppression of bushfire by human interference, leading to the unnatural build up of fuel that can explode when a wildfire does get away in bad conditions.

Environmentalist and author of Apocalypse Never; Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, Michael Shellenberger says the climate is warming but the impact of this on fires is overstated. In an article for Forbes.com he quoted Scott Stevens of the University of California, Berkeley, saying climate change is not a major factor, as well as other experts scoffing of the idea that severe fires are anything new.

“California’s fires should indeed serve as a warning to the public, but not that climate change is causing the apocalypse,” wrote Shellenberger. “Rather, it should serve as a warning that mainstream news reporters and California’s politicians cannot be trusted to tell the truth about climate change and fires.”

Ditto for Oz. I have detailed previously how Fran Kelly told ABC audiences in November that “the fire warning had been increased to catastrophic for the first time ever in this country” — but that was wrong, wildly wrong.

Greens Senator Jordon Steele-John accused his political opponents of being “no better than arsonists” and other Greens and Labor MPs said Australia’s climate policies were exacerbating bushfires. Insane as this might be, it was amplified rather than interrogated by most media.

The thick smoke haze in Sydney was portrayed as something “unprecedented” — if it has not been on Twitter before it must never have happened — but a quick search of newspaper files found similar bushfire-induced shrouds in 1951, when airports were closed, and 1936, when a ship couldn’t find the heads.

Fires in rainforest areas of southern Queensland and northern NSW were not “unprecedented” either, with archived reports noting similar fires in the spring of 1951 and even the winter of 1946.

Despite 200,000 media mentions of “unprecedented” tracked by media monitors across December and January, the facts showed none of this was new. Greater areas were burned in 1851 and 1974-75, and human devastation was either as bad or worse on Black Saturday in 2009, Ash Wednesday in 1983, Black Tuesday in 1967, Black Friday in 1939 and Black Thursday 1851.

Bushland was not destroyed forever, koalas were not rendered extinct and Scott Morrison was not to blame. We should have an inquiry into climate alarmism, political posturing and media reporting — we would learn a lot more from that than we have from relearning age-old fire preparedness from yet another bushfire inquiry.

CHRIS KENNY

 

ASSOCIATE EDITOR (NATIONAL AFFAIRS)

Commentator, author and former political adviser, Chris Kenny hosts The Kenny Report Monday-Friday 5pm, and Kenny on Media, 8.30pm Friday, on Sky News. He takes an unashamedly rationalist approach to national a… Read more

=====================

Alarmism in New Zealand


Alarmism in New Zealand  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR.com, 25 July 2020

Fear is a natural survival instinct and arguably more motivating than logic and reason. It can also be used to great effect to shift the mindset of communities and nations.

While such manipulation is, of course, not uncommon, what is surprising is how blind societies are to recognising when fear is being used as a tool for political persuasion.

We recently saw this in the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic when the Prime Minister used alarmist computer modelling to justify her “Captain’s Call” to lock the country down.

Claiming “tens of thousands of New Zealanders” could die, the PM rejected Ministry of Health advice to stay at Level 2 for 30 days, and imposed what we now know to be the most stringent policy response in the world.

Instead of relying on cost benefit analyses and regulatory impact statements from trusted government agencies to inform her decisions, the PM chose inaccurate computer models that grossly exaggerated the number of deaths.

It has now been revealed that the modelling she relied on did not take into account the contact testing and tracing that was central to the health response being implemented by Dr Ashley Bloomfield, the Director General of Health.

The explosion of predicted deaths that resulted, was then used by the PM to scare the country into accepting her hard-line lockdown.

This is not the first time the Prime Minister has used scaremongering to force her policy agenda onto the country. Her whole response to climate change has been based on fear.

Climate change is, of course, a natural process influenced by a wide range of factors including the sun, clouds, and ocean currents. Throughout history, the Earth’s climate has been far hotter than it is today and far colder. Sea levels have been far higher and far lower. Carbon dioxide – the trace gas used by plants to manufacture food – has existed at far higher atmospheric concentrations and far lower.

But the United Nations’ climate models that are being used to redefine economic policy around the world, only focus on the minuscule proportion of carbon emissions produced by humans. In doing so, they disregard not only the 97 percent of carbon dioxide produced from natural sources, but also the overwhelming influence that other crucial factors such as the sun have on the climate.

These alarmist models, which blame climate change on humans, are being used by politicians – including our Prime Minister – to implement the UN’s socialist agenda: state control of all economic activity through the regulation of carbon emissions.

Fortunately, most scams motivated by scaremongering are eventually exposed – often by the very people who pioneered the movements before they were captured by political extremists.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Michael Shellenberger is a leading American climate activist, who, having promoted global warming propaganda for almost three decades, has decided to stop the lies:

“On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

“Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’; Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;  Netherlands became rich not poor while adapting to life below sea level; Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change; Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels…

“I know that the above facts will sound like ‘climate denialism’ to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism.”

Michael Shellenberger explains how difficult it has been to speak out against the climate scare:

“I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis’.

“But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public…

“But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said ‘The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.’ Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed ‘Climate Change Kills Children…

“As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change. Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened. I thus decided I had to speak out.”

While Michael Shellenberger deserves credit for speaking out and exposing the misrepresentation, those activists who lie should be held to account – particularly by the media. It is therefore regrettable that so many in the media have decided their interests are better served by aligning with the popularists, rather than adhering to the bedrock values of their profession.

Prime amongst New Zealand’s serial alarmists is the Green Party’s Climate Change Minister James Shaw. Not only does he knowingly describe carbon dioxide – the cornerstone of life on earth – as a “pollutant”, but he also continues to claim that as a result of climate change, adverse weather events are getting worse, which is another alarmist fabrication that is simply untrue.

But as the late Stephen Schneider, a Stanford University Professor who had been a lead author for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change explained, for advocates of climate alarmism the truth is not a priority: “…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination.  That entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Fearmongering, of course, has been an effective tool to manipulate the public throughout history.

The myth that population growth will deplete food and resources, and ultimately destroy the planet, can be traced back to the writing of the Reverend Thomas Malthus in 1798.

These idea gained unprecedented traction following the 1968 release of The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich, an entomologist at Stanford University. The book incited such fear of overpopulation that it triggered waves of repression around the world.

The facts, however, tell a different story. Population growth has been slowing for more than three decades. Forty years ago, while the average woman had between five and six children to ensure the survival of the next generation, she now has between two and three. Women are having fewer children because better healthcare means that most babies now live to grow up. As a result, half of the world is already below the long-term replacement level.

Concerns over ‘peak oil’ have also been in and out of vogue over recent decades. Driven by the theory that the world would run out of oil, the reality is that scarcity has been the result of geopolitical disruption rather than resource depletion.

The Club of Rome, an Italian-based think tank established in 1965, investigated resource scarcity in their highly influential book The Limits to Growth. Using computer modelling, they forecast apocalyptic economic and environmental disaster.

Ironically, it has now become clear that, contrary to what they were predicting, the best way to improve humanity and the environment is through more growth, not less. As countries improve their living standards, so too they improve social, economic and environmental wellbeing. It is the resourcefulness of free markets to innovate and maximise the efficient use of resources that results in a progressive improvement in living standards.

What is also bizarre is that while in the 1970s climate computer models predicted that the burning of fossil fuels would trigger another ice age, nowadays they are claiming the exact opposite – that the burning of fossil fuels will cause the planet to dangerously overheat.

This contradiction has not stopped our politicians – with fossil fuels identified as the villain, their policy response of an increasing carbon levy, has effectively imposed socialist state control over all economic activity.

When the Prime Minister and Climate Change Minister introduced their Zero Carbon Act last year, they boasted about imposing the harshest restrictions on carbon emissions of any country in the world. Then last month, they amended the Emissions Trading Scheme to cap carbon emissions, causing the price of carbon to jump from around $25 a tonne to $33.

At $25, New Zealander motorists were paying an ETS levy of around 4c for every litre of petrol they bought. At $33, the levy is now around 7 cents a litre, and at $35, it will be around 9c a litre. Such price hikes will flow right through the economy, increasing the cost of living.

The Climate Change Minister expects carbon prices will go much higher.

Meanwhile the price of carbon has had a major impact on vegetable affordability, especially tomatoes. With hothouses no longer economical in some areas, local growers are being forced to close. As a result, New Zealanders will see an increase in produce imported from countries with no carbon costs.

With the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change specifying that measures introduced to enable countries to meet their carbon targets must not reduce food production, Minister Shaw is clearly breaking the rules.

Governments can only get away with imposing socialist control under the guise of climate change because of their scaremongering. Endlessly claiming that burning fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming, they promote renewable energy as the only sustainable alternative.

In a controversial new filmPlanet of the Humans, which climate activists have tried to ban, filmmaker Michael Moore provides a devastating indictment of the renewable energy scam, explaining it is not clean, green, nor sustainable, but is more destructive than the energy sources it seeks to replace.

The film shows how wind, solar and biofuel projects destroy wildlife habitats, rare and endangered species, and millions of acres of forests, deserts and grasslands.

It exposes bogus claims about the benefits of renewable energy and explains that electricity for a small city of 50,000 households requires 15 square miles of solar panels, along with wind turbines, and a huge array of batteries – or a coal or gas power plant – for nights and cloudy days.

Paul Driessen, a senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow has reviewed  the film and describes the turbines:  “Each one is comprised of nearly 5,000,000 pounds of concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, plastic, cobalt, rare earths, fiberglass and other materials. Every step in the mining, processing, manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and (20 years later) removal process requires fossil fuels. It bears repeating: wind and sun are renewable and sustainable; harnessing them for energy to benefit mankind absolutely is not.”

While some of the film’s conclusions are questionable, Michael Moore raises concerns about the merits of alternative energy that alarmists have conveniently ignored: “We’re basically being fed a lie.” Maybe we’d be “better off just burning fossil fuels in the first place,” than doing all of this.

Although dissenting voices are not yet dominating the debate about climate alarmism, there is enough concern for political leaders to stop the headlong rush into policy extremism and exercise some common sense judgement.

With New Zealand already struggling to recover from the harsh lockdown, the last thing this country needs is climate policy based on scaremongering to undermine our fragile economic recovery.

========================

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change

Sorry for misleading you, but I cried wolf on climate change  By Michael Shellenberger, The Australian, 1 July 2020

I have been a climate activist for 20 years but on behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created.

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by the US congress to provide ­objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know: Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”;

The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”;

Climate change is not making natural disasters worse;

Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003;

The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska;

The author’s new book.

The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California;

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s;

The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level;

We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter;

Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change;

Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels;

Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.

I know the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those ­conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the Inter­national Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

Green beginnings

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to ­invest $US90bn into them. Over the past few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I ­referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a “crisis”.

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his ­research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “climate change kills children”.

Turning point

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilisations”. Mainstream journalists ­reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world”, and that deforestation was like a ­nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity ­extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence. And so my formal ­apology for our fearmongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

  • Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.
  • The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.
  • The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.
  • 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent.
  • We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities.
  • Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent.
  • Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.
  • “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions.
  • Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon.
  • The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.

Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the ­financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.

The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.

Reality bites

Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to ­believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

A real crisis

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people [Editor’s note 1: There is compelling evidence this figure is grossly inflated due to dubious practices and methods of measuring] and shattered economies around the globe [Editor’s note 2: It is the related governmental regulations that have ‘shattered economies around the world’, not COVID-19].

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.

The invitations from IPCC and congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists and ­environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely ­important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning ­author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science, Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love’: a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist and progressive felt the need to speak out against the alarmism. I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

Michael Shellenberger is president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organisation. He is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, published by Harper Collins

=======================

Links to previous articles

‘PC’, ‘Woke’ Orwellian censorship – 1984, official lies, media lies, ‘socialism’, modern ‘democracy’ and modern ‘capitalism’

Many from the ‘Left’, progressives, Cultural Marxists and activists keep trying to stymie democracy with their shrill, often illogical, Orwellian and ideological views and variations of mind control.  Orwell’s 1984 Ministry of Truth is alive and well. The following articles provide evidence.

Links to more articles follow the four below

Port Arthur, Australia – correcting the official narrative of lies

Port Arthur, Australia – correcting the official narrative of lies  By Gil May, posted by CairnsNews.com, 28 April 2021

This letter to the editor was sent to The Courier Mail, News Corp, but not known if it was published: In response to the article by Ellen Whinnett, Courier Mail, on Port Arthur 17 April 2021 “Port Arthur Facts Released By Deeply Concerned Members Of The Tasmanian Bureaucracy”

I always enjoy your articles written by Ellen Whinnett but must comment on Pt Arthur, there is so much more to this story.

I had a chance meeting with a lady in a café years ago. Her name was (the late) Wendy Scurr, she was a tour guide at Pt Arthur on the day of the shooting, she was having refreshment in the kitchen of the Broad Arrow café when the shooting started.

She looked over the counter to see what was happening, she did not recognise the shooter who was shooting from the hip pointing the gun and shooting and not with the gun at his shoulder where you look along the barrel to sight it.  She knows Martin Bryant and said it was not him, she was not allowed to give evidence, the police told her she was not needed that they had more than enough evidence already?

She and the others working in the kitchen hid behind the counters.  At that time there was a local resident and retired police detective with his wife and another couple who were their guests seated at a table in the corner, they put two tables up as a barricade and hid behind them — the detective knew Martin very well and said unequivocally that it was not him as the shooter had a deeply pock marked face, he also noted the gun being fired from the hip and killing people without sighting it.  The Police refused to let him give evidence?

We all commented at the time that PM Howard and the press were in breach of law stating Bryant was definitely guilty, guilt can only be determined by a court — those words led to the condemnation of him in everyone’s eyes.  There should have been charges laid over that issue, but it was ignored as many issues are to protect others.  Bryant was guilty and may he rot in Hell was universally accepted, long before any Court or Inquest procedure.

At all times understand he is intellectually disabled with a mind of about a 11-year-old. The law requires that he must have a guardian with him at all times, that never occurred and other serious breaches occurred, but as he was already declared guilty, application of law, procedures and requirements did not matter.

Whether Martin Bryant is guilty or not he should have been afforded due legal process as mandated by the Constitution and a full coronial inquiry should have been held, which on the finding of the limited inquiry held in Tasmania may well have uncovered a great deal more evidence of frightening consequence to the people — so was blocked.

Two Victorian politicians who were family friends of long standing told me their inquiry identified the serial number of AR15 used in the shooting was traced back to the 1987 Melbourne gun amnesty , the firearm originally owned by (Bill Drysdale from Yae, VictoriaEd ) was acquired by the Victoria S.O.G’s which is not unusual, they get to keep certain firearms and use them for police work, the part that is not okay is the firearm ending up in Port Arthur nine years later. They said it was common knowledge governments were involved — they (politicians) were told they would face police and ATO investigation into every aspect of their lives and lose their seat in Parliament if they spoke out?

The question we all must ask is how did an 11-year-old organise and carry out the incidents — what incidents you ask. So, I identify just a few hereunder that I found of extreme concern with all pointing to a very, very, well planned, and organised incident.   After reading them, check them out for authenticity, satisfy your own analytical thinking to make sure that I am not misleading you.

Maybe I should tell you what aroused my interest: In the press reports at the time were too many giving widely conflicting information and facts — logic is they should have all been very similar as they all reported the same incident, but there were many factual variances — in such cases as still occurs in reporting I take the view of ‘watch this space and be very observant’ for more information will eventually arise — as it always does and the press try to hide the original stuff-ups and false writings.

The commonwealth bank employee that was in the cafe recognized the gunman and stood up and yelled “not in here” before the gunman shot and killed him (he was also an ex ASIO agent)

22 body refrigerated mortuary truck parked near Port Arthur prior to the incident

Investigations that do not answer all base questions on how an issue originated cannot get a correct answer.  Highly suspicious individual sections must be examined in minute detail and those involved tested under oath. Indelible evidentiary material fully identifies prior planning for the delivery of an Embalming Box and equipment to be on sight: and for the purchase and special construction of a Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with 22-body refrigerated Mortuary – the only one in Australia. The orders for these items the ‘Embalming Box and equipment’ and the ‘22-body refrigerated Mortuary  Truck’ would have had to be placed months before the event for them to have been on-site waiting for the Port Arthur massacre to occur.  Read more on this truck [HERE]

FACT 1. Those who placed the orders knew of the planned event.

  • Why have AFP, Government and Press NOT demanded a Royal Commission and STEPHEN SHANE PARRY put under oath to explain his apparent prior knowledge to order and have on site an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident?
  • Stephen Parry former President of the Senate wrote within: –

AFDA National Embalming Team – Detailed Report appears on pages 104 to 119 of said book. On the top of page 104, the name Stephen Parry as Team Leader wrote on Page 112. “I was particularly impressed by the quick response and initiatives by some of the team members in packaging and collecting equipment. The response time and the amount of equipment quickly relocated was fantastic. One firm in particular, Nelson Brothers, had organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident. These two containers were the envy of all embalmers and worked extremely well. I would suggest that design specifications may be available from this firm for any future considerations by other firms.”

He says that the funeral services company Nelson Brothers had: “organized for an embalming machine box and a special large equipment case to be manufactured ready for the incident.” There is no uncertainty in his words. Said equipment was large, possessed significant design specifications, and was made prior to and for the incident at Port Arthur, Tasmania. He knew this in 1997. He possibly knew these facts in 1996 at the time he worked as the leader of a team responsible for embalming bodies (c.25) of the victims of the Port Arthur shooting incident.

Q.2. Why did the Tasmanian Government order in June 1995 and have specially built a 22-body refrigerated Mortuary Truck the only one in Australia, ten months before the Port Arthur massacre; and was placed on sale in September 1999? Why has no one been put under oath to explain why this was ordered and delivered prior to the event, who ordered and paid for it?

Mortuary truck for sale

The actual advertisement and photograph:

22-BODY VEHICLE FOR SALE

Genuine Enquiries Only

Vehicle for Sale. Genuine Enquiries only.  Yellow Chevrolet 350 V8 truck with refrigerated body, holds 22, this vehicle was primarily used as the disaster vehicle in the Port Arthur Massacre. This vehicle is currently for sale and all reasonable offers will be considered. The vehicle has value as not only a refrigerated unit for body removal, it is the only one of its kind in the entire country. The memorabilia value of it for anyone making a movie/series or writing a book on Port Arthur is limitless. Not only would the purchaser be getting the disaster vehicle, but the whole Port Arthur Story would be given as well.

This vehicle is currently for sale and all REASONABLE OFFERS will be considered.

FACT.2.

The Mortuary Truck was ordered ten months beforehand — who placed the order and who paid for it, and who got the money from the sale of it?

Ellen, now some heavy thinking for you — How did an intellectually handicapped boy with a low IQ organise the following.

  1.      Nelson Brothers in Victoria had special big-job embalming equipment “manufactured ready for the incident.” Why did the government specially order such beforehand?
  2.      Martin Bryant organised for senior Port Arthur staff to go away on a Work Seminar so they wouldn’t get hurt.
  3.      He managed to get Royal Hobart Hospital to have their Emergency Plan in place two days before the massacre so things would run smoothly.
  4.      He managed to get Hobart Hospital to have a Trauma Seminar timed to end at the exact moment he started shooting so they could patch up all the wounded quickly.
  5.      He arranged for helicopter pilots – usually unavailable – to be available that Sunday.
  6.      He managed to kill the Martins of Seascape with a firearm when he was at a service station 57 kilometres away.
  7.      He decoyed the local police to be at the opposite end of the peninsula at the exact moment the shooting began.
  8.      He managed to fool staff at the Historic Site into believing he arrived at 1.15pm when in fact he was there at 12.45pm.
  9.      He managed not to look like himself – as if wearing a woman’s wig – when being filmed in the car park by tourists.
  10.  He wore a face mask making his face look pockmarked when shooting in the cafe.
  11.  He arranged for a suspect black van to appear outside the Broad Arrow Cafe afterwards so people wouldn’t think it was him who did it.
  12.  He managed to get Sally Martin to run around Seascape naked that afternoon and make it appear she had been killed that morning.
  13.  He managed to shoot a rifle from upstairs at Seascape when he was downstairs talking to police on the phone.
  14.  He had infrared night vision eyes.
  15.  He managed to shoot from two Seascape buildings at once during the night of the siege.
  16.  He managed to stay in a heavily burning building shooting and yelling at police and get severe burns only on his back.
  17.  He managed to have the world press to have a convention in Hobart on the 30th April so there were plenty of reporters on hand so he would get better than usual media coverage.
  18.  He managed to make it appear ASIO was behind the incident.
  19.  He managed to make it appear Tasmania Police had fabricated and tampered with evidence.
  20.  He managed to get the Tasmanian DPP to lie to the Court about his activities.
  21.  He arranged for the media nationwide to display his photo to witnesses to influence them; and to print false stories about him and get Channel Nine To fabricate a video – all while in custody.
  22.  He fired two shots at 6.30pm at Port Arthur while he was under siege by police at Seascape.
  23.  If you believe the official version, his marksmanship was fantastic – twenty head shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds!  A movement of 3 degrees would have missed at 3 -4 meters.
  24.  There are only about 100 shooters that good (better than Olympians) in the world.
  25.  US news TV published a film of Bryant running between the buildings — in the background was a large blue boat: That blue boat had left two days beforehand.
  26. All done by an intellectually handicapped young man with an IQ of 66 and the mental age of an eleven-year-old boy.

Everyone knows Bryant was guilty including you, but all you know is what the media printed, as they did not have access to the full files that were kept hidden they could NOT have printed all the facts.

The overwhelming disgust of people within the Tasmanian bureaucracy to the deliberate cover-up withholding crucial evidence from the Court to pervert the course of justice, was so great they progressively released files to Dr Keith Noble who compiled the facts for us to read. As YOU DO NOT KNOW the facts as they were hidden, and the Tasmanian government went in to panic mode of what would happen if the public ever knew hurriedly placed a 30-year secrecy ban.

Researcher Dr Keith Noble On Why Martin Bryant Could Not Have Carried Out 1996 Port Arthur Massacre!   Verrrrrry Interesting indeed.

A Royal Commission is obviously required to get these answers – only when these questions are answered and included can the investigation reach a correct verdict of honesty to the victims’ families and the Australian people.

Sincerely

Gil May

Forestdale

EDITORIAL COMMENTS:

Royal Commissions are government controlled kangaroo courts where the outcome is defined first, then the appointment of a controlled government commissioner. The terms of reference exclude any embarrassing exposure or harmful evidenced being submitted and finally prepare guidelines for the commissioner’s findings and report. This formula has been applied to all Royal Commission but in any case governments are not obligated to act on the findings which make the whole exercise futile.

A Coronial Inquiry should be started immediately.

===================

THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM IN NZ


THE DARKENING CLOUDS OF TOTALITARIANISM IN NZ  By Dr Muriel Newman, NZCPR, 22 April 2021

“Totalitarianism: form of government that theoretically permits no individual freedom and that seeks to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state.”
– Encyclopaedia Britannica

Under Jacinda Ardern’s stewardship, New Zealand is becoming a totalitarian state.

Another giant leap down that path was announced last week in the form of a Cabinet paper outlining plans to criminalise free speech. But before we examine the detail, let’s remind ourselves of two other significant expansions of State authority that are already underway.

The first involves State control of the entire economy under the guise of ‘climate change’.

As a result of the Prime Minister imposing the harshest carbon restrictions in the world onto New Zealand, the Climate Commission is foreshadowing the need for nation-wide central planning, if the country is to meet our obligations under the United Nations Paris Agreement.

But the question is, why is our Prime Minister sacrificing our economy and living standards, when most other countries are doing nothing? Surely it can’t just be to look good when standing before the United Nations – or can it?

Shouldn’t the PM be held accountable, not to the UN, but to New Zealanders, for the economic damage she is inflicting onto our country?

The second area of totalitarian control involves the undermining of democracy itself. The Ardern Government has already abolished our democratic right to prevent local councils from introducing Maori wards. Now they are replacing democracy with separatist rule.

According to their He Puapua report, the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples will be enacted by 2040. To achieve that goal, our constitution will be replaced with one that elevates the Treaty of Waitangi into supreme law, Maori tikanga will replace the common law, and the country will be governed through a 50:50 Crown-Maori ‘partnership’. Under what will, in effect, become a tribal dictatorship, democracy will cease to exist.

It’s time to say “No”! To defend democracy and equal rights we have launched a “Declaration of Equality” – to find out more, please click
HERE.

The Prime Minister is now embarking on an even more threatening assault on our freedom – this time on our freedom of speech.

New Zealanders’ right to free speech is enshrined in section 14 of the 1990 Bill of Rights Act: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

That freedom is limited by the 1993 Human Rights Act. Section 61 makes it a civil offence to express “threatening, abusive, or insulting” opinions that are likely “to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons… on the ground of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins.”

Under Section 131 intentionally inciting hostility is a criminal offence that can result in imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to $7,000. However, as a public safeguard, such prosecutions need the approval of the Attorney-General.

According to the Human Rights Commission New Zealanders’ right to make controversial or offensive remarks is not undermined by these laws – they only restrict those who are inciting serious ethnic tension or unrest: “Only where there is the potential for significant detriment to society can the right to freedom of expression be limited.”

While prosecutions have been rare, many other constraints on free speech also exist.

The regulators dealing with complaints about published material are the Broadcasting Standards Authority, the Advertising Standards Authority, and the New Zealand Press Council.

The Harmful Digital Communications Act covers complaints about texts, emails, social media, and website content, with offenders facing up to two years in prison or fines of up to $50,000.

Threats of physical violence or harm are covered by the Crimes Act. Section 307A stipulates that threats made against people or property that cause “significant disruption of the activities of the civilian population” are an offence with a penalty of up to seven years in prison.

In 2019, following the Christchurch tragedy, then Minister of Justice Andrew Little announced a review “to examine whether our laws properly balance the issues of freedom of speech and hate speech. The process should not be rushed, and I expect a report for public comment towards the end of the year… Protecting our crucially important right to freedom of speech, while testing whether the balance is right regarding ‘hate speech’, needs a robust public discussion from all quarters. This way we will ensure that all of our citizens’ rights are protected, and every person can express their humanity without fear.”

The promised public consultation never eventuated. Instead of an open and transparent process,  secret discussions were held with groups campaigning for harsher laws.

The Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite claimed hate speech was a “tricky thing” to navigate. They wanted to keep discussions “away from the political fray”, to prevent them being “derailed” and to “avoid protests”.

In the end, New Zealand First refused to support any restrictions of New Zealanders’ right to free speech. As a result, Labour promised a law change in their 2020 election manifesto: “Labour will extend legal protections for groups that experience hate speech, including for reasons of religion, gender, disability or sexual orientation, by ensuring that we prohibit speech that is likely to incite others to feel hostility or contempt towards these groups under the Human Rights Act.”

Their plan was to use the Human Rights Act to provide statutory protection to groups based not only on ‘race’, but on religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation as well.

Just after the election, the Royal Commission into the Christchurch shootings released its report including proposals to strengthen hate speech laws.

They recommended criminalising anyone deliberately inciting hostility by inserting section 131 of the Human Rights Act into the Crimes Act, increasing the penalties from three months in jail to at least two years, including ‘religion’ as a protected characteristic alongside ‘race’, and broadening the scope of ‘hate speech’ from an intent to ‘incite’ hostility to an intent to ‘stir’ it up.

But this week’s NZCPR Guest Contributor political commentator Chris Trotter is questioning the Government’s plan to enact Royal Commission recommendations to restrict our freedom, when nothing could have stopped the ‘lone wolf’ attack:

“Though bitterly contested by those firmly convinced that the Christchurch Mosque Shootings represent something more than the crime of a Lone Wolf terrorist, the Royal Commission’s finding that no state agency could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly intent – except by chance – is correct. He understood that, for his ‘mission’ to succeed, he must do nothing to draw the attention of the authorities – and, God help us all, he didn’t.

“Against such careful and pitiless premeditation, all the laws on our statute books are powerless. The state can punish Lone Wolves, but it cannot stop them. In attempting to minimise the terrorist threat, however, the state can eliminate our freedoms.”

Chris warns: “When Governments extend the state’s power to monitor their citizens’ ideas and activities, we should all be on our guard. Even when such extensions are introduced in response to a terrorist atrocity, we need to ask ourselves: would these new powers have prevented it?”

And that’s precisely what should be in our mind as we examine the proposed restrictions on free speech outlined by the new Minister of Justice Kris Faafoi in his Cabinet paper.

First of all, he wants all free speech breaches criminalised – not just the deliberate calls to incite hostility recommended by the Royal Commission, but the unintentional ones as well.

Second, he wants to adopt the Royal Commission’s proposal for the law to be widened to include an intent to “stir up” hatred.

Third, he wants the penalties strengthened from three months in jail to three years – even though the Royal Commission recommended two years – with fines increased from $7,000 to $50,000.

Fourth, while the Royal Commission recommended increasing the legal protection from groups based on ‘race’ to include ‘religion’ as well, the Minister wants it expanded to include “all groups listed under the prohibited grounds of discrimination in section 21 of the Human Rights Act”.

That means that under Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government, you will not only have to mind your Ps and Qs when it comes to discussing race and religion, but also sex, marital status, ethical belief, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation as well.

In fact, it seems the only group that will not be protected by Minister Faafoi’s new law will be white able-bodied working age males!

But it gets worse.

It appears the Ardern Government is planning on using these law changes to massively expand the concept of ‘incitement to discriminate’. The Minister explained his intention as follows: “Examples of inciting discrimination of a group include encouraging their exclusion or unfavourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, rental housing, or employment. In my view, as it is unlawful to discriminate against population groups, it should also be unlawful to incite others to discriminate against these groups.”

Landlords and employers should beware – if someone alleges unfavourable treatment it appears the Police may well come knocking!

Many other changes are proposed by Minister Faafoi, including some that are being withheld from the public. One in particular deals with the complaints process – paragraph 51 of the Cabinet paper ends with, “Groups spoken with also expressed their desire to address discrimination and hate speech in society more broadly than just through the incitement process”; but how that is to be put into effect in paragraph 52, is fully redacted.

With the chilling effect these proposed changes would have on society plain to see, and George Orwell’s warning, “If you control the language, you control the mind” ringing out loud and clear, is paragraph 52 proposing a new department of Thought Police?

In Jacinda Ardern’s totalitarian State, few New Zealanders will speak their mind for fear of a criminal prosecution. It will be a very ominous day for New Zealand when the Police are given the power to become the enforcement unit of politicians and activists against those expressing contrary opinions.

Through the imposition of State authority over the economy using carbon regulations, over democracy through separatist rule, and over free speech using hate speech laws, New Zealand is becoming a shadow of the vibrant and free society it used to be.

Let’s be absolutely clear – these changes herald the most dramatic expansion of the influence of government in New Zealand’s history, and it’s happening at an extraordinary pace while Jacinda Ardern’s socialist government has a three year window of unbridled control. It is also happening with very limited scrutiny given the lack of independence in the media and a lack of transparency from the government itself.

While all of these changes are seismic, the threat to the freedom of expression is the most ominous. Free speech is essence of a free society. It is the very oxygen of a democracy and individuality. Free speech is how knowledge is developed and shared, and it remains the most effective bulwark against tyranny.

As the former Minister of Justice Andrew Little explained, “Protecting freedom of speech is vital to hold those in authority to account, challenge the socially and culturally dominant, and enable society to progress. Freedom of speech can give force to new ideas, but also cause discomfort and offence. It is usually the first right to be lost under oppressive regimes, and among the first to be restored, at least in name, after revolutionary change.”

With these proposals having been approved by Cabinet, it is clear that under Jacinda Ardern’s controlling regime, she is planning to not only take away our right to criticise others, but also our right to criticise her and her Party. Including ‘political opinion’ as a protected characteristic in hate speech laws puts New Zealand on a course to become the North Korea of Oceania.

 

====================

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism  By Robert Bridge, The Strategic Culture Foundation, via Zerohedge 2 Dec 2020

America’s Future Is Liberal Fascism Sporting A Smiley Shirt And Armed With A Syringe

The globalists responsible for engineering a medical tyranny across much of the Western world have something valuable to teach right-wing nationalists and would-be fascists, and that is you don’t sell your damaged product out of the barrel of a machine gun, but rather dripping from the end of a syringe that promises to end all pain and misery.

 

Patrick Henry, one of America’s more outspoken Founding Fathers, famously remarked “give me liberty or give me death” when the life of his nation was on the line.

Today, America’s famous battle cry has been replaced by a masked and muffled gasp that advises, without hope of a second opinion, “give me lockdowns and keep me safe.”

So terrified is the American public of catching a virus that comes with a 99 percent survival rate that they are willing to forego Thanksgiving, the great national holiday commemorating – with no loss of irony – their Pilgrim ancestors’ collective courage to overcome the wild, hostile conditions of their new land.

It must be said that no fascist party has ever been so adept when it came to sealing the collective fate of their people to a common enemy. That’s because the threat facing mankind today, or so we are told, is not some nefarious ideology, like communism, or even a terrorist organization that the masses can be rallied to fight. Rather, the threat is a microscopic contagion that is capable of invading every nook and cranny of our lives. Already the age of manly handshakes is over, replaced by an emasculated majority, while an entire generation of youth now looks at their fellow human beings as infernal germ factories.

And unlike a traditional enemy that can be seen, attacked and eventually defeated, the coronavirus – we have been oddly forewarned – will make landfall again and again, while regularly morphing with comic book abilities into an increasingly deadlier villain. In this landless battle, only the medical authorities are decorated as heroes, while the people, lacking the professional credentials, are forced to be passive and helpless onlookers, their freedom of movement severely constrained. More importantly, the forces of nationalism have become irrelevant; only a globalist, one-world-order response can defeat this pandemic.

There is very good reason to suspect, however, that either the science on all of this is half-baked, or we the people are being intentionally duped on a grand scale. In fact, it’s probably a little bit of both. First, relying on nothing more than empirical evidence, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that there is no existential emergency confronting mankind. If there were, we would expect to see decomposing bodies piling up in the streets, like in the medieval times during the Black Plague. This would be especially the case among the homeless population, which is certainly not practicing social distancing etiquette as they pass around open containers on street corners.

Nor does there seem to be any massive queuing up at hospitals for emergency treatment. In fact, as early as April, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told President Trump that the Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort deployed to New York City by the federal government to help fight the coronavirus outbreak was “no longer needed”. Cuomo said the need for the support vessel “didn’t reach the levels that had been projected.” And I am certainly not the only one who has noticed that Covid cases seem to fluctuate curiously with the political climate.

Let’s not forget that the overwhelming majority of Covid ‘victims’ recover nicely at home, according to no less of an authority than Anthony Fauci. At the same time, many people who acquire the disease are asymptomatic and never even knew they were infected. Children, meanwhile, seem amazingly impervious to the virus. That is not to say that there has been no sign of a virus this winter season. Of course there has been, just like every year. But while Covid cases may be on the rise in some places, and invisible in others, the death rate from this illness remains low and tumbling, predominantly hitting elderly people already suffering from comorbidities.

There are other reasons to be suspicious that what we are dealing with is not a first-class medical emergency, but rather something much more sinister. Like maybe an excuse for rolling out a Western-made vaccine that carries a microchip implant with tracking technology? Such a claim will sound less fantastic when it is realized that it has already been developed.

It is no secret that just one month before Covid-19 made its dramatic landfall in the United States, purportedly from Wuhan, China, MIT researchers announced a new method for recording a patient’s vaccination history: storing the smartphone-readable data under the skin at the same time a vaccine is administered.

“By selectively loading microparticles into microneedles, the patches deliver a pattern in the skin that is invisible to the naked eye but can be scanned with a smartphone that has the infrared filter removed,” MIT News reported.

“The patch can be customized to imprint different patterns that correspond to the type of vaccine delivered.”

Would it surprise anyone to know that the research was funded largely by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the same family venture that now provides the bulk of funding to the World Health Organization?

Then, in September 2019, ID2020, a San Francisco-based biometric company that counts Microsoft as one of its founding members, announced a new project that involves the “exploration of multiple biometric identification technologies for infants” that is based on “infant immunization.”

We could continue here with a long list of other disturbing technologies that would effectively turn people into walking antennae for the rest of their lives, but the point is hopefully clear: although many people might be willing to accept a vaccine against Covid-19, they probably do not want the extra technological add-ons that people like Bill Gates, a man with zero medical qualifications, seem extremely anxious to include.

Bottom of Form

So what can Americans expect next? How about ‘Freedom Passes’ that Britons may need before they are able to return to some semblance of normalcy?

According to the Daily Mail, “Britons are set to be given Covid ‘freedom passes’ as long as they test negative for the virus twice in a week, it has been suggested…To earn the freedom pass, people will need to be tested regularly and, provided the results come back negative, they will then be given a letter, card or document they can show to people as they move around.”

And this is what they call a “return to normalcy.”

Personally, I call those plans the approach of fascism. And for those who doubt that it could not happen in America should heed the words of the late sagacious comedian George Carlin, who once quipped that “when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts.” Had Carlin been alive today to see the tremendous mess we’ve inherited, he would most likely have included a syringe in the neo-fascist’s toolkit.

=====================

A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom

A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 7 November 2020

A victory for Joe Biden would embolden the regressive woke elites across the Western world.

Make America Boring Again. Remarkably, this has become the rallying cry of many in the Joe Biden camp. ‘Vote Biden and make the presidency boring again’, instructs the New York Daily News. ‘The delightful boringness of Joe Biden’, as Vox puts it. ‘Joe Biden is a boring candidate. That’s why he is doing well’, says a writer for the Guardian. After the fire and the fury and the lies and the bluster of the first Trump term, what America needs right now is a big ol’ ‘dose of monotony’, says one observer.

This all captures what is motoring the extraordinarily uniform pro-Biden outlook across the old political establishment, the media class and the celebrity set. Every now and then these people will use words like ‘renewal’ to describe a Biden presidency. They even occasionally claim he is riding on a similar wave of ‘HOPE’ to the one that swept Obama to power in 2008.

But in truth, at root, what the cultural elites love about Biden is that he would render politics dull again. He would help to restore calm and normalcy and, most importantly, order. More specifically, he will restore the order, the old order, the pre-Trump order in which politics was a fundamentally boring, technical, managerial affair, the business of educated elites rather than of loudmouth populists and the swarms of excitable people who come to hear them and cheer them. Make no mistake: the celebration of Biden’s tedium speaks to an elitist longing to drain the popular democratic spark from political life and return politics to the aloof, bureaucratic clerisy who had been running things before Trump came along.

The most important thing about Joe Biden is not the man himself – it is what has been invested in him by the establishment. This is why those who go on about Biden’s age and his bouts of mental confusion and the stark possibility that he wouldn’t survive a four-year presidency are kind of missing the point. Biden, for the purposes of this election, this election that the elites tell us is the most important of everyone’s lifetime, is not a politician; he’s a mascot. He’s a flag. He’s a largely symbolic figure, primarily symbolising Not Trump and Not Populism, whose presence in the White House will, the old establishment hopes, help to embolden their efforts to rebalance politics away from the frankness and populism of the last four years and return it to what a writer for the Los Angeles Times refers to as the ‘expertise’ of the pre-Trump era, which is apparently preferable to ‘the authenticity’ of a political figure like Trump.

So what will happen today is not really a normal election. Rather, it is an attempted restoration. A restoration not of monarchy but of technocracy; not of a king but of the status quo ante and its conduct of politics in a removed, disconnected way. Not only in the US but across Europe and elsewhere in the world, the political and moral clerisy see the restoration of their preferred order in the US as an essential first step in their longed-for rollback of the populist rebellions of the past few years. This is why spiked thinks a victory for Joe Biden will be a disaster for the world – because it would further embolden the most regressive, anti-democratic, woke strains in Western political life. If Biden wins, we all lose.

One of the most revealing justifications for voting for Biden is that he would relieve people of the burden of thinking about politics. As one writer says, the main horror of the Trump era is that it made ‘politics and government’ into ‘the omnipresent centre of gravity in our daily lives’. With a monster like Trump in the White House, many people, apparently, could think about little else other than politics and what a shitshow it had become courtesy of the ‘deplorables’ who elevated Trump to power. And the great thing about Biden’s rule is that it ‘promises to return the outsized stature of politics to its rightfully diminutive place’ (my italics). Diminutive: extremely or unusually small. That is the presence politics should have in most people’s lives, apparently: an infinitesimally small one. Don’t think about politics – just let other people get on with it. And that is what Biden promises – ‘a government you simply don’t have to think about all that often’.

This has become a common cry in the vast pro-Biden lobby. It is a central component of the Make Politics Boring Again worldview. They want a world where most people – ordinary people – don’t have to worry themselves about issues of governance. They can just leave that stuff, the business of the national destiny, to the competent classes (‘competence’, alongside ‘boring’, is another buzzword of the Biden lobby). As the Los Angeles Times says, this election is really a reckoning between ‘experts’ and the ‘authentics’. The experts are the likes of Hillary Clinton and, latterly, Joe Biden (eight years in the Obama administration ‘boosted his expert credentials’, says the LA Times), and the ‘authentics’ are people like Trump. And what we need to restore is ‘the expertise’ and ‘reliance on science’ of that pre-Trump class, against ‘the feral frankness’ of the Trump era, the LA Times says.

So the wave of pro-Biden sentiment among vast swathes of the establishment is not merely about changing policy in the White House, as most elections are. (Indeed, it is striking how much of the pro-Biden commentary says Biden’s policies don’t actually matter. ‘It’s not the policies that count’, as the Guardian says.) Rather, it is about negating the ‘feral’ populism of recent years and restoring the rightful rule of the smart set, of those who can be trusted to govern while the rest of us just get on with our lives and never think about politics. A Biden presidency is a ‘protest against protest’, in the words of the Guardian. That is, it would be a protest against the protest votes cast by vast numbers of ordinary people in 2016 for a different, more democratic way of doing politics. There’s a word for ‘protest against protest’, of course: counter-protest, or counterrevolution. That is what the elite Biden wave represents: a counterrevolution against the populist cries and democratic demands of the 2016 era.

‘Feral’ means having escaped from domestication and become wild. That is how much of the cultural and media elites view the masses in the post-2016 era: we disobediently broke free of the domesticating force of managerial politics and became beast-like, ignorantly voting for Trump or Brexit. The Biden reaction, the Biden counterrevolution, is fundamentally a project of redomestication, of returning the masses to the tamed state in which they do not concern themselves with politics and instead leave it to ‘America’s system of checks and balances’, as The Economist says in its pro-Biden leader.

If successful, this ‘protest against protest’, this elitist reaction against the feral demands of the people for change, would be bad not only for America but for other parts of the world, too. It would be particularly bad for the Brexit spirit. We know that Biden is hostile to Brexit, viewing it as a Trump-like phenomenon. We know that he is keen to reward the European Union for its steadfastness in the face of the Brexit revolt and of the various challenges to its authority from the East, especially from Poland and Hungary. The masses’ democratic impulse would suffer both in the US and in Europe if the self-consciously domesticating force of technocracy is restored to power in Washington, DC.

The desire to make politics diminutive again, to return decision-making to ‘the experts’, speaks to the overarching aim of the technocratic impulse – to insulate political life from the pressure of the masses. The elite meltdown of the past four years, in both the US and the UK, has been motored by a great fear that the votes for Trump and Brexit tore away the insulation of politics from popular pressure. This project of insulation had been taking shape for decades, in the form of the European Union, of the increased juridification of political decision-making, of quangos and checks and balances. In questioning the authority of the EU and the expertise of the Clinton-style establishment, British and American voters started to pull apart this insulation and make the case for more direct forms of democracy and decision-making. The ‘delightful boringness’ of Biden, his promise to make politics ‘diminutive’ again, his implicit invitation to ‘the experts’ to take authority back from ‘the authentics’, is fundamentally a project of restoring the insulation between politics and the masses. This will be a deeply concerning backward step for democracy.

The restoration of the pre-2016 order would not only insulate public life from people’s feral political demands but also from our cultural and moral values. It would redomesticate the masses morally as well as politically. A Biden victory would embolden the woke mobs of the new elite and their tyranny of cancel culture. Under the imperfect instrument of Trump’s often crude, narcissistic presidency, ordinary people have had a mechanism through which they could express their disdain for the eccentric, divisive, identitarian crusades of the new elites, on everything from transgenderism to the nonsense of ‘white privilege’. The defeat of Trump, the removal of one of the few anti-woke leaders in the West, would green-light the intensification of those crusades. We should expect to see an even keener assault on the apparently outdated family values and community concerns of the ‘deplorable’ sections of society by a newly emboldened elite.

Trump’s victory fundamentally represented a rude intrusion by ordinary people into the democratic life of America. It was an assertion of their democratic, moral concerns against an establishment that wasn’t only not listening to them but which was treating them with open contempt and hostility. The elite Biden wave is about reversing this rude intrusion and returning the people to their apparently natural state: one in which their role is merely to be governed, not to think about government. You might not want Trump to win, and that’s fine. But you should want Biden to lose. A Biden counterrevolution would be a disaster for democracy, solidarity and freedom.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked and host of the spiked podcast, The Brendan O’Neill Show. Subscribe to the podcast here. And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy

=============================

“Capitalism” Is No Longer Attractive To Capitalists

 

Capitalism Is No Longer Attractive To Capitalists  By Charles Hugh Smith, vai OfTwoMinds blog, Zerohedge, 31 October 2020

This “capitalism” is only attractive to parasites, predators, kleptocrats, legalized looters, embezzlers, fraudsters and all those insiders whose palms get greased along the way.

Back of the envelope definition of classical capitalism:

  1. Transparency in markets, including pricing, information on quality and reliability of products, sellers and buyers, and of rules of conduct and rights governing all participants;
  2. Risk is tightly bound to reward, i.e. everyone has skin in the game, those who lose are forced to absorb the entire loss.
  3. Open competition, i.e. no monopolies or cartels limiting supply or setting prices;
  4. Free flow of capital and labor;
  5. Everyone pays the same rates of taxes, duties and fees on every transaction.

Needless to say, what is presented as “capitalism” in America today is not actually capitalism; it is monopoly-state-socialism for the wealthy, a kleptocracy incompetently cloaked by a rigged simulacrum market in which risk and losses are transferred to the debt-serfs and tax donkeys and the “socialism for the rich and powerful” is enforced by a pay-to-play simulacrum democracy and kleptocratic, totalitarian central bank, the Federal Reserve.

In this winner take most, anything goes if you’re rich casino, the weaker players are ruthlessly stripmined and exploited and those enterprises without political protection are cannibalized by rapacious, predatory monopolies and cartels.

Parasitic elites take a skim from every table: student loans over here, state junk fees over there; everyone gets clipped by self-serving insiders and entrenched interests.

Transparency is an illusion. Complexity thickets protect monopolies and cartels, and the fine print… try getting a set price for healthcare services. (You must be joking.) Sign the form for the $30 oil change and come back to an $800 bill for “work you authorized.” (You didn’t read the fine print? Too bad.)

Quality has gone downhill across the board but there’s no recourse or competition. All the items regardless of brand come from the same factory in China. So what if your new oven turns on by itself randomly (true story, happened to me); the once-proud American brand’s warranty is only one year, so tough luck, bucko, the repair bill for the defective $5 sensor will cost you as much as a new range.

In American “capitalism,” the name of the game is scale up with cheap debt supplied by the Federal Reserve, use the “Fed free money” to buy up any potential competitors and then start buying back your own shares, jacking your share price even as sales and profits stagnate. (Charts of Apple below).

Once you’re too big to fail or jail, then you can gamble to your heart’s content because all the winnings will be yours to keep and if you lose big, the Fed or the Treasury will step in and transfer the losses to the debt-serfs and tax donkeys.

In America, as Warren Buffett jacks up the price of Sees candy, etc. to maximize his profits and add more billions to his net worth, and Amazon uses its quasi-monopoly power to relentlessly jack up the price of Prime membership, nobody asks Warren or Jeff “don’t you have enough already?”

The answer is “no”. It’s never enough, because as long as the Fed and federal government enforce, enable or allow your monopoly, quasi-monopoly or cartel to kill transparency and competition, and offer you limitless “Fed free money” while students pay 8% on their loans, then why not add another $10 billion to your personal wealth?

Go ahead and lie, cheat, embezzle, rig markets, commit fraud, collude–everything is allowed if you’re a powerful corporation because all your execs have get out of jail free cards from the Department of Justice. Nobody in Corporate America ever goes to prison no matter how egregious the fraud or theft. And you get to keep all the loot, other than a wrist-slap fine if you’re caught. But that’s just a modest cost of doing business in American “capitalism.”

If this “capitalism” was actually attractive to capitalists, why would everyone pile into the same six Big Tech monopolies? Is that really the only opportunity left to “create shareholder value,” to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in “Fed free money” into a handful of Big Tech monopolies?

Paraphrasing the late Immanuel Wallerstein, “Capitalism” is no longer attractive to capitalists. This “capitalism” is only attractive to parasites, predators, kleptocrats, legalized looters, embezzlers, fraudsters and all those insiders whose palms get greased along the way.

If you think this “capitalism” is sustainable, the future holds a big surprise.

=======================

Previous articles

    • pauling-hansons-first-speech-in-the-senate-14-september-2016
    • cairns-post-editorial-201016  Laws of diminishing returns as the ‘nanny state’ takes over control of our freedom, By Julian Tomlinson, Cairns Post, 20 October 2016

The Great Global Warming Hoax

By John Rofe, Fraud Investigator, Auckland, New Zealand.

Editor’s note: this post comprises a series of emails, submissions and documents send to NZ Ministers, Government Departments, shadow Ministers and major NZ media describing the current global warming hoax, including compelling supporting evidence. 

As background, this PowerPoint presentation explains the reasons why Russia and most countries didn’t get into the emission reduction programme, and the history and background for the climate fraud: THE KYOTO PROTOCOL CO2 – Russian presentation to Vladimir Putin 2004.

From: jcrofe@xtra.co.nz <jcrofe@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2021 12:31 pm
To: ‘leighton smith’ <leightonzb@gmail.com>
Cc: ‘enquiries@sfo.govt.nz’ <enquiries@sfo.govt.nz>; ‘Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz’ <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘James.Shaw@parliament.govt.nz’ <James.Shaw@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘andrew.tait@niwa.co.nz’ <andrew.tait@niwa.co.nz>; ‘Judith Collins’ <Collinsjudith88@gmail.com>; ‘Stuart Smith’ <Stuart.tayler@icloud.com>; ‘David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz’ <David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Simeon.Brown@parliament.govt.nz’ <Simeon.Brown@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘terry Dunleavy’ <terry@winezeal.co.nz>; ‘Peter J. Morgan’ <pjm.forensic.eng@gmail.com>
Subject: Why the Ardern/Shaw climate fraud is the most serious issue of the day
Importance: High

Hi Leighton,

Thanks for your email and your legal friend’s comments.  I am not sure whether I sent you this threesome attached above (the first three attachments).  In the final page of the third document headed “Why no one will see justice..” I make the point that our legal system is ill-equipped to deal with fraud.  So one has to be really lucky to have it investigated.  This email may be a little long because I want those I accuse of promoting or complicity in the climate fraud to be aware of what I am saying about them.  This is one enquiry no-one can walk away from – whether honest or corrupted.

How much longer must I wait to challenge such an obvious climate fraud in an appropriate courtroom? 

  • I challenged the PM, Deputy PM and Minister for Climate Change in 2018 to warn them that they were criminal liability if they proceeded
  • James Shaw gave me his Mens Rea defence in late 2018 (copy attached herewith) which I received with “good humour” because no solicitor representing a fraudster has ever sent me a letter explaining his excuse for committing fraud in the future before.  The French have a saying “Qui s’excuse s’accuse”.  But I checked UN IPCC report AR5 of 2014 and found zero evidence or good reason to believe human carbon emissions play any role in climate change.  But I also checked with the people advising the UN IPCC including Professor Michael Mann and Professor John Cook (both crooks) and found no reason to alter my position.  Drs Tom Sheahan and Jock Alison had provided reason why the stupid and wasteful Ardern plan should not go further during Minister Shaw’s faux public consultation.  It seemed that Minister Shaw had determined that his letter to me gave him a “Get out of Jail Free” card to continue to commit fraud.
  • I submitted my fraud complaint to NZ Serious Fraud Office in April 2019
  • I notified the PM and Minister why they could not rely on their spurious Mens Rea defence for committing future frauds on 15 May 2019 (Copy attached herewith). In particular I drew the Minister’s attention to the most obvious detrimental aspects of the fraud for the people of New Zealand and the fact he and his Prime Minister were indulging in deceptive and misleading conduct while relying on the advice of parties who were intent on perpetrating a fraud on the New Zealand public.
  • Thereafter I informed them of every time evidence of the fraud hey were promoting arose and their culpability in it, occurred. (scores of emails)
  • In August 2020 I laid a formal complaint with the NZ Police. (Copy attached herewith)  Instead of a proper investigation or anyone getting back to me, I heard nothing further.

What is the point of having a Serious Fraud Office, if it (even by its inaction) protects those who promote crimes against us?

We, the public can only point out what we honestly and with good evidence believe the truth is, and hope that either those committed to promoting the fraud see the error of their ways, or the proper authorities take the matter in hand.  Sue me for defamation?  I don’t think they dare, because even the “big wigs” at the UN are aware of the impossibly suspect nature of their scam.  May I quote former UN climate official Ottmar Edenhofer who co-chaired the UN IPCC working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008-2015:

“ One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole….We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

 This was hardly surprising because, by then they knew the positions of the Russians, Chinese and Indians who objected to the bastardisation of science and the attempt to tax all countries for the benefit of the United Nations, one world government project.

Te UN IPCC had become the chosen instrument of a global political fraud intended to change the status and wealth of countries.  The people of New Zealand were being comprehensively deceived and persuaded to relinquish their accumulated wealth to save the planet.  So please re-read the fourth paragraph in my 15 May 2019 letter to Minister Shaw.  We were being lied to.  He should not have been placing reliance upon the junk science of the UN IPCC which was being used to advantage other parties to the detriment of New Zealand and other OECD countries.

A fraud does not change its nature and intent simply because the parties we rely on to protect us are dilatory, or under the influence of those perpetrating or promoting the fraud.  I repeat.  What makes this a fraud are PM Jacinda Ardern and Minister James Shaw’s three basic lies:

  1. That human carbon emissions cause climate change.  That has no basis in fact or science. There is even contrary proof that it doesn’t.
  2. That carbon dioxide is a pollutant. False, because it is essential for all life on Earth.  It is tasteless, odourless and non-toxic at atmospheric levels.
  3. Actions by this Government can influence climate change.  (yeah right! Totally impossible to even the most deluded politician)

Water plus CO2 plus light are the basis of all life on earth, via photosynthesis.  Why does a faux environmentalist Minister of this Government not know that?

New Zealanders were told that the objections to the anthropogenic global warming theory from the like of Russia, India, China and many emerging economies was due purely to their  economic considerations.  In fact it was the complete opposite.  Those countries signed up to the Paris Accords as the intended beneficiary of the transfer of wealth from developed to undeveloped countries, thereby allowing them to do what they wanted with consumption of oil, gas and coal.  Mr Edenhofer himself acknowledged that, “in order to get rich, one has to burn coal, oil or gas.”

 

In 2019 I heard president Putin explain his take on the cause of climate change and it was an exact precis of the position of the Russian Academy of Sciences (to follow).  No wonder he is implementing policies to prepare for the coming cold and not warmth.

So at Paris, the Chinese decided to self-limit themselves to increasing carbon emissions to double those at time of signing; and for India it was to be a three times increase by the target date of 2030.  But at Paris – as far as the UN impresarios were concerned – there was a change from reliance on climate fraud to their global financial takeover.  In 2015,Christiana Figuerres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made the following statement:

“ This is the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.  This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

When were the people of New Zealand going to be told about transferring all the hard-earned wealth of our forebears to others?

Where was the disclosure, or the informed consent?  Was Global Warming theory just a stalking horse for the World Economic Forum’s run to implement a global reset?  The New Zealand public deserves two things of nothing else.  Disclosure and answers to what is going on.

But lets get back to the core fraud because the objectives of fraud varies between the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (UN IPCC) and the New Zealand Government.  Secretary General Antonio Guterres is pushing the return of countries to socialism (which ultimately means Communism) as noted in an early paper attached herewith as “Many Whistleblowers…”  However his accountability is to a multiplicity of national interests.

 

PM Ardern’s accountability is to the New Zealand taxpayers.  Minister Shaw, with his demonisation of CO2  doesn’t even seem to feel any accountability to the environment!   Destroying farm incomes and businesses may suit the global socialist game plan but it certainly does not suit New Zealand’s.  I personally profit from PM Ardern’s promotion of climate fraud through my renewable energy investments (although I know how unsuitable most of the renewable technologies still are on an ongoing basis – I believe we must still invest in them) so I am obligated to bring the fraud to the attention of the New Zealand Public.  I need to know why the true cause of climate change is not being aired and yet it is systematically banned from all New Zealand news media?   In my email of 15 May 2019 I reminded the Government ministers that they must have due regard for the progress of the solar cycles (which do actually drive climate change) and in particular the coming of the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum.  No response was received.

 

So lets look at the Russian position which as regards climate, is honestly stated.  They have put their money where their mouth is and are preparing for the coming Grand Solar Minimum.

 

The one (huge) country with the most to gain and the most to lose from climate change is Russia, where 25% of their land mass and 50% of mineral resources is situated to the North of the Arctic Circle.  In times of warmth, the agricultural grow-zone limit moves Northwards, ushering in times of plenty and the permafrost melts…with some key affected infrastructure collapsing into the bog.  In times of cold Russia is and was not capable of sustaining its population.  During the “Dark Ages” its population collapsed.  During the Mediaeval Warm Period (800-1280AD) it prospered like never before as new peoples entered and re-populated its territory.  Then came the problems with the successive Grand Solar Minimums at 200 year (approx..) intervals  that are etched into the Russian psyche.  But the Russians recognise the importance of the climate because they live or die by it.   It is a country with few illusions about its history and a desperate need to understand climate trends for the future.  Joseph Stalin made a tragic mistake with supporting the junk science of Trofim Lysenko and the populace paid the price (up to six million by some counts).

 

All serious students of climate change must understand the importance of this subject to the Russian economy.   So while wealthy countries breed theoreticians, Russia breeds pragmatists.  The generally accepted Russian view of the cause of climate change is at direct variance with that adopted by the OECD where climate change theory is driven more by politicians and bureaucrats rather than by scientists.  In the OECD the politicians pay the climate scientists to tell them what they want to hear and the real science is certainly subjugated, and effectively outlawed.  A synopsis of the Russian position is attached above as a transcript of screen shots from a 2014 video presentation prepared under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences by Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov who, as a native son of Kyrgyzstan, became the Director of the Polkovo Observatory and Director of the Russian scientific program of experiments on the International Space Station.  Dr Abdussamatov is an intellectual giant who elegantly explains climate change, provides the Russian evidence (which complements and agrees with ours) and explains what they think will happen and why. His problem is that he speaks little English and has a bad cold when presenting his truthful and enlightening paper:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdNw8-Cq8h8&feature=emb_logo

 

So best to read the screen shots that are attached as the final item at the head of this email.  If you take the time to do that you will see from his emphasis that every Grand Solar Maximum and Minimum was an existential opportunity or threat of extinction (in turn) for Russia. Over the last two to three years the pendulum has swung back as Dr Abdussamatov has said it would, and Russia is scrambling to prepare for extreme cold and China (in reality needing to import more and more of its food every year now as grow zones move South) is building under-cover hydroponic farms on a huge scale, in preparation for what is to come.

 

Six years after this presentation was given, NASA and NOAA are (extremely reluctantly) obliged to admit the solar cycles are performing exactly as Dr Abdussamatov claimed.  Did the Russians cost the impact of what they were being called upon to do?  Yes, I have sighted and forwarded a copy of the economic impact report that was given to President Putin in 2004.

 

So we never have been told the truth about the drastic damage that the global aspirations of leading politicians will have on our economy.

 

How big is this fraud in New Zealand terms?  There has never been one bigger. It should be investigated by the proper authorities and appropriate action taken.

 

The shower of climate computer models that tell us the lies the UN IPCC deems politically correct, can be better dealt with by the writings of Peter Morgan and Environomics (NZ) Trust.  They tell us that all but the Russian model contained an error that multiplied the influence of carbon dioxide on climate change.  This tells us why the UN IPCC – approved models were all wrong, but frankly I could prove they were wrong anyway from published NIWA NZ weather data.  If I can do it at will so can the NZ SFO.

 

The global climate is not unprecedentedly warm, nor is there a climate emergency.  But there is an urgent need to stop climate fraud and get answers from our Government as to why they have ignored common sense.

 

During either warming or cooling, it is the larger land masses that lead the way. I observed that during the warming of the 1980’s and 90’s and it is again observable in the cooling that seems just beginning…

 

https://cairnsnews.org/2021/04/20/us-and-southern-australia-buckle-under-record-freezes-in-readiness-for-a-mini-ice-age/

 

and

 

https://electroverse.net/englands-coldest-april-since-1922-germanys-chilliest-since-1917/

 

We can now be reasonably sure that planet Earth is going into a 200-year Grand Solar Minimum.  New Zealand tends to lag the countries situated on the larger land masses.  So we have the luxury of a 4-8 year time lag before we feel the effects of change.  But what we cannot be sure about is whether this will deliver the same results as which one of the following:

 

  1. The Centennial Minimum of 100 years ago.  Milder cold with bad winters.
  2. The Dalton Minimum of 200 years ago.  Serious cold, with alterations to NZ grow zones. (remember the blizzards in Otago of 1863 that killed so many gold miners? )
  3. The Maunder Minimum of 400 years ago.  Disaster for many New Zealand farmers.  Major changes in grow zones. Loss of many crops etc.
  4. Because the Holocene climate maximum occurred during the Minoan Warm period 4,000 years ago could we be in for the next stage of the Milankovitch cycle?.  A 100,000-year disaster will follow which will wipe out all agriculture in the South Island?

 

This ice core analysis from Greenland (from the prestigious Niels Bohr Institute) certainly points in the general direction of number 4.  But the timing is totally unknown. 

 

https://vimeo.com/14366077

 

Those deluded members of the scientific community who mistakenly believe that increased atmospheric CO2 levels affect climate change – which it certainly doesn’t –  so it can ward off the next stage of the Milankovitch cycle, will get a huge shock.  If you look at slide 4. of Dr Abdussamatov’s presentation as attached above, you will see that the descent into all 90,000-year ice ages of the Pleistocene era (which the Holocene is just part of!)  always began when the atmospheric CO2 level was at its highest.  If  the level of CO2 drove climate change, it is clear from this analysis that there would have been runaway global watming before and the earth would have cooked.  That has never happened and it is one reason why so many climate scientists feel pent-up rage at the nonsense pedalled by PM Ardern and Minister Shaw, among the other deluded followers of the UN IPCC fraud.

 

The current progress of the solar minimum between solar cycle 24 and 25 already shows (by sunspot analysis) that it is about 9% deeper and longer than the minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24.  (I have been personally analysing this from the published daily space weather web sites – as any member of the public can do)  However, while the formation of new solar cycle 25 is still well aligned to Dr Abdussamatov’s forecast of 2014, it is a little different to the more recent forecast by NASA/NOAA as attached link below.  This precision of solar analysis reinforces the fact that the solar cycles cause climate change…

 

https://electroverse.net/solar-cycle-25-shows-signs-of-life-new-best-fit-released/

 

Why are PM Ardern and Minister Shaw ignorant of these facts?  Isn’t it this Government’s flagship policy?  And why are they so interested in laying waste to large swathes of the New Zealand economy?  Are they ignorant? Are they stupid, or are they a part of the most dangerous cabal of fraudsters in New Zealand history?

 

They are in good company, if so.  The gang of crazies at the UN even approves of mass genocide to be implemented by the same folks that transferred the “Coronavirus gain of function” from US laboratories to Wuhan when the US regulations made their actions illegal. 

 

https://truthcomestolight.com/the-dimming-full-length-climate-engineering-documentary/

 

So, can anyone stop this stuff?  I thought we were a sovereign country…or are we?

 

Where are the proper authorities when you really need them?

 

Best regards

John Rofe

=======================

Email from John Rofe to David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz; Simeon.Brown@parliament.govt.nz; Shane.Reti@parliament.govt.nz; Judith.Collins@parliament.govt.nz; Stuart.Smith@parliament.govt.nz

Dear friends and politicians,

My explanation of the beginnings of the Great Global Warming Fraud above (3rd item “Many Whistleblowers”) just scratched the surface.

Just lately I have been astounded by the efforts of the new Marxist-Leninist Government of New Zealand with its “free gifts for all” policies on the one hand and the tearing down of New Zealand’s past cultural achievements and re-writing of history on the other.  I didn’t know until this year that I was a racist because my skin was white, or that I had oppressed thousands of people I have never met or now need to be dispossessed because of crimes I never committed.  I had an idea I was a rapist from The days when Germaine Greer was a youngster.  But I was innocent of that too.

Marc Morano has Just published his new book “Green Fraud” to explain the not really secret but very embarrassing agenda of the Soviet Socialist Biden Government’s “Green New Deal” in the USA.  You can buy it on Amazon (but soon before it gets banned by order of Jeff Bezos) because it exposes their conspiracies.  You will understand why, when you watch this brief YouTube clip…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4_KvKJzf3M

Since Senator Rand Paul’s book “The Case Against Socialism” was stocked by the public library in Auckland a year ago, I became aware that the climate fraud which Comrades Ardern and Shaw promote had much wider implications for our future. 

Recapping….

It was easy to understand why PM Jacinda Ardern would go for total lockdown into level 4 in late March 2020, because that was consistent with her goal to convert New Zealand into a socialist state.  Step one was always about the destruction of capitalism.  So she was probably aware that the way to achieve that was to shut down the economy and make all business – large and small – totally reliant on Government handouts.  If large, she could victimise the business owners if they made a profit afterwards.  If they went out of business after she had subsidised staff wages, she could criticise them for incompetence and the failures of capitalism.  Successive shutdowns would destroy business reserves.  It worked well.   So well it got her re-elected for effectively bribing everyone with their own money.  Perhaps we Kiwis aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer?  But surely this was necessary to “be kind be kind be kind be kind – ad nauseam” to our old people and not kill us with the new version of flu.  Right?

The next step was to declare a “Climate Emergency” and this justified and continues to justify the imposition of curbs on the freedom of expression and association for private citizens and freedom of the press.  The global socialists are on her side as is the Davos brigade of globalist billionaires.  The news media and education system are already in her pocket anyway – committed socialists, at least many of them.  But very soon, no-one will be able to write an email like this because it will either be classed as racist, homophobic, violent, or some other form of hate speech.

Jacinda learned well from her communist handlers.  She learned to make her personal brand of Bolshevism (self-styled as “progressive socialism”) appealing.  But the problem is that they use the same tried dogma now that everyone has forgotten that the “Socialist Unity Party” members have taken over the “NZ Greens”…

  • “Equality of outcome” is an intoxicating thought, but it caused the demise of the USSR, because eventually they ran out of other people’s money
  • “It takes a village to bring up a child” is great for parents who go in for child neglect, but bad for children and when the state demands greater loyalty, that philosophy eventually undermines or collapses parental authority and responsibility, and then the children dob in the devious parents once taught in state schools to do so (this has started in the UK already).  That worked initially, but eventually backfired in the USSR too.  Eventually for many, the state simply became the enemy and walls needed to be erected to stop them escaping.
  • The bourgeoisie have to pay for the collapse.  So tax and blame all landlords for the sin of property ownership, blame financiers (getting the Reserve Bank to be responsible for housing cost inflation is just a case in point) for all failed policies.  It worked in the USSR, too but after a while there was no source of capital to ensure production and productivity growth.  Blame industrialists and eventually, industry and enterprise died and everyone became poorer.
  • Where will she site her Gulags to lock up us reactionaries? 
  • Collapsing the economy is permissible if you can point to fake emergencies… Jacinda’s pet Climate Change Emergency and Covid-19 will do for now.  As Rahm Emmanuel famously said, “Never let any disaster go to waste”.
  • So throughout the OECD where democracies need to be bowled over, we hear the stirring cry of the global communist cadre, “We Must Build Back Better”.  This is a promise for the future that will never be delivered but it will justify destroying the economy with poorly thought out major projects and bring us to our knees.  A bit like her climate change fraud. The sun will cause the coming Grand Solar Minimum with earthquakes, volcanism and cold weather.  Jacinda will take the credit for the cooling until it gets cold and then she will blame it on Bill Gates (why not? Anyone stupid enough to want to reflect the sun’s rays from earth deserves all he gets).
  • The Fuhrer/Chairman/ Dear Leader could always decide who were good or bad, who were the heroes and who would become the enemies of the people.  It she can get a law through parliament to outlaw the very material we are made from, anything is possible.  As with Stalin’s, Hitler’s and Mao’s purges, you can kill off your enemies once you control all of the apparatus of the totalitarian state.  If the media ignores the purges, did anyone actually die?

And so from USA to Canada and from France to New Zealand, wherever there is climate fraud, or over-reaction to Covid-19, we now have communists in the driver’s seat, steered by Senor Antonio Guterres the top global socialist – the snake who is now running the UN. 

Why Communists?  Because, whether they dubbed themselves as progressive socialists or not, that delusion of equal prosperity for all first entails poverty for all, and then Communism with totalitarianism and secret police (whether called Gestapo of KGB) to keep everyone in line.

When do the confiscations of property start?  I wonder.

Best regards

John Rofe

============================

From: jcrofe@xtra.co.nz <jcrofe@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 February 2021 2:05 pm
To: ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’ <news@tvnz.co.nz>; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’ <newstips@stuff.co.nz>; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’ <news@nzherald.co.nz>; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’ <news@heraldonsunday.co.nz>; ‘Judith Collins’ <Collinsjudith88@gmail.com>; ‘David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz’ <David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz’ <Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz>; ‘James.Shaw@parliament.govt.nz’ <James.Shaw@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: ‘Peter J. Morgan’ <pjm.forensic.eng@gmail.com>; ‘Terry Dunleavy’ <terry@winezeal.co.nz>; ‘Juana Atkins’ <sb@thebfd.co.nz>; ‘andrew.tait@niwa.co.nz’ <andrew.tait@niwa.co.nz>; ‘john.morgan@niwia.co.nz’ <john.morgan@niwia.co.nz>

Editor’s note: the four attachments referred to in this email can be viewed at The Biggest Fraud in Human History, 030321 .The email / letter also appears on https://thebfd.co.nz/2021/03/03/open-letter-to-the-msm-nz-parliamentarians/  

Subject: You don’t need to tell lies about Anthropogenic Global Warming to have a positive effect on the environment

Dear Addressees,

It seems our PM and Minister for Climate Change are determined to keep repeating the lies spread by the UN IPCC and their Socialist cronies, together with active support from NIWA and the Ministry for the Environment, that we humans have a detrimental effect on the earth’s climate, when it is the variability of the solar cycles – moderated by the impacts of the water cycle that truly influence both climate and weather.  One or two of you understand that by demonising CO2 you make yourselves look ignorant and yet you are too scared to stand against a clear and present fraud and by your silence or inactivity, you now appear on the addressee list.

I may be an experienced fraud investigator and forensic analyst, but any person with a modicum of common sense can see that in your decision-making and the governance of the Climate Change Commission, you have “given to the fox the management of the hen-house”.  Sack the lot.

I can now prove by simple arithmetic that humans don’t influence the climate to any material effect but as you all have closed minds.  But I will park that for use in a court of competent jurisdiction.

As media representatives or Parliamentarians, your lack of zeal in questioning the three fundamental lies and willingness to promote the Great Global Warming fraud simply denotes a failure in your duty of care to taxpayers. 

  • Human carbon emissions have no effect on the climate and there is nothing of substance to support that lie.
  • The suggestion that CO2 is a pollutant could be understandable coming from and ignorant child but coming from someone claiming to be an environmentalist means that person(s) are lying about their credentials.
  • The suggestion that humanity can change the climate by reducing atmospheric CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions is so easily disproven that those accepting that line of argument must have avoided asking even the easiest of questions.

Your actions aren’t just mistaken.  There is no Climate Emergency, as the first attachment above shows. 

The marked degree of distance between the truth and your own assertions denotes your own activities as potentially fraudulent.  My short note summarising the points differentiating excusable mistake from actionable fraud is attached and the only thing remaining is for the NZ Serious Fraud Office to do its job.  The leaders at the UN  are open about their global power grab and cynically leverage off your complicity to avoid being held to account…Today we hear…

https://mailchi.mp/cfact/un-frightening-report-debunked?e=fc9def239e

Theirs is the biggest fraud in world history.  It was clear to the Russians and the majority of those in emerging economies that was the case, and aside from the willingness of those ramping up their own emissions, and their aspirations to benefit from the stupidity and ignorance of people like you, few intend or have the ability to prostrate their economies to the nonsense promoted by unaccountable UN bureaucrats.   The Russian Academy of Sciences stands by the validity of their own scientific experiments which show natural forces as the cause of climate change.  The Russians are most affected by both warming and cooling of climate and weather, so their infrastructure projects are designed to cater for the coming forecast changes – cooling, not warming.

My letter to Minister Shaw of 15 May 2019 (as attached) containing allegations of your government’s complicity in the promotion of fraud is still accurate and relevant.

Given my career history of unravelling frauds of all shapes and sizes, and the fact I benefit in some of my investment projects from the very fraud that you are either covering up with active censorship, or promoting, by your action or inaction, I have a clear duty to reveal what I know and demand an investigation by the proper authorities.   So please stop hiding behind your woke protocols and agree to commission a full enquiry.

I am happy to stand by my analysis of the difference between the science-based Russian facts and UN IPCC bullshit as per the attached short summary, headed simply “Earth’s Climate is a Truly Wonderful Thing”.

From my investigations I have encountered at least one member of the Climate Change Commission attacking the reputation and credibility of the brilliant scientists who perform their work for the good of humanity despite continual harrassment.  I have been distressed by the way, “playing the man rather than the ball” has been used to destroy blemish-free careers.  While this activity is common for fraudsters, hundreds if not thousands of reputations have been destroyed, to either advance or defend the UN IPCC’s cynical and deliberate climate fraud.

Your role in the fraud is a tribute to either the poor advice you are getting or your own malfeasance.

So please sharpen up your act while you can.

In the unlikely event you are remotely interested in the environment as opposed to your PC career aspirations, I will be prepared to show you the sort of things an environmentally serious person invests in. Certainly, if you are an environmentalist it will capture your attention and hopefully imagination.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

====================

There is No Climate Emergency – A Direct Public Repudiation of the Great Global Warming Fraud


The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”) was born to commit fraud because it was set up to find evidence of human influence on climate. The warming of the last century is neither unprecedented, nor is there evidence to substantiate the allegations made. Instead, and to attempt to substantiate man-made warming, there have been unscrupulous attempts to “fiddle the figures”. When called out on that, the fraudsters resorted to the time-honoured tricks of misdirection, disinformation, sophistry (to cloud the debate with excessive complexity), ad hominem attacks on critics and straight-out lies. The fraudsters rely on various databases of surface temperatures to combine exaggerated figures. But their problem is that these don’t represent the global position – only fragments of it. Many of the figures used in UN IPCC compilations come from biased computer models and not thermometer readings. The only reliable global database we can use is provided by the NASA satellite network and monitored under contract by two separate organisations (RSS and UAH). This provides timely monthly reports that are automated and tamper-proof. This shows the average temperature for the Lower Troposphere, which is the environment we live in. It covers the period since satellites were sent up in 1979. It shows that if there is no change to the modern rate of warming (which we are falsely told is suicidal), the increase over the next century will be about 1.4oC. but not the 4oC. to 5.5oC. estimated by the cabal of fraudsters and their local agents. Whether they are wrong by design or simple mistake makes no difference. The Climate Emergency is a fraud, as is the Zero Carbon legislation and the Paris Accords.

See full article and diagram at 210205 – The Biggest Fraud in Human History

The UN IPCC’s problem is that human carbon emissions cannot possibly exert a significant influence on the climate.
There has never been any empirical scientific evidence to corroborate that extravagant claim. The causes are solar variability and the way heat transfer is handled by the air, oceans and the water cycle on a diurnal, seasonal and multiyear cycle. The total of the three human-affected greenhouse gases (CHGs) (CO2, CH4 and N2O) in the atmosphere is less than 420 parts per million of air. In contrast, water vapour (which varies from place to place and time to time) is on average 10,000 parts per million. Of the 420 parts per million CHGs that we influence, humans cause only 4% to be emitted. The rest is due to nature. But even worse for the fraudsters, atomic absorption spectroscopy proves that each water vapour molecule has five times the efficacy of each molecule of the human influenced CHGs for incoming solar radiation. For outgoing infrared heat radiation, a water vapour molecule has 12 times the CHG efficacy of the human affected CHGs CO2, CH4 and N2O. A law of physics (Beer-Lambert) even proves the impotence of CO2as a CHG.
The power of water vapour on its own is easily able to be confirmed from diurnal weather data by any Year 12/13 school student.

Analysis of NIWA’s daily weather data in New Zealand shows the combined effects of the water cycle have a major or dominant effect on the distinctly different climates of New Zealand cities and towns. QED.


Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant and is essential for all life on earth. More CO2 is preferable to less CO2.


Whether we spend $34 billion or $34 trillion, New Zealand Zero Emissions strategies cannot change earth’s climate.


Thus the New Zealand Climate Change Commission has a major problem gnawing at its collective conscience.


John Rofe, Experienced Fraud Investigator, email:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz Auckland, NZ, 5 February 2021

 The Most Complex Fraud in History, 16 December 2020

Note: This email and attachments were sent to all 120 new New Zealand MPs and others as below.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 16 December 2020 11:54 a.m.
‘Jacinda.Ardern@parliament.govt.nz’;  ‘David Seymour’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’   +++++++++

Subject: The most complex fraud in history – some holiday reading

Editors’s note: As below, See all attachments as PDF document: The most complex fraud in history, 16 December 2020

There can be no doubt that the current Climate Emergency declared by PM Jacinda Ardern is ill advised, wrong in science and simply a fraudulent enterprise.

But to be fair it was possibly born before she was.  Since its inception as a result of debate over the book “Limits to Growth” in 1972;  then followed by the establishment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (”UN IPCC”) in 1988, the sheer improbability that humans could dominate two of the strongest forces known to humankind (the sun’s variable electromagnetic power and earth’s water cycle) has led to a rapidly increasing sophistication being employed by them and their spreading circle of colleagues within the scientific community.  Sophistry is the mark of all complex frauds, and my indictment will stand until addressed.

Anthropogenic Global Warming” is a political fraud, and everyone from Prince Charles to Atonio Guterres has mortgaged their future credibility with insanely dire warnings of coming Armageddon…which have been imminently threatened since 1989 and yet fail to materialise on an almost yearly basis…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftmkgsrfDNs&feature=youtu.be

What the UN IPCC- aligned “scientists” have produced is not science but confirmation bias, and this fraud is in some instances a repeat of what happened in Russia with Trofim Lysenko (many, and perhaps up to six million deaths as a result).  The US public was warned about the danger of scientists doing what politicians wanted in 1960 by retiring President Dwight D. Eisenhower, but that was 60 years ago and few now remember.  Now any scientist who does not act to benefit the fraud is either sacked or marginalised.

The UN IPCC demands allegiance of world governments whose taxpayers provide an almost open chequebook for scientists who spread the word… but have never shown any scientific evidence to support their contention ab initio that human “carbon emissions” cause “global warming”, or their default positions “climate change” and “Climate Emergency”.  The weather data in no way supports any of their claims.

New Zealanders – of all people – should be able to recognise the fraud, because we live in a mixed maritime/continental climate where a differentiating factor is the power of both water vapour (96% of all greenhouse gases) and the full water cycle..

The attachments to this email provide six short essays on the subject…included within these is the fact that because the level of atmospheric water vapour massively affects the climate from time to time and from place to place, it totally dominates the tiny residual impact of slowly rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, on weather and climate.  It gives the lie to the fraud.

I won’t go into the role of the elites or their purpose in driving this global fraud.  But I will comment that if the elites did not monopolise the mainstream media narrative and the UN IPCC did not monopolise the scientific narrative on the fraud, the general public would have seen through it years ago.

  1. A general summary of the science – headed “Global Ambition” and “Greenwashing”.  The heading only represents the supposed purposes for using this fraud to dominate New Zealand  politics.   Although these political leaders were not the first, they are now certainly the drivers and hope to profit from the fraud – both now and in the future.
  2. Which natural cycles provide the dominant cause for climate change and how did the scientific community create the false notion that human carbon dioxide emissions drive all natural effects? 
  3. What do I mean, when I mention the use of misdirection to fool the public?
  4. A view for the public which shows how each and every one of us can spot the fraud. (Loss of Innocence Part I)
  5. Probable cause of climate change…from time immemorial. (Loss of Innocence Part II)
  6. Spelling out why no-one will see justice. (Loss of Innocence Part III)

See all attachments as PDF document: The most complex fraud in history, 16 December 2020

New Zealand politicians are now divided into two camps.  One camp that is hoping for advantage from the fraud (led by PM Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Climate Change James Shaw)  and another camp who either have not addressed their minds to the matter or who dare not confront this issue because those foreign forces driving it are too powerful.

So all the politicians in the new 2020 parliament form two camps…frauds and wimps.

But why would you not be a wimp?  The NZ Serious Fraud Office has walked away from my complaint on this.  The Ministry of Justice and NZ Police ignore it hoping it will go away.  My latest complaint addressed to NZ Police is attached above.  No response ever received.   (all documentary evidence is available on request).

But the truth never does go away.  Does it?

Enjoy your holidays.  The fraud will still be here when you get back.  It will scare your children until enough of you wimps cry, “Enough!”

Yours Sincerely & Merry Christmas

John Rofe

=======================

Date: 26 October 2020

Email to: New Zealand senior politicians and news media,

We 7.8 billion humans in the digital age are lucky that the truth is normally very simple and straightforward, the facts are so easily accessible.  But where lies and fraud are both officially promulgated and government-sanctioned, the truth is normally regarded as subversive.  Because we have so little time to question accepted ideas, it is extremely serious for us to find you are all guilty to a greater or lesser extent of spreading both lies and facilitating large scale corruption.  So I hope my complaints will be acted upon by the proper authorities.  (after a year of procrastination, a fairly forlorn hope – regrettably)

So if you are of a frail disposition and cannot handle the truth, please stop at this point.  If you wonder what I am saying about you, read on.

For reasons I won’t go into, I watched the entire Trump Congressional impeachment hearings on YouTube.  I had always believed that the US voters must have hit rock-bottom electing someone as “alternative” as Donald J. Trump as President, so I thought he would get his “come-uppance” during the hearings.  On the contrary, there were no allegations of impropriety made against Mr Trump because everyone delivered evidence under oath and clearly there was no evidence available for them to give.  Their clear wish was to dish the dirt, but none was offered.

The annoyance at improper US vice presidential involvement in Ukraine’s affairs, expressed by the state department officials during impeachment hearings came to the fore.  But nothing improper by Trump was presented, yet a cascade of allegations against Joseph Biden came flooding out regarding his part in the Ukraine Burisma scandal involving his family and himself.  It convinced me that Joe Biden was a corrupt Vice President to Obama and there is now plenty of evidence to show the Obama administration was well aware of his corrupt practices.  To be fair, the people of the USA have become desensitised to the systemic graft which permeates US politics called “Pay for Play” for which no impeachment is ever considered.  So they need to get their act together and tidy things up.  What Mr Biden got up to was disgusting.  You cannot elevate a crook to become the leader of the “free world”.

Recently, we find stories and even compelling evidence emerging from the US Department of Justice that the Russia-Gate impeachment process was a simple fraud with active FBI and CIA complicity.

Every day, evidence of Biden’s complicity in fraud in a Democrat-controlled US Congressional hearing is never mentioned in the mainstream media, yet 10,000 miles away I could hear and see the testimony on the live video feeds.  Today, half of the USA is getting the Biden scandal news, but it is barred from every mainstream media outlet other than Fox.  Our own TVNZ and the NZ Herald have been taking the news feeds from the US media which continues to attack Trump and actively support Biden and his frauds, and our media has repeated the feeds verbatim.  Let me name the media organisations involved…

  • CNN and MSNBC
  • Washington Post
  • New York Times
  • The Guardian

How did the so-called “free world” find itself exposed to such criminality of intent and execution?

These listed are the same news organisations promoting the United Nations sponsored climate fraud (for which a short 2-page summary of the simple and not so simple truth about Earth’s climate is attached above).

Every day Mr Trump’s alleged involvement in serious malfeasance, warranting an impeachment circus, appeared in our mainstream New Zealand media.  The massive and prominent stories of his wickedness often seemed just a total fabrication, whereas I knew the facts.  Mr Trump is so guileless and unscripted that I wondered how he got into such a position of power, but in many key issues of the day, his position is principled and steadfast.  (Is he genius, buffoon or both?) The US voters certainly got the guy they elected.  So how can we ever believe our own press in future?  They are guilty of suppression of the truth in the same way that they routinely suppress the evidence of climate fraud.  For instance:

  1. Every warming event is magnified.
  2. Every cooling event is not mentioned at all, unless it occurs locally – i.e. within New Zealand.
  3. Historical charts that have been falsified under the auspices of the UN IPCC, NOAA, NASA, CSIRO and NIWA use scale and choice of periodicity to create the illusion that human carbon emissions cause climate change, when there is not only no empirical scientific evidence that they do, but masses of easily verifiable empirical scientific evidence that they do not.  The fakery of the UN IPCC’s junk science can never even be questioned in the New Zealand media without a bucket of ink from foreign journalistic scum (or local stooges) being thrown over it.

The real changes to average temperatures always seem to get noticed first by those living in the large land masses of the Northern hemisphere because of the otherwise moderating influence of the world’s oceans.  That was the case between 1980 to 2000 when I became convinced that rapid heating was occurring in Europe, Asia and North America (because I was regularly travelling there in international consulting roles during that time).  There was almost no noticeable warming in New Zealand during that time.   The end of the “little ice age” also came late for us in the 1860’s after the massive blizzards of 1863.  (I found this time lag well understood in Russian Academy of Sciences climate reports.)

We are now more than 50 years into the space age and more than 40 years into having access to empirical global temperature data with 2-3 days of the end of each month.  Yet what do we get?  Just spin.  Sure, according to empirical satellite data, the Earth shows no signs yet of atmospheric cooling, but it has shown no signs of average  warming for the last three years either.  So who are these fraudsters pushing the fake climate crisis?  The UN claims it is science but no, they just use the same sort of sophistry when they gather and summarise the scientists’ reports, that commercial fraudsters use to make 2+2= 5.  This isn’t just the biggest ever fraud, it is so widely decentralised every player appears on the face of it to be potentially innocent of bad intent.  The climate is elegant and the sophistry of the fraudsters is equally so.  And thereby we are all deceived…well not all of us.

Now from the space weather and in accordance with existing predictions from the Russian Academy of Sciences, we are entering what is probably going to be a 200 year event called a Grand Solar Minimum.  When the cold comes, then we will have a genuine crisis because there has not been such an event since the world population was less than 1.5 billion people.  For the last three years a series of major anomalous climate cooling events has begun in those same Northern land masses, while for us the warming continues because we are still warmed by the surrounding seas.

So, you can watch the news flow in the few days ahead of today and decide from the following…. 

  1. On climate …my “version of the truth” is that solar cycles and the terrestrial water cycle determine major climate fluctuations.  See this video which contains a forecast for the coming week for North America showing the kind of information which will be suppressed in NZ media by week’s end:

https://youtu.be/qtbkhYSy7R0

I can now prove absolutely that the UN IPCC narrative is just a fraud…but it isn’t rocket science because analysis of our automated and official  met. data will show anyone that.  All you need is six hours over a two day period and a computer and any year12/13 student can do the maths.

Does anyone really think the result of anomalous cooling will get media mention this week?   This video also contains  the realisation by the US President (at 2 minutes 27 seconds in), that it is the space weather dominated by the sun that causes climate change.  At last the Trump Administration is realising the Russians and Chinese scientists are right (see the final link on my 2-page article below).  Now that the science is agreed between the major powers with their massive scientific establishments, surely it is time for the NZ SFO to deal with my climate fraud complaints against NIWA, PM Ardern and Minister Shaw?

You may wish to avail yourselves of the full and complete details of this week’s new US legislation.  It is called  the “Promoting Research and Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow Act” or the “PROSWIFT Act”.  Ref S.881 and covered by the official POTUS Statement dated 21 October 2020.

As an aside…for those who have read the POTUS’ statement…

Obviously, with ever greater reliance on electricity as our energy source, the impact of a Coronal Mass Ejection (a CME from solar storms) will not just potentially take our affected regions back to the “Stone Age”, but because electricity generators will increasingly monopolise our energy supply mix, our resilience to a CME event will also be diminished.  So while we must diversify away from finite supplies of fossil fuels, the process will come with escalating risk.  A CME (such as the Carrington Event of 1-2 September 1859)  has only happened once or twice throughout recorded history, but when it did there were few implications due to our low tech production and communication systems.  Unlikely as the possibility of a direct hit may be, the events are not uncommon and the cost of a CME could prove a near extinction level event.  So the security implications of the PROSWIFT Act are obvious…and not just for the protection of assets in space, but also our civilisation.  By reference to my summary of Earth’s climate you will see reference to the web site www.spaceweather.com run by the brilliant NASA scientist Dr Tony Philips and this contains the data that does have a causal effect upon Earth’s climate – even though some aspects require more investigation.

  1. Is it wise for you to continually channel the ultra-corrupt Joe Biden and his media backers?   There are several key questions that Biden does not give any straight answers to, and he has not even held more than a couple of genuine rallies during this electoral cycle.  Our media gives him a “free ride” and I have to wonder why we are so heavily subjected to another country’s political spin.  The climate fraud is as much as a Democrat led fraud as anything else, and like any experienced fraud investigator, I don’t like coincidences that benefit the same actors.  Because this malfeasance appears to be “a genie that is out of its bottle” these items below summarise some of the allegations :  (this stuff is backed by much more as the internet is overflowing with material as two of Hunter Biden’s former partners come out of the woodwork.)

https://youtu.be/aiiSq7toqlQ

and

https://youtu.be/lDdxavJoLrM

and China…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPm0EduPhgY&feature=youtu.be

But affecting China’s CCP involvement too – really?  https://www.newsletter.zerohedge.com/click.html?x=a62e&lc=kfc&mc=c&s=Fdi&u=v&z=YaKiOBr&

Many of those I have seen ratting out the Biden family are Democrats who claim they want to stay Democrats because they believe the Democrat party of old, but like some Americans we have personally met, they couldn’t vote for Hillary and now they cannot vote for Biden because if nothing else, Mr Trump isn’t gaming the American people.  He is dealing to the “Deep State” actors who on the face of it seem to be selling out the USA.  Yet our mainstream media completely ignores what is the biggest tale of fraud in US history.

Meantime the biased articles about Mr Trump continue to flow.  Will the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” mean he does get voted out, to be replaced by Mr Biden or not?  That remains to be seen, but I don’t really care about the US election outcome.  

What I do care about is the use of the public media to convey state-directed Orwellian conspiracies to the people of New Zealand.  How many times does it take to repeat lies in order to ensure they become accepted as facts?  I guess you could ask Greta Thunberg or one of Minister Shaw’s “groupies”.  Our children should not be so deliberately subjected to political manipulation or taught fake science in our schools.

As they used to say in the USSR just before its collapse in 1989,  “The only way we know for sure that a rumour is true, is when it is officially denied.”

Is that what we Kiwis have now come to?

Despite regular warnings, successive New Zealand’s governments and even our education system have become wedded to the climate fraud.  The problem for the bad actors is that there is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be revealed for what they are.  The present POTUS has signalled the time for those in the USA will come if/when he is re-elected.  This makes this election significant to the political scientists.  But whether that happens  during 2020 or not the truth will out, because truth, like science is apolitical.

PM Ardern and Minister Shaw may have “jumped the shark” at their own October elections, but that does not make wrong right.  Nor does it excuse institutional complicity in the UN IPCC-centred climate fraud, and in this respect, the complicity of NIWA, the Ministry for the Environment and the universities (particularly Auckland and VUW) need to be singled out for review.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Fraud would not have been possible were it not for the active involvement of the “media barons” among whose ranks, the activities of George Soros and his “Open Society” needs close official examination.  In NZ it is TVNZ and the Herald who need official investigation.  They have let us all down.

As for you, are you part of the solution, or part of the problem?  You probably know which….

If you say that, “climate change is causing bad weather, storms or forest fires”, you are already one of the bad guys.  So get an education.

Please clean up your act because the NZ public deserves better.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

============================

THE EARTH’S CLIMATE IS A TRULY WONDERFUL THING

After 15 years of trying to figure out whether the “Warming Alarmists” or the “Climate Change Deniers” are right, I have concluded that the causes of climate change are almost totally natural…solar variability on the one hand (because the sun provides 99.9% of Earth’s energy) and the water cycle on the other (because 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water and its evaporation, condensation and precipitation can be seen to affect the climate everywhere, from place to place and from time to time).  Just elegant natural homeostasis.

1.15 trillion tonnes of surface water is converted into water vapour every day and being lighter than air, it rises to the skies, cooling as it ascends (because the air cools by 6.5oC with every 1,000 metres of altitude). Then it forms clouds and they mask 60-70% of Earth’s surface. When condensation has completed the cycle, and minute water vapour droplets coalesce into rain drops, hail or snow, precipitation of an approximate 1.15 trillion tonnes descends, leaving between 15-20 trillion tonnes in the atmosphere at any point in time.

So the sun heats the Earth and the water cycle moderates both the day-time heating and discharge of night-time heat into space.  This is easily provable from official published meteorological data, yet no-one is interested in fact checking, because it would end the gravy train for so many over-paid pseudo-scientists.

Over geological time, the Earth’s attitude to, and the distance from the sun has been the cause of the massive variability in the global temperatures between ice ages and intervening inter-glacial periods.  These “long period” changes are referred to as Milankovich cycles, but they are of no immediate relevance.

For the “Alarmists” to blatantly ignore the 10,000 years history of the current interglacial period (known as the Holocene) and impute a dominant role for humanity’s effects in the changed levels of certain trace gases is at best a gross exaggeration.  There is no evidence that any change in atmospheric carbon dioxide has caused climate change although the reverse has been indicated as possible from Antarctic ice core analysis.

For our leaders to be conned by the protestations of parties benefitting from the deception that it is “settled science” (i.e. UN IPCC) is at best incompetent or at worst malfeasance.  We rightly expected NIWA, the Ministry for the Environment and cabinet ministers have exercised rigorous oversight of public expenditure. 

For our Minister for Climate Change to write a letter in response to my provision of evidence (in 2018) to inform me that good science is never settled, but in this case he is sure it is, defied all logic.  There is no empirical scientific justification for his actions so this showed that no independent New Zealand due diligence was ever performed before the Zero Carbon legislation was enacted by our Parliament. 

It is often argued that the motive for the deception has been the desire of people beyond our shores to tax an element of the periodic table that is the very essence of all life on Earth – carbon.  That was why finding human involvement in climate change was central to the role of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.   With an open chequebook from many governments, the OECD’s scientific community was set to work to employ “confirmation bias” and sophistry in order to achieve the required result.

Around the world and in most countries (from the outset) the bogus nature of this hoax has been resisted by scientists. They are in part the heroes of this sorry business even though blatant systemic media bias in favour of the hoax has left them impotent and ignored (even ridiculed) despite no evidence supporting the supposed orthodoxy.  But every serious scientist works in a silo.  In critic’s silos their expertise is contested, but the overwhelming impossibility of the UN theory disappears into the mist of deliberate sophistry.  In 30 years of deliberate malfeasance, science and the scientific method has been corrupted.  Censorship follows.

2.

How did climate science get corrupted when the corrupting process occurred in the plain sight?

  1. The Vostok ice core experiments were alternately ignored or misinterpreted.
  2. The historical impacts of solar variability were actively suppressed – whether they came from the 11- year regular solar cycles, or the longer term Grand Solar Maximums and Minimums.
  3. The volume of human influenced “greenhouse gases” was overstated and their efficacy magnified.
  4. The measurement by atomic absorption spectroscopy of the impacts of various gases was ignored and the impact of the Beer-Lambert law of physics which down-rated the efficacy of additional concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane was also minimised by either intent or modelling emphasis.
  5. The true natural power of the water cycle was de-rated by deliberately splitting up the three thermally active phases of (i) evaporation – yielding water vapour, (ii) condensation – yielding clouds, and (iii) precipitation-yielding rain hail or snow (by which high altitude H2O is transferred to earth’s surface with cooling effect). It is the water cycle that always provides the climate with moderation.
  6. The automatic cleansing effect of the water cycle is deliberately ignored and in particular the way in which rain brings carbon dioxide (which is also heavier than air) and all pollutants – including residue of the worst catastrophic events earth can sustain – back down to where we live, farm and fish.
  7. The impact of the variable heating from sub-sea volcanism is little understood as is the impact of changes to the magnetosphere from changes in the variability of solar electromagnetic energy.
  8. There is a large area of study still into the role and impact of the changed cyclic influx of galactic cosmic rays on cloud formation and the huge variability in the changes in the thickness and temperature of Earth’s Thermosphere.

With new missions now on their way to Mars, “Climate Science”, the one-dimensional perspective of Earth’s climate being enclosed in a greenhouse is akin to the now rejected flat earth theories of the 17th Century.

Climatologists now keep a weather eye on the “space weather” (key variables are published each day on www.spaceweather.com ). There is growing evidence that it is the space weather (where the role of the sun dominates) that drives our terrestrial climate.  Certainly, that has been the interpretation of the folk running the Russian experiments on the International Space Station.  Their views are shared by many NASA astronauts.  So what is delivered to us as “settled science” is really just a set of theories for which there is no empirical scientific proof at all!”  Human carbon emissions don’t have a significant role to play.

While we are told that many countries do not support the actions of the UN (such as with the Paris Accords), the fact is that there are good and proper reasons to object – and from objectors there is considerable  empirical scientific evidence, in addition to the factors that were accepted by the Russian Academy of Sciences in this 2014 presentation:  (please forgive and forget the audio: concentrate on the screen shots)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdNw8-Cq8h8&feature=emb_logo

The use of “misdirection” techniques is too obvious to ignore and this suggests there is an undercurrent of intent to deceive in much of the material I have reviewed.  So the proper authorities have been informed.

John Rofe            Auckland, New Zealand                                                                                                       20 October 2020

============================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 5 October 2020 4:31 p.m.
To: ‘terry Dunleavy’
Cc: ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Paul Hunt’; ‘Gerry Brownlee’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Peter Goodfellow’; ‘geoffduffy@lycos.com’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Deborah Alexander’; ‘John Ansell’
Subject: I think this may be the most important three pages Judith Collins will read today/this week
Importance: High

Hi Terry,

Attached as “The Loss of Innocence for Jacinda’s Team of Five million” ( The Loss of Innocence for Jacinda Ardern’s Team of Five Million – Part I ).  It will be the kiss of death for Jacinda’s nuclear moment if anyone in National bothers to read it.  Please feel free to circulate it as widely as you wish.  It contains proof regarding real [as opposed to political/official ‘science’ and how that matches the observed weather.

To support this for the non-believers, a document for the Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy shows the relative efficacy of water vapour, methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide [not attached but available by request].  This needs to be factored by volume, where water vapour totally dominates.

To also support this for the non-believers are the three schedules [not attached but available by request] showing the observations of how temperatures and humidity are matched and the dominant role of water vapour in reducing the diurnal temperature range.  Those started as casual observations because I simply couldn’t believe that hundreds of over-paid climate scientists around the world wouldn’t already have done such comparisons.  It seems they haven’t.  I even selected days with no Foehn North-Westerlies to reduce the differentials between East and West. 

The three key variables of climate between say Napier and New Plymouth (and elsewhere) are Latitude, Altitude and Humidity.  At high school in the 1960’s we just learned that continental climates varied from maritime climates.  How “maritime” a climate is, is indicated by its humidity…and the other features of the water cycle, clouds and rain.

Clouds aren’t just a factor in the calculation of Earth’s energy balance, they are also an important climate variable from place to place and from time to time.

As the second requirement for its establishment as a UN agency, was to show the human influence on climate change, the UN IPCC scientists were not stupid when they separated out the various components of the water cycle and then minimised the impact of each.  If they couldn’t show humans could influence the climate, what role did they have?  That was their motivation for the fraud that the Club of Rome saw as creating a vehicle for One-World government and to get their global enterprises far fewer separate tax codes and thereby reduce business complexity.

Prof. Duffy saw through it as did the Russians.  But in general, it enabled the UN IPCC-centric scientists to call clouds as one dimensional and do the same with water vapour.  Then divide and conquer with fairy stories about CO2, CH4 and N2O.

I have two further parts to write and publish…

Part 2. What do I believe causes climate change (summarising the evidence I have sighted for the role of the solar cycles)

Part 3.  A dissertation on the use of miss-direction and sophistry to mask the biggest fraud in history … as perpetrated by a cast of thousands.

I am extremely grateful for the guys at NZCSC who persevered in helping me.

Hopefully, someone will take the time and replicate my calculations.  It just takes 2 hours in the afternoon and 3 hours the next morning.

Best regards

John Rofe

=====================

AN EGREGIOUS FAILURE OF THEIR DUTY OF CARE!

THE GREAT UN IPCC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD AND ITS NEW ZEALAND AGENCY

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said: 

“The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

Please take the time to think this through for yourself:

Is it logical to consider that three relatively ineffectual human-influenced greenhouse gases which in total are less than 4% of the volume of the far more potent gas (water vapour) can drive climate change, solely because a corrupt group of bureaucrats at the United Nations say that it is “settled science”?  If one investigator, acting alone, can see through this fraud, then the scientists at all influential New Zealand institutions have not performed proper due diligence.

[NZ Green Party leader] James Shaw & [NZ Prime Minister] Jacinda Ardern, with the help of NIWA and complicit scientists, promote the following lies:

  1. That the changes in human emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide cause climate change, their increases cause warming and our use of fossil fuels is the “culprit” driving the Modern Warm Period.
  2. That carbon dioxide is the dominant so-called “greenhouse gas” and it is a pollutant.
  3. That humans can restore climate equilibrium by reducing our so-called “carbon emissions”.

The principal causes of climate change are well known because the 100,000-year cycles of glaciations with short interglacial intervals are caused by cyclical changes to earth’s orbit of the sun (known as Milankovich cycles).  The shorter significant variations that have caused periods of relative warmth and cold have been due to the changed activity that varies during 11-year cycles, as the solar poles switch places.  The visible effect is marked by variations in the number of sun spots that appear on the face of the sun.  Groups of active solar cycles (as with three during the 20th century) cause climate warming and groups of markedly inactive solar cycles which are referred to as Grand Solar Minimums, cause atmospheric cooling and the perturbation of the magnetosphere.  Short-term anomalous weather is just a mixture of pattern and chaos. 

If you thought the science supporting the UN IPCC’s fraudulent hypothesis is settled, think again.  (http://www.petitionproject.org/) The UN IPCC report number AR5 fails to even ascribe any role to the dominant greenhouse gas water vapour and clouds that have always acted to moderate earth’s climate through volcanic eruptions and asteroid strikes causing mass extinctions.  Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth and is not a pollutant.  Like all of the others, the global warming fraud is common malfeasance.

At best, our leaders are derelict in their duty of care to the general public, but to have ignored all of my warnings since 2018, they must have had a mindset of denial and/or vested interest.  At worst they are deliberate and manipulative fraudsters, relying on those who influence or control the UN IPCC,  ensuring the media foster the deliberate lie that anyone who points out the obvious fraud is just a conspiracy theorist.  For this reason I have laid complaints with the NZ Serious Fraud Office, the NZ Police and the Secretary for Justice.  The alleged fraudsters are aware of my allegations.  So irrespective of their political affiliations:

I am convinced that no-one implicated in this fraud is a fit or proper person to stand for public office.

John Rofe, Experienced Fraud Investigator                                           Auckland New Zealand, August 2020             

===============================

FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICER COMMANDING NZ POLICE – HENDERSON  AREA                                                                                TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE

By Hand

Dear Superintendant,

Following many years of investigation and supported by both empirical scientific evidence and having diligently and independently pursued the empirical observations to back up my allegations, I wish to register three complaints of fraud.  They are as follows:

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SERIOUS FRAUD BY THE CHIEF SCIENTIST, CLIMATE AND ATMOSPHERE, OF NIWA.

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SERIOUS FRAUD BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND, THE RT. HONOURABLE JACINDA ARDERN.

FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF SERIOUS FRAUD BY THE MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE, THE HONOURABLE JAMES SHAW.

I allege they are promoting for personal gain, the quasi-scientific theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, with no empirical scientific evidential support for the de-bunked theory they promote.

Internationally, this has become the biggest fraud in world history and it involves three main limbs:

  1. Falsely representing that human emissions of carbon dioxide gas, methane and nitrous oxide are key drivers of climate change, partially by minimising the role of the solar influence, clouds and water vapour. No empirical scientific evidence exists to support their claims.
  2. Falsely representing that carbon dioxide gas is a pollutant, when it is a gas essential for all life on earth.
  3. Falsely representing that the New Zealand Government is capable of changing the climate by altering the New Zealand emissions of the three gases mentioned in point 1. above.

Herewith is a copy of my email of 4 July 2018 and a letter received in late 2018 containing the Government’s misguided and disproven claims.  Also a copy of my warning to Minister James Shaw that is dated 15 May 2019 that outlines the basis of the above allegations of fraud.

My research has been transparently provided to a wide range of politicians from all parties.  The allegations have been pursued at regular intervals over the last three years.  The Government has relied on a news blackout in the matter and as a result, while they acknowledge receipt of my emails they haven’t made any other response.  I have tried to minimise the impact of my allegations on the people involved and failed to achieve any traction.  This is a blatant abuse of their statutory powers.

I am an active conservationist and the actions of Government, while damaging to the New Zealand economy bring disrepute to both the scientific community and the conservation movement.   

My personal resources have been sufficient to now prove beyond reasonable doubt that an ongoing, systemic and costly fraud has occurred and is planned for the future.  I have been able to independently validate the evidence provided by the international and domestic scientific experts.

My personal resources are not sufficient to prove the parties intended to commit the fraud.  Only you have those resources and are entrusted with the job of protecting the New Zealand public.

There is a massive amount of information available to support this allegation and yet absolutely no empirical scientific evidence to refute my claims.  Herewith are the following documents:

  1. Scope of facts, headed “A TALE OF FRAUD, COMPLICITY AND ARRANT STUPIDITY”
  2. A summary of the evidence against the core fraud, headed “GOOD NEWS- NO CRISIS – AND CARBON DIOXIDE DOESN’T EVEN CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE”.
  3. A note on how physical evidence supports the expert empirical scientific evidence provided by the scientists, headed “ARRANT STUPIDITY – or – RESTATING THE OBVIOUS”.
  4. A short paper describing the business, political and media influences ensuring the truth never leaks into the mainstream media, headed “Many Whistleblowers – Yet nothing to be heard”.

This matter is the most serious set of allegations ever provided to a New Zealand Police station because the implications of derivative frauds includes all schemes for Carbon Tax, The Zero Carbon Act, all carbon trading and schemes for selling carbon credits are all frauds and many of the actions of Government departments focused on “Climate Change”  are all parts of the core fraud.

Please therefore provide this letter and attachments to the Commissioner of Police, for discussion with the Secretary for Justice.  The Secretary has been separately appraised.

I believe that neither Minister James Shaw nor PM Jacinda Ardern is a fit and proper person to be elected as part of the next Government.  I stand ready to cooperate with your investigations.

Yours faithfully

John Rofe, Experienced Private Fraud Investigator

========================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 18 July 2020 12:58 p.m.
To: ‘Enquiries’
Cc: ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘gerry.brownlee@national.org.nz’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Peter Goodfellow’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘david.seymour@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘alfred.ngaro@national.org.nz’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘newstalkzb’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘newsdesk herald’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘Richard Treadgold’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘leighton smith’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Geoff Duffy’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Graham Kearns’
Subject: RE: An Open Letter to NIWA – NIWA’s role in the biggest ever fraud in human history

Attention Caroline:  This is not a normal email because I am hereby notifying NIWA and its directors that they are implicated in a serious and extensive criminal enterprise.  This email exchange is being broadcast and it is being copied to the NZ Serious Fraud Office.

 It attaches a lot of information not relevant to an allegation of fraud because I believe NIWA must work out its own position to advise the Minister in charge and to do that, NIWA must be in a position to match my allegations with NIWA’s own records and research.

Nevertheless, NIWA now faces the allegation of fraud.  The evidence for which I have satisfied myself is compelling, with no room for dispute.

 I urge all readers to begin this email string, by reading my first short email below and then NIWA’s short response.  Then please read on…

“Dear NIWA PR, Management and Directors,

The empirical scientific evidence behind the summary of facts as included in the above one-page attachment marked “A Tale of Fraud, Complicity and Arrant Stupidity”, is all attached herewith in the form of two papers by Professor Duffy, one paper from Dr Jock Allison and my own attempt to establish whether CO2 had any role at all in changing the climate and, if not, whether the role of “greenhouse gas” is totally monopolised by water vapour and clouds.  The undeniable conclusions from my studies are that water vapour is the only significant greenhouse gas and in effect, changes to the climate are due almost entirely to natural causes as  Professor Duffy has claimed in his evidence.

Thank you for your response on behalf of Dr David Wratt (retired).  I note that because you have referred me to the UN IPCC, you are effectively deferring to its leadership role at the centre of the Great Global Warming Fraud.  During the 16 years since I first contacted Dr Wratt, NIWA has seemingly learned nothing about the cause of changes to the climate (which is very sad, given NIWA is paid to do so) and has likely become integrated within the UN IPCC’s fraudulent enterprise, either as a compliant accessory or as a full “Partner-in-Crime”.

Anyway, thank you for the courtesy of a reply to my first email in this string.  Unbeknown to you, I now hold all the evidential “cards”, so I already know the proper responses to the four questions in my email should have been as follows:

Q1.  There is none,

Q2. There is none,

Q3. There is none, and,

Q4. NIWA has no plans to provide certainty to anyone, nor can it do so.”

 (Memo.  The first two documents I have attached above were also attached to the original email.)

 NIWA and most readers may be unfamiliar with the history between this Government and the writer.  So for the avoidance of confusion…

During 2018 I sent a number of emails to Government ministers advising they were in danger of becoming accessories to fraud as no science supported their climate change rhetoric.

 In September 2018 the Minister for Climate Change wrote to me (as attached) claiming that he had no idea on the science but his fledgling coalition government accepted that the UN IPCC position reflected the “overwhelming consensus”, which it never did.  I then spent a further fruitless six months revisiting the science with the UN IPCC’s so-called “international experts.”   I wanted to find reasons to discontinue, so finding further evidence of malfeasance was certainly not what I had hoped for.  Meantime, the media contained sporadic news of defections from the more highly credentialed ranks of UN IPCC scientific advisers who all claimed that paid UN IPCC bureaucrats and politicians altered their scientific evidence in order to reflect UN IPCC policy, yet had fraudulently maintained their names as authors or even lead authors to the reports.

I then concluded that The New Zealand Government must be exercising some sort of agency from the UN IPCC to import its fraud into New Zealand.  On 15 May 2019 I wrote to the Minister for Climate Change, copying the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister, advising them as to the specific areas where they could be complicit in fraud – not the least of which was that the suggestion of an “overwhelming consensus” was at variance with the facts.   If the Minister misrepresented NIWA’s advice, will NIWA be saying that the Minister for Climate Change misled the people of New Zealand that the science was settled, when neither NIWA, nor he, nor the UN IPCC had any empirical scientific evidence that could possibly withstand public scrutiny?  If so please explain?

The seriousness of NIWA’s answers (by comparison with my own version at Q1-Q4 that I have spelled out above) will become apparent.

We have a Government trying to persuade us to reduce CO2 emissions when there is no empirical scientific evidence that increased atmospheric emissions have any impact at all on the climate.    If you think that this cannot possibly be true, I wish to refer you to the interchange between the NZ Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Juliet Gerrard and Mr Peter Morgan, the CEO of Environomics (NZ) Trust Inc., as attached above and marked “191207…”.   She was unable to provide any empirical scientific evidence although Mr Morgan could, so she disengaged, and there are records of plenty of other prevarications in addition to those of NIWA.  In late 2004 I had the same experience with NIWA’s Dr Wratt but did not document it at the time.  The “Augie Auer Memorial Prize” of $10,000 offered in New Zealand remains uncollected as does at least one similar prize overseas. As someone whose first official roles in investigating fraudsters within organisations such as Equiticorp and Goldcorp from as early as 1989, and after 15 years of dogged pursuit of the truth of this case, I believe I am entitled to presume this is just a fraud like any other – even if the sum involved now ranks in the trillions of dollars and is a semi-global fraud (one third of the world population are affected, two-thirds are not – so the fraud and the corruption of science at the hands of the UN IPCC is not quite global – yet).

We have a Government trying to persuade us that CO2 is a pollutant and there is too much “atmospheric carbon” while in fact CO2 is a gas that is essential to all life on earth and the world’s vegetation not only wants three times as much as that which remains in the atmosphere today, but NASA has studies and satellite photos which show a greening of planet earth, due to the increase that has taken place over the last 30 years.  It is colourless, odourless and non-toxic at current atmospheric levels.

As for spending money to solve a non-existent problem when there is absolutely no chance of altering either the atmospheric levels of CO2, or effecting any change to the future climate by human action or restraint, the futility of the Minister for Climate Change’s actions and future published plans show that he is unfit to hold political office.  NIWA should review the Minister’s outrageous claims in 2018 as extracted from attachment 001. above.

  1. “the Government believes that  climate change is a serious global issue that requires international cooperation and domestic action.”
  2. “It is clear that the overwhelming consensus is that human induced climate change is occurring.”
  3. and on the Zero Carbon bill, “ The Zero Carbon Bill will set a target in law, which will be a long term commitment for New Zealand’s transition to a net zero emissions economy. It will provide certainty for businesses, households and for local government so they can make confident decisions about the investments they need to make over the coming decades.”

But anyway, my thanks to NIWA for the confirmation provided through your response that…

  1. NIWA apparently cannot differentiate between the sophistry required to support fraud and what constitutes “empirical scientific evidence”.  (You surely must be aware that there is no empirical scientific evidence of anything relevant contained  in those sections of the UN IPCC’s AR5 report that you just referred me to?)
  2. NIWA is complicit in the UN IPCC fraud by using the UN IPCC’s standard evasive response.
  3. NIWA has scientists as well as administrators who have been corrupted by association with the UN IPCC, or they would realise that 18 years of using the phrase “consensus” instead of making proper enquiry (as you are paid to do) places you at the centre of this fraud.
  4. NIWA has supplied “Lead Authors” for UN IPCC studies and yet there has never been any evidence (let alone empirical scientific evidence) to confirm the effect of changed atmospheric levels of CO2 on the climate.
  5. While frauds are committed by people and not by faceless organisations, NIWA’s involvement shows a failure of governance as well as management.

Whether NIWA’s complicity has occurred to you or not, I am confident that your response makes NIWA at the very least an accessory to the biggest fraud in New Zealand history as agents for the biggest fraud in world history, now being perpetrated by the UN IPCC and its Secretary General Sr. Antonio Guterres.

It seems to me that this Ardern-led government has made a number of multi-billion-dollar decisions justified solely by the illusion that there may be some foreign scientific justification.   I therefore doesn’t seem to me sufficient for NIWA to pass the buck to the UN IPCC, the way NIWA has done in your email to me, dated 15 July 2020 as shown below.  This has all the hallmarks of modern-day “Lysenkoism”.    NIWA is now at least in considerable part, responsible for the contagious effects of this fraud in spawning Ponzi and other commercial frauds, including those of the NZ Government in levying a carbon tax using deceptive and misleading information to justify it, planting huge forests that will have no material effect on the climate, for carbon trading schemes which serve only to enrich bankers and promoting the purchase of carbon credits (by firms such as Air New Zealand) – which are all fraudulent as they lack the substance of genuine purpose.  NIWA’s role is not to participate in projects designed to fleece New Zealanders, whether coerced by corrupt politicians or not.

The farming sector and the Oil and Gas industry and all those who rely on NIWA for weather and climate advice deserve to know what NIWA’s evidence for this mythological but human-instigated faux climate crisis is.  This is a fraud that has depended to date on everyone who is either driving it, or complicit, trying to hide behind faceless and unaccountable bureaucrats somewhere else.   NIWA’s devious response to my email now seems a part of the sort of dance that all fraudsters go though when discovery is close. 

NIWA regularly publishes data about the weather on the public internet.  So anyone with access to the internet can witness the huge role that water vapour, humidity and clouds play in the temperature, the weather and the climate; CO2, CH4 and N2O have absolutely no identifiable impact on daily, weekly and yearly weather and I have empirical scientific evidence that the radiative impact of those three trace gases is negligible by comparison with the radiative effect of water vapour alone – yet water vapour has many other drivers including (inter alia) the impact of variability of cloud cover and the more than 400 trillion tonnes per year of evaporation and precipitation. 

NIWA must surely be aware that during geological time, from 540 million years ago, the atmospheric level of CO2 reached 7,000ppm (compared with only 415ppm today) and  since then there has been no correlation between the movements in the level of CO2 and the movements in the global temperature.  During the last 600,000 years of the Pleistocene era that has been covered in detail by the ice core analysis performed by teams of French and Russian scientists at Vostok in Antarctica, the evidence was absolutely clear that changes in atmospheric temperature pre-dated the change in atmospheric CO2 by 400-800 years, thereby demonstrating that CO2 is a trailing indicator but certainly not a possible driver of changes to the climate.  The ice core analysis performed in Central Greenland that provided temperature data  going back 11,000 years showed that the Holocene climate temperature maximum occurred during the Minoan Warm period some 3,300 years ago at about 6 degrees C. higher than today.  Moreover, it showed that the current global average temperature that NIWA believes shows “unprecedented warming” is in fact considerably lower than 75% of the last 10,000 years of the Holocene.

Please pause at this point to review the expert submission of Dr Jock Allison ONZM, FNZIPIM, to the Zero Carbon public hearing.  It shows in Fig 3 that there is no correlation between the level of atmospheric CO2 and temperature over 540 million years of geological time – that is, according to the consensus of all geologists.  In Fig 4. The Greenland ice core temperatures provides an insight into the temperature of the Holocene interglacial period and show that there is no “Climate Crisis”.  These two schematics are on Page 5 of Dr. Allison’s submission. 

This would lead any prudent person who is appraised of the facts to conclude that changes in atmospheric CO2 have never even appeared to have any influence over the climate.  NIWA’s support for the widely published fraud brings all of science and environmental policy into disrepute.

For there to be evidence of CO2, CH4 and N2O effecting warming, the gases actually need to be capable of doing so, which as it emerges, they are not.  (This is the biggest likely indictment of UN IPCC’s fraud and it is also the biggest likely indictment of NIWA’s seeming negligence.)

The Hon. James Shaw’s letter to me of September 2018 offered me and all New Zealanders the certainty of solving a non-existent problem for the nation.  Not only is there no climate crisis, but CO2, CH4 and N2O have almost no influence in changing the climate.  NIWA is either complicit in Minister Shaw’s misleading statements or has influenced him to issue them.

Which is it?

My role as a fraud investigator requires me (among other things) to examine the evidence and opinions of everyone involved in an issue.  Over 15 years I have had correspondence with many scientists from many countries but now that I am totally convinced that Anthropogenic Global Warming has nothing to do with science and is politically inspired only (and have presented evidence to prove it), I need to address the consequences of this discovery.  My intention is to spend the balance of 2020 fund-raising for private litigation in 2021.  But that is only if the NZ Serious Fraud Office does not pick this up and run with it.  If one political party were to pick this up as an election issue then the way will be open for a week or so for you to get your act together.  First to check the science and  second to work out a strategy for regaining public trust.  Let me make this plain, the NZ SFO has turned down the opportunity to investigate it once; and if they do so again their leadership needs to be promptly changed.

In order to fast track NIWA’s rehabilitation, you should speak with the scientists whose work is included in this document.  They are the experts, not me.

NIWA’s Chief Scientist should review the atomic absorption spectroscopic tests for water vapour, CO2, CH4 and N2O and the way in which the Beer-Lambert Law of Physics drastically reduces the impact of changes in the atmospheric level of CO2 on temperature.  NIWA should also review the attached two papers prepared and presented as evidence by Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, University of Auckland, Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, D.Eng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRSNZ, FI Chem E. 

Supporting the two papers provided by Professor Duffy attached, I have separately tested the conclusions reached in them and as a result I agree that only water vapour and clouds have true relevance as greenhouse gases.  This is supported by empirical observations as noted in the two attachments marked as “Casual observations…” as above.  These were drawn from web-based meteorological data. 

The UN IPCC has a reason for its fraud which should have been apparent to scientific observers.   Article 2. requires the UN IPCC to show what human influences affect changes to the climate, or if they cannot do so, the organisations that were instrumental in the establishment and the UN IPCC’s conduct will no longer have the incentive to do so and the UN IPCC will be redundant.  But NIWA scientists have a different duty of care and have become so focused on compliance with the fraud, that NIWA has seemingly neglected to point out what the Egyptians and Chinese knew thousands of years ago, that it is the sun which dominates earth’s climate – at least in between the less frequent but much larger perturbations of the Milankovich cycles. 

While the Russians, Indians and Chinese are properly advised and are taking steps to deal with an approaching Grand Solar Minimum at the commencement of solar cycle 25, NIWA appears to cling to the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory that was disproven 20 years ago.  Of course those countries face the same challenges we do of resource depletion, the demands of exponential population growth and pollution, but they waste no time or resources on foolish fads.

In fact, the modern temperature records since 1934 do not even show any correlation at all between global temperature and Global CO2 emissions.  May I jog NIWA’s thought processes and provide a short video of the sort of information that is provided to President Vladimir Putin….(I suggest you should freeze each screen-shot because the presenter’s English is poor and he has a cold)…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdNw8-Cq8h8&feature=emb_logo

(Dr Habibulo Abdussamatov the presenter, is the eminent  scientist who runs the prestigious Pulkovo Observatory and was responsible for supervising the Russian experiments on the International Space Station.  If you examine his presentation closely you will find that his predictions for the last six years have been borne out by the changes to the solar magnetosphere and his forecast of extreme impending cold this century is now being taken up by many others.)

Readers of this email may be unaware that of all the many computer modellers’ climate forecasts used by the UN IPCC, only the Russian one has been accurate to date, so must be taken seriously.  The others escalate projections of temperature increases that have been at least three times those of NASA satellite recordings showing the temperature graphs for the Lower Troposphere since 1979.  The only purpose they appear to fulfil is to continue to extract ever more funds from governments by meeting the UN IPCC’s agenda.

Yet the average of inaccurate models is still the source of UN IPCC alarmist temperature projections for the future.

Despite the surface temperature measurements being projected by the UN IPCC to accelerate – or as the UN IPCC inspired claims, “Faster than previously thought”, the temperature is only increasing or decreasing within the range of natural variability as shown below…

The biggest upward spikes of the graph above denote el Nino years and their size denotes the fact that 70+%  of the earth’s surface is ocean so the huge heat sinks called simply “the world’s oceans” act as something of an intermediary between the sun’s intensity and the weather we enjoy on planet Earth.  The graph you see above is published monthly, from the NASA satellites, which are monitored by two independent science based organisations (UAH and RSS).

Meanwhile, the earth’s outer defence against the un-survivable frigidity  of outer space, which is called “the Thermosphere” is thinning and cooling according to the recorded physical evidence, at a great rate – right at this point in time.  That is what exercises the minds of leaders such as Putin, Trump, Modi and Xi Jinping, yet clearly does not suit the machinations of Secretary General Guterres, Prime Minister Ardern or Minister Shaw. 

What happens as the activity of solar cycle 25 once again naturally builds over the next 4-5 years remains to be seen.  However unlike the UN IPCC and NIWA, the Russians and Chinese are using real science and are taking note of the lessons of history.   President Trump is trying to follow, but with active Democratic Party leaders’ connivance in the UN IPCC fraud, his options are limited.

My summary of findings based on examining NIWA humidity and temperature data is, as attached above called “Physical Evidence of the Impact….”.  It consists of five pages and with it is enclosed two graphs of recent movements in the level of atmospheric CO2 which is a separate attachment above marked as “CO2 at Keeling …”.  The two papers attached above which are marked “Casual observations…” complete the record of my humble experiment which seeks the truth.

But what was NIWA thinking?  NIWA has all the source data and yet was somehow lured into a fraud that is so obviously deceitful.  Now NIWA’s fraud can be seen by anyone who observes the weather in New Zealand.  Please consider the following “self-evident observations” to support the empirical scientific evidence of Professor Duffy and also Dr Allison.

NIWA scientists and everyday observers know that most deserts with 0.2-0.5% humidity are usually hot during the afternoon due to the low level of water vapour, and similarly, get very cold at night for the same reason.  Massive temperature ranges of hundreds of degrees Celsius are the hallmark of solar system planets lacking “greenhouse gases”.  So the massive diurnal temperature ranges like those in Siberia (up to 107 degrees Celsius in one day!) are a hallmark of low humidity denoting water vapour as the sole dominant greenhouse gas.  NIWA scientists must know that many farmers often check to see whether they can see cloud cover or the stars before going to bed at night, as a precautionary check against the possibility of massive overnight heat loss that can lead to frost.  

The difference in maximum and minimum diurnal temperatures between Auckland and Christchurch, even during hot, still days, is often due to the difference in real humidity; and the overnight heat loss (NIWA’s favourite indicator of a “greenhouse gas”) should have reinforced its true role in NIWA’s Chief Scientist’s mind.  While it is not the only driver of climate, why has NIWA never considered the candidacy of humidity in the difference between the climates of Napier and New Plymouth (same latitude and altitude), between Wellington and Masterton and between Greymouth and Christchurch? 

Then consider what happens when the non-radiative impacts of water vapour and clouds come into play?  Water vapour and clouds vary by the hour and by the day and yet CO2 varies only slightly by the year and decade.  Somehow the dominant natural greenhouse gas (water vapour) finds itself either excluded, or deliberately minimised in many UN IPCC peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

That is the UN IPCC’s game, but what is NIWA’s objective in promoting the interests of the UN IPCC…and why?

In my own insight into the motivation behind the fraud ( marked “Many Whistleblowers…) I named NOAA, NASA, CSIRO and NIWA among those organisations which have altered temperature records at about the same time in an apparently orchestrated move.  Now I want to know why NIWA did that.  Last time I asked this, I was threatened with punitive action by one of your PR team.  Will I get an honest response this time, now that Dr David Wratt is no longer on NIWA’s staff?

To protect myself, this email is going on the public record.   The longer this goes on, the worse the damage to the reputations of science, scientists and the conservation movement will be when the public realises that they and their children have been lied to for the last two decades.

Many sensible people are already suspicious because of all the repeated threats of apocalyptic events that have been held over people’s heads since the UN IPCC was first established and issued its first of several “ten years to Armageddon” warnings in 1989.

Why frighten the children?  Why teach them fake science?  NIWA can change this perception, but only if the empirical scientific evidence provided by Drs Allison and Duffy is accepted.

Your call.  But remember I am happy to litigate if necessary.

Kind regards

John Rofe, Private Fraud Investigator

======================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 11 July 2020 12:54 p.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘Hon Judith Collins’; ‘Hon Nikki Kaye’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘alfred.ngaro@national.org.nz’; ‘shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘peter@lockfinance.co.nz’; ‘david.seymour@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Jock Allison’; ‘Barry Brill’; ‘Geoff Duffy’; ‘John Ansell’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘leighton smith’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘newstalkzb’; ‘newsdesk herald’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘andrew.laxon@nzme.co.nz’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘Jim Tucker’
Subject: There is no embargo on the publication of the truth

Dear PM and Minister of Climate Change,

Please find attached a summary of the essential underlying facts after completion of my 15-year enquiry into the Great Global Warming Fraud.

This information may upset you, and if so I apologise for the shock.

In my next email I will provide all the evidence to support my claim that you each – as the Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change – have either failed to do proper due diligence before taking your actions to waste billions of taxpayer dollars, or else are simply committing malfeasance by lying to the public.  Given the warnings provided to you both over a three year period I believe I am justified in using the common term for malfeasance, rather than either “ignorance” or “stupidity”.

The problem for corrupt but powerful people like you is that the courts love empirical scientific evidence that is supported by inter-locking, self-evident truths.  It typically trumps big names, rock-star scientific reputations, foreign conspiracies and popular misconceptions.

Just as a series of Popes in the 16th and 17th centuries could not counter the fact that people woke every morning and observed the sun rise in the East then later set in the West, the self-evident truth was always that earth revolves around the sun and it rotates each day.  Luckily I am in the happy position of being able to show the public why your actions are so flawed.  The sun dominates our climate, as well as the climate of all other planets within the solar system.   When the self evident truths that we all see every day of the year are pointed out to the public, the game will be up.  You like everyone else will wonder how you could have been so gullible. 

There has never been any consensus among the scientific community about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory, because there has never ever been any empirical scientific evidence to support the fraudulent assertions of the UN IPCC.

The leaders of the world’s major (CO2) emitting countries, Messrs Modi, Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping are doubtless already aware of this.  That is why they are likely laughing at our leaders’ stupidity and why Putin is building floating nuclear power stations for the frozen Arctic regions (to ensure cooling water intakes cannot be iced up) while also completing his fleet of huge nuclear powered ice-breakers to cope with what they believe will be the cold of an unfolding Grand Solar Minimum (each ship has greater cost and tonnage than New Zealand’s entire Cook Strait ferry fleets) .  Forget what they say, look at what they are doing.  Their actions are informed by the expectation of cold rather than warmth.  But I don’t wish to buy into whether that will eventuate, although the change they expect seems on track at this point.

The major net CO2 emitters are clearly being differently advised to you, along the lines of this semi-audible 15-minute video clip below.  (Hint … this Russian expert is difficult to understand so you would be well advised to pause the video at each new slide he presents and read the slide while muting his talk.)  He is probably reading directly from it because of his limited English language skills.  At 3.00minutes his graph of the Vostok ice core analysis explains why during the Pleistocene era (the last 2,7 million years) CO2 has never influenced the global climate.  If you also look closely at the graph at 15-mins 23 secs, you will see the reduction in solar activity is exactly today what he predicted many years ago and then consistent again, during his talk in 2014 during the active peak of solar cycle 24.  He has the credibility of any scientist who can predict what is happening to the climate, using the “space weather” to confidently show his client, the Government of the Russian Federation, what they can expect.

Dr Habibulo Abdussamatov has been Director of the Pulkovo observatory and he ran the Russian scientific programme for the International Space Station.  His forecasts for a looming Grand Solar Minimum and “little Ice Age” date back many years and have in November 2019, finally been confirmed by NOAA and NASA.  I guess those two organisations are both now trying to work out how to escape their roles in the UN IPCC conspiracy as this email is being written.

For the last few years I have been monitoring the accuracy of Dr Abdussamatov’s predictions from the data shown on www.spaceweather.com .

Also from the work of several others.

At the end of June 2020 the world is still warm, if marginally cooler than it was during the previous months, however, the highly subjective and grossly inaccurate models that the UN IPCC use as the basis for their fraud are no substitute for the observed data.  This unimpeachable graph from the NASA satellites below shows the climate isn’t facing unprecedented warmth, despite deliberate lies to the contrary.  Nor is there any climate crisis as the changes are within natural variability.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_June_2020_v6-550x317.jpg

The UN IPCC’s accepted models show three times the warming shown in the above graph.  You back their inaccurate and subjective models, I back the empirical data. 

The first news organisation or political party to agree to widely publish the attached page will get access to the “smoking gun” evidence that I hold…. before you do.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

Private Fraud Investigator

See article on why whistleblowers are not heart: Many Whistleblowers – Yet Nothing to be Heard


===========================

A TALE OF FRAUD, COMPLICITY AND ARRANT STUPIDITY

THE GREAT UN IPCC GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD AND ITS NEW ZEALAND AGENCY

As Albert Einstein is reputed to have said: 

“The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it.”

Now think it through for yourself:

It is illogical to consider that three relatively ineffectual human-influenced greenhouse gases which in total are less than 4% of the volume of the far more potent gas (water vapour) can drive climate change, just because a group of bureaucrats at the United Nations say that it is “settled science”.  If one investigator, acting alone, can see through this fraud, then the New Zealand scientists have not performed any effective due diligence.

The Great Global Warming Fraud costs OECD countries between USD1-2 trillion every year.

The most important things you need to know are:

  • Methane and Nitrous Oxide have never had any proven impact on the earth’s climate.
  • Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (“CO2”) is a more prolific greenhouse gas but…
    • There is no empirical scientific evidence that CO2 has ever had a material effect on earth’s climate.  The UN and their supporters have never offered any. Nor can they.
    • The proportion of CO2 emissions that humans influence is less than 5% of the total.
    • The main source of CO2 emissions is “ocean out-gassing” when it is warm.
    • CO2 is subject to the Beer-Lambert Law of Physics and therefore any thermal impact was almost saturated at the pre-industrial atmospheric level of 280ppm in 1850. 
    • CO2 is not a pollutant and “zero carbon” entails the end of all complex life on earth.
  • There was never any consensus to support this fraud…  http://www.petitionproject.org/
  • There is no climate crisis…  https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
  • Plants thrive with three times current levels of atmospheric CO2, (arguably in short supply).
  • The “Milankovich cycles” drive the 100,000-year climate cycles of ice ages and inter-glacials.
  • In between, climate change is dominated by the sun which supplies 99.5% of earth’s energy.
  • The Solar Cycles conform to the Holocene pattern of 200-year periods of extreme cold.
  • The great majority of the earth’s population is led by people who don’t bow to this fraud.
  • Few of those who signed up to the Paris accords have either the intention or ability to comply.  It is impossible for New Zealand, even with total support, to get any value from this.

I warned the Government in 2018 of their likely complicity in a serious fraud.  The Minister prevaricated so I warned him in 2019 of the actionable basis for a possible fraud complaint. 

As a result of their intransigence, I now see no alternative than to accuse the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern and the Honourable James Shaw of both fraud and deceptive and miss-leading conduct.  I stand ready to support those serious accusations, as and when called upon to do so.

John Rofe, Private Fraud Investigator                                                        Auckland, New Zealand,  10.7.2020

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2020 12:40 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘shane.jones@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘alfred.ngaro@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: Really Big frauds inevitably require bigger and bigger lies…then the child soldiers are weaponised once the biggest lie of all loses its credibility

Hi Politicians,

Each of you, by signature to the Zero Carbon legislation is now guilty of fraud; and of both complicity in, and actively promoting carbon trading Ponzi schemes.  These are criminal offences and I am directly accusing you of at least being accessories to criminality, along with Antonio Guterres and his fellow travellers.

I have told you before, there is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be laid bare to public scrutiny and opprobrium.   So you need to come clean.

If not, then gather your evidence (if any real evidence exists) and lets litigate.  I simply want evidence that human CO2 emissions have any material effect on climate change.  After two years of asking for this I will continue to accuse you of fraud until you deliver it.  As a taxpayer I am entitled to an explanation for your actions – as is everyone.

From 15+ years of my research into the spurious UN IPCC claims, I have found there is no justification for any spending on attempting to reduce “climate change” because the only measurable effects of the human use of the fossil fuels since 1850 has been the increase in atmospheric CO2, the increased wealth and well-being of all humanity from abundant and cheap energy and the greening of planet earth as a result of increased atmospheric CO2.  But because of the long duration of CO2 within the atmosphere, and because human actions account for less than 4.3% of all CO2 emissions (as accepted by UN IPCC) there is absolutely no possibility of confidence that a reduction in human emissions could cause the future level of atmospheric CO2 to fall.  Natural variability could even cause it to increase, despite controlled draconian global attempts at human reduction, which will never happen.

As there are still far more countries planning to increase CO2 emissions than those trying either successfully or unsuccessfully to control them, there is zero chance of any credible reduction in human emissions being made within the next 10-20 years.

The only thing your misguided actions can achieve is to destroy the reputation of science and the scientific method, to go hand in hand with destruction of our economy.  All this to bring about the enrichment of a few of your fellow travellers and higher energy costs for those least able to afford them.

Each adult human inhales a tiny 400 ppm of CO2 to go with 20% O2.  We exhale air heated to body temperature, with 100% relative humidity and CO2 emissions at 4% (or 40,000ppm).  So our inhalations cleanse and oxygenate our blood and we emit 100 times the CO2 we inhaled.  The oxygen exhaled is reduced to 15% or less.  Given the weight of CO2, we each exhale about 360kgs of CO2 per annum.  Animals many time more – or less.  What do you want to do?  Tax us for our exhalations?

Contrary to your advice from the UN IPCC and your ignorant cabal of “junk” scientists, (by both satellite imagery and experimentation) the increase in atmospheric CO2 has already benefitted all plant life, and will continue to do so.  It increases the vigour of plant growth and makes all plants more drought resistant.  There is and has never been any evidence that CO2 is a pollutant and together with water and oxygen, CO2 is one of three reasons that complex life exists on earth, whereas it exists nowhere else in the solar system.  If the atmospheric CO2 concentration falls to 150ppm  or less, then all life on earth will die and the carbon cycle may end.

We are carbon-based life forms and our extinction as an apex mammal would likely be an early effect of low atmospheric CO2.

There has never been any evidence that CO2 has either been a significant influence on climate change as atmospheric CO2 levels have always been a trailing indicator of major temperature fluctuations for as long as scientists could perform their experiments and calculations.  It is generally accepted that ocean de-gassing of CO2 occurs when it is warming, and conversely taking up more CO2  when the atmosphere has been cooling, is the cause for this.  There is even a lag time due to the fact that the ocean takes longer to take up heat and to cool, than does land.

The solar and space weather sciences, together with all the known history of the solar cycles and the Milankovich cycles are an extra-terrestrial cause for the variations in earth’s climate and together with the attempts within the seas and atmosphere to equalise heat distribution as the earth rotates, these account for climate change and  remove any justification for your erroneous presumption that humans have a significant effect on climate.  Localised warming yes, but it dissipates with no significant, measurable effect on climate change.  The extremely active solar cycles of the 20th century alone account for the increases in temperature of earth’s climate during the modern warm period, which despite the deliberate “official”  doctoring of temperature records have only achieved a total increase of 1.1 degree Centigrade between the year 1850 and December 2019.  That is, over a period of 169 years.  So the average increase during that period is well within natural variability.  Forecasts of sea level rise and atmospheric heating made by the UN IPCC junk scientists are simply ridiculous.  But they do show that junk scientists will do anything for money.  Yet still, one by one, they defect.

For politicians of any colour to support the fraud, you must first be prepared to believe that an improbable theory promulgated to advantage sectional interests is superior to the existence of the Beer-Lambert Law of science, because that law already relegates all increases in CO2 to having an inconsequential impact on thermal uptake and therefore climate, at even the pre-industrial levels (i.e. about 280ppm).  Atmospheric CO2 is already thermally saturated and can provide no significant future effect within an enormous time horizon.

You have been taken for idiots by a small group of extremely well paid and funded scientists, UN politicians and their bureaucrats, most of whom have no idea about climate science.  Simply put…from the Google search below… the “we” is you…

“Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive”

“(Sir Walter Scott) Whenever we deceive others, in order to make things better for ourselves in the moment, we deceive ourselves most of all.Oct 25, 2017

If you want to prove that human CO2 emissions have a dominant effect on climate, meet me in court.  I will be happy to litigate this as soon as you are ready.  I want a trial date…so come and get me before I go public, along the lines of my 1 January trial run in the NZ Herald.  A copy of that is at the top of the page.

Your fraud is now pretty obvious, and all the world’s delusional Greta Thunbergs cannot change the laws of physics and chemistry.  Now your “tangle” only gets tortuous as any fair-minded person would accept from the detail below…

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

The following advertisement was placed in the NZ Herald Public Notices on 1 January 2020:

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2019 2:08 p.m.
To: ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Hon Scott Simpson’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Terry Dunleavy’; ‘Peter J. Morgan’; ‘John Ansell’
Subject: Merry Christmas

Dear politicians,

In 2018 I warned of the dire consequences of failing to check the science you rely on for public policy settings over climate change.  I warned of the climate phenomena appearing that supported the narrative that we are probably moving into a Grand Solar Minimum.

In 2019 I laid complaints with the NZ Serious Fraud Office and the NZ Commerce Commission regarding your demonstrably false climate change narrative.  Naturally the complaints came to nothing.  I noted the radical shortening of the Northern growing seasons that have further reduced for each year from 2017, 2018 and again in 2019.  I commented on the signs that food shortages will soon loom large due to cold climate crop losses.  The only certainty at this point is that food costs will head much higher in 2020, because despite shortages, we humans can possibly adapt to cope and farmers will now start changing their cropping choices.

In 2020 the earth will reach the bottom of the eleven year solar cycle numbered 24, and it will start into solar cycle number 25.  So the best Christmas present I can offer you is to explain why the solar cycles are so important.  NASA, NOAA, the Russians and the Chinese have indicated that solar cycle 25 will be the least active for at least 100 years and many experts claim the unfolding Grand Solar Minimum will be a 200 year event.

1. The successive ice ages on earth during the 2.5 million year Pleistocene era have historically been triggered by what is known as Milankovich cycles (now generally accepted).  These consist of three separate cycles referred to as “the Tilt variation of earth from the sun”, “the Obliquity of earth’s motion through space”, and “Eccentricity of earth’s orbit around the sun”.  Of these three cycles the most influential is eccentricity and it takes around 100,000 years to happen.  Our civilisation has only begun during the latest 10-12,000 year interglacial period we live in called the “Holocene”, which has now lasted for at least 11,500 years.  A plunge into extreme glaciations is now probably due.  It was alluded to by the expert climate scientists during the 1970’s when earths average temperature had cooled by about 0.4 degrees C., from 1945.  No-one actually knows when it will happen.

2. Within the Holocene period,  The time of maximum warmth due to natural cycles is said to have already passed and it is considered that the Minoan Warm period 3,500 years ago was when that occurred.  So there is good evidence available that points to earth’s average temperatures today being some 2-3 degrees C. cooler than the Holocene temperature maximum.  There are possibly two certainties that will affect us.  The first is that the solar cycles with rising and falling levels of electromagnetic activity will drive the natural climate variations on planet earth as they will the climates of the other planets within our solar system since the beginning of time.  The second certainty (well an extremely high probability) is that at some point the Milankovich cycles will usher in the return of a period of extensive glaciation that is similar to previous ice ages.

3.  Full ice ages with extensive glaciations must be accepted as near certain extinction-level events.  The significance for New Zealand is less onerous than for others, yet that may mean a progressive but effective end to agriculture in the South Island…. as and when it occurs.

4. Our recorded history of the impact of varying levels of solar activity really began with the Maunder Minimum (1645AD-1715AD) but these provided a mathematical trace back to earlier Grand Solar Minimums before the birth of Christ.  Grand Solar Minimums coincide with the coldest periods of “the Little Ice Age” (which ran from about 1280AD – 1870AD).  They also align well with the record of famines and the fall of dynasties in China.  Both the Russian and the Chinese governments take the science behind Grand Solar Minimums very seriously and use the known cycles for their strategic planning.  As a result I commend the history of Grand Solar Minimums to the attention of yourselves and your Civil Defence personnel.

5.  Space exploration and remote climate monitoring only really began in about 1979.  Today the probing of solar influence is a regular event and the effect of the solar cycles on earth’s weather is well-known if suppressed by the mainstream media.

6.  So my Christmas present to you is to provide my personal understanding of how Grand Solar Minimums likely affect the earth’s climate

This will be extremely topical because many believe we have entered a cooling cycle that will last until 2055.  Some believe it will last much longer.  The data supports this conclusion.  The data does not support suggestions that humans, CO2 build-up and/or CH4 build-up cause climate change.  So I think this topic is well worth spending some time on.

The principle indicator of solar electromagnetic activity is visible to humans by virtue of the number of sunspots appearing on the face of the sun each day.  These are carefully counted and conform to maxima and minima based on the stage of the eleven year solar cycles.  Solar minimums are marked by no sunspots appearing for days or even months.  There is a huge and growing body of solid science surrounding this topic.

If we look at the regular eleven year minimum that occurred between solar cycles 23 and 24, there have been 70 sunspot free days in 2006 (or 19 %), in 2007 there have been 152 sunspot free days (or 42 %) and in 2008 there were 268 days (or 73%).  In the tail end of solar cycle 24 there have been considerably more sunspot-free days.  With 2017 at  104 days (compared with 70 in sc23), in 2018 at 220 days (compared with 152 in sc23).  With the year almost up in 2019 the percentage of spot-free days already stands at 76% compared with 73% in 2008.  This signals how the sun is rapidly becoming less active.  From the attached link to a schematic of solar cycles you can see how the eleven year solar cycles vary and in particular the low sunspot numbers of the Dalton Minimum in the early 19th century.

https://spaceweather.com/glossary/sunspotnumber.html

The reduced solar activity has a number of effects.  First the Total Solar Insolation which strikes earth’s atmosphere is reduced.  The second is that the earth’s Thermosphere tends to thin and become colder.  This  variation to earths outer temperature is indicative of what is to come… as we move towards the solar minimum in 2020…

“Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 3.26×1010 W Cold
Max: 49.4×1010 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×1010 W Cold (02/2009)
explanation | more data: gfxtxt
Updated 08 Dec 2019”

With reduced solar activity, the solar wind drops.  It is the solar wind which keeps cosmic rays from flooding the galaxy.  The solar wind is also the reason the tails of comets point away from the sun and not at the direction the comet has come from.  So a key measure of the space weather is the solar wind strength and density…

Solar wind
speed: 353.3km/sec
density: 5.0protons/cm3
explanation | more data
Updated: Today at 2116 UT”

There are always cosmic rays intruding in our atmosphere and they result in the increased nucleation of water vapour into low level clouds.  The cloud cover is the primary reflective umbrella for earth, with usually about 65% cloud cover.  So only about 56% of the sun’s rays hit the earth’s surface and any contribution to increasing cloud cover has a net cooling effect.

The Earth is once again being bombarded by the highest intrusion of cosmic rays for the space age…

This below is a snap shot of the current stats from www.spaceweather.com that suggest to me the highest influx of galactic cosmic rays will occur in 2020-2021.

“Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: +10.9% Very High
7-day change: +3.3%
Max: +11.7% Very High (12/2009)
Min: -32.1% Very Low (06/1991)
explanation | more data
Updated 08 Dec 2019 @ 1800 UT”

The solar electromagnetic variation affects earth’s magnetosphere and there is some evidence that the tectonic plates are affected by the changed gravitational effects and by the effect of cosmic rays on sub-surface magma.  However I am not sure how reliable the correlations are between Grand Solar Minimums and volcanism.  Even so the fact that 80% of all volcanoes are under the oceans and they have the potential to heat deep ocean water in a way the surface temperatures cannot, suggests they may have a far greater impact on New Zealand’s eventual weather than anyone acknowledges.  Our climate is maritime by nature, so we are less likely to be affected by cooling solar influences while our oceans remain warm.

So to summarise, the likely effects of the space weather on the climate of earth includes:

1. Variations in Total Solar Insolation (not very large but certainly these are grossly under-rated by the UN IPCC).

2. Variations in the Thermosphere Climate Index because when it cools and thins, the loss of heat at night via infra-red radiation will be greater.

3. Variations in the cosmic ray influx affecting the formation of low level cloud.  This is a climatic feature attributed to large scale flooding and heavy snows during Grand Solar Minimums.

4.  There is a poorly understood effect on both the Northern hemisphere and Southern hemisphere jet streams which leads to them slowing and meandering closer to the Equator.  This leads to reduced temperatures where the loops venture into lower latitudes and higher  temperatures in the higher latitudes when the jet streams venture outside their normal routes.  Historically, we are told this accounts for the massive floods of the so-called “Dark Ages” and the “Little Ice Age”.

From what I can tell from the historical records, the advent of a 200 year cyclic Grand Solar Minimum doesn’t seem to dramatically alter the earth’s average temperature, but it does alter the climate of normally temperate or warm zones.  Hence the snowing in places like the Serengeti, the Sahara and Saudi Arabia in 2018.

In 2019 the effects of the “Eddy” Grand Solar Minimum have become obvious and this has led to recognition by NASA  that the earth is headed for a period of cooling.  Yet all mention of the solar cycles is still absolutely banned from mention in the mainstream media.

Russia and China are already taking emergency steps to protect their food supplies.

Yet you remain asleep at the wheel.   New Zealand is exposed, despite the kindness of our maritime climate.

So may I suggest you give this some thought when you are choosing what to read during your Christmas holidays.  Books by John L Casey such as “Cold Sun” or “Dark Winter” from your local library could be a good start.

Anyway,  I have retired as a Justice of the Peace to eliminate any suggestions of conflict of interest when I plan my year of action.  So 2020 is going to be a whole new “ball game” for me.

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 9:46 a.m.
To: ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’
Cc: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Subject: The abject fear of answering three simple questions

Hi Newshounds,

Humour me.  You will find it worthwhile…because you too were either fooled into drinking the populist Koolaid about climate change, or there are powers that control your news reporting that make our world an Orwellian nightmare, and our freedoms lost.  More factual evidence has been presented in previous submissions .

We have entered an era where there are today, arguably more than five times the number of “scientists” who have ever lived before them.  Many ignore the “scientific method” when it is more convenient to “lose it”.  The contestability test is subordinated to the popularity of a theory.

They now tell us which toothpaste to use and which drugs are good and which are bad,  and in most cases they espouse an undisclosed business, or political reason for doing so.  This deception is nowhere more prevalent than the area of climate science where fake news is promoting an orthodox agenda of various trans-national groups, and now this and its sub plots have become the biggest-ever fraud in human history.  Real conservation has been prostituted in favour of fakery.  Yet the science at the heart of the paradigm is missing and can never be discussed in polite company.

And now we have the 11,000 pseudo-scientists’ report – really a blog opinion piece with the “likes” of others signified – heralded as yet another scientific breakthrough.

This is the latest of the faux authoritative scientific studies… https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806

The surveyor of opinions was an obscure forestry blog site at Oregon U., masquerading as a reputable international group of scientists,  and an initial critique is contained here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vs3ZPGLPiss&feature=youtu.be

The survey was treated as a learned and peer reviewed research paper, whereas it was really a simple survey of folk who may for whatever reason be willing to share the writers’ opinions and while ‘Professor Mickey Mouse’ and ‘Professor Albus Dumbledore’ of Harry Potter fame were originally respondents, the list was edited to remove anyone who didn’t look worth the “powder and shot” to present their survey. The pruning supposedly was very severe.

This is a critique…  https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/who_are_these_11000_concerned_scientists.html

To check the criticism I have just waded through the entire 323 pages of the names of the “11,000” so-called “knowledgeable scientists” (following editing) providing the latest faux warning of climate Armageddon at this link below.  

 

The kindest things I can say about the New Zealand based contributors to the survey is this:

1. They seem to be well educated, but generally do not seem to have relevant experience in the subject matter of the dire warning to humanity.

2. I doubt they can have known that they were click bait for promoting eugenics as part of this.

3. Of the 230+  Kiwis who put their names, occupations and employment details forward in the survey, there would be less than 5 (possibly only 2) with relevant climate science qualifications and experience who I would wish to consult on this subject.

4. The largest cadre were computer scientists, either Emeritus Professors, Professors, Associate Professors, computer analysts or Lecturers (I suppose they must therefore receive some NZ Government  incentive for noting their agreement to the questionnaire).  Lots of people who work for the NZ Institute for Plant and Food Research popped up too….did someone organise mass support for the individual “likes”? 

5. I couldn’t find any names of the NZ climate scientists I am familiar with.

But I will give the Kiwi respondents the benefit of the doubt because among these folk, there must surely be at least one who can answer the following questions that none of the known climate scientists can answer (certainly not the PM’s science adviser – Professor Juliet Gerrard – see also the letter from the CEO of the Environomics (NZ) Trust above):

1.  What empirical evidence is there that changes in the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide are able to alter the climate and what evidence is there that it ever has to date?  (After all, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppm since the end of “the Little Ice Age” in 1880, to 415ppm at the present date so surely there is clear evidence one way or the other?)

2. What evidence is there that human emissions of CO2 and CH4 act as atmospheric pollutants?

3. What evidence is there that it is possible for humans to reduce the atmospheric level of CO2 by a sufficient amount to reduce the Global Mean Surface Temperature by even one tenth of one degree Centigrade below that which would otherwise obtain from natural causes or the actions of others, by the year 2100?

In 2020 these questions will be a big deal for the PM and the Minister of Climate Change.  You see I am not only a private fraud investigator but I already warned them last year that these are essential planks that support the legitimacy or criminality of their actions.  Failing to answer which, they are at best promoting a fraud, because you see, they say they are implementing policies because the UN IPCC says they should.  No-one, anywhere in the world has, or would be brave enough (or perhaps stupid enough) to provide answers to the three questions I have been asking over the 40 years that this runaway deception has been rolling….

If I were sick of drinking beer and said the only reason I drink it is because “Big Terry” drinks it, that would be OK.   But I am not hurting anyone by failing to make enquiry of my options.

But the response from the Minister of Climate Change (that I have in writing) admits he is committed to his course of action because the UN IPCC and their tame cabal of supposedly orthodox scientists says he should.   And that is not OK because it is the least financially robust of our citizens who will ultimately bear the cost of this fraud.

So who is running this government programme?    PM Jacinda Ardern regards this “fraud” (my word not hers) as her administration’s defining issue.  So why is she going to waste billions of our money to satisfy her and past PM Helen Clark’s Socialist mates at the UN – when there is not a scintilla of scientific justification and yet huge cost?   The ploy of claiming the science is proven when it isn’t, is not a tenable position for our activist government to take when damaging whole industry sectors.  Ministers of the Crown have a fiduciary duty of care to act for proper purpose and I argue that in the case of their climate change bigotry they are not…or at least cannot possibly….demonstrate they are doing so.

In a detailed and fully-referenced paper, Wellington researcher/analyst Barbara McKenzie has published a withering rebuttal of the New Zeaand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s comments in a speech lauding ther passage in the NZ Parliament of the so-called Zero Carbon Bill.Ms McKenzie writes: “Jacinda Ardern calls [the bill] the ‘nuclear moment for this generation.” What she means, of course, is that Parliament is in effect nuking the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand environment on the back of what is frequently referred to as the greatest hoax in the history of science.”Later in the paper, Ms McKenzie says any MP who claims to take an interest in the climate debate must know “Jacinda’s speech was a pack of lies.”

LINK

If you look at my previous correspondence it isn’t that I have not given the Government fair warning.  What we, the people must demand is the truth about the core issue.  This is not about partisan politics nor a criticism of National and NZ First folding their principles to a wasteful piece of legislation.

If the answers to three simple questions are provided and these do actually hold water, I will go quietly into the night.

But remember that in exercising your power of editing or ignoring this information, you have already, by accident or design, ignored numerous warnings of climate Armageddon that have been proven wrong year after year, since 1989 and some before, including Prince Charles, the Duke of Edinburgh, several heads of the United Nations and heads of global corporations.

So we have a dominant paradigm that is nothing more than a 40 year fraud, with numerous subsidiary frauds appended to it.

As Jack Nicholson’s character said in “A Few Good Men”,  “The truth?  You can’t handle the truth!”

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Saturday, 19 October 2019 5:55 p.m.
To: ‘todd.muller@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘scott.simpson@parliament.govt.nz‘; ‘simon.bridges@national.org.nz‘; ‘simeon.brown@national.org.nz
Subject: A short look at Vladimir’s view of the Eddy Grand Solar Minimum contrasted with that of a knowledgeable US farmer
Importance: High

Gentlemen,

It is still too early to see what sort of damage is occurring in the Northern hemisphere due to the approach of the Eddy Minimum.  But the folk at the web site Adapt 2030 have the best window on the 2019 crop losses at this 4 minute video below.  The losses in 2017 and 2018 were not visible because inventory movements masked them.  This year may be the first of many where that becomes impossible…

https://youtu.be/hUOBKTarY5Y

The weather these folk speak of is only relevant, insofar as the early autumnal blizzards are covering crops before they can be harvested.  So every USDA and other forecast of crop levels is being sequentially reduced as they factor in more and more bad news.  How serious will it get? It is too early to tell.

Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin know exactly what is happening.  The Chinese have more than 2,000 years of records of solar cycles and can point to the critical impacts of Grand Solar Minimums, like the current one.  There is a near precise correlation between these and the famines that have affected China for the last two millennia .  Matching that timing has been the sequential overthrow of the Chinese dynasties.  Xi Jinping’s planning is obvious and has been underway for at least ten years.  He knows they have not done enough and are being forced to talk trade with Trump in order to get supplies from a US President who doesn’t yet know that he may not have the supplies to meet even a USD50 billion order (or so the American farmers believe).  But for his government Xi knows what is coming is a potentially existential threat for the CCP.

But today I will restrict this email to Russia.  Their space agency collects the same space weather data that NASA does in the USA.  Putin’s principle adviser if the head of the Pulkovo observatory, and the head of the Russian space programme for the International Space Station – a guy called Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov.

I don’t want you to read this stuff at the link below in detail, but a glance would be informative.  It is indicative of the depth of understanding the Russians have for a subject that is strictly banned in the Western media while, the UN pursues global hegemony – focused on warming rather than either the facts or the science.  This is a link to some of his research…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdussamatov

and

https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/2011474380_Habibullo_I_Abdussamatov

The actions of the Russian Government are pretty transparent to anyone monitoring the international media (that part which is not affected by Soros, Turner, the Rothschilds and their affiliated three deep state cabals).   While PM Scott Morrison of Australia recently took a firm line with the UN interference in Australian policy two weeks ago (and it never got into the NZ media), three months ago a lecture was given to the Russian press corps by Sergei Lavrov on what the government saw as the biggest existential threat to the Russian Federation – the New World Order being promoted by the UN and the same deep state actors that control the Western media.

Meantime, President Putin has focused his international diplomacy on making friends with every country to the South of Russia and with China.  The Middle East is the new theatre of influence as Russia realises growing seasons will keep shortening.  The strategy to capture the Crimean Peninsula was part of this as was his support for Syrian President Assad.  Murmansk in the West, Syria in the South, Iran in the near East and Vladivostok in the East are strategically linked to the North by his six tiny ice-breakers (a joke)… each has two large nuclear power plants pushing huge propellers, and because the Western Siberian oilfield is substantially depleted, they are following the field offshore into the Kara Sea.  So he has oil tankers to be towed through sheet ice from time to time.  Here is a short video of one of them…does it look like he expects the Arctic Sea Ice to disappear any time soon?

https://youtu.be/bKaVhXn49xY

At home the emergency food planning has been in place for some time.  While Putin has made a big thing about helping the Chinese out, his resource is limited.  But the build of granaries has been well under way and with Grand Solar Minimums the cold is not linear, there will be good years during the 11 year solar cycles and bad years …but more bad years than usual.  Subject to restrictions and embargoes he is reducing the US dollar debt he is holding and converting it into gold, increasing Russia’s bullion holdings, year on year.  He has built and deployed one floating nuclear power station which will be based in the Russian Arctic.  More may follow.

Elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere, regional rivals, PM Modi and PM Khan also understand what is happening but their preparations are less effectual.  Already hit by extensive flooding, peasant farmers will do the best they can.

The farming communities in Europe, USA, Japan and elsewhere are waking up because farmers are on the front line.  Every time there are crop losses the farmers become twitchy.  They lose their farms.  In New Zealand, ours’ is a maritime climate and with warm seas (relatively) we have a farming holiday for a little while longer.

But for the entire continent of North America on average, the 2019 harvest will be a huge disaster.  We have not been allowed by our news media to know that the period from October 2018 to May 2019 has been the coldest and also the wettest in over 100 years.  With growing seasons shortening each year for the last three years.  The Chinese are aware of this and yet they will still try to wring every shipload of oats, soya beans, corn, rice, hogs etc from the USA that they can get.  They have also increased their buying from Canada, who will similarly experience difficulties meeting the Chinese purchase orders.  This will affect New Zealand because when we changed Canterbury farms from cereals to dairy, we became dependent on Australia.  This year Australia plans to import from Canada and will not be an exporter at all.

Some North American farmer blog sites are full of the unfolding drama.  This particular farmer in the link below usually chronicles the moves in the weather extremes and comments on the harvest data.  But in this link he unloads on the causation.  From my knowledge of what is happening, he isn’t far wrong…

https://youtu.be/jbsslmdxvhc

The Eddy Grand Solar Minimum is something we cannot change but we can plan for how it will affect our country.  Perhaps the first thing for your shadow ministers is to understand that Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a fraud.  It has nothing to do with the science or climate, because it is just about transference of the power of national governments to the UN.

The second thing is to have at least one of each of your assistant’s, take an interest in the data appearing on  www.spaceweather.com .  The left hand third of the web site pages is devoted to the unfolding statistics.  The sun is now the quietest it has been since the beginning of the space age and this solar minimum is still deepening.

Can I draw your attention to my summary of the cause of climate change as per the two MS Word documents attached above.

You will see from that and the Farmer’s graphs that the true cause of the “Modern Warm Period” following the end of the “Little Ice Age” in about 1850, was the extraordinary solar activity of the 20th century.  The sun was then its most active in at least 4,000 years.  That isn’t hypothesis, it is published solar science.

I do hope you make good use of this or at least have your staff do so.

By Christmas we will probably know the true dimension of the unfolding crop losses.  I hope I am wrong.  The last time there was a Grand Solar Minimum (the Dalton Minimum) the global population was only about 950 million.  Then most people grew their own food and did not have brittle supply chains and JIT planning.  How will we get on with 7.7 billion?

It will be bad, but just how bad?  We must wait for Christmas.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

A Concerned Citizen.

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 30 September 2019 9:57 a.m.
To: ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’; ‘news@press.co.nz’; ‘news@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘contact@comcom.govt.nz’
Subject: The truth always comes out sooner or later

Dear Prime Minister and Minister of Climate Change,

This email will provide people with an opportunity to choose sides, whether to be “part of the problem or part of the solution”.

I hope those who receive this long message will take the time to print it and its attachments, and also take the time to view any video footage it contains.  You have had time to verify the science and there seems no point in allowing you to continue to attack the New Zealand economy in support of whatever your true ends may be.  So I will publish this as widely as I can.

This email is about the New Zealand section of the biggest and most egregious political crime in human history, now requiring an urgent political solution.  But I think many who receive this email will already know that.  You also know that.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

Last week a sub-set of the world’s real scientists provided a rebuttal to the climate alarmism you espouse so fervently…

 

Yet you will ignore it and shrug off its logic.  For me?  I am just a fraud investigator, so I have sat between the competing perspectives of science, to form my own view of the facts irrespective of my financial interests.  You will ignore these at your peril.

Please find attached above in two single page Word documents, the core summary of the climate facts, together with a copy of the satellite temperatures since the tamper-proof records began in 1979.  There is no climate crisis.  There is no man-made global warming.  There is no need to demonise the naturally occurring gases CO2 and CH4 as pollutants, when they are both essential to the survival of all species on planet earth and already in short supply for plant life.  There is no need to drive worried farmers to either depression or off their land.

My allegations of fraud against you are simple and easily substantiated by the facts of your complicity.

Supporting Background Information

15 years ago I started investigating this criminality from the standpoint of a believer in Anthropogenic Global Warming theory and wanted to know why people rebelled against a logical perspective of science that was claimed to be so settled.  Alas, the first thing I discovered was the only reason the science was claimed to be “settled” was because it couldn’t stand any real scrutiny.  It was always a simple political scam as scams go – as simple as the story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, where the mythical tailors wanting the king’s money, claimed only fools could see the King was wearing no clothes at all. 

So by 2003 when the theory was comprehensively disproven, the UN IPCC backers changed the term for “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” and then set out to claim there was a consensus supporting the science…. and then began to demonise the vast body of serious scientists as “Climate Change Deniers”.   The UN IPCC and their backers’ power base is so huge,  obvious and corrupt, as they secured for their “anointed ones” 3 Nobel Peace Prizes and 1 Nobel Prize for Economics…and locked false scientific claims within Wikipedia.  From BBC to “Stuff”  no major media organisation will now allow the truth to be spoken. 

How sick is that?  Science is meant to thrive on scrutiny, yet this junk science does not.

The Great Global Warming Fraud has only been possible for four reasons…

1. We humans do warm our surroundings with a mixture of exotic and natural fuels.

2. We humans have no idea about the composition and chemistry of the air we breathe or how our exhalations are valued by other life forms.  Air is simply taken for granted.

3. We humans are so successful that since 1750, humans and their livestock have gone from comprising about 7% of the world’s land mammals to over 98%;  leaving a trail of species extinctions and pollution behind as we have done so.  Now we worry about resource depletion and over-full waste sinks.

4. We want to do the right thing to “save the planet” and eagerly follow any sensible consensus on how to do that.

More than a year ago I started writing to the three of you (our NZ Government’s coalition leaders), to warn you that you could soon – by your actions – become accessories to the Great Global Warming Fraud.  This was met with distain as per the attached message from Minister Shaw who seemed unfazed by the allegations of fraud I made… (see the Adobe file linked above).  But I did recognise that as a well-rehearsed legal defence against probable fraud charges.

Because your responsible Minister prevaricated, I laid a complaint with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in April 2019 and followed that up with complaints about the misconduct of your Minister of Climate Change (and his political party) to the NZ Commerce Commission.  On 15 May 2019, (see the fourth linked Word document above) I made sure you understood the substance of my complaint, by copy of a letter sent to Minister Shaw and your Deputy PM, which noted three causes of potential criminal action regarding your deliberate and false misrepresentations and the fact that criminality in another jurisdiction is no excuse for committing crimes within New Zealand… 

The causes of action where you now stand accused ( or from your point of view, seek vindication) are simply… 

1.            That changes in the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) have no impact on climate change.

2.            That carbon dioxide (“CO2”) is not a pollutant, but a gas essential for all life on earth. CH4 rapidly converts to H2O and CO2, upon contact with the atmosphere.

3.            Your “climate change” spending cannot possibly have any measurable impact on earth’s climate.

You, together with your international associates have dreamed up a non-existent crisis that will soon be revealed for all to see as a simple fraud from which the various Ponzi schemes grow and for a time will thrive – but to no legitimate purpose.   When the weather once again changes into severe cooling mode, to reflect the ever-changing solar cycles that drive earth’s climate, the public will react against your obvious lies and lose confidence in you and all politicians. 

Because I have some investments which may already be benefitting from the Great Global Warming Fraud, I was persuaded by some friends to call you to account.  Frankly,  I don’t want to benefit from your criminality, if your actions are proven to be so.  Nor do I want to abandon my renewable energy investments. 

But how did I go from being a believer in the well-orchestrated  lies, to being an active sceptic, now demanding your immediate resignation?

1.  In 1998 a survey of reputable scientists was performed that revealed 31,487, including more than 7,000 with PhD qualifications, had no time for the theory that the modern warming is man-made.

2.  I found the regularly used mantra that  “97% of all scientists supporting the UN IPCC science”  to be a subsidiary fraud and when I looked at the sources being given for the fictional consensus, I found them to be total garbage.

3.  The hyping of sea level change to a height which is thermodynamically impossible was a worry for me.

4.  The reduction in Arctic sea ice extent is being over-hyped.  These days the UN IPCC simply chooses dates to begin sea ice graphs at a date when the ice extent and thickness reached a cyclic maximum and thereby uses the subsequent downward trend to deliberately mislead the public.  The UN IPCC sea ice graphs begin in 1979 when the earth’s climate had cooled significantly from the early 1940’s.  If they had started in 1972 they would see that NASA has satellite photos of the sea ice at the end of that summer melt that were almost identical to the extent the satellite photo at the end of the 2018 summer melt.  I have viewed all those photos and am aware the sea ice extent was far less in 1941 and 1942 when the Arctic convoys ferried supplies from the UK to Murmansk.

5.  In the last 3 years the ice load on Greenland has grown by about 1.2 trillion tonnes.  Where is that in the news?  It does have an effect on sea levels whereas sea ice has no effect.

6.  The polar bears were being hunted to extinction in 1967 and so in 1973 the Arctic Treaty nations placed a moratorium on hunting, save for limited Inuit rights in Canada.  Since then their numbers have grown to the point where they now actively predate on Inuit villages, who want culling to be reintroduced.  Polar bears survived and prospered during the Holocene climate maximum called the “Minoan Warm Period”, through the “Roman Warm Period” and the “Mediaeval Warm Period”.  These warm periods were all considerably warmer than our climate is today.  So fear mongering about the impact on polar bears from loss of sea ice is facile.  The same with so-called “all time heat records” that can only be described in derisory terms. 

6.  When polar bears attack the huge herds of walrus on dry land, some walrus have throughout recorded history been seen to get pushed off cliffs by the crush of others.  They breathe the same air that we do so they prefer to haul out in large numbers (for protection) on dry land near their shallow feeding grounds.  We are told they are sad about climate change.  How can they be?  They are thriving, just like the polar bears. 

7.  Obviously naive funding agencies can get any report they want from venal scientists if those scientists’ tenure is at stake or they are paid enough.  Lysenkoism is extant everywhere I look within the OECD and I despair when watching TV to see yet another phony scientist coming up with implausible studies, which have been funded on the sole basis that they will reinforce the UN IPCC disinformation.

What are the Russians, Indians and Chinese doing to comply with this man-made global warming hoax and with the Paris Accords?  Heck, they don’t even believe the UN IPCC dogma even though they profit from it.  They have each been preparing for the coming Grand Solar Minimum for at least the last 5-10 years.  Look at their preparations.  If you don’t believe me, you could try Googling  the name of  Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov (the scientist who runs the Pulkovo observatory and the Russia programmes on the International Space Station – Vladimir Putin listens to his advice) and you will be able to understand the Russian strategies in the Middle East, why they have built a fleet of nuclear powered ice breakers capable of towing oil tankers through 2 metre thick sheet ice, and why they needed to annex Crimea…all part of the same strategy.  “Winter is coming, Jon Snow!”

It is the same with China and their “String of Pearls” and Silk Road  construction,  together with the diversification of food sources into South America and Africa.  They are already in food trouble that will manifest this winter.  They have records that show whenever there has been a cyclic “Grand Solar Minimum” over the last 2,000 years there has also been both famine and the collapse of China’s major dynasties.  They accept Dr Abdussamatov’s conclusions, given the changes now underway.  I can neither confirm nor reject those forecasts of approaching cold, but you must be made aware that others who have expert knowledge now consider them valid and urgent.

Check this desperate cry for help from Australian sceptics as they pay higher and higher power prices that are based on policies grounded on fraud and disinformation…(This is shown in the third attached Word document above)…

How many of those 31, 487 scientists who have dissented from the UN IPCC’s  politically inspired disinformation programme are allowed to give TV or newspaper commentaries?  Only one in a thousand.  Each year, more of those who work on the mischievously inaccurate computer models on which the overhyped heating claims by the UN IPCC rest, defect to the sceptic camp providing information on how desperately flowed the models and resulting forecasts really are.  The sceptics are either ignored or driven from their jobs, denied publication of their learned, peer reviewed scientific papers and treated like “holocaust deniers” by the likes of smug, self satisfied media presenters who refer to their legitimate scepticism by the derogatory term “Climate Change Deniers”.  Sceptics are never allowed to write the truth about the subject of climate change by mainstream media publications (including such as the NZ Herald and other rags, in favour of “puff pieces” of no journalistic or scientific merit.  These do get taken to print without question or scrutiny, as feedstock of alarmism from overseas newspapers and such climate experts as Past PM Helen Clark.  But her late 2018 NZ Herald article did strike me as indicative that her actions should also have been under scrutiny during her term in office.

Finding such a  cloud of obfuscation  is “meat and veg.” to any true fraud investigator, this is the sort of stuff that points directly to a false narrative which is collapsing, as the lies become less and less credible to a greater proportion of those singled out to be its victims.

I believe I know what has caused the modern warming.  I believe I know what is going to cause the imminent period of cooling.   Sadly for whatever your political intentions may be, the feared cooling is already starting in the Northern hemisphere and were it not for the UN IPCC’s  PR machine, everyone would already know about the threat this cooling poses to global food supplies – all too soon. Perhaps that will change, but there are signs that earth’s Thermosphere is thinning and cooling, so if that worries the people at NASA and NOAA, it should concern you too.   If you actually do know this stuff, then throwing young school children into the front lines of your struggle looks more like an act of desperation and cowardice on your part … the last throw of the dice to deflect allegations of your government’s complicity in an international power play to assert UN control against the primacy of national sovereignty.

If you aspirations were honest, you would have asked the population to vote on whether they want our government to be dominated by the UN.  Instead you choose to prostitute climate science as if it were a global emergency that only the UN could fix.

But whether it is warming or cooling, the changes to earth’s climate are only resulting from natural causes.  If the truth does interest you, may I suggest you have your staff analyse and monitor the web site – www.spaceweather.com.  Even NOAA, an organisation closely enmeshed in the UN IPCC web of influence, acknowledges that it is the space weather that drives earth’s climate.  When you understand how that happens, you may understand why your political actions have been so egregious.

Your cohorts at the UN IPCC upped the ante last week, with their well-orchestrated disinformation.  Seemingly expecting those among us who have actually taken the time to check the science, to retreat under the onslaught of a hysterical teenager and her handlers’ fantasies – ably augmented by the catastrophic alarmism delivered by the usual UN IPCC suspects – yet with attribution to no-one of substance and only peer-reviewed by “partners in crime”.  This short video below captures the sequence including the obvious motivation, the lies and the truth, in one elegant 12 minute splurge…

https://youtu.be/cEs31hNMebg

The international resistance to your global and national scam has begun, and something approaching 50% of New Zealanders will already know or suspect the UN IPCC version of the truth is flawed, because many remember their tirade of concatenated alarmist scares have all failed to materialise.  Most people are now too scared to confess their appreciation of the truth in case you label their words as “Hate Speech”.   Yes, I too have a list of those UN IPCC linked alarmist lies that date back to 1989 when the UN IPCC first started.  But also beyond that to when the same “new World Order” posers were trying to set up a coming ice age as the platform for a UN global takeover…

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

Nowadays, many celebrities squander their good names and reputations to underwrite the fraud.  To what end?  They, and even Sir David Attenborough cannot possibly know the scientific facts, even though  they talk of the “settled science” with such authority.  That is, unless they too are implicated in the dastardly criminality. 

For Joseph Stalin, the use of children and adults who went along with him but were never really aware of what he was doing, led Stalin to coin the term “Useful Idiots”.  Are our MPs, as well as our own children and grandchildren to be treated as those too? 

I know you believe that because you are “saving the planet” you can alienate us all from the basic truths of science in the same fashion as Chairman Mao used the “Cultural revolution” for.  But that seldom works for long.  All you need to do is to provide us sceptics with empirical evidence which proves that changes in atmospheric CO2 cause climate change.  We will melt into the night if you do that.  But I know you cannot do that, because I am able to prove why CO2 – at its molecular level – cannot have any measurable effect on climate, compared say to clouds and water vapour.  The sceptics can never be met in a public debate for one reason, the UN IPCC is now unable to defend the indefensible.  If you feel lucky, try to prove me wrong.

So 30 years after the fraud was dreamed up, there is still no evidence that CO2 does what the UN IPCC says it does, and yet you are prepared to near-bankrupt this country because you conveniently claim you are only taking someone else’s lies on faith?  What sort of Prime Minister would someone be, if they did that?  For Minister of Climate Change  I envisage the title of “King Canute” will be used by the mob when it turns on him, once the true science is generally known.  Frankly the science is not complicated, it is simple.

I believe it is contrary to your fiduciary duty of care as PM to stir up fear among workers, farmers, parents and children alike, and for you to preside over an education system that teaches fake science.  Science is not a popularity contest, it is about facts.  Please also find below  a list that chronicles the truth about alarmist falsehoods, to set our children’s minds at ease. 

(Source of the following is Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 26 September 2019)

“·         You have never been less likely to die of a climate-related disaster. Your risk of being killed has fallen 99 per cent in the past century. Source: International Disaster Database.

·         You have never been more likely to live longer. Life expectancy around the world has risen by 5.5 years so far this century. Source: World Health Organisation.

·         We are getting fewer cyclones, not more. Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeBureau of Meteorology.

·         There is more food than ever. Grain crops have set new records. Source: Food and Agricultural Organisation.

·         The world is getting greener. Leaf cover is growing 3 per cent per decade. Source: NASA.

·         Low-lying Pacific islands are not drowning. In fact, 43 per cent – including Tuvalu – are growing, and another 43 per cent are stable. Source: Professor Paul Kench, University of Auckland.

·         Cold weather is 20 times more likely to kill you than hot weather. Source: Lancet, 20/5/2015

·         Global warming does not cause drought. Source: Prof. Andy Pitman, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes.

·         Australia’s rainfall over the past century has actually increased. Source: Bureau of Meteorology.

·         There are fewer wildfires. Around the world, the area burned by fire is down 24 per cent over 18 years. Source: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center et al.

·         Polar bear numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Source: Dr Susan Crockford.

Perhaps it is time for you to come clean.    But you must now defend your crime against the New Zealand people in your Parliament  or prove me wrong with the substance of my complaints to the SFO and ComCom.

I would be happy to be able to apologise to you and Minister Shaw, because I know from history that warmth is good… and that cold is very bad for humanity.

The next move is over to you and your parliamentary colleagues.

I hope you place some weight on the truth and avoid the urge to attack the messenger.  After all, I am only saying what many thousands of Kiwis would like to be saying to you.

Stop telling blatant lies.

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely  Concerned New Zealand Citizen asking for the lies to stop.

=====================

From: John Rofe [mailto:jcrofe@xtra.co.nz]
Sent: Sunday, 28 July 2019 9:06 p.m.
To: ‘james.shaw@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘jacinda.ardern@parliament.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Rt. Hon. Winston Peters’; ‘Hon Simon Bridges’; ‘Simeon Brown’; ‘peter.goodfellow@national.org.nz’; ‘Todd Muller’; ‘Mafi Tu’inukuafe’; ‘letters@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘letters@press.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘news@heraldonsunday.co.nz’
Subject: Time for the truth about the “Great Global Warming Hoax” to get a public hearing?

Dear Minister,

It is now a year since I explained to you and PM Ardern about your fraud, and explained the reasons why you should cease and desist.    I have summarised the position outlined in this email in a single page as per the last (Word) document attached above for circulation to the news media.  This lengthy email that follows, substantiates my short statement on such an extremely complicated topic.

My reason for writing this email to you is to ensure that you have the facts at your fingertips to avoid New Zealand becoming further embroiled in the “Great Global Warming” fraud, which is nothing more nor less than a globalist conspiracy orchestrated under the auspices of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“UN IPCC”).  But then, I suspect you already know this.  The fact the conspiracy is global does not in any way excuse your conduct.  By your actions, you and your government are already complicit, and you can no longer rely on the UN IPCC.

The “Great Global Warming” fraud now has an eerie similarity to the “South Sea Bubble” in the following respects…

  1. They were each the largest frauds in recorded history at the time they occurred and then, by the time they were revealed, caused great heart-break.
  2. Both frauds relied on the remoteness of the populace from the facts on the ground.  With the South Sea Bubble, it was geographical remoteness.  With the Great Global Warming fraud it is the scientific remoteness mixed with complexity of the fraud and the interwoven, related conspiracy at the United Nations (“UN”), as they attempt to hype a global emergency to justify their takeover of global government…all in the shaddows.
  3. In both cases the perpetrators have had an incomplete understanding of the true facts that made, or now makes discovery inevitable.

In fairness to those at the centre of the Great Global Warming fraud (whether they and you deserve fairness or not), they/you did not initially have access to all the data.  Furthermore, the very few complicit scientists involved at the outset in 1988 then fell under the sway of politicians progressively including such as (in sequence) John Holdren, Al Gore, Helen Clark, Barrack Obama and even David Attenborough  – all should have known better, with different degrees of ignorance or motivation, as they lent their reputations and legacies to this fraud in order to profit from it – either in terms of political power, or for financial benefit, or for both. 

This shambles evokes the memory of Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned upon his retirement as US President, against the use of political sponsorship for the scientific community who are then funded to distort science for political purposes (as first happened with the Trofim Lysenko fiasco in 20th Century Russia).  What is unusual about your fraud is that it is supported by globalist businessmen and financiers as well as a significant element of the climate science community.

Retired Professor Nils Axel Moerner of Sweden calls it what it is.  I found his frustration with the lies contained in the link below rather like my own. I can now, at last, easily prove that he is right in almost every respect….

https://youtu.be/W1PS9-oOfRw

The Professor is as unaware (as you seem to be) that this fraud is about to be unmasked for public distaste by the speed at which the latest Grand Solar Minimum is advancing.  While outfits like NASA and NOAA still tend to downplay the implications of the new and disastrously weak 11-year solar cycle number 25, their web sites contain the evidence that it is happening as I write this.  Disillusionment day for your public will likely be sometime in early 2020.

So far this year there have only been 11 sunspots.  The public can watch this looming solar minimum threat on a daily basis at www.spaceweather.com  if they have the time and inclination.

NASA suggests that the number of sun spots in sc25 will drop to 111, which is an extremely low level of solar activity.  However, the Russian and British scientists claim they will not exceed 50!  The first is on the level of the Dalton Minimum.  The second is the level of the Maunder Minimum.  Either will prove disastrous to global agriculture and destroy your fraud as well.

It is now proven that the “modern warm period” has nothing to do with increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 (which we humans do give a boost to), but has been solely caused by a huge spike in solar activity…the greatest for 4,000 years. 

As a result of scientific progress, we are now in a position to prove that what you are doing with the NZ zero carbon legislation is a fraudulent enterprise.  It must now be stopped by either your free will, or by court injunction.

  1. The vilification of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) as a pollutant is just one of many essential limbs of this fraud

CO2 is essential for all life on earth.  That is a scientific fact.  All plant life relies on CO2 for the process of converting light into the plant sugars that support all other terrestrial life on earth (animals, humans etc)  and, should the atmospheric concentration of CO2 drop below 150ppm, every complex carbon based life form on this planet will likely become extinct.  Plants actually do better when they are given access to a concentration that is between 1,000 and 2,000ppm.  The current concentration is only 415ppm.  This atmospheric deficit is routinely compensated for by farmers injecting bottled CO2 gas into their greenhouses.

Meantime you elect to wage war on CO2 and label it as “undesirable pollution” for UN IPCC’s own devious ends.  They are of course conflicted, yet conceal their conflict of interest from the masses.

The evidence that shows increased concentrations of CO2 leads to the greening of the planet is contained in successive NASA satellite photos that are readily available to you and your advisers.  This greening has occurred primarily because the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280ppm at the end of “The Little Ice Age” in 1850, to the current level of more than 400ppm as of today.  If you were a true green you would find that good, not bad.

Plant growth experiments at various CO2 levels have also proven this fact as contained in the first “Word” attachment at the head of this email.  This attachment shows the practical limitations of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” that were the reasons why it’s possible impact on climate change was trialled and rejected by such eminent scientists as Professors Niels Bohr and Anders Angstrom some 100 years ago.  Those reasons – discovered by actual experiments rather than by totally subjective theoretical modelling – haven’t changed.  The only thing that changed was the arrival of the UN IPCC in 1989 and some biddable scientists who wanted to establish their new field of knowledge and scorned the older inter-linked evidence based earth sciences.

We humans can tolerate an atmospheric CO2 level up to at least 100 times greater than it is at present.  Should you personally ever take ill and collapse, requiring CPR,  any trained person could probably resuscitate you by “rescue breathing” with air containing 40,000ppm of CO2 and a reduced concentration of oxygen (of only about 16% of the air mixture). That is because we all breathe in anywhere between about 400ppm and 800ppm of CO2  and breathe out roughly 4% or 40,000ppm – thereby reducing the amount of oxygen that was inhaled by 20%.

The scientific record has shown that before the beginning of the Quaternary Ice Age the atmospheric levels of CO2 were considerably higher than today and the relentless sequence of natural sequestration of CO2 in rocks, soil and sea bed occurring during colder times over the last 500 million years considerably reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere and will almost inevitably mean for the future, that by the end of the next 90,000 year terrestrial ice age of the current Pleistocene era (or subsequent repeats of that cycle of ice ages and interglacial periods), the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could even fall back to, or fall further from the 180ppm at the end of the last ice age (12,000 years ago), to a much lower level and possibly even reach or breech the extinction threshold of 150ppm at some point. 

So there is considerable hard evidence that human CO2 emissions which involve using and emitting sequestered carbon will actually help to restore a desirable atmospheric balance that is more suitable for all natural life on earth.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that!  Unless you can prove that increased atmospheric CO2 has a significant effect on climate change, you should regard your criticism of this naturally occurring gas as a grave error, that is contrary to the best ideals of the green movement.

What needs to be dealt with, is to clean up real pollution rather than attempting to levy extortionate taxes based on deliberate lies.

  • In 30 years there has never been any empirical evidence that variations in atmospheric CO2 cause any measurable change in earth’s climate. 

Sure, we humans warm our surroundings by using many heat sources and fuels that provide us with comfort and wealth, but the claim that we alter the future climate is quite extraordinary …. and extraordinary scientific claims require extraordinary proof.   Such proof has never been found – despite the wasting of billions of dollars on the ever more complex computer models.  Sadly for the theories you espouse, there is ample proof that human and indeed total CO2 emissions have no measurable impact on climate and I itemise that proof below…

  • The historical record from the empirical analysis of ice core samples taken from the depths of the Antarctic Ice Sheet at Vostok, and from Greenland has provided clear evidence that as earth’s temperature changes, the level of atmospheric CO2 then also changes after a delay of several hundred years.  When temperatures rise, a rise in CO2 levels follows; then when temperatures fall,  CO2 levels also fall.  This is not only well accepted data, but the result is logical.  The sun which supplies  more than 99% of earth’s energy, heats the ocean more slowly than either the land or the atmosphere and the ocean releases its heat far more slowly.  Water absorbs atmospheric CO2 when cold and releases it when the water is warmed.  The ocean contains 50+ times the CO2 of the atmosphere, so when the ocean is warming it releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than it takes up; and when cooling it takes up more CO2 than it releases.  The data underpins the Vostok evidence.
  • During the last 100 years there has been clear evidence that the level of atmospheric CO2 has increased from around 300ppm to over 400ppm, and at no stage have the recordings at the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (“NOAA’s)testing site in Hawaii (which both UN IPCC and sceptics accept as valid data) have ever fallen.  Yet during the time from 1918 to 1940 the climate warmed, and then from 1945 to 1975 the climate cooled, and then from 1975 to 1998 the climate warmed again.  From 1999 to 2015 the temperature did not increase by any measurable amount.  Then in 2016 there was a spurt in warming due to the strong El Nino conditions, and then after that the temperature has fallen again – to the present.  This shows that CO2 has had no appreciable effect, unless one changes the starting and finishing times used for the temperature comparison to manipulate the meaning of the data.  In general, the world has emerged from the effects of “The Little Ice Age” and the solar cycles became appreciably more active – with the Total Solar Insolation (“TSI”) during the modern warm period higher than it has been for thousands of years.  It is the sun that has caused the modern warming.   There is no upturn in the number and severity of serious weather events and on the contrary there has even been a significant reduction in severe weather events since the late 1930’s.  You wouldn’t know that to listen to the media.

2.3 The impact of the huge increase in solar activity underpins this evidence and accounts for the warming of the ocean and its current slow expansion.

  • The reasons why human CO2 emissions cannot drive earth’s climate are now well known.

3.1  It is generally accepted by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions comprise only 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  Yet the presumption is made by the UN IPCC that human CO2 emissions drive 98% of climate change with no allowance for the variability over the 95.7% of natural CO2 emission effects.  For example a warming sea alone will emit more CO2 than humans can influence from all activities.  But to make their models work, the UN IPCC modellers even invent separate classes of CO2 molecules.  First, they state that human influenced CO2 molecules do not dissipate, but instead  only increase the level of residual atmospheric CO2.   Second, they say only the CO2 emissions from natural causes do dissipate due to the requirements of vegetation etc.  Of course this is junk science because there is no difference in the molecules, so any lay person can see through that.  But whether we allow the UN IPCC to clutch at straws to support their UN sponsored fraud or not, we humans cannot affect climate change.  Could King Canute turn back the tide?

      3.2  Atmospheric CO2 molecules do not impact with more than an extremely narrow band-width of infra-red re-radiation emanating from earth’s surface/sea and even then, not fully.  Water vapour on the other hand impacts twelve times the band width that CO2 does, and of that scope, for much of it, water vapour fully affects the re-radiation in some of the applicable band widths (As per the first attached (Word) document at the head of this email).  The water vapour also has other effects because of its involvement in the cloud cover and with its ability to phase change between liquid, gas and solid with massive localised thermal effects that the UN IPCC modellers deliberately ignore.  Not only that but water vapour is between 10 to 100 times as voluminous as CO2, depending on temperature and humidity. The suggestions that human CO2 emissions cause climate change is therefore somewhere between risible and ridiculous.

  • The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was already almost thermally saturated at the pre-industrial level of 280ppm (The Beer-Lambert Law refers). This is because an increase in CO2 concentration only leads to a logarithmic increase in the absorption of heat.  After the pre-industrial level of CO2 ( i.e. at 280ppm), its thermal impact for extra atmospheric concentrations of each – say – 100ppm of extra atmospheric CO2 is almost un-measurably minute and similarly, any reduction in temperature change from a reduction in the CO2 level would need to involve a huge reduction of – say 100ppm, if it is to have any measurable effect (even in theory).   As a result, the UN IPCC desire to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby effect a reduction in earth’s temperature is a pipe-dream and is misleading people who are being told that with the expenditure of trillions of dollars over time it can be done.  That change is not within human power because… i. Humans influence only a tiny portion of CO2 emissions and, ii. Because natural causes of CO2 emissions are far greater, so a relatively small variation in natural emissions will overpower any influence from human influenced CO2 emissions, and iii. While CO2 may be a greenhouse gas it is a significantly weaker one, than either water vapour which is measured and clouds which are not, and these factors dominate as shown in Dr Holmes’ video at the link in item 4.1 below.  But meantime a Finnish study has concluded that the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years has only resulted in a temperature increase of 0.1 degrees C. and of this the human proportion is only 0.01 degrees C. as noted in this link :
https://summit.news/2019/07/11/new-finnish-study-finds-no-evidence-for-man-made-climate-change/

3.4  Water vapour and clouds provide the principle “greenhouse effect” that keeps earth warmer than outer space.  (But please note, the term “greenhouse” is a gross oversimplification which is mainly used to suit the UN IPCC narrative, because there is no restrictive membrane in earth’s atmosphere – like the glass of a greenhouse.  The true effect of cloud cover is more complicated because clouds’ net effect is one of competing forces of insulation between the partial  shielding of the sun’s rays which (along with water vapour, and other atmospheric compounds) only allows 56% of Total Solar Insolation to descend to the earth’s surface, and the low level cloud and water vapour which inhibits the infra red re-radiation of heat leaving earth’s surface and reaching the extreme cold of space). The attached paper by Emeritus Professor Geoffrey Duffy, dated July 2019, shows “why it is not possible for any of the non-condensable greenhouse gases to have an appreciable effect on weather and climate change”.  It is attached herewith as the second (Adobe) article at the head of this email. 

  • It is now generally accepted that Space Weather determines the weather on earth.  While the UN IPCC chooses to believe that Total Solar Irradiance (“TSI”) only varies by 0.05 watts per square metre – up or down, that is based on their purposefully short term comparison of TSI changes and is demonstrably both biased in their favour and incorrect in fact, as has already been published in a number of peer-reviewed studies (again, see the link at item 4.1 below).  But not only is the TSI variation far greater than the figures shown in the UN IPCC computer models, but also the variations in solar activity (and numbers of sun spots) change the amount of solar wind affecting the planets in the solar system including planet earth.  The stronger the solar wind, the less the number of the galactic cosmic rays that can enter either the solar system or the earth’s atmosphere.  During the regular 11 year solar minimums the influx of galactic cosmic rays increases and during events called “Grand Solar Minimums”  the influx of cosmic rays is even more dramatically increased. 

Cosmic rays not only threaten astronauts and high altitude air crews (as they will do for the next two years) but they act to nucleate water vapour to form low level clouds and these provide an increased cooling effect for the earth as well as initiating massive anomalous rain, hail and even snow events.  In 1997 the work of Danish Professor Hendrik Svensmark and his son led to this being promulgated as a substantial theory – but now it has been convincingly proven with successful experiments in the “Cloud” project at CERN.  Unlike Anthropogenic Global Warming which has been disproven, the Svensmark theory about cosmic ray impacts on cloud formation is now, if not settled science (as the UN IPCC fraudsters will never accept the truth) but it is repeatable by scientific experimentation.  Who could ask for more proof?

3.6  There are now numerous studies of climate change that cast doubt on the validity of all of the UN IPCC sponsored computer models, showing all to grossly overstate possible warming.  But each model has a theoretical basis that relies totally on human generated parameters (for which complexity the humans involved receive multiple billions of dollars each year), so the UN IPCC studies cannot be relied upon for one good reason…the actual climate conditions have to date borne no relationship whatsoever to the forecasts of 101 of the 102 computer modelled predictions, or of the 72 models that are currently in vogue and used as the basis for creating deliberate warming alarmism.  They may as well have licked their finger and held it up to the air and taken a guess…because both that guess and the computer models are equally subjective.

3.7  By February 2020 we will see whether the Northern Hemisphere is to suffer massive food shortages as a direct result of the extraordinary cold and wet weather that has been interspersed with drought conditions there over winter of 2018/9 and spring of 2019.  Northern spring planting has been extensively disrupted as a result Grand Solar Minimum conditions and unless there is an “Indian summer” to delay Autumn, their harvest will likely be dire.  While Minister, you have thus far ignored my well-intentioned warnings that you are now becoming at least an accessory to fraud (for over a year), you must try to understand that New Zealand, by your actions is probably becoming exposed to the impacts that will occur on a global basis as a direct result of the presently unfolding Grand Solar Minimum.  You have been warned of this material and demonstrably cyclical hazard.  Now time is of the essence. Watch what is happening to cereal futures prices if you don’t believe me.

  •  How big is your fraud? (the total cost of this fraud globally is estimated at USD1.5 trillion per year and is growing exponentially larger and more onerous for the countries of the OECD)

4.1 The hallmark of a fraud is often denoted by the subsidiary lies that need to be told to lend credence to the central falsehood.

Everything from forest fires… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phw8OlN_x1E&feature=youtu.be

to sea level rise is subject to alarmism…(see for sea level the Professor Moerner link above in the preamble to this email report).

Also for ocean acidification… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bJjBo5ICMc&feature=youtu.be

Editor’s note: the following paragraphs from the Australian IPC are not in the email to the NZ Prime Minister, and have been added to clarify further details of the ongoing issue and court case. Professor Ridd’s key point is that James Cook University scientists have published many reports that do not comply with the proper scientific methodologies and, as such, are not valid. Eg the results cannot be replicated and the data has not been made available. Yet these reports have been published ‘as gospel’ by many mainstream media, leading to, amongst other things people world-wide believing the Great Barrier Reef is ‘dead’ or at least dying, and no longer travelling to see the reef, causing, amongst other issues, a major downturn in the tourist industry.

As reported by the Australian IPC: ‘Professor Peter Ridd has won his litigation against James Cook University about the Great Barrier Reef, the big scandal for North Queensland is the alleged death of coral that is being deliberately used to create an over-hyped sense of climate emergency.  There is nothing wrong with the world’s coral reefs, other than periodic bleaching  occurrences that they often quickly recover from.  This is a cyclic phenomenon.

In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef. ‘There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.’

Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.

In April, Federal Court Justice Vasta ruled JCU had erred in its interpretation of a clause in its enterprise agreement and deprived Dr Ridd of his right to express his academic opinion. Within hours of the judgment being released in April, JCU published a statement on its website criticising the ruling.

Dr Ridd is seeking financial compensation after he was sacked by JCU for publicly criticising the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact of global warming on the Great Barrier Reef.

In his decision, Judge Vasta stated that:

[T]he concept of intellectual freedom is not recent and is extremely important as it helps to define the mission of any university… It is the cornerstone upon which the University exists. If the cornerstone is removed, the building tumbles.

[…] To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.

[…] That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.’

We continue to see story after story that hypes the warm temperatures and ignores the cold weather.  Heat waves?  Hype and hoopla.  The sceptics are calling out every one of the lies now, just as quickly as the mainstream media prints them…

https://youtu.be/f5B8gcpggfs

This is only because the media is being manipulated by political forces aligned to the (your?) international socialist movement.  The fake news propaganda effort is being coordinated by the UN IPCC and their supporters.  We can no longer get accurate media reporting on how weather compares, or about climate change, nor on the other sub-plots.  Like this one about Arctic Sea Ice because the fraud dominates… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwUhJaQVi-M&feature=youtu.be  and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZDtnq9A-Bg&feature=youtu.be

Even the fate of polar bears is being twisted to suit the UN agenda… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bcCTFnGZ0&feature=youtu.be

In mid July (only last week and during mid-summer!) the “Crown Prince Haakon” a Norwegian icebreaker set out to crash through from Svalbard to the North Pole based on the stories of rapid ice melt.  They quickly turned back due to striking solid 10 ft thick ice.  Even with Greenland’s and Iceland’s principle glaciers now advancing we still get stories that they are retreating.  This level of scientific disinformation may suit your purposes but if this Grand Solar Minimum (2019-2055) is to be a 400 year event like the Maunder Minimum – rather than 200 year event like the Dalton minimum – then this will end in tears because it will soon be too late for us to prepare.

4.2 The establishment of carbon trading schemes relies totally on the ability of the UN IPCC scientists to predict what happens in the future as CO2 levels are notionally to be brought under control by exerting the influence of humans over natural forces to reduce both atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. That relies totally on the accuracy of trumped up, totally inaccurate, but extremely expensive computer models. In this rush to implement a false doctrine, the developed countries have joined a collective rush that will destroy their economic base.  If you sit down with your scientists and watch these two videos by Dr Robert Holmes and Dr Patrick Moore you will get a sense of the gravity of what your government’s involvement in this fraud is doing to all except those in the developing world who (are already and) will happily continue to eat our lunch in every possible way.

4.3  Herewith is the video of a comprehensive rebuttal of the science that your globalist friends rely upon (by Dr Robert Holmes).  Each video Dr Holmes has put out gradually tightens the knot around the Great Global Warming fraud as he itemises the genuine peer reviewed experiments and research that gives the lie to the UN IPCC dogma that is essential for their survival.  This latest in his series contains most of the evidence that will blow this fraud apart.

4.4  You claim to be a devout environmentalist, yet I allege you are betraying the environmental movement and misleading the general public.  Accordingly I have laid a separate complaint about the deceptive and misleading conduct of both  you as Leader, and the NZ Green Party, with the Commerce Commission under s. 13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.  You cannot take destructive action against all earth’s/New Zealand’s  vegetative species and still lay claim to being “green”.  Here is Dr Patrick Moore’s video on the destructive actions of others also participating in this fraud.  I make no apology for its length which enables you to better understand his credentials and the similar conundrum they face in Canada to the trouble you are stirring up in New Zealand.   As with Greenpeace, Canada, it is all counter-productive.

https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4

At this point in time there are between 10-15,000 scientists working in every OECD country to combat the Great Global Warming Fraud.  But essentially, when the global harvests begin to fail (as they did last year – if only in some regions), it will be too late for us to prepare.

  • The preoccupation of the UN IPCC with their fraud is because it is an existential requirement for that organisation, as noted by Dr Moore’s video at 29 minutes and 44 seconds…I quote from the UN IPCC’s mandate to analyse… “a change in climate that is attributed to directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”  The facts however tell us a different story as per the link below…even using UN IPCC approved data…the knowledge of what happened once the ice cores from Antarctica were analysed in 2003, busted their theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and since then the UN simply ratcheted up their fraudulent activities to increase their hold on power over national governments.  This Vostok ice core data is also confirmed by Greenland studies of the Holocene climate history, covering only the last 11,500 years…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=higXpFF79Hw&feature=youtu.be

4.6  I cannot open a newspaper without some element of the fraud being telegraphed as proven science.  Whether it is as a result of the studied ignorance of journalists or because children have believed the lies that you and their teachers have told them as part of their school curriculum.  Those elements of the mainstream media that spread the lies and disinformation must be stopped forthwith.  The sceptics know the role that George Soros and others have played in this fraud.  Local Government, Maori interests, Central Government officers, farmers, oil companies business leaders and others have all been misled and become unwitting accomplices.  But of greater cost to the country is the rubbish that carbon trading will lead to some form of beneficial climate modification.  This activity and many others are by definition only Ponzi schemes.  Their life and existence depends on “greater fools” making bigger and bigger financial contributions to the point when the fraud is discovered and a massive “debt jubilee” automatically takes place, to the cost of everyone who has obeyed your erroneous interpretation of junk science and obeyed your corrupt laws.   There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be exposed.  But the longer it takes, the worse the situation will be.

  • The cost of your policies will be too steep for the country of New Zealand to bear, as it has already been in Germany and Australia.  As the proven cost of the UN IPCC’s wasteful programme becomes known, the global resistance is getting stronger now that the truth is getting out. 

This is a sample of something doing the rounds in Australia…. https://www.youtube.com/embed/BC1l4geSTP8

Minister, you have a duty to familiarise yourself with the science.   Although I am not associated with it, I believe the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’s experts can provide you with directions of where to get help and support.

I believe from the data that the earth’s climate is always changing, either up or down, and because I now see a bias in favour of the solar and space weather scientists’ consensus – who mostly believe the climate will now cool – I am classed as a “Climate Change Denier”.  Those who believe in human instigated global warming and insist that the term “climate change” is the same as “global warming” are hyping runaway warming for all they are worth and yet their un-warranted alarmism is based solely on computer models that only do one thing – they reinforce their own personal world view.  After 30 years, because their models don’t agree with the data, they simply change the data to suit their models.  Are you really happy to go along with that? 

The Russians used to have a saying,  “The most difficult thing to predict is history”.  (It is like Tiananmen Square and the CCP) Try to track the unwarranted and self-serving alterations to temperature data and you will understand why I, like Professor Moerner of Sweden think the UN IPCC are such frauds.  If you do check this information for yourself you will find yourself sitting on the wrong side of the biggest fraud in global history.  I hope you will feel comfortable there, until the truth does out.

I am simply an investor in renewable energy projects moonlighting as a fraud investigator, calling the facts as I see them.  I don’t like what I see, but unlike you, I face them.  Don’t we, the people, pay you to do the same?

Yours sincerely

John Rofe

An Extremely Concerned New Zealand Citizen

============================================

CLIMATE  CHANGE

By Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

CARBON DIOXIDE COand WATER H2 CONTRASTED       

  • Showing water and condensable water vapour have by nature much greater actions on weather changes and climate patterns than non-condensable CO2 ever could.
  • SOLAR RADIATION:  CO2 only has TWO narrow absorption bands for incoming solar energy.  Water vapour has SEVEN (5 larger bands).  Water vapour is 5 times more effective with incoming Solar radiation.
  • RADIATION from EARTH:  CO2 only has TWO more narrow absorption bands for radiation coming back from earth.  Water vapour covers 85% of the entire span. Water vapour is more than 12 times effective than CO2.
  • Overall, water vapour is about 12 times more effective than non-condensable CO2 with respect to all radiation
  • Condensable water vapour evaporates, humidifies, then condenses to form clouds, which can precipitate to produce rain or snow, and scrub dust and pollutants from the air, and then cool the atmosphere and planet surface. 

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2

  • CO2 is NOT a pollutant or a toxin [Carbon MONOXIDE CO is the toxin: prevents blood from carrying oxygen]
  • CO2 in the atmosphere is vital for LIFE – plants and vegetation: we would die without it !
  • Crops, trees, plants, convert CO2 into sugars, cellulose, fruit, vegetables, and more
  • Leaf ‘factories’ convert CO2 into organic carbon compounds and O2
  • Marine plankton and molluscs uptake and convert CO2 too!
  • Humans exhale 1 kg CO2 per day (close to 7 Billion humans on Earth) and the concentration is 40,000 ppm at the exit of the mouth
  • NOT all CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made (< 5%) – most is naturally produced
  • Ruminating animals put out more greenhouse gases than all the cars, buses, trucks and other vehicles in the world
  • The main sources of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are Fossil Fuels: coal, oil, gas, and the burning of crops and waste, wood, trees and other wastes and garbage (still very small worldwide)
  • CO2 absorbs radiant energy over a total of 4 LIMITED NARROW BANDS [see Graph below],
  • Atmospheric CO2 is a non-condensable GAS like nitrogen, oxygen, and methane. Water vapour is the ONLY condensable gas. These changes of phase (evaporation, condensation, precipitation) produce all the atmospheric effects: heat-shielding clouds, cooling, and atmospheric scrubbing
  • For every 1,000,000 molecules of atmosphere, only 10,410 in NZ are greenhouse gas GHG molecules. But 10,000 of the 10,410 are water molecules.  Of the remaining 410, ONLY about 405 are CO2.  Of these, only 5% (about 20 molecules) are from man-made processes (20 in 1 million; 0.002%; 1 molecule in 50,000!!  Can that be the main culprit in climate change when water is typically about 1% in New Zealand; or 1 molecule in 100, while absorbing far more radiant energy as the graph below shows
  • The ocean holds 93% of ALL CO2 (38,000 billion tonnes); the land 5% (2,000 billion tonnes); the atmosphere 2% (850 billion tonnes), of which anthropogenic CO2 is ONLY 5% of that (about 45 billion tonnes)
  • CO2 in rain water is acidic: CO2 in sea water is alkaline (pH 8.1), and can never-ever be acidic while shells, carbonates and molluscs exist to neutralise it. It can become less alkaline but not acidic
  • CO2 is commonly injected into greenhouse to increase plant growth rates and crop yields
  • It has been reported that there has been a 20 – 40% greening of the planet over the last several decades
  • China has 1,171 coal-fired plants planned; India 446; so coal is still in strong demand
  • Examining atmospheric CO2 must always be considered simultaneously with the many larger effects of H2O.

Increasing CO2 concentration increases crop yields as shown in this actual Greenhouse experiment!

WATER VAPOUR H2O

Water is UNIQUE and quite different from CO2:

  • WATER: The most abundant compound on the planet and a universal solvent.  Water makes up over 60% of the human body.  It is in all plants, animals, cells etc ..
  • WATER VAPOUR:  Is the ONLY condensable atmospheric gas. So only H2O can evaporate, humidify, condense (clouds), and precipitate (rain, hail, and snow). 
  • WATER: H2O is the ONLY fluid that FLOATS ON ITSELF when it FREEZES on the liquid surface.  [If it did not float it would sink and crush the creatures (fish, sharks, whales) in the Oceans.  Marine life flourishes in water below the floating ice].
  • WATER VAPOUR: Has the largest percentage greenhouse gas EFFECT [about 45% – 70% (clear sky), 70% – 90% (cloudy sky)]
  • WATER VAPOUR:  The water vapour concentration in the atmosphere depends on temperature and location [< 0.2% in very cold climates to >4% by mass at high Humidity in the tropics >35 0C]
  • WATER:  Oceans absorb 1,000 times more heat energy than the atmosphere, and BUFFERS more than 80% of the large heat fluctuations (and hence temperature variations), thereby moderating weather changes and climate patterns greatly.  This key factor is missed when only isolating radiation-only and CO2.  93% of all CO2 is in the oceans (~38,000 billion tonnes)
  • WATER:  Liquid water has the highest surface tension (surface molecular skin) of all natural liquids. It controls water droplet formation, cloud structures, ocean surfaces, waves, evaporation rates, etc
  • WATER: H2O molecules are polar (H slightly +ve; O slightly –ve). Hence adjacent water molecules can ‘attract’ each other, particularly as the temperature is lowered (ice floats on water because of this). [Liquid water can also ionise slightly H3O+ hydronium ions, and OH hydroxyl ions]. Hydrogen onding gives some unique features unlike CO2: H2O has the second highest specific heat capacity [only ammonia* is greater]: H2O has a very high heat of vaporisation (2,257 kJ/kg at its boiling point), and ENERGY TRANSFERS are very important in atmospheric changes (weather) (shows up as temperature differences)
  • WATER:  The ‘Structure’ and ‘Behaviour’ of H2O molecules have LARGE buffering effects that moderate the earth’s weather and they affect both evaporation from the seas and condensation in cloud formation. Non-condensable COgas forms NO clouds
  • WATER: The specific enthalpy of fusion (at freezing) is very high (333.6 kJ/kg at 0°C) [only ammonia* is higher], and this confers resistance to melting on the ice. [Density decrease or Bulk increase at freezing is about 9%] 
  • WATER: Water Vapour – Liquid Water – Ice COEXIST at the equilibrium Triple Point.  It is amazing that it occurs near 00C (By comparison, the Triple Point of CO2 is -56.50C so it strongly differs from water).  This has some unique effects in phase transitions near the poles (eg solid ice can go to vapour DIRECTLY with no liquid water for example [sublimation]) (dry ice CO2 used widely on stage and TV)). 
  • WATER: Water has a freezing point of 00C and a boiling point of 1000C due to its unique molecular polar structure.  We live because of that!! 
  • WATER: The nearest molecule to Water (Atomic Weight of 18) is Ammonia (Atomic Weight of 17).   In direct contrast, the freezing point of Ammonia is -770C and a boiling point of -330C even though the Atomic Weights are 1 point different.  This shows that the structure of water is unique!  Just as well, water is THE MOST ABUNDANT COMPOUND on the EARTH’S SURFACE and the temperature absorption-emission bands are just right for life on Earth.
  • The Thermal Lapse Rate or temperature drop is the 6.5C0 temperature drop per kilometer rise above earth.  This is caused by all atmospheric gas molecules moving further with increasing elevation (lower density and lower pressure result). This is vital for humidification, mists, fogs and cloud formation
  • WATER VAPOUR: can regulate, buffer, compensate, correct, and restore atmospheric changes

Professor Emeritus Geoffrey G Duffy

DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

EMAIL:  geoffduffy@lycos.com

The KEY REFERENCE sources:

            Radiation:  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

            Humidity:   http://www.lenntech.com/calculators/humidity/relative-humidity.htm

====================================

THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD – SUMMARY

By John Rofe, 28 July 2019

  1. After 30 years of repeated warnings of impending Armageddon from the United Nations (“UN”) based on the subjective and inaccurate computer modelling performed at the cost of national governments (and all taxpayers) at the UN’s behest, they are certainly no closer to understanding the climate.  But they are instead still trying to defend their 30-year fraud.
  2. Meantime, credible solar scientists have good evidence that the principle cause of climate change lies with the variability of the solar cycles that have continued to affect earth’s climate since the beginning of time.  UN bias ignores this evidence.  Even so, there are some longer cycles that affect the passage of ice ages and inter-glacial periods, and are caused by earth’s movements in relation to the sun.  These don’t yet figure within our time horizon.
  3. The only plausible cause of all the warming that has happened since “The Little Ice Age” ended in 1850, has come from the highest level of solar electromagnetic activity for 4,000 years.  The increase in earth’s temperature of little over 1 degree Centigrade over 160 years is latterly being called the “Modern Warm Period”. Those of us who have checked the history find it is not remarkably warm at all today, even though a lot of effort is being made to convince us that it is, with lies, damned lies and cherry-picked statistics.  The Mediaeval Warm Period was arguably much warmer – a thousand years ago. What about the 1930’s?
  4. NASA now tells us a new weaker 11 year solar cycle – called simply “sc25” – is commencing at a time when there is record thinning and cooling of earth’s outer layer of atmosphere (called “the Thermosphere”) which we are also told heralds the imminent arrival of a new 30 year event called a “Grand Solar Minimum”.  Many scientists now expect a period of much colder weather to last from 2019 to 2055 that could result in horrific global crop losses.  I guess the proof of that is about to be revealed, as early as February 2020.  We will see.
  5. The truth about carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide is that they are only minor trace gases and cannot possibly influence earth’s climate.  They are proven to have no measurable effect on climate change, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but a gas necessary for all life on earth.  Besides water and light, carbon dioxide is the only resource essential for all plant growth.  Plants really need 1000 parts per million of carbon dioxide from the air.  Yet today the atmosphere only contains about 415 parts per million.  To remedy this deficiency, horticulturalists pump bottled gas into glass houses and growing tunnels at up to 2,000 parts per million.  So carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but it is also in relatively short supply.  There is clearly no possibility of influencing climate change by reducing human emissions of carbon dioxide (“CO2”) which anyway constitute less than 4.3% of total CO2 emissions.  So NZ Government actions are just part of the UN IPCC coordinated fraud.
  6. Because methane emissions have even less effect than CO2, the present demands being made on the NZ farming community are somewhere between bizarre and ridiculous.
  7. But why is your Government lying to you?  I cannot answer for them, but I can assure you that after a year of failing to get satisfactory reasons for their fraudulent behaviour, I laid allegations against Minister James Shaw and PM Jacinda Ardern with the NZ Serious Fraud Office in mid-April 2019…and later also laid a complaint with the NZ Commerce Commission against Minister James Shaw and the NZ Green Party under s.13 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

There is a ripeness of time for all frauds to be revealed…for this one, let’s fix it today.

=======================

 

 

Empires: rises and falls, so now what?

The US was the dominant world power after WWII but has been failing, compounded by lies and desperate plans for hegemony compounded by declining culture and values. Previous empires such as the UK and Roman empires failed in similar manner.

Scroll down to read the most recent articles.  Links to previous articles  follow.

Key Questions For Globalist Swamp Creatures

Key Questions For Globalist Swamp Creatures  By stateofthenation.co, 20 April 2021

Jean Luc Montagnier won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2008. He said that covid-19 was made in a lab. It contains strands from the HIV virus. The Spike protein was engineered from SARS into Covid. This allows it to enter human cells. 4 new sequences were engineered into Covid from the HIV virus including the GP 41 envelope which is the key for HIV to infect human bodies.

Dr Francis Anthony Boyle who wrote America’s Bio-terrorism law agrees that it was made in a lab. Question: Do you support a criminal investigation with criminal charges and a death penalty for all those involved in killing millions of people worldwide? If not, why not?

The covid-19 virus was made in a lab at the University of North Carolina. Dr Fauci sent funds from NIH to a military Level 4 lab in Wuhan China to enhance the contagion abilities of covid 19. He also covered up the funding process so others in the government would not know what he had done. Question: Should Dr Anthony Fauci be the first one we arrest for Bio-terrorism and mass murder for the creation of covid-19? If you don’t want him arrested for killing people, why not?

Epidemiological studies show that 70% of both Americans and of people around the world are deficient in Vitamin D. Scientific studies reveal that we could reduce the covid death rate by 80% by giving everyone minimal doses of Vitamin D-3. Also Ivermectin has clearly shown an ability to cure covid. Would you support adding Vitamin D-3 and Ivermectin to the standards of best medical care for covid?

Would you support criminal charges, hefty fines and possible civil court cases against any doctor, clinic or government official who resists using cheaper and more effective treatments (i.e. Vitamin D and Ivermectin) and instead pushes expensive and ineffective treatments to enhance the profits of Big Pharma? If not, why not?

On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld went on CBS Evening News and admitted that neither he nor the Pentagon comptroller rabbi Dov Zakheim could trace $2.3 trillion from the DOD budget. On September 11 the Pentagon was attacked killing over 50 civilian and military auditors who had been trying to see what happened to the missing trillions. Question: would you support the release of all crime scene photos from the interior of the Pentagon so we can determine what actually happened that morning? If not, why not?

There was a COMEX vault containing gold and silver bullion in the basement vault four levels down at WTC Tower 4. Were you aware that one billion dollars of gold and silver went missing from that supposedly secure vault the night before 911? Does this convince you that many Americans in elite New York circles knew that 911 was going to happen?

On September 11, 2001 BBC announced the collapse of World Trade Center Tower 7 some 23 minutes before it actually fell down. The BBC said that they had been told by the then Rothschild owned Reuters News Agency that Tower 7 had already collapsed. The Tower had been hit by debris from the South Tower but the fires had been put out for several hours. Can you explain how the 47 story steel frame structure fell down in 6.5 seconds? Would you support a criminal investigation into the deaths of the 3,000 people who died that day? If not, why not?

Did you know that rabbi Dov Zakheim, the DOD Comptroller on 911, was President of SPC International in the 1990s which had a device called the Command Transmitter System that allowed the user to electronically and remotely control up to 8 planes at once so there was no need to have hijackers on board the planes? Do you think he needs to be investigated for murder in relation to 911? If not, why not?

The North and South Towers had 47 central core steel columns and 236 perimeter columns for a total of 283. For the buildings to fall straight down at nearly free fall speed all 283 connections from the columns to each of the 110 floors had to be cut within a second of each other. Keeping in mind open air fires cannot reach half of the temperature required to melt steel, how do you explain (2 X 110 X 283) 62,260 connections in the two Towers all being severed simultaneously by an office fire? Isn’t this a definition of a controlled demolition?

If you do not think the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by controlled demolition, please gives us a credible scientific explanation for what happened that day.

Dr. Mark Skidmore has demonstrated that at least $35 trillion has gone missing from government accounts since 1998. Would you be willing to support a Grand Jury criminal investigation into the theft of the missing trillions? If not, why not?

Dr. Mark Skidmore and others before him noticed discrepancies on the orders of trillions of dollars in the sale of US Treasury bonds. They all have concluded that wealthy men are allowed to take money from the sale of Treasury bonds and stick the money into their very deep pockets. Would you support a Grand Jury criminal investigation into the theft of trillions from the sale of US Treasury bonds? Would you still support it if we could trace the thefts to members of the 30 Families? If not, why not?

Did you know that the US M1 Money Supply is growing faster than Argentina’s? At the current rate of growth the American Money supply will grow by at least 2,000% from October 2019 to Summer 2022. What is your plan to stop this runaway inflation of the dollar? What have you done before today to curb monetary expansionism?

Several States are looking into passing a law to require that the Congress declare war before state National Guard troops can be federalized and sent on long deployments overseas in combat zones. Would you support such efforts? If not, why not?

Covid-19 was also designed to kill the economy so you could blame the virus and not the Bankers who have robbed us of tens of trillions of dollars. David Rothkopf was the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates back in the 1990s. He wrote the book Superclass in which he said that the world was run by 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions. The Thirty Families are the New World Order. Lockdowns destroy all competition to the companies owned by the 30 Families and their 6,000 Minions.

Do you not see that Lockdowns are integral to the NWO plans for the Great Reset which will forever reduce everyone to slavery who is not a member of one of the 30 Families? Question: Would you support Congressional investigations into the Thirty Families, their 6,000 Minions and the NWO for the Lockdowns which destroyed the economy worldwide?

The kings of ancient Sumer and Babylon painlessly ended Depressions by cancelling debt. The Bible Writers called it a Jubilee. Since the self-appointed Elite stole tens of trillions of dollars from the taxpayers, don’t you think that it is just that we arrest the guilty, seize their assets and use them to fund worldwide debt cancellation? We will probably need to declare martial law when our cities are being burned down by rioters in search of food (see notes below).

The junior military officers could could easily turn martial law into a justice based military coup and arrest the Bankers who stole all those tens of trillions from us, seize their assets and fund worldwide debt cancellation. Do you think worldwide debt cancellation funded by seizing the assets of our criminal elite is a good idea?

See more here: stateofthenation

=======================

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse Than China’s

 

America’s Social Credit System Is Worse Than China’s  By Gregory Hood, The UNZ Review, 17 November 2020

China is notorious for a “Social Credit System” that controls the lives of citizens, rewarding what the authorities want and punishing what they don’t. The United States has a social credit system, too, even if we don’t call it that. And ours is worse.

The Chinese system tries to build social trust. Ours destroys trust. The Chinese system defends the interests of the Han, the ethnic group that built and sustains Chinese civilization. Our system hurts whites. The Chinese system encourages charity, good citizenship, and patriotism. Ours incites hatred and spreads bitterness and division.

The Chinese government’s goals are clear: According to a 2014 planning document, the state wants to build a “social credit environment of honesty, self-discipline, trustworthiness, and mutual trust.” Despite the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party, there is no central system of control, but that is only because the government lacks the capacity. According to the 2014 plan, by this year, China should have “basically” completed “a credit investigation system covering the entire society with credit information and resource sharing.”

Vox reports China has a grading system for people from A to D. Ds are “untrustworthy.” “Citizens can earn points for good deeds like volunteering, donating blood, or attracting investments to the city,” said the MIT Technology Review in 2019. “They can lose them for offenses like breaking traffic rules, evading taxes, or neglecting to care for their elderly parents.” Taking seats on public transportation reserved for old people or doing anything the South China Morning Post called “uncivilized behavior” can also cost points.

You can lose points for playing video games too oftenbuying too much alcoholarguing at check-in countersboarding a train without a ticketgetting into a fightposting stickers hostile to the governmentor letting chickens out of their coop. You can lose your dog if you walk it too often without a leash or if it bothers people. NPR reports that “if you spread rumors online” you could lose points, and even “spending frivolously” can cost points. The system punishes some things just as we do in the United States. If you drive drunk in China, you lose points. If you drive drunk in America, you can lose your license.

How does the system find out all this about you? The Chinese track people through a combination of cameras, facial recognition software, spies, and data from tech and social media companies. There are an estimated 626 million security cameras in China, capturing all sorts of behavior. The Straits Times reported that cameras caught a citizen jaywalking, recognized her face, and immediately put her photo up on a video screen above the street, along with her name and past infractions. The Chinese use drones disguised as birds.

There are groups of paid government informers. In one case, a group of senior citizens called the Chaoyang Masses supposedly tracked behavior, though some people thought the group was questionable. This could be a feature of the system; you don’t know who is watching. The New York Times reported in 2019 that the government uses students to track professors.

Companies such as Alibaba and Tencent track your online activity, and you can lose points if you publish political opinions without permission or talk about certain issues such as Tiananmen Square. You also lose points if your friends commit infractions; collective punishment helps isolate dissidents and discourage others. However, you can gain points if you parrot the government line. Some of this is self-reported and checked against data held by the government, tech companies, and surveillance records. There is an app called Sesame Credit that lets you track people’s scores. It is voluntary for now but will eventually be mandatory.

 

“Trust-breakers” go on an online “blacklist” that anyone can search. “Trust-keepers” go on an equivalent “redlist.” Everyone’s behavior is public, and the authorities encourage citizens to compete with each other to get good scores.

Good citizens can get discounts on energy bills, better returns on bank deposits, and can rent bikes or hotel rooms without paying deposits. Local officials praise them publicly. In Suzhou, “trust-keepers” get cut-rate public transportation.

Depending on the locale, if your credit score reaches 600, you can take out an instant loan of about $800 without collateral when shopping online. At a score of 650, you can rent a car without a deposit. At 700, you get priority for a Singapore travel permit, and at 750, you are on the fast track for a coveted Schengen visa for 28 European countries.

Punishments include banning you or your children from top schools, barring you from top jobs and the best hotels, and preventing you from buying high-speed train or air tickets.

Businesses also get grades on, for example, whether their advertising is deceptive. If their grades are too low, they can’t issue bonds or bid in land auctions.

There’s a financial aspect to the system. It costs points if a person or business fails to repay a loan. We have credit scores, too. The difference is that the Chinese government can — and does — deduct points for political reasons. It could cut a business or family out of normal activity for saying the wrong things. Your social credit “grade” could wreck your life.

If the system is fully imposed, it would be terrifying to be a D. China does not yet have a centralized, all-encompassing system. Different government agencies, localities, regions, and private companies share information and have different programs, rewards, and penalties. Two years ago, Foreign Policy explained that “unless people are sole proprietors or company representatives, have taken a loan or credit card, violated the law, or defaulted on a court judgment, they’re unlikely to be in the social credit database.”

China wants to get all 1.4 billion people into the system. Since China routed the Hong Kong autonomy movement, the system will surely spread there too. “All regions and departments should have ideological unity,” says the plan.

China is working hard in two areas that will help it control its people. The first is artificial intelligence to manage vast amounts of data. The United States and China are competing in AI systems, and that battle could help determine who rules this century. Collecting enormous amounts of data on citizens will mean finely detailed control.

The second area is digital currency. China is already experimenting with a digital yuan. Most people in China already use mobile apps for transactions, not cash. A full record of transactions, combined with AI, means tremendous government power to track individual behavior and modify social credit scores.

A “cashless,” total-social-credit China could be a prison. It would mean no unauthorized buying or selling, no political opposition (“ideological unity”), and little privacy. However, citizens would be forced to fulfill basic duties such as taking care of families and paying bills. They would be rewarded for helping their communities. The Chinese Communist Party would succeed in turning the people it rules into typical petit bourgeois with conservative norms.

The Chinese government wants to “broadly shape a strong atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful . . . .” In other words, China wants a high-trust society.

Diversity destroys trust, as white advocates often point out. China is working to overcome this problem by replacing Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese. The government is also Sinicizing these areas, especially by suppressing Islam. A faithful Muslim should rebel against these policies, but a Han Chinese sees this as protecting national interests.

Xi Jinping, President of China, can be seen on a video wall in the western Chinese city of Kashgar. Strict security measures are in place in the oasis city, making reporting difficult for journalists and affecting the lives of Uighur minorities. (Credit Image: © Simina Mistrenau / DPA via ZUMA Press)

We have the equivalent of a social credit system in the United States. It just has different incentives. You can lose your job for a politically incorrect remark caught on camera. Political dissidents find they can no longer use PayPal or even banks. Twitter bans people with whom it disagrees, while users with verified accounts can make threatening or violent statements.

“Spreading rumors” or “conspiracy theories” is cause for social media to boot you. Some journalists spend time hunting down people who spread “conspiracy theories.” If journalists or trolls decide that your small business or video channel needs to be deplatformed, they can complain to tech companies, and once you are off, there is no appeal. For many people, that means loss of livelihood.

Power-hungry people invent new forms of social credit all the time. Democrats have started a Trump Accountability Project so that Trump supporters can “never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society.” With a remarkable new website called Donor.Watch, you can find out exactly how much your neighbors (or anyone in the country) gave to any of the 2020 candidates. The tools are there for Democrats to set up shaming mobs to harass or intimidate Trump supporters.

Social media, which let ordinary people express themselves and were originally to be bastions of free speech, have taken it upon themselves to determine what is official information. Even now, Twitter is censoring President Trump, and Facebook is removing Trump supporters and their groups.

You can’t cast an informed vote or express yourself if you can’t learn or speak the truth. In his book Deleted, Allum Bokhari showed Google’s power to direct information, sway votes, and bury stories it doesn’t want covered. While the Democrats often say tech companies don’t censor enough, they at least recognize their power. A House Judiciary Committee report recently found that Amazon, Alphabet (Google/YouTube), Apple, and Facebook use monopoly power to suppress competition. President Trump’s Department of Justice recently sued Google, calling it the “gatekeeper of the Internet.”

Conservatives banned from the big platforms can go elsewhere, but what happens when Parler and Gab lose their payment processors or servers or even their bank accounts? Will we have to build our own banks and internet?

Our system is not exclusively punitive. The American system encourages banks to lend to non-whites with doubtful credit. There is a broad set of incentives to promote minority — especially black — bank ownership, even as black banks keep going under because they keep lending money to dubious black borrowers.

Social media openly promote Black Lives Matter, and every minority cause, holiday, and celebration. Book sellers direct you to endless titles on anti-racism and white privilege.

Unlike the Chinese version, American social credit is not state run and is even less centralized than China’s. However, it’s not true that the state has no involvement. Acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan admittedin 2019 that although the government cannot act as a censor, it expects to work with tech companies and “watchdog groups” to force ideas it doesn’t like off the internet.

The Republicans have done hardly anything about this. An American president is relatively weak, and unlike Xi Jinping, can’t issue orders through the bureaucracy and expect obedience. Perhaps President Trump lacks the will. Kamala Harris, probably the next vice president, appears to have plenty of it. She wants to give the FBI millions of dollars to “more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites” and “put pressure on online platforms to take down content that violates their terms and conditions.”

Under a Biden/Harris White House, the partnership between state and media would therefore grow stronger. Like Chinese officials, many Democrats and journalists take it for granted that not only traditional media should promote certain stories and suppress others, but “open” social media should do the same. The American system increasingly resembles the Chinese, with ideology imposed from the top.

We do not have single-party rule in the United States, but we do when it comes to white interests. Republicans and Democrats unanimously blamed “White nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups” for violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 — as if antifa were not even there — even though local officials deliberately forced demonstrators and antifa together so that violence would be an excuse to shut down a legal rally. There may be two parties, but both agree that whites must not promote their collective interests in the streets or online.

Just as the Chinese system punishes people for associating with low-scoring trust-breakers, the media and “watchdog” groups love to publicize “links.” The Washington Post recently revealed in an indignant article that a Trump Interior Department official had linked to an article at AmRen.com. American dissidents routinely use pen names, and “respectable” people keep their relations with them secret.

In some respects, an openly authoritarian government is better than our system. It’s clear who is in charge. Citizens know who rules them. It’s easier to remove a tyrant because you can always march on the palace or the party HQ. If you are ruled by a dictator, king, or party, you also know what the rules are; if you follow them, you can avoid trouble.

 

Our system is much more diffuse and therefore much harder to fight or even understand. Private companies, on a whim, can shut down your social media account, refuse to sell your books, make it impossible for your business to take credit cards, and close your bank account. You have no recourse, not even to the courts. Each company has its own inconsistent, arbitrary, ever-changing rules. Now, they all say, in effect, “We’ll kick you out if we don’t like you.” And that’s what they do.

If there were legal censorship, there would be laws that limited free speech. They might be vague and inconsistently enforced, but there would be rules. If the court system had any integrity, there could be litigation and legal appeals. In our system, every person you know is a potential commissar. If you become the subject of a “viral” story, literally millions of people can turn against you. This is “public shaming” worse than anything the Chinese face.

Their system is authoritarian, but it has this crucial difference from ours: It pushes people to behave correctly. In our Anglo-American tradition, personal virtue is the guarantor of our liberties, so we don’t need overarching government. However, we are no longer virtuous, at least not in the way the Founders understood virtue. Instead, anti-racism has become America’s moral code, and blacks are semi-sacred. Any social interaction with a non-white can be a life-changing disaster if it is caught on camera. The rules for what is politically correct change so quickly no one can be sure what to say to avoid trouble. We’re in an absurd system in which groups that enjoy government mandated “affirmative action” lecture us about our privilege. Although “racism” is the main sin our social credit system punishes there are others: “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “misogyny,” “xenophobia,” with more new ones invented all the time.

While the Chinese social credit system builds a better — if regimented — society, ours makes it worse. The media feed non-whites moral arguments to use against whites, whether they are about “racist” police, “systemic racism,” or “far-right extremists.” Anyone non-white, from educated elites to illiterate thugs, can feel justified in attacking middle-class whites because the only explanation for inequality is white racism.

Thus, our system doesn’t build “mutual trust” but suspicion and even hatred. Instead of building national unity, the American system undermines the foundation of patriotism by telling us our history and heroes were racist and evil. The Chinese system punishes destructive behavior and rewards charity. The American system winks at destructive behavior such as BLM rioting, and rewards “virtue signaling,” not real virtue.

White-owned business can be deplatfromed online and some can be ransacked by radicals, with no interference from the police. The right even to self-defense is under attack (ask Kyle Rittenhouse or Mark and Patricia McCloskey). In some areas, people cannot gather to demonstrate or even to worship, while antifa and BLM protesters can do almost anything with impunity.

Can we honestly say we have more freedom than the Chinese? Can we say that our government pursues our interests or protects our rights? Can we trust technology companies and major media? Are our elites pushing us towards greatness or towards dispossession and pariah status?

Still, we do have advantages. The great strength of the American Social Credit System is that it is ad hoc and unofficial. It’s hard to know exactly what or whom to attack but that’s also its weakness. There are “gaps” in the system we can exploit. At the same time, our rulers’ lust for power is clearer than ever. Donald Trump, however half-hearted and bumbling, forced our opponents to reveal their snarling hatreds and their breathtaking arrogance in believing they have the right to control what we read, hear, watch, and think.

 

We still have rights. American Renaissance sued the state of Tennessee, and won the right to use public facilities without paying for security. Others are suing tech companies. We are creating new ways of donating and accepting money, spreading our message, and building new platforms. These aren’t temporary workarounds, but steps towards community- and even nation-building. They are forcing us to do the things we should have been doing anyway.

What should a healthy society want? Perhaps every advanced society will have a formal or informal Social Credit System. Elites always try to control information, capital, and behavior. When we take control of our own destiny, we will promote strength, beauty, and virtue. We are a freedom-loving people, so I believe that if we slough off this current system, we can achieve these goals without repression.

Who rules the United States? I’d argue it’s media and Big Tech. They decide who can speak in the public square, raise money, do business online, or enjoy the full protection of law. They encourage victimhood instead of heroism, and distrust instead of unity. China’s system promotes positive values, exalts its people, and directs them towards positive ends.

It’s hard not to feel envious. The greatest threat to white Americans certainly isn’t Beijing. It’s those who presume to rule us, holding us captive, trapping us behind a blue screen.

====================

Trump and the real resistance

Trump and the real resistance  By Brendan O’Neill, Editor, Spiked Online, 8 November 2020

The 70 million people who voted for Trump are revolting against the new elites. We should listen.

So, Joe Biden has won the highest popular vote in the history of the US. At the time of writing, more than 73 million people have voted for him. He has beaten the record set by Barack Obama who was swept to power on that famous wave of ‘HOPE’ and 69.5 million votes in 2008. But here’s the thing: so has Donald Trump. Trump might trail Biden in the popular vote of 2020, but he, too, has beaten Obama’s 2008 record. Trump, at the time of writing, has 69.7 million votes. So he has won the second-highest popular vote in the history of the American republic. That is remarkable. Far more remarkable than Biden’s very impressive count.

Why? For one simple reason. Trump is the man we’re all meant to hate. He has been raged against ceaselessly by the cultural elites for the past four years. Hardly any of the American media backed him in 2020. Globalist institutions loathe him. Academia, the media elites, the social-media oligarchies, the celebrity set and other hugely influential sectors have branded him a 21st-century Hitler and insisted that only a “white supremacist” could countenance voting for him. He’s the butt of every sniffy East Coast joke and the target of every fiery street protest. He’s the worst thing to happen to Western politics in decades, we’re told, by clever people, constantly.

And yet around 70 million Americans voted for him. The second-highest electoral bloc in the history of the US put their cross next to the name of a man who over the past four years has been turned by the political clerisy into the embodiment of evil.

That is what makes the vote for Trump so striking, and so important. Because what it speaks to is the existence of vast numbers of people who are outside of the purview of the cultural elites. People who have developed some kind of immunity to the cultural supremacy of the “woke” worldview so intensely mainstreamed by the political and media sets in recent years. People who are more than content to defy the diktats of the supposedly right-thinking elites and cast their ballots in a way that they think best tallies with their political, social and class interests. People who, no doubt to varying degrees, are at least sceptical towards the narratives of identitarianism, racial doom-mongering, climate-change hysteria and all the pronouns nonsense that have become dominant among political and cultural influencers, and which are essentially the new ideology of the ruling class.

READ MORE:‘Time to unite’: Biden to address nation|What’s next for Donald Trump?|Biden’s cabinet to transform US politics|Face it, Trump did get many things right

Hillary Clinton infamously referred to many Trump supporters as “the deplorables”. But a far better word for them would be “the unconquerables”. These are minds and hearts uncolonised by the new orthodoxies. Seventy million people in a peaceful state of revolt against the new establishment and its eccentric, authoritarian ideologies. This is the most important story of the

The fury of the elites in the wake of the US election is palpable, and at times visceral. Even though their man has won, they are incandescent. Already there is rage against the innate racism and “white supremacy” of the throng. Already there is neo-racist disgust with the Latinos and black people who, in larger numbers than 2016, voted for Trump. “We are surrounded by racists”, said New York Times columnist Charles M Blow, capturing the sense of siege felt by the woke clerisy. This rage of the elites against the masses, despite the victory of the elites’ preferred candidate, suggests they instinctively recognise their failure to bring significant sections of the masses to heel. They splutter out terms like “racist” and “white supremacist” as reprimands against the millions who refuse to take the knee to their politics of fear, politics of identity, and politics of cancellation and control.

The elites, despite getting their way with a Biden presidency, have been thrown by this election. First, because they called it so wrongly. Their predictions of a “blue wave” did not materialise. Their polls and punditry insisting that Trumpism would be resoundingly defeated turned out to be catastrophically incorrect. The stories of a 10-point swing to Biden evaporated upon contact with reality. So far, Trump has increased his vote by seven million.

The elite’s wrongness about this election is itself a crushing confirmation of their failure to ideologically domesticate large numbers of Americans. Many Americans have clearly chosen not to communicate their beliefs to pollsters, a key part of the new political clerisy, because they are aware that the political elites hold them in contempt. As one election analyst said, because of the “degree of hate” directed to Trump supporters “by nearly all the media”, we have a situation where “people didn’t necessarily want to admit to pollsters who they were supporting”. Not only do many Americans refuse to embrace the new orthodoxies of the uniformly anti-Trump cultural elites, but they also refuse to engage honestly with the cultural elites. They know it’s a waste of time. That is the size of the moral and political chasm that now exists between the guardians of correct-thought and millions of ordinary people.

The second reason this election has rattled the seeming victors — the pro-Biden establishment — is because of who voted for Trump. Exit polls suggest there were significant shifts of black and Latino voters to Trump. It is reported that 18 per cent of black men voted for Trump, up from the five per cent who voted for John McCain in 2008 and the 11 per cent who voted for Mitt Romney in 2012. A shift of this kind towards a politician relentlessly described as a “white supremacist” is very significant. According to the AP VoteCast, 35 per cent of Latinos seem to have voted for Trump. And a whopping 59 per cent of Native Hawaiians and 52 per cent of Native Americans and Alaska Natives opted for Trump. Seemingly these First Nation peoples didn’t get the NYT, SNL, DNC message that Trump is a racist who hates all non-white people.

As we should expect from the neo-racialists of the identitarian elites, there is already fierce denunciation of minority groups who voted for Trump. They have sold out to “white supremacy”, woke academics and columnists claim. Blow writes in the NYT that the Latino and black shift towards Trump is proof of the “power of the white patriarchy” and the influence it has even over oppressed racial groups: “Some people who have been historically oppressed will stand with their oppressors.” That’s a lot of words to say “Uncle Tom”. The anger with Latinos and blacks who voted for Trump is motivated by a view of these people as racial deviants, as traitors to their race. In the rigid worldview of the identitarian elites, people are not individuals or members of an economic class — they are mere manifestations of race and ethnicity and they must conform to that role. That many voters have clearly bristled at such racial fatalism is a very positive development. Identity politics was dealt a blow in this election, and the elites know it.

More striking still is the educational divide in terms of who voted for Biden and Trump. A majority of people whose educational level is high school or less voted for Trump, while a majority of college graduates voted for Biden. Among white voters, the educational divide is even more stark. Majorities of white men voted for Trump, but among white men who didn’t go to college 64 per cent voted for Trump, while among white men who did go to college it was only 52 per cent. Meanwhile, 60 per cent of white women who didn’t go to college voted for Trump, whereas 59 per cent of white women who did go to college voted for Biden.

The educational divide is telling. Naturally, some observers claim it is proof that clever people primarily vote for Biden while dumb people prefer Trump. In truth, this split is primarily reflective of the key role universities now play as communicators of the new orthodoxies. In recent years, universities in the Anglosphere have gone from being citadels of intellectual consideration and experimentation to being factories of woke indoctrination. From critical race theory to genderfluidity, from the view of American history as one crime after another to the myopic policing of speech — including conversational speech in the form of “microaggressions” — universities have become important transmitters of the ideologies of the new elites. As a consequence, one of the great ironies of our time is that it is those who have not attended a university who seem better able to think independently and to resist the coercions of elite-decreed correct-thought.

US President Donald Trump golfs at Trump National Golf Club, on November 7 in Sterling, Virginia. Picture: Getty

The ideas that hold on a university campus — that men can become women, that offensive people must be “cancelled”, that complimenting a woman on her hair is a racial microaggression, that describing America as a “melting pot” is a denial of people’s “racial essence”, as UCLA has claimed — hold no sway whatsoever in the factories, delivery centres, mess rooms or bars of vast swathes of America. That university-educated and non-university-educated people now think so differently is testament, not to uneducated people’s stupidity, but to the transformation of universities into machines for socialising young adults into the ways and creeds of the removed new elites.

Indeed, the split of Biden and Trump voters on issues is striking, too. Of the voters who think the economy and jobs is the most important issue, the vast majority are Trump supporters: 81 per cent compared with just 16 per cent of Biden supporters. Of the voters who think racism is the most important issue, 78 per cent were Biden supporters and just 19 per cent were Trump supporters. And of the voters who think climate change is the most important issue, 86 per cent were Biden supporters and just 11 per cent were Trump supporters. On Covid, 83 per cent of Biden supporters said it is “not under control at all”, while just 15 per cent of Trump voters said the same thing.

This is incredibly revealing. On issues that are central to the clerisy’s worldview — the idea that racism in America is as bad as ever, that the climate is heating uncontrollably, that COVID poses an existential challenge to the future of the nation — Trump voters deviate consistently from the elite narrative. That isn’t to say that they don’t think climate change or racism are problems we must address — I’m sure majorities of them do. But they clearly reject the fatalism and dominance of these issues in the body politic. They clearly baulk at the ceaseless discussions of America’s inescapable racism and the idea that if Americans do not radically alter their lifestyles then they will fry in the heat-death of climate catastrophe. They push back, in their thoughts and their votes, against the identitarianism and apocalypticism of the new elites. And they do so even on issues for which you can be cancelled for disagreeing. Try going on to a campus and saying that racism and climate change are not major issues for the US. You would be finished. But not in other parts of America. There, free discussion, or at least free thought, appears still to reign.

One study, published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology after the 2016 election, described the widespread support for Trump among working-class or less-educated communities in particular as a form of “cultural deviance”. The study used over-psychologised language to describe people’s voting behaviour, but it hit on an important point: the evidence suggests that Trump-voting for many people was a form of “cultural deviance… [from] the salience of restrictive communication norms”. In short, the Trump phenomenon represents a revolt against the cultural supremacy of political correctness and its cancellation of any views or beliefs that are judged to be problematic. Trump became a vehicle for those who don’t agree that America is broken or racist, or that climate change will kill us all, or that identitarian correctness is more important than the economy and jobs, or that Trump is Hitler — things it is increasingly difficult to say in a polite society so feverishly policed by the new elites.

The real resistance

Perhaps the most important act of “cultural deviance” carried out by the millions who chose Trump over Biden is their attempt to re-elevate class over identity. This is why the shift of working-class blacks and Latinos towards Trump is so important. It is also why Trump voters’ overwhelming belief that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in the US right now — in contrast with very small numbers of Biden voters who think the same thing — is so relevant. What we have witnessed in the US is a reassertion of the importance of class over identity, of the shared social and economic interests of a significant section of society over the narrow cultural obsessions of the new elites and their supporters in the new knowledge industries. The emerging populist coalition of working-class blacks, Latinos and non-university whites is a quiet revolt against the stranglehold that the upper middle-class elites have over the political narrative, and against the elites’ self-conscious promotion of the neoliberal myopia of identity and their diminution of the importance of class.

This is another reason why the elites are so furious in the wake of their own election victory. It’s the key reason, in fact. Because they instinctively recognise that the economic concerns, and, more importantly, the economic consciousness, of substantial sections of society pose a threat to their ideological dominance. Witness the sneer, the naked contempt, with which the phrase “economic populism” has been uttered by Biden-backing observers in recent days. ‘Economic populism’ is a cover for racism, our moral superiors insist. They dread nothing more than the re-emergence of a more class-based politics because they know it would run entirely counter, politically, morally and economically, to the divide-and-rule identitarianism they have cultivated in recent decades.

Corporations, academia, the education system, the Democratic establishment, the media elites and the social-media oligarchies are heavily invested in the cult of identity because it is a means through which they can renew their economic dominance over society and exercise moral authority over the masses. Identitarianism has provided spiritual renewal for the capitalist elites, new means of rebuking and censuring the workforce in corporations, and a sense of purpose for a political class utterly adrift from the working masses it might once have sought to appeal to. And they are not about to let some uppity blacks and Latinos and uneducated whites disrupt this new ruling-class ideology with their vulgar concerns about the economy and jobs.

Trump has lost. But so has the anti-Trump establishment. In some ways, the establishment’s loss is far more significant. These elites see in the 70 million people who disobediently, flagrantly voted for “evil”, and who question the doom and divisiveness and censure of the new elites, a genuine mass threat to their right to rule and their self-serving ideologies. And they are right to. For these unconquerables, these teeming millions who have not been captured by the new orthodoxies, are proof that populism will survive Trump’s fall and that the self-protecting narratives of the new elites are not accepted by huge numbers of ordinary people.

This is the real resistance. Not the upper-middle-class TikTok revolutionaries and Antifa fantasists whose every view — on trans issues, Black Lives Matter, the wickedness of Trump — corresponds precisely with the outlook of Google and Nike and the New York Times. No, the resistance is these working people. These defiant Hispanics. Those black men who did what black men are not supposed to do. Those non-college whites who think college ideologies are crazy. These people are the ones who have the balls and the independence of mind to force a serious rethink and realignment of the political sphere in the 21st-century West. More power to them.

Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked www.spiked-online.com

========================

 Eyewitness To The Trial and Agony of Julian Assange  By John Pilger, JohnPilger.com, 4 October, 2020

John Pilger has watched Julian Assange’s extradition trial from the public gallery at London’s Old Bailey. He spoke with Timothy Erik Ström of Arena magazine, Australia:

Q: Having watched Julian Assange’s trial first-hand, can you describe the prevailing atmosphere in the court?

The prevailing atmosphere has been shocking. I say that without hesitation; I have sat in many courts and seldom known such a corruption of due process; this is due revenge. Putting aside the ritual associated with ‘British justice’, at times it has been evocative of a Stalinist show trial. One difference is that in the show trials, the defendant stood in the court proper. In the Assange trial, the defendant was caged behind thick glass, and had to crawl on his knees to a slit in the glass, overseen by his guard, to make contact with his lawyers. His message, whispered barely audibly through face masks, WAS then passed by post-it the length of the court to where his barristers were arguing the case against his extradition to an American hellhole.

Consider this daily routine of Julian Assange, an Australian on trial for truth-telling journalism. He was woken at five o’clock in his cell at Belmarsh prison in the bleak southern sprawl of London. The first time I saw Julian in Belmarsh, having passed through half an hour of ‘security’ checks, including a dog’s snout in my rear, I found a painfully thin figure sitting alone wearing a yellow armband. He had lost more than 10 kilos in a matter of months; his arms had no muscle. His first words were: ‘I think I am losing my mind’.

I tried to assure him he wasn’t. His resilience and courage are formidable, but there is a limit. That was more than a year ago. In the past three weeks, in the pre-dawn, he was strip-searched, shackled, and prepared for transport to the Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey, in a truck that his partner, Stella Moris, described as an upended coffin. It had one small window; he had to stand precariously to look out. The truck and its guards were operated by Serco, one of many politically connected companies that run much of Boris Johnson’s Britain.

The journey to the Old Bailey took at least an hour and a half. That’s a minimum of three hours being jolted through snail-like traffic every day. He was led into his narrow cage at the back of the court, then look up, blinking, trying to make out faces in the public gallery through the reflection of the glass. He saw the courtly figure of his dad, John Shipton, and me, and our fists went up. Through the glass, he reached out to touch fingers with Stella, who is a lawyer and seated in the body of the court.

We were here for the ultimate of what the philosopher Guy Debord called The Society of the Spectacle: a man fighting for his life. Yet his crime is to have performed an epic public service: revealing that which we have a right to know: the lies of our governments and the crimes they commit in our name. His creation of WikiLeaks and its failsafe protection of sources revolutionised journalism, restoring it to the vision of its idealists. Edmund Burke’s notion of free journalism as a fourth estate is now a fifth estate that shines a light on those who diminish the very meaning of democracy with their criminal secrecy. That’s why his punishment is so extreme.

The sheer bias in the courts I have sat in this year and last year, with Julian in the dock, blight any notion of British justice. When thuggish police dragged him from his asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy – look closely at the photo and you’ll see he is clutching a Gore Vidal book; Assange has a political humour similar to Vidal’s – a judge gave him an outrageous 50-week sentence in a maximum-security prison for mere bail infringement.

For months, he was denied exercise and held in solitary confinement disguised as ‘heath care’. He once told me he strode the length of his cell, back and forth, back and forth, for his own half-marathon. In the next cell, the occupant screamed through the night. At first he was denied his reading glasses, left behind in the embassy brutality. He was denied the legal documents with which to prepare his case, and access to the prison library and the use of a basic laptop. Books sent to him by a friend, the journalist Charles Glass, himself a survivor of hostage-taking in Beirut, were returned. He could not call his American lawyers. He has been constantly medicated by the prison authorities. When I asked him what they were giving him, he couldn’t say. The governor of Belmarsh has been awarded the Order of the British Empire.

At the Old Bailey, one of the expert medical witnesses, Dr Kate Humphrey, a clinical neuropsychologist at Imperial College, London, described the damage: Julian’s intellect had gone from ‘in the superior, or more likely very superior range’ to ‘significantly below’ this optimal level, to the point where he was struggling to absorb information and ‘perform in the low average range’.

This is what the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Professor Nils Melzer, calls ‘psychological torture’, the result of a gang-like ‘mobbing’ by governments and their media shills. Some of the expert medical evidence is so shocking I have no intention of repeating it here. Suffice to say that Assange is diagnosed with autism and Asperger’s syndrome and, according to Professor Michael Kopelman, one of the world’s leading neuropsychiatrists, he suffers from ‘suicidal preoccupations’ and is likely to find a way to take his life if he is extradited to America.

James Lewis QC, America’s British prosecutor, spent the best part of his cross-examination of Professor Kopelman dismissing mental illness and its dangers as ‘malingering’. I have never heard in a modern setting such a primitive view of human frailty and vulnerability.

My own view is that if Assange is freed, he is likely to recover a substantial part of his life. He has a loving partner, devoted friends and allies and the innate strength of a principled political prisoner. He also has a wicked sense of humour.

But that is a long way off. The moments of collusion between the judge – a Gothic-looking magistrate called Vanessa Baraitser, about whom little is known – and the prosecution acting for the Trump regime have been brazen. Until the last few days, defence arguments have been routinely dismissed. The lead prosecutor, James Lewis QC, ex SAS and currently Chief Justice of the Falklands, by and large gets what he wants, notably up to four hours to denigrate expert witnesses, while the defence’s examination is guillotined at half an hour. I have no doubt, had there been a jury, his freedom would be assured.

The dissident artist Ai Weiwei came to join us one morning in the public gallery. He noted that in China the judge’s decision would already have been made. This caused some dark ironic amusement. My companion in the gallery, the astute diarist and former British ambassador Craig Murray wrote:

I fear that all over London a very hard rain is now falling on those who for a lifetime have worked within institutions of liberal democracy that at least broadly and usually used to operate within the governance of their own professed principles. It has been clear to me from Day 1 that I am watching a charade unfold. It is not in the least a shock to me that Baraitser does not think anything beyond the written opening arguments has any effect. I have again and again reported to you that, where rulings have to be made, she has brought them into court pre-written, before hearing the arguments before her.

I strongly expect the final decision was made in this case even before opening arguments were received.

The plan of the US Government throughout has been to limit the information available to the public and limit the effective access to a wider public of what information is available. Thus we have seen the extreme restrictions on both physical and video access. A complicit mainstream media has ensured those of us who know what is happening are very few in the wider population.

There are few records of the proceedings. They are: Craig Murray’s personal blog, Joe Lauria’s live reporting on Consortium News and the World Socialist Website. American journalist Kevin Gosztola’s blog, Shadowproof, funded mostly by himself, has reported more of the trial than the major US press and TV, including CNN, combined.

In Australia, Assange’s homeland, the ‘coverage’ follows a familiar formula set overseas. The London correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke, wrote this recently:

The court heard Assange became depressed during the seven years he spent in the Ecuadorian embassy where he sought political asylum to escape extradition to Sweden to answer rape and sexual assault charges.

There were no ‘rape and sexual assault charges’ in Sweden. Bourke’s lazy falsehood is not uncommon. If the Assange trial is the political trial of the century, as I believe it is, its outcome will not only seal the fate of a journalist for doing his job but intimidate the very principles of free journalism and free speech. The absence of serious mainstream reporting of the proceedings is, at the very least, self-destructive. Journalists should ask: who is next?

How shaming it all is. A decade ago, the Guardian exploited Assange’s work, claimed its profit and prizes as well as a lucrative Hollywood deal, then turned on him with venom. Throughout the Old Bailey trial, two names have been cited by the prosecution, the Guardian’s David Leigh, now retired as ‘investigations editor’ and Luke Harding, the Russiaphobe and author of a fictional Guardian ‘scoop’ that claimed Trump adviser Paul Manafort and a group of Russians visited Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy. This never happened, and the Guardian has yet to apologise. The Harding and Leigh book on Assange – written behind their subject’s back – disclosed a secret password to a WikiLeaks file that Assange had entrusted to Leigh during the Guardian’s ‘partnership’. Why the defence has not called this pair is difficult to understand.

Assange is quoted in their book declaring during a dinner at a London restaurant that he didn’t care if informants named in the leaks were harmed. Neither Harding nor Leigh was at the dinner. John Goetz, an investigations reporter with Der Spiegel, was at the dinner and testified that Assange said nothing of the kind. Incredibly, Judge Baraitser stopped Goetz actually saying this in court.

However, the defence has succeeded in demonstrating the extent to which Assange sought to protect and redact names in the files released by WikiLeaks and that no credible evidence existed of individuals harmed by the leaks. The great whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange had personally redacted 15,000 files. The renowned New Zealand investigative journalist Nicky Hager, who worked with Assange on the Afghanistan and Iraq war leaks, described how Assange took ‘extraordinary precautions in redacting names of informants’.

Q: What are the implications of this trial’s verdict for journalism more broadly – is it an omen of things to come?

The ‘Assange effect’ is already being felt across the world. If they displease the regime in Washington, investigative journalists are liable to prosecution under the 1917 US Espionage Act; the precedent is stark. It doesn’t matter where you are. For Washington, other people’s nationality and sovereignty rarely mattered; now it does not exist. Britain has effectively surrendered its jurisdiction to Trump’s corrupt Department of Justice. In Australia, a National Security Information Act promises Kafkaesque trials for transgressors. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has been raided by police and journalists’ computers taken away. The government has given unprecedented powers to intelligence officials, making journalistic whistle-blowing almost impossible. Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Assange ‘must face the music’. The perfidious cruelty of his statement is reinforced by its banality.

‘Evil’, wrote Hannah Arendt, ‘comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil’.

Q: Having followed the story of WikiLeaks closely for a decade, how has this eyewitness experience shifted your understanding of what’s at stake with Assange’s trial?

I have long been a critic of journalism as an echo of unaccountable power and a champion of those who are beacons. So, for me, the arrival of WikiLeaks was exciting; I admired the way Assange regarded the public with respect, that he was prepared to share his work with the ‘mainstream’ but not join their collusive club. This, and naked jealousy, made him enemies among the overpaid and under-talented, insecure in their pretensions of independence and impartiality.

I admired the moral dimension to WikiLeaks. Assange was rarely asked about this, yet much of his remarkable energy comes from a powerful moral sense that governments and other vested interests should not operate behind walls of secrecy. He is a democrat. He explained this in one of our first interviews at my home in 2010.

What is at stake for the rest of us has long been at stake: freedom to call authority to account, freedom to challenge, to call out hypocrisy, to dissent. The difference today is that the world’s imperial power, the United States, has never been as unsure of its metastatic authority as it is today. Like a flailing rogue, it is spinning us towards a world war if we allow it. Little of this menace is reflected in the media.

WikiLeaks, on the other hand, has allowed us to glimpse a rampant imperial march through whole societies – think of the carnage in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, to name a few, the dispossession of 37 million people and the deaths of 12 million men, women and children in the ‘war on terror’ – most of it behind a façade of deception.

Julian Assange is a threat to these recurring horrors – that’s why he is being persecuted, why a court of law has become an instrument of oppression, why he ought to be our collective conscience: why we all should be the threat.

The judge’s decision will be known on the 4th of January.

===============================

The Saker’s View of the US Election

The Saker’s View of the US Election  From The Saker, via PaulCraigRoberts.org, 15 September 2020

In early July I wrote a piece entitled “Does the next Presidential election even matter?” in which I made the case that voting in the next election to choose who will be the next puppet in the White House will be tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking. I gave three specific reasons why I thought that the next election would be pretty much irrelevant:

1The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people

2The choice between the Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all

3The systemic crisis of the USA is too deep to be affected by who is in power in the White House

I have now reconsidered my position and I now see that I was wrong because I missed something important:

A lot has happened in the past couple of months and I now have come to conclude that while choosing a captain won’t make any difference to a sinking Titanic, it might make a huge difference to those passengers who are threatened by a group of passengers run amok. In other words, while I still do not think that the next election will change much for the rest of the planet (the decay of the Empire will continue), it is gradually becoming obvious that for the United States the difference between the two sides is becoming very real.

Why?

This is probably the first presidential election in US history where the choice will be not between two political programs or two political personalities, but the stark and binary choice between law and order and total chaos.

It is now clear that the Dems are supporting the rioting mobs and that they see these mobs as the way to beat Trump.

It is also becoming obvious that this is not a white vs. black issue: almost all the footage from the rioting mobs shows a large percentage of whites, sometimes even a majority of whites, especially amongst the most aggressive and violent rioters (the fact that these whites regularly get beat up by rampaging blacks hunting for “whitey” does not seem to deter these folks).

True, both sides blame each other for “dividing the country” and “creating the conditions for a civil war”, but any halfway objective and fact based appraisal of what is taking place shows that the Dems have comprehensively caved into the BLM/Antifa ideology (which is hardly surprising, since that ideology is a pure product of the Dems (pseudo-)liberal worldview in the first place). Yes, the Demolicans and the Republicrats are but two factions of the same “Party of Money”, but the election of Trump in 2016 and the subsequent 4 years of intense seditious efforts to delegitimize Trump have resulted in a political climate in which we roughly have, on one hand, what I would call the “Trump Party” (which is not the same as the GOP) and the “deplorables” objectively standing for law and order. On the other hand, we have the Dems, some Republicans, big corporations and the BLM/Antifa mobs who now all objectively stand for anarchy, chaos and random violence.

I have always criticized the AngloZionist Empire and the USA themselves for their messianic and supremacist ideology, and I agree that in their short history the United States have probably spilled more innocent blood than any other regime in history. Yet I also believe that there also have been many truly good things in US history, things which other countries should emulate (as many have!). I am referring to things like the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the spirit of self-reliance, a strong work ethic, the immense creativity of the people of the US and their love for their country.

It is now clear that the Dems find nothing good in the US or its history – hence their total support for the wanton (and, frankly, barbaric) destruction of historical statues or for the ridiculous notion that the United States was primarily built by black slaves and that modern whites are somehow guilty of what their ancestors did (including whites who did not have any slave owners amongst their ancestors).

Putin once said that he has no problems at all with any opposition to the Russian government, but that he categorically rejects the opposition to Russia herself (most of the non-systemic opposition in Russia is profoundly russophobic). I see the exact same thing happening here, in the USA: the Dem/BLM/Antifa gang are profoundly anti-USA, and not for the right reasons. It is just obvious that these people are motivated by pure hate and where there is hate, violence always follows!

To think that there will be no violence if these people come to power would be extremely naive: those who come to power by violence always end up ruling by violence.

For the past several decades, the US ruling elites have been gutting the Constitution by a million of legislative and regulatory cuts (I can personally attest to the fact that the country where I obtained my degrees in 1986-1991 is a totally different country from the one I am living in now. Thirty years ago there was real ideological freedom and pluralism in the US, and differences of opinion, even profound ones, were considered normal). Now the apparatus needed to crack down on the “deplorables” has been established, especially on the Federal level. If we now apply the “motive, means & opportunity” criterion we can only conclude that the Dem/BLM/Antifa have the motive and will sure have the means and opportunity if Biden makes it to the White House.

Furthermore, major media corporations are already cracking down against Trump supporters and even against President Trump himself (whom Twitter now threatens to censor if he declares that he won). YouTube is demonetizing “deplorable” channels and also de-ranking them in searches. Google does the same. For a President which heavily relies on short messages to his support base, this is a major threat.

[Sidebar: one of Trump’s biggest mistakes was to rely on Twitter instead of funding his own social media platform. He sure had the money. What he lacked was any foresight or understanding of the enemy]

Paul Craig Roberts has been one of the voices which has been warning us that anti-White racism is real and that the United States & Its Constitution Have Two Months Left. I submit that on the former he is undeniably correct and that we ought to pay heed to his warning about what might soon happen next. I also tend to agree with others who warn us that violence will happen next, no matter who wins. Not only are some clearly plotting a coup against Trump should he declare himself the winner, but things have now gone so far that the Chairmen of the JCS had to make an official statement saying that the US military will play no role in the election. Finally, and while I agree that Florida might not be a typical state, I see a lot of signs saying “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” with the word “domestic” emphasized in some manner. Is this the proverbial “writing on the wall”?

Conclusion:

The Empire is dying and nothing can save it, things have gone way too far to ever return to the bad old days of US world hegemony. Furthermore, I have the greatest doubts about Trump or his supporters being able to successfully defeat Dem/BLM/Antifa. “Just” winning the election won’t be enough, even if Trump wins by a landslide: we already know that the Dem/BLM/Antifa will never accept a Trump victory, no matter how big. I also suspect that 2020 will be dramatically different from the 2000 Gore-Bush election which saw the outcome decided by a consensus of the ruling elites: this time around the hatred is too deep, and there will be no negotiated compromise between the parties.

In 2016 I recommended a Trump vote for one, single, overwhelming reason: my profound belief that Hillary would have started a war against Syria and, almost immediately, against Russia (the Dems are, again, making noises about such a war should they return into the White House). As for Trump, for all his megalomaniacal threats and in spite of a few (thoroughly ineffective) missile strikes on Syria, he has not started a new war.

By the way, when was it the last time that a US president did NOT order a war during his time in office?

The fact is that the Trump victory in 2016 gave Russia the time to finalize her preparations for any time of aggression, or even a full-scale war, which the US might try to throw at her. The absence of any US reaction to the Iranian retaliatory missile strikes against US bases in Iraq in January has shown that US military commanders have no stomach for a war against Iran, nevermind China or, even less, Russia. By now it is too late, Russia is ready for anything, while the US is not. Trump bought the planet an extra four years to prepare for war, and the key adversaries of the US have used that time with great benefit. As for the former world hegemon, it can’t even take on Venezuela…

But inside the USA, what we see taking place before us is a weird kind of war against the people of the USA, a war waged by a very dangerous mix of ideologues and thugs (that is the toxic recipe for most revolutions!). And while Trump or Biden won’t really matter much to Russia, China or Iran, it still might matter a great deal to millions of people who deserve better than to live under a Dem/BLM/Antifa dictatorship (whether only ideological or actual).

The USA of 2020 in so many ways reminds me of Russia in February 1917: the ruling classes were drunk on their ideological dogmas and never realized that the revolution they so much wanted would end up killing most of them. This is exactly what the US ruling classes are doing: they are acting like a parasite who cannot understand that by killing its host it will also kill itself. The likes of Pelosi very much remind me of Kerensky, the man who first destroyed the 1000 year old Russian monarchy and who then proceeded to replace it with kind of totally dysfunctional “masonic democracy” which only lasted 8 months until the Bolsheviks finally seized power and restored law and order (albeit in a viciously ruthless manner).

The US political system is both non-viable and non-reformable. No matter what happens next, the US as we knew it will collapse this winter, PCR is right. The only questions remaining are:

  • What will replace it? and
  • How long (and painful) will the transition to a new USA be?

Trump in the White House might not make things better, but a Harris presidency (which is what a “Biden” victory will usher in) will make things much, much worse. Finally, there are millions of US Americans out there who did nothing wrong and who deserve to be protected from the rioting and looting mobs by their police agencies just as there are millions of US Americans who should retain the ability to defend themselves when no law enforcement is available. There is a good reason why the Second Amendment comes right after the First one – the two are organically linked! With the Dem/BLM/Antifa in power, the people of the USA can kiss both Amendments goodbye.

I still don’t see a typical civil war breaking out in the US. But I see many, smaller, “local wars” breaking out all over the country – yes, violence is at this point inevitable. It is, therefore, the moral obligation of every decent person to do whatever he/she can do, no matter how small, to help the “deplorables” in their struggle against the forces of chaos, violence and tyranny, especially during the upcoming “years of transition” which will be very, very hard on the majority of the people living in the US.

This includes doing whatever is possible to prevent the Dem/BLM/Antifa from getting into the White House.

The Saker

=========================

America’s Colour Revolution

America’s Colour Revolution  By Paul Craig Roberts, Zerohedge, 14 September 2020

I have provided evidence that the military/security complex, using the media and the Democrats, intends to turn the November election into a colour revolution – here, here, and here.

 

The CIA is very experienced at colour revolutions, having pulled them off in a number of countries where the existing government did not suit the CIA.  As we have known since CIA Director John Brennan’s denunciations of President Trump, Trump doesn’t suit the CIA either. As far as the CIA is concerned, Trump is no different from Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro, Charles de Gaulle, Manuel Zelaya, Evo Morales, Viktor Yanukovych, and a large number of others.

Russiagate was a coup that failed, followed by the failed Impeachgate coup.  Faced with Trump’s re-election and the realization that upon re-election Trump will be able to deal with the treason against him, the Deep State has decided to take him out with a colour revolution.

The evidence of a colour revolution in the works is abundantly supplied by CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, NPR, Washington Post and numerous Internet sites funded by the CIA and the foundations and corporations through which it operates, all of which are committed to Trump’s ejection from the Oval Office.  The American public does not realize the extent to which the institutions of a free society have been penetrated and turned against freedom. All of these media organizations are establishing the story in the mind of Americans that Trump will not leave office when he loses or steals the election and must be driven out. 

Emails are arriving from readers in the UK and Europe reporting that the British and European media are at work preparing the acceptability of the CIA’s colour revolution against President Trump.  It is taken for granted by both media and politicians in Europe and the UK that Trump cannot win re-election because he:

(1) is a Putin agent,

(2) abuses the power of his office,

(3) represents racist “Trump Deplorables,”

(4) is a womanizer – “grab them by the pussy,”

(5) is responsible for America leading the world in Covid-19 cases and deaths,

(6) doesn’t support NATO (a sinecure for many Europeans),

(7) is an outsider and not a member of The Establishment and “is not like us,”

(8) “has orange hair” (orange is considered a low-class colour). 

You can add your own to the list.

The scenarios for what the American, British, and European media assume to be a necessary colour revolution  to drive Trump from office are:

  1. Trump loses the election, refuses to leave office and must be dislodged or democracy is lost.
  2. Trump wins the election by fraud and must be dislodged or democracy is lost.

The scenarios do not accommodate Trump actually winning the election by the vote of the people.  That outcome is outside the possibilities.

According to the media, Trump can only lose or steal the election.

With Antifa and Black Lives Matter now experienced in violent protests, they will be unleashed anew on American cities when there is news of a Trump election victory. The media will explain the violence as necessary to free us from a tyrant and egg on the violence, as will the Democrat Party.  The CIA will be certain that the violence is well funded.

Trump, isolated in his own government, which has failed to bring charges against the Obama regime officials who tried to frame the President of the United States and drive him from office—Barr and Durham represent The Establishment, not the President or law—will be cut off from Twitter, Facebook and from the print and TV media.  All Americans and the world will hear is that Trump lost and must go or Trump won by vote fraud and must go. It will be impossible for Trump or anyone to refute the charges. The weak-minded, weak-willed Republicans will collapse. Republicans are not people capable of combat. Republicans believe that to disparage the military/security complex is unpatriotic. Thus, they are sitting ducks.

Bottom of Form

The CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, Radio Liberty, etc., have used color revolution against others who stood in the way of the American National Security State. Only Maduro has survived them.  So far.

The Secret Service cooperated with the CIA and the Joint Chiefs in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. What is a re-elected President Trump going to do when the Secret Service refuses to repel Antifa and Black Lives Matter when they breach White House Security?  There is no doubt whatsoever that the Secret Service is penetrated by the CIA.  How else could President Kennedy have been assassinated?

American Democracy is on the verge of being ended for all times, and the world media will herald the event as the successful overthrowing of a tyrant.  

====================

Previous articles

Which ‘New World Order’?

Who is planning a ‘New World Order’ (NWO),  in what form, and what progress so far?  Will it be ‘The Great Reset’? Many more articles follow the five below.

The total reset of everything

The total reset of everything  By Martin Geddes, 15 April 2021

What happens when a multi-generational global war of subversion and infiltration reaches its endgame? That is not an easy question to answer, since by its construction we don’t have access to recent and relevant historical precedent. While nothing can stop what is coming, nobody may be prepared for it either. I make the case here that what is fast approaching is a Total Reset of Everything.

The picture that is forming for many of us is the liberation of the whole of humanity from hundreds of years of slavery — mental, financial, cultural, technological, and spiritual. That the slavery of the mind is first in the list is figural: the ultimate form of slavery is one where the slaves believe themselves to be free. This form of trickery had been pioneered in Britain with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, which effectively stripped inhabitants of their innate Common Law rights, following deliberate societal sabotage.

At the heart of this modern emancipation movement lies the American People, who briefly escaped from the tyrannical European banking aristocracy. In 1871 the British Crown, working in secret alliance with the Vatican, annexed the United States and returned it to full colony status. This was triggered by the need for debt financing following the Civil War, and was achieved by the construction of a parallel doppelgänger state.

A new corporate government and constitution was established as “Washington DC”, an unaccountable and unlawful extra-territorial city state. Behind this fraud of the highest order was pure treason by Congress. It involved the misapplication of maritime law to the land, and later securitisation of humans via taxation. Thus slavery did not end with the Civil War; it was surreptitiously extended to all, yet marketed as liberation from plantation chains.

“Make America Great Again” is really about reversing this 1871 debt-driven incorporation, and restoring sovereignty to the American People. Once the whole world understands their relative debt and tax slave status, it is inevitable that they too will demand equal freedom and prosperity. Donald Trump’s first term was a bait to draw this illegal and illegitimate form of bankster government into a trap.

The Chinese Communist Party runs a modern-day totalitarian slave-owning society on behalf of the Globalist central bankers (who have their own internal factions and power struggles). The Maoist form of tyranny induced extreme poverty, whereas this one is economically productive, since unproductive slaves are pointless. It is a testing ground for prototype total surveillance and control technologies like social scoring. China seeks to usurp the USA as the global hegemon, through acquisition of resources including minerals, technology, workers, and eventually land.

The Second Amendment, as protection for free speech and hence dissidence, makes Americans the hardest people in the world to conquer. “Deplorable” Americans are the last bastion of true human freedom. The “rights” and “freedoms” everyone else “enjoys” are really state-conferred privileges that can be removed, as vaccine passports and widespread censorship now demonstrate. The only way to resist a police state is for the police to be outgunned by the people.

The 2020 election was a CCP-led attempt by multiple actors working together to end the Trump-led revolt against Globalism, steal away those firearms (or generate a civil war trying), and impose this neofeudalism on the American People in full force. It was a turning point in history, in many ways even more significant than that of the 2016 election where “they never thought she would lose” and got caught with no Plan B.

This attempted “nationjacking” was achieved using multiple methods, but two stand out. The first is using a CCP bioweapon, with the media overhyping the resulting pandemic, as cover to issue endless fake mail-in paper ballots. The second is the hacking of elections via “droned” electronic voting machines. There are whole books on such “colour revolutions” and election fraud, and it is not my job to repeat their knowledge. The end result would have been the collapse of the West and any freedoms we enjoy.

The good news is that the military sting operation, using Donald Trump as its lure, has succeeded. The attempted re-conquest of America and its People has failed. The Stafford Act appears to have been invoked, and the military and FEMA are now in full control. The Second American Republic has been re-established, and the bankrupt Washington DC corporate state wound up and shut down.

We can now see the Q public awakening and media bypass operation in its proper context, which is the military Law of War manual. This is directly referenced in the Q drops, but it took three years for “anons” to work it out. “Washington DC” was never a State, and hence now forms a hostile power (run by the CCP and others) yet occupied by the US military. “The Bidan Show” is ongoing to draw out all the bad actors and sleepers who falsely believe Joe Biden “won” and got away with the election fraud crime.

They all get to meet their doom as a consequence.

This failure to recapture America spells the collapse of the covert rule of the Venetian (aka Phoenician and Babylonian) mafia banking system, their Egyptian-inspired slavery system, and whatever it was in turn feeding. (That is above my pay grade, but to the “elite” humans are a mix of bushmeat, lab rats, and slave workers. The word “pedovore” is one I wish I didn’t understand.) For clarity, there is definitely no Jewish-led conspiracy! However, Israel is a major player, and USS Liberty false flag is about to go full circle. Nonetheless, the end result for all people is shalom.

The nature of a war of subversion and infiltration, as opposed to subjugation via invasion, is like a cancer that infects and parasitises every organ of civil society. As JFK famously said, “It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.” The events of the last year have demonstrated that academia, law enforcement, the courts, the media, and medicine are all deeply corrupted.

We face turbulent waters ahead, as the political reset and restoration of the American Republic have their domino effect in all of these domains. The cancer of corruption has to be removed without killing its host. The first visible step is the conversion of Washington DC back to plain Washington, and the end of the “Federal” branded corporate government as we have known it. If you watch carefully, you can see that we are “flooding the swamp” right now, as all the subterranean infrastructure of Washington is purged of evil.

We have had a very close shave with totalitarianism, and in the meantime find ourselves in an ongoing dirty “fourth generation” global war, which is de facto WW3. This is “unrestricted”, meaning that there is no formal divide between military and civilian combat operations. There are also no physical or moral boundaries to its conduct. It includes both biological and information weaponry, with these specifically working in alliance to push the Covid fear propaganda. Again, this explains the need for the Q military intelligence operation to raise a digital militia armed with laptops to fight back. The secret and silent war is real, and it is over when it is perceived by all.

As our collective enemy the CCP is just an agent of a bigger and far more wicked agenda. I have learned much of our history is fraudulent and “hacked”. I have discovered what I was taught in school or by TV documentaries is often a perversion of reality. Our timelines have been wrecked, whole nations disappeared (like Tartaria), territory histories deleted (say Antarctica or Greenland), and civilisations ignored (such as the Vedics in India). The “world as we commonly know it” excludes vast infrastructure in and between deep underground military bases (DUMBs) and on the sea bed, and an equally huge Secret Space Program off-world.

The average human wallows in extreme ignorance of the esoteric; the worst case is to be “educated” and overconfident, as you are in the exoteric “knowledge elite”. What is most interesting to me is that the signs of profound change are in the wide open, and the data there for all to see. Take the onrushing financial and economic reset. We have seen $16 trillion of assets poured into XRP crypto technology, and ISO 20022 rolled out to bypass central banking. Gold “reacquisition” and silver repricing anticipate new “rainbow” non-fiat currencies backed by precious metals.

Yet close technology associates working on crypto projects like Cardano/ADA may be unaware of the ultimate purpose of their endeavours, and how they fit into the bigger picture. Indeed, the nature of compartmentalisation means they may reject the actual true purpose of their own work as a “conspiracy theory”! Such is the world we have been living in, where systems of secrecy have been in combat and conflict. The public exposure of these secrets ends the power of secret societies, and triggers a political reset.

It is not just finance and politics that face a total reset. We have been exploited through many other routes, and each one faces a reset. The energy reset moves us from petrochemicals to Tesla-based broadcast power (from both land and space). The communications reset requires the removal of the Mockingbird Media, as well as a new secure space-based Quantum Internet for content distribution. The wellness reset sees the demise of Rockefeller medicine, also based on toxic petrochemicals, and replacement with a mix of simple light and electric therapies all the way through to extremely sophisticated “medbeds”.

The last of these is notably topical via the Coronavirus scamdemic. Current “sickcare” incentives align profit to lifelong unwellness. Suppression of symptoms is rewarded; cures are not. mRNA vaccines fit into this pattern, and are credibly accused of being depopulation bioweapons. Beware suppressing your natural non-specific immunity and arming the cytokine storm hazard!

We potentially face an “AIDS 2.0” megacrisis around the corner due to organ failure, dementia, and death of those who took this gene therapy route. Conversely, we also can anticipate a lifespan revolution for those who make it through these risky times. Choose your path carefully and wisely.

The “total reset of everything” is a process, not an event. For instance, the forced deployment of vaccines in their “experimental” phase means they cannot be mandatory, which removes the ability of the Globalists to coerce everyone to take them. That in turn means the awful consequences cannot just be blamed on “new virus variants” and fan more fear. That some do not take these products, and are not sick as a result, makes it all too obvious that they are dangerous. The reset of medicine takes time.

Despite this, there does seem to be a trigger event for a sudden and massive geopolitical shift. Donald Trump once tweeted “Move slowly, carefully — and then strike like the fastest animal on the planet!”. If the warning signs are to be believed, such a strike could include the destruction of the Three Gorges Dam, ending the CCP. This would kill a lot of people in the process, but stops the Coronavirus global genocide and “vaccine” depopulation agenda.

Such an attack also kills the Bitcoin mining infrastructure under the dam, and destroys the unregulated currencies being used for crimes like human trafficking. The same space-based “Rods from God” weapons can demolish Satanic monuments worldwide, symbolising a change in the global order. Meanwhile, precision cyberweapons can target critical Globalist corporations and revenue streams. Such a strike would result in both global martial law as well as mass awakening to the existence of the war.

Spookdom is impenetrable by its nature, and I only work with open source intelligence.
I have no crystal ball, and no insider contacts. The apparent civil war in the Freemasons — and the uncertainty and confusion it brings — means I am not in a position to see the whole battlefield. Take this as the synthesis of one person; it is not even the summary of an organisation or private intelligence agency. Nonetheless, it seems clear that a process of mega collapse, mega reform, and mega renewal is underway.

The “Great Awakening” is just one part of this “Total Reset of Everything”. I cannot know its scope or timescale. Credible sources have warned me that “nature is coming”. It would make sense that secret societies are aware of cycles of cataclysm, including those that come from space. We may lose a lot of lives, including loved ones. What is at stake is the survival of humanity as a whole. There is no way to sugar coat this.

My work of the last three years documenting the Q project tells me that the “best of the best” are on the case. General Flynn has obliquely confirmed that Donald Trump is the actual President (with the same “two presidencies” as happened in the Civil War era). He has also effectively re-endorsed the Q project in public by approving of its “WWG1WGA” mantra. The military are delivering “Q proofs” by the dozen on Twitter. There are rational reasons to believe that humanity is heading in the right direction, however great the struggle.

We are also very close to some major historical dates with interesting pasts:
April 16 — President Lincoln signed the Compensated Emancipation Act ending slavery.
April 17 — President Kennedy lead the Bay Of Pigs invasion.
April 19 — George Washington leads the 1st American Revolution. Is also Patriots Day celebrating Lexington and Concord.
April 20 — 150th Anniversary of the 1871 Act of England.

I cannot predict the exact sound of the death rattle of the old guard’s system of power. Surprise attacks by both sides are… surprising. If we have to endure a fake holographic alien invasion as a distraction, then so be it! Have steadfast courage: a new culture and a new society for a new Earth is coming, if the “foreshocks” are to be believed. There is a benevolent and peaceful “far side” to this wild ride. For instance, technologies like CRISPR editing and mRNA gene therapies can equally be used to turn off traits that drive psychopathy and human misery. Humanity can blossom when freed from inbred greed.

What doesn’t change in a total reset is the pole star of loving kindness: “Good Wins” because we inhabit a universe whose physics seeks connection over compartmentalisation. That this process of uprooting evil is “Biblical” is not just a metaphor: it traces its roots back through our “family feuds” as a species, all the way to our origins. We are in a “purple platypus” situation – outside of any experienced “black swan” — so the more ancient the wisdom, the more likely it is to apply and to be of value.

The best is yet to come, but to arrive there we may yet have to traverse the worst too. Be accountable for yourself; let others choose their own path. Self-care, self-compassion, and self-worth are the watchwords.

Believe in yourself.
Reclaim your sovereignty
Demand your liberty.

Welcome the Total Reset of Everything.

=============================

Saving America and the world

Saving America and the world  By Martin Geddes, 28 February 2021

 How “The Bidan (sic) Show”
is saving America (and the world)

?This article is not intended for dangerous morons. If you are a dangerous moron who believes that colour revolutions and communist insurrections cannot be attempted in America, please stop reading now. This article will only distress and annoy you, and that would be unkind to yourself.

Thank you.

° ° °

OK, now we’ve insulted the dangerous moron audience segment and driven them away, that leaves the rest of us — who can have an adult conversation about what is really going on in America, and the pivotal role of the media and propaganda in spinning a false reality.

A lot of us are living in frustration that the obvious landslide win of Donald Trump in November — try finding someone who went to a Biden rally — did not result in immediate truth and justice. Our patience is being annealed into a hardened resoluteness to see this through to the end.

Here is my best sense of what is going on; keep in mind I’m just one guy with a laptop and an opinion, and you can have your own equally functional laptop and valid opinion. There is a perverse and paradoxical logic to what is happening, bizarre as it all sounds. As Mark Twain said, “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”

° ° °

MAGA is the end game of the original 18th century American Revolution. The European banking aristocracy and monopolising monarchies didn’t just pack up and go home when they were shot at and it was heard around the world. They simply switched tactics and played a long game to stealthily retake America. The war of invasion became a war of infiltration; the War of Independence never ended in reality.

After various attempts to impose a central bank, the 19th century Civil War plunged America into debt and set up the conditions for a “bankocracy” to take power. America was turned into a corporation ruled by a Masonic city state — Washington DC — that was effectively an extension of the alliance of the British Crown (i.e. City of London freemasons) and the Vatican (i.e. Rome freemasons) plus the bloodline families (i.e. occultist banking and commerce mafia).

This allowed maritime and contractual law to displace the people’s sovereign rights under common law, and opened the way for the unconstitutional Federal Reserve to impose debt slavery on Americans. The history of America is a nonstop tussle between individual and state sovereignty versus federal and bankster oligarchy. The good news is that the former have won, and we’re in the final phase of restoring liberty.

The Chinese Communist Party is the front through which the globalist totalitarian banking aristocracy has been operating its plan to gain complete control of this planet. November 2020 was an attempt by the CCP to hijack America — the last bastion of true freedom due to an armed populace — via a classic colour revolution. Demoralise the public via a scamdemic, impose economic hardship by closing small businesses, kill some old people in nursing homes to spread fear and terror, and spray pervasive media lies over any opponent. Then use election fraud to seize control without having to send a single soldier or fire a shot.

° ° °

I was stunned recently when an otherwise lucid professional associate — whose work I admire — said there was no election fraud. The zillionth item of evidence is the hand recount in New Hampshire where the Dominion voting machines short changed only Republican candidates. If you cannot find the evidence, please go back to the beginning of this article and reconsider whether you might be a dangerous moron. Because refusal to consider the possibility and look at the data would surely qualify you for that title.

This election fraud has been going on for decades — a century and more, even. The Bush vs Gore matter in 2000 surfaced a lot of the problems. Our “liberal” (i.e. authoritarian) leftist friends used to complain about the lack of transparency and trustworthiness of voting machines, until it was the hated Donald Trump who was the victim. Then they went silent and decided it was of no importance. Oh well, dangerous morons are a thing after all. We’ll all get over it when the truth comes out.

If you are not a dangerous moron, it is obvious that there is no “Joe Biden” presidency. A fake and unconstitutional prerecorded “inauguration” (where the weather kept magically changing with the camera angle) was attended by military not wearing insignia. There was no handover of the nuclear code “football”, no arrival on Air Force One, no foreign dignitaries, and no salutes.

The White House is empty and dark right now, and there is no Marine guard. The pictures of the Oval Office are visibly of a movie set; they’ve even recycled some of the art from a previous show. Trump hinted in 2019 it wasn’t really Joe Biden himself by calling him “Joe Bidan”, and you can look closely and see it isn’t him. The ears and shape of head are different. Whether it is a double, clone, CGI, actor in a latex mask, hologram, ghostly apparition from another dimension, or all the above — I don’t care and it doesn’t matter.

° ° °

It isn’t just a fake Presidency, it seems like the whole election was a fake — a sting operation to draw out every cunning clown who thought they could get away with a communist takeover in America. Remember, these things are not announced in advance. You only find you’ve got a real communist in power when potential opposition is being exterminated (with no media coverage). You also only get to find out it’s a sting operation when it’s over (and the official state media are discredited).

President Trump has a long history of election fraud tweets. This operation to retake America for its People has been planned for decades. He has executive orders on election fraud and human rights, allowing him to seize the assets of those conspiring against the public and breaking their oath of office. The Stafford Act, 2019 Presidential Handover Act, and Insurrection Act give him the needed powers and allow FEMA and the military to take control. PEADs — Presidential Emergency Action Documents — were established under Eisenhower and are the “nuclear option” of continuity of government for exactly this kind of exigency.

Remember, if you have read this far then you’re not a dangerous moron, so this is all objective stuff that we can believe in. Rational empirical people are driven by evidence, not prior belief or limits of our imagination.

Washington DC is now a prison complex under the control of Gen Walker, not the Mayor, nor “President Bidan”. This allows military tribunals to run for the election fraud: traitors don’t get to spend years fighting in corrupt civilian courts when you work for the CCP. Child sex trafficking is the bedrock of power via blackmail, and its underground infrastructure can be flushed of the nightmarish nastiness that has long been going on. Those responsible won’t be seen again, and deservedly so.

Capturing the leadership of a defunct corporate government that does not represent the people is a political booby prize. Returning power to the people means taking it away from this unaccountable capital of the cancer of corruption. In other words, Washington DC is OVER and FINISHED: it is about to become a museum and alligator swamp reserve. The whole place is one deceptive occult hellhole from conception to demolition. It cannot stand as a totem of the sovereign American People.

° ° °

The establishment of a new free American Republic involves a cutover from the old and bankrupt corporate entity that the “Joe Bidan” movie character heads up. It cannot be done instantly, and those who are losing power would love to create chaos and deny the public their rights and inheritance. Capturing and removing the Deep State isn’t enough; you also need to deliver a functioning society afterwards.

There are very specific benefits of Donald Trump being “off stage” during this transition period:

  • The corrupt mass media that is under CCP control cannot accuse Trump of being a military dictator when the US military overtly becomes in control.
  • It preserves the legality of the change, and avoids confusion for the public of which Presidency they are endorsing (corporate entity vs federation of sovereign states).
  • It ensures the safety of both President Trump and his family, since they are assassination targets. It also avoids the need for rallies or other events where the public would be put at risk of terrorism.
  • “Joe Bidan” can do increasingly absurd things in the “show” — like zany “rule by executive order” — to wake up more “normies” and decrease the “dangerous moron” count.
  • You can do military operations that otherwise would be politically unacceptable (think Iran, Syria).
  • Any chaos is attached to the Deep State and its Democratic and RINO operatives.
  • It gives time for the global takedown to occur, since this all has to be synchronised. Even if America is ready, success is removing all bases of power from which this criminality could return.

Finally, and most importantly, it sets up the total destruction of the Mockingbird Media. They are fully invested in promoting “The Bidan Show” as objective reality. But as with the Truman Show, there is a moment when it “glitches” and the stage set is visible. It only takes the President Bidan actor to remove his latex mask on TV, and it’s all over, as the illusion machine is shattered.

Frank Zappa, no stranger to the military-industrial-entertainment complex, once said: “The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

He was nearly right. The deceived element of the public (including a large subset of dangerous morons who pose a civil war risk to us all) will get to watch the curtain pulled back, but instead of a brick wall, they will find that the whole theatre has been dismantled around them. They are free; their “Plato’s Cave” has been excavated and opened to the fresh air.

° ° °

So the “big picture” is that we are watching a total reboot of America, and consequently the world. When a computer reboots its operating system goes down a series of “run levels”, and then back up again. We are experiencing the same thing in America: “The Bidan Show” is just a “holding screen” and distraction put on to educate the public while the military does the election fraud cleanup operation. This is done at the lowest Constitutional “run level” where normal civilian government is (quietly) suspended. The inevitable riots and chaos of the wakeup phase — when this is all official and in the open— have to wait until the cleanup is finished. One problem at a time.

As this corrupt bankocracy is removed from power we will likely experience a financial reset, exposure of these war crimes, and disclosure of the hidden technology that has been hoarded by a minority in secret (yet paid for by the public). It is already happening — and seems like something from a sci-fi movie. But you can go check out the legit anti-gravity and energy devices from the US Navy on the official patent site.

Having Donald Trump immediately be re-elected in November would have been a strategic failure, even if it offered a temporary emotional release. It would have perpetuated the fake corporate government, and sustained the illusion of its legitimacy. The two real tasks are to prevent a descent into civil war in the short run, and to prevent a recurrence of this horror show in the long run. “The Bidan Show” is a necessary “liminal passage” in the story of the rebirth of America. It cleverly skirts around the traps that would lead to disaster and the prize of peace being snatched away at the last minute.

° ° °

The cancer of corruption is an aggressive one, and returns easily. Its cure demands the total elimination if the mass media brainwashing machine. You may have noticed how quiet Hollywood has been recently; it is equally as finished as Washington DC. Allowing the election fraud to happen sets up the case for strong voter ID and robust election technology. Changes that were previously unthinkable will be demanded by all as they understand how close they came to losing their Republic and freedom.

Saving America is not the hard part; keeping her saved is the real struggle. Only a massive cultural shift can achieve this. “The Bidan Show” triggers self-identification of the “dangerous morons” and authoritarian colluders in our society. Their loss of credibiltiy in turn forces a reordering of power among the people towards Patriots. A lot of arrogant and prideful dangerous morons are about to get the hardest lesson of their lives as their conceit and carelessness is exposed. Academia is set for revolt and revolution, mass media for implosion, “sick care” medicine for replacement. It’s an “apocalypse of authority”.

The Q military intelligence operation has prepared Patriots for this time of upheaval — The Great Awakening. We are given objective reasons to believe this is a carefully planned process with a benevolent outcome, so we do not engage in our own insurrection against an illegitimate entity in Washington DC. The genius combination of plausible deniability and strategic ambiguity delivers exactly the right information at the right moments to those with the eyes to see. Shelves of books will be written about how this sensational covert military plan was executed.

° ° °

The bottom line is that we are in an epic transition from slavery to sovereignty, poverty to prosperity, and war to peace. We may have some difficult struggles ahead — food shortages, nature causing havoc, genocidal pharma “vaccines” — but we will overcome them. But at least we won’t have to endure the lies of the Mockingbird Media for much longer.

Nor will we have to suffer the mocking of dangerous morons. “The Bidan Show” says wakeup time is almost here for everyone. The multi-year cleanup is nearly done. America has been saved by its military and Patriots. The whole world is next.

Enjoy the show!

======================

Great Reset? Putin Says, “Not So Fast”

Great Reset. Putin Says, Not So Fast  By Tom Luongo, Zerohedge, 13 February 2021

Did you happen to catch the most important political speech of the last six years?

It would have been easy to miss given everything going on.  In fact, I almost did, and this speech sits at the intersection of nearly all of my areas of intense study.

The annual World Economic Forum took place last week via teleconference, what I’m calling Virtual Davos, and at this year’s event, of course, the signature topic was their project called the Great Reset.

But if the WEF was so intent on presenting the best face for the Great Reset to the world it wouldn’t have invited either Chinese Premier Xi Jinping or, more importantly, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And it was Putin’s speech that brought down the house of cards that is the agenda of the WEF.

The last time someone walked into a major international forum and issued such a scathing critique of the current geopolitical landscape was Putin’s speech to the United Nations on September 29th, 2015, two days before he sent a small contingency of Russian air support to Syria.

There he excoriated not only the U.N. by name but most importantly the U.S. and its NATO allies by inference asking the most salient question, “Do you understand what you have done?” having unleashed chaos in an already chaotic part of the world?

As important as that speech was it was Putin’s actions after that which defined the current era of geopolitical chess across the Eurasian continent.   Syria became the nexus around which the resistance to the “ISIS is invincible” narrative unraveled

And the mystery of who was behind ISIS, namely the Obama administration, was revealed to anyone paying attention.

President Trump may have taken credit for beating ISIS, but it was mostly Putin and Russia’s forces retaking the Western part of Syria which allowed that to happen, while our globalist generals, like James Mattis, did as much damage to Syria itself and as little to ISIS as possible, hoping to use them again another day.

And regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the U.S.’s policy in Syria, which I most definitely do not, it is hard to argue that Russia’s intervention there fundamentally changed the regional politics and conflicts for the foreseeable future.

It was the beginning of the voluntary disconnection of China, Russia and Iran from the West.

For standing athwart U.S. and European designs on consolidating power in the Middle East, Russia has been vilified in the West in ways that make the indoctrination I received as a kid growing up in the Cold War look like vacation advertisements for spending the summer in Crimea.

But it is that strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. He’s done wonders in rebuilding Russia.

He’s made many mistakes, mostly by first trusting American Presidents and second by underestimating just how arrogant and rapacious the leadership in Europe is.

That said, he’s now reached his limit, especially with Europe, and he’s set a firmly independent path for Russia regardless of the short-term costs.

And that’s why his speech at the World Economic Forum was so important.

Putin hadn’t spoken there for nearly a decade.  In a time when WEF-controlled puppets dominate positions of power in Europe, the U.K., Canada and now the U.S., Putin walked into Virtual Davos and dumped his coffee on the carpet.

In terms I can only describe as unfailingly polite, Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Putin literally laughed at the idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – Schwab’s idea of a planned society through AI, robots and the merging of man and machine.

He flat-out told them their policies driving the middle class to the brink of extinction over the COVID-19 pandemic will further increase social and political unrest while also ensuring wealth inequality gets worse.

Putin’s no flower-throwing libertarian or anything, but his critique of the hyper-financialized post-Soviet era is accurate.

The era dominated by central banking and the continued merging of state and corporate powers has increased wealth inequality across the U.S. and Europe, benefiting millions while extracting the wealth of billions.

Listening to Putin was like listening to a cross between Pat Buchanan and the late Walter Williams.  According to him the neoliberal ideal of “invite the world/invade the world” has destroyed the cultural ties within countries while hollowing out their economic prospects.  Putin criticized zero-bound interest rates, QE, tariffs and sanctions as political weapons.

But the targets of those weapons, while nominally pointed at his Russia, were really the West’s own engines of vitality, as the middle classes have seen their wages stagnate, and access to education, medical care, and the courts to redress grievances fall dramatically.

Russia is a country on the rise, so is China.  Once their ties are embedded deeply enough to stabilize its economy, so too will Iran rise.

Together they will lead the central Asian landmass out of the nineteenth-century quagmire that exists thanks to British and American intervention in the region.  Putin’s speech made it clear that Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs in Europe.

In a less confrontational address, Chairman Xi said the same thing.

He gave lip service, like Putin, to climate change and carbon neutrality, focusing instead on pollution and sustainability.

Together they basically told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived. 

I’ve followed Putin closely for nearly a decade now.  I got the feeling that if he was speaking to a college-level political science class and not a convocation of some of the most powerful people in the world he would been laughed in their faces.

But, unfortunately, he understands better than any of us having been the object of their aggression for so long, he had to treat them seriously as their grasp of reality and connectedness to the people they ruled was nearly severed.

At the end of his planned remarks, Klaus Schwab asked Putin about Russia’s troubled relationship with Europe and could it be fixed.  Putin pulled no punches. 

If we can rise above these problems of the past and get rid of these phobias, then we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations.

We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make this happen. But love is impossible if it is declared only by one side. It must be mutual.

I don’t get the sense from anything I’ve seen from the Biden Administration or the European Commission in Brussels that anyone heard a word he said.

=====================

What Is the Great Reset? Part I: Reduced Expectations and Bio-techno-feudalism

What Is the Great Reset. Part 1 Reduced Expectations and Bio-techno-feudalism  By Michael Rectenwald, Mises Institute, 18 December 2020

The Great Reset is on everyone’s mind, whether everyone knows it or not. It is presaged by the measures undertaken by states across the world in response to the covid-19 crisis. (I mean by “crisis” not the so-called pandemic itself, but the responses to a novel virus called SARS-2 and the impact of the responses on social and economic conditions.)

In his book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab writes that the covid-19 crisis should be regarded as an “opportunity [that can be] seized to make the kind of institutional changes and policy choices that will put economies on the path toward a fairer, greener future.”1 Although Schwab has been promoting the Great Reset for years, the covid crisis has provided a pretext for finally enacting it. According to Schwab, we should not expect the postcovid world system to return to its previous modes of operation. Rather, alternating between description and prescription, Schwab suggests that changes will be, or should be, enacted across interlocking, interdependent domains to produce a new normal.

So, just what is the Great Reset and what is the new normal it would establish?

The Great Reset means reduced incomes and carbon use. But Schwab and the WEF also define the Great Reset in terms of the convergence of economic, monetary, technological, medical, genomic, environmental, military, and governance systems. The Great Reset would involve vast transformations in each of these domains, changes which, according to Schwab, will not only alter our world but also lead us to “question what it means to be human.”2

In terms of economics and monetary policy, the Great Reset would involve a consolidation of wealth, on the one hand, and the likely issuance of universal basic income (UBI) on the other.3 It might include a shift to a digital currency,4 including a consolidated centralization of banking and bank accounts, immediate real-time taxation, negative interest rates, and centralized surveillance and control over spending and debt.

While every aspect of the Great Reset involves technology, the Great Reset specifically entails “the Fourth Industrial Revolution,”5 or transhumanism, which includes the expansion of genomics, nanotechnology, and robotics and their penetration into human bodies and brains. Of course, the fourth Industrial Revolution involves the redundancy of human labor in increasing sectors, to be replaced by automation. But moreover, Schwab hails the use of nanotechnology and brain scans to predict and preempt human behavior.

The Great Reset means the issuance of medical passports, soon to be digitized, as well as the transparency of medical records inclusive of medical history, genetic makeup, and disease states. But it could include the implanting of microchips that would read and report on genetic makeup and brain states such that “[e]ven crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk.”6

On the genomic front, the Great Reset includes advances in genetic engineering and the fusion of genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics.

In military terms, the Great Reset entails the creation of new battle spaces including cyberspaces and the human brain as a battle space.7

In terms of governance, the Great Reset means increasingly centralized, coordinated, and expanded government and “governmentalities,” the convergence of corporations and states, and the digitalization of governmental functions, including, with the use of 5G and predictive algorithms, real-time tracking and surveillance of bodies in space or the “anticipatory governance” of human and systems behavior.8

That being said, “the Great Reset” is but a coordinated propaganda campaign shrouded under a cloak of inevitability. Rather than a mere conspiracy theory, as the New York Times has suggested,9 the Great Reset is an attempt at a conspiracy, or the “wishful thinking”10 of socioeconomic planners to have corporate “stakeholders”11 and governments adopt the desiderata of the WEF.

In order to sell this package, the WEF mobilizes the warmed-over rhetoric of “economic equality,” “fairness,” “inclusion,” and “a shared destiny,” among other euphemisms.12 Together, such phrases represent the collectivist, socialist political and ideological component of the envisioned corporate socialism13 (since economic socialism can never be enacted, it is always only political and ideological).

I’ll examine the prospects for the Great Reset in future installments. But suffice it to say for now that the WEF envisions a bio-techno-feudalist global order, with socioeconomic planners and corporate “stakeholders” at the helm and the greater part of humanity in their thrall. The mass of humanity, the planners would have it, will live under an economic stasis of reduced expectations, with individual autonomy greatly curtailed if not utterly obliterated. As Mises suggested, such planners are authoritarians who mean to supplant the plans of individual actors with their own, centralized plans. If enacted, such plans would fail, but their adoption would nevertheless exact a price.

Author:

Contact Michael Rectenwald

Michael Rectenwald was a professor of liberal studies at New York University (retired).

========================

Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset

Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset  From WinterOak.org.uk, Off-Guardian.org, 2 November 2020

Editor’s note: Click on link above to see the article with all the compelling graphics.

Winter Oak

Born in Ravensburg in 1938, Klaus Schwab is a child of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, a police-state regime built on fear and violence, on brainwashing and control, on propaganda and lies, on industrialism and eugenics, on dehumanisation and “disinfection”, on a chilling and grandiose vision of a “new order” that would last a thousand years.

Schwab seems to have dedicated his life to reinventing that nightmare and to trying to turn it into a reality not just for Germany but for the whole world.

Worse still, as his own words confirm time and time again, his technocratic fascist vision is also a twisted transhumanist one, which will merge humans with machines in “curious mixes of digital-and-analog life”, which will infect our bodies with “Smart Dust” and in which the police will apparently be able to read our brains.

And, as we will see, he and his accomplices are using the Covid-19 crisis to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will in what he terms a “Great Reset“.

Schwab is not, of course, a Nazi in the classic sense, being neither a nationalist nor an anti-semite, as testified by the $1 million Dan David Prize he was awarded by Israel in 2004.

But 21st century fascism has found different political forms through which to continue its core project of reshaping humanity to suit capitalism through blatantly authoritarian means.

This new fascism is today being advanced in the guise of global governance, biosecurity, the “New Normal”, the “New Deal for Nature” and the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

Schwab, the octogenarian founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, sits at the centre of this matrix like a spider on a giant web.

The original fascist project, in Italy and Germany, was all about a merger of state and business.

While communism envisages the take-over of business and industry by the government, which – theoretically! – acts in the interests of the people, fascism was all about using the state to protect and advance the interests of the wealthy elite.

Schwab was continuing this approach in a denazified post-WW2 context, when in 1971 he founded the European Management Forum, which held annual meetings at Davos in Switzerland.

Here he promoted his ideology of “stakeholder” capitalism in which businesses were brought into closer co-operation with government.

“Stakeholder capitalism” is described by Forbes business magazine as:

the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community, and society as a whole.”

Even in the context of a particular business, it is invariably an empty label. As the Forbes article notes, it actually only means that “firms can go on privately shoveling money to their shareholders and executives, while maintaining a public front of exquisite social sensitivity and exemplary altruism”.

But in a general social context, the stakeholder concept is even more nefarious, discarding any idea of democracy, rule by the people, in favour of rule by corporate interests.

Society is no longer regarded as a living community but as a business, whose profitability is the sole valid aim of human activity.

Schwab set out this agenda back in 1971, in his book Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau (Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering), where his use of the term “stakeholders” (die Interessenten) effectively redefined human beings not as citizens, free individuals or members of communities, but as secondary participants in a massive commercial enterprise.

The aim of each and every person’s life was “to achieve long-term growth and prosperity” for this enterprise – in other words, to protect and increase the wealth of the capitalist elite.

This all became even clearer in 1987, when Schwab renamed his European Management Forum the World Economic Forum.

The WEF describes itself on its own website as “the global platform for public-private cooperation”, with admirers describing how it creates “partnerships between businessmen, politicians, intellectuals and other leaders of society to ‘define, discuss and advance key issues on the global agenda’.”

The “partnerships” which the WEF creates are aimed at replacing democracy with a global leadership of hand-picked and unelected individuals whose duty is not to serve the public, but to impose the rule of the 1% on that public with as little interference from the rest of us as possible.

In the books Schwab writes for public consumption, he expresses himself in the two-faced clichés of corporate spin and greenwashing.

The same empty terms are dished up time and time again. In Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World Schwab talks of “the inclusion of stakeholders and the distribution of benefits” and of “sustainable and inclusive partnerships” which will lead us all to an “inclusive, sustainable and prosperous future”! [1]

Behind this bluster, the real motivation behind his “stakeholder capitalism”, which he was still relentlessly promoting at the WEF’s 2020 Davos conference, is profit and exploitation.

For instance, in his 2016 book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab writes about the Uberisation of work and the consequent advantages for companies, particularly fast-growing start-ups in the digital economy:

As human cloud platforms classify workers as self-employed, they are—for the moment—free of the requirement to pay minimum wages, employer taxes and social benefits”. [2]

The same capitalist callousness shines through in his attitude towards people nearing the end of their working lives and in need of a well-deserved rest:

Aging is an economic challenge because unless retirement ages are drastically increased so that older members of society can continue to contribute to the workforce (an economic imperative that has many economic benefits), the working-age population falls at the same time as the percentage of dependent elders increases”.[2]

Everything in this world is reduced to economic challenges, economic imperatives and economic benefits for the ruling capitalist class.

The myth of Progress has long been used by the 1% to persuade people to accept the technologies designed to exploit and control us and Schwab plays on this when he declares that “the Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a significant source of hope for continuing the climb in human development that has resulted in dramatic increases in quality of life for billions of people since 1800”.[2]

He enthuses:

While it may not feel momentous to those of us experiencing a series of small but significant adjustments to life on a daily basis, it is not a minor change—the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a new chapter in human development, on a par with the first, second and third Industrial Revolutions, and once again driven by the increasing availability and interaction of a set of extraordinary technologies.[1]

But he is well aware that technology is not ideologically neutral, as some like to claim. Technologies and societies shape each other, he says.

After all, technologies are tied up in how we know things, how we make decisions, and how we think about ourselves and each other. They are connected to our identities, worldviews and potential futures. From nuclear technologies to the space race, smartphones, social media, cars, medicine and infrastructure—the meaning of technologies makes them political. Even the concept of a ‘developed’ nation implicitly rests on the adoption of technologies and what they mean for us, economically and socially.[1]

Technology, for the capitalists behind it, has never been about social good but purely about profit, and Schwab makes it quite clear that the same remains true of his Fourth Industrial Revolution.

He enthuses:

Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies are truly disruptive—they upend existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering. They represent entirely new ways of creating value for organizations and citizens”.[1]

In case the meaning of “creating value” was not clear, he gives some examples: “Drones represent a new type of cost-cutting employee working among us and performing jobs that once involved real people”[1] and “the use of ever-smarter algorithms is rapidly extending employee productivity—for example, in the use of chat bots to augment (and, increasingly, replace) ‘live chat’ support for customer interactions”.[1]

Schwab goes into some detail about the cost-cutting, profit-boosting marvels of his brave new world in The Fourth Industrial Revolution.

He explains:

Sooner than most anticipate, the work of professions as different as lawyers, financial analysts, doctors, journalists, accountants, insurance underwriters or librarians may be partly or completely automated…
[…]
The technology is progressing so fast that Kristian Hammond, cofounder of Narrative Science, a company specializing in automated narrative generation, forecasts that by the mid-2020s, 90% of news could be generated by an algorithm, most of it without any kind of human intervention (apart from the design of the algorithm, of course).[2]

It is this economic imperative that informs Schwab’s enthusiasm for “a revolution that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another”.[2]

Schwab waxes lyrical about the 4IR, which he insists is “unlike anything humankind has experienced before”.[2]

He gushes:

Consider the unlimited possibilities of having billions of people connected by mobile devices, giving rise to unprecedented processing power, storage capabilities and knowledge access. Or think about the staggering confluence of emerging technology breakthroughs, covering wide-ranging fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, the internet of things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing, to name a few. Many of these innovations are in their infancy, but they are already reaching an inflection point in their development as they build on and amplify each other in a fusion of technologies across the physical, digital and biological worlds.[2]

He also looks forward to more online education, involving “the use of virtual and augmented reality” to “dramatically improve educational outcomes” [1], to sensors “installed in homes, clothes and accessories, cities, transport and energy networks” [2] and to smart cities, with their all-important “data platforms”.[2]

“All things will be smart and connected to the internet”, says Schwab, and this will extend to animals, as “sensors wired in cattle can communicate to each other through a mobile phone network”.[2]

He loves the idea of “smart cell factories” which could enable “the accelerated generation of vaccines” [1] and “big-data technologies”.[2]

These, he ensures us, will “deliver new and innovative ways to service citizens and customers”[2] and we will have to stop objecting to businesses profiting from harnessing and selling information about every aspect of our personal lives.

“Establishing trust in the data and algorithms used to make decisions will be vital,” insists Schwab. “Citizen concerns over privacy and establishing accountability in business and legal structures will require adjustments in thinking”.[2]

At the end of the day it is clear that all this technological excitement revolves purely around profit, or “value” as Schwab prefers to term it in his 21st century corporate newspeak.

Thus blockchain technology will be fantastic and provoke “an explosion in tradable assets, as all kinds of value exchange can be hosted on the blockchain”.[2]

The use of distributed ledger technology, adds Schwab, “could be the driving force behind massive flows of value in digital products and services, providing secure digital identities that can make new markets accessible to anyone connected to the internet”. [1]

In general, the interest of the 4IR for the ruling business elite is that it will “create entirely new sources of value” [1] and “give rise to ecosystems of value creation that are impossible to imagine with a mindset stuck in the third Industrial Revolution”. [1]

The technologies of the 4IR, rolled out via 5G, pose unprecedented threats to our freedom, as Schwab concedes:

The tools of the fourth industrial revolution enable new forms of surveillance and other means of control that run counter to healthy, open societies.”[2]

But this does not stop him presenting them in a positive light, as when he declares that “public crime is likely to decrease due to the convergence of sensors, cameras, AI and facial recognition software”. [1]

He describes with some relish how these technologies “can intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior”. [1]

Schwab predicts:

As capabilities in this area improve, the temptation for law enforcement agencies and courts to use techniques to determine the likelihood of criminal activity, assess guilt or even possibly retrieve memories directly from people’s brains will increase. Even crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk”. [1]

There are times when the WEF chief gets carried away by his passion for a sci-fi future in which “long-distance human space travel and nuclear fusion are commonplace”[1] and in which “the next trending business model” might involve someone “trading access to his or her thoughts for the time-saving option of typing a social media post by thought alone”.[1]

Talk of “space tourism” under the title “The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the final frontier” [1] is almost funny, as is his suggestion that “a world full of drones offers a world full of possibilities”.[1]

But the further the reader progresses into the world depicted in Schwab’s books, the less of a laughing matter it all seems.

The truth is that this highly influential figure, at the centre of the new global order currently being established, is an out-and-out transhumanist who dreams of an end to natural healthy human life and community.

Schwab repeats this message time and time again, as if to be sure we have been duly warned.

The mind-boggling innovations triggered by the fourth industrial revolution, from biotechnology to AI, are redefining what it means to be human,” [2]

The future will challenge our understanding of what it means to be human, from both a biological and a social standpoint”.[1]

Already, advances in neurotechnologies and biotechnologies are forcing us to question what it means to be human”.[1]

He spells it out in more detail in Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution[1]:

Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us. Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains. Exoskeletons and prosthetics will increase our physical power, while advances in neurotechnology enhance our cognitive abilities.

We will become better able to manipulate our own genes, and those of our children. These developments raise profound questions: Where do we draw the line between human and machine? What does it mean to be human?

A whole section of this book is devoted to the theme “Altering the Human Being”. Here he drools over “the ability of new technologies to literally become part of us” and invokes a cyborg future involving “curious mixes of digital-and-analog life that will redefine our very natures”. [1]

He writes:

These technologies will operate within our own biology and change how we interface with the world. They are capable of crossing the boundaries of body and mind, enhancing our physical abilities, and even having a lasting impact on life itself.”[1]

No violation seems to go too far for Schwab, who dreams of “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies”, “smart tattoos”“biological computing” and “custom-designed organisms”.[1]

He is delighted to report that “sensors, memory switches and circuits can be encoded in common human gut bacteria”,[1] that “Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body” and that “implanted devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals”.[1]

“Synthetic biology” is on the horizon in Schwab’s 4IR world, giving the technocratic capitalist rulers of the world “the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA”.[2]

The idea of neurotechnologies, in which humans will have fully artificial memories implanted in the brain, is enough to make some of us feel faintly sick, as is “the prospect of connecting our brains to VR through cortical modems, implants or nanobots”.[1]

It is of little comfort to learn that this is all – of course! – in the greater interests of capitalist profiteering since it “heralds new industries and systems for value creation” and “represents an opportunity to create entire new systems of value in the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.[1]

And what about “the bioprinting of organic tissues” [1] or the suggestion that “animals could potentially be engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and other forms of treatment”? [2]

Ethical objections, anyone?

It’s all evidently good for Schwab, who is happy to announce:

The day when cows are engineered to produce in its [sic] milk a blood-clotting element, which hemophiliacs lack, is not far off. Researchers have already started to engineer the genomes of pigs with the goal of growing organs suitable for human transplantation”.[2]

It gets even more disturbing. Ever since the sinister eugenics programme of the Nazi Germany into which Schwab was born, this science has been deemed beyond the pale by human society.

But now, however, he evidently feels eugenics is due a revival, announcing with regard to genetic editing:

That it is now far easier to manipulate with precision the human genome within viable embryos means that we are likely to see the advent of designer babies in the future who possess particular traits or who are resistant to a specific disease.”[2]

In the notorious 2002 transhumanist treatise I, Cyborg, Kevin Warwick predicts:

Humans will be able to evolve by harnessing the super-intelligence and extra abilities offered by the machines of the future, by joining with them. All this points to the development of a new human species, known in the science-fiction world as ‘cyborgs’. It doesn’t mean that everyone has to become a cyborg. If you are happy with your state as a human then so be it, you can remain as you are. But be warned – just as we humans split from our chimpanzee cousins years ago, so cyborgs will split from humans. Those who remain as humans are likely to become a sub-species. They will, effectively, be the chimpanzees of the future. [3]

Schwab seems to be hinting at the same future of a “superior” enhanced artificial transhuman elite separating from the natural-born rabble, in this particularly damning passage from 4IR:

We are at the threshold of a radical systemic change that requires human beings to adapt continuously. As a result, we may witness an increasing degree of polarization in the world, marked by those who embrace change versus those who resist it.

This gives rise to an inequality that goes beyond the societal one described earlier. This ontological inequality will separate those who adapt from those who resist—the material winners and losers in all senses of the words.

The winners may even benefit from some form of radical human improvement generated by certain segments of the fourth industrial revolution (such as genetic engineering) from which the losers will be deprived. This risks creating class conflicts and other clashes unlike anything we have seen before.[2]

Schwab was already talking about a “great transformation” back in 2016[2] and is clearly determined to do everything in his not inconsiderable power to bring about his eugenics-inspired transhumanist world of artifice, surveillance, control and exponential profit.

But, as revealed by his reference above to “class conflicts”, he is clearly worried by the possibility of “societal resistance”[1] and how to advance “if technologies receive a great deal of resistance from the public”.[1]

Schwab’s annual WEF shindigs at Davos have long been met by anti-capitalist protests and, despite the current paralysis of the radical left, he is well aware of the possibility of renewed and perhaps broader opposition to his project, with the risk of “resentment, fear and political backlash”.[1]

In his most recent book he provides a historical context, noting that “antiglobalization was strong in the run-up to 1914 and up to 1918, then less so during the 1920s, but it reignited in the 1930s as a result of the Great Depression”. [4]

He notes that in the early 2000s “the political and societal backlash against globalization relentlessly gained strength”,[4] says that “social unrest” has been widespread across the world in the past two years, citing the Gilets Jaunes in France among other movements, and invokes the “sombre scenario” that “the same could happen again”.[4]

So how is an honest technocrat supposed to roll out his preferred future for the world without the agreement of the global public? How can Schwab and his billionaire friends impose their favoured society on the rest of us?

One answer is relentless brainwashing propaganda churned out by the mass media and academia owned by the 1% elite – what they like to call “a narrative”.

For Schwab, the reluctance of the majority of humankind to leap aboard his 4IR express reflects the tragedy that:

the world lacks a consistent, positive and common narrative that outlines the opportunities and challenges of the fourth industrial revolution, a narrative that is essential if we are to empower a diverse set of individuals and communities and avoid a popular backlash against the fundamental changes under way”.[2]

He adds:

It is, therefore, critical that we invest attention and energy in multistakeholder cooperation across academic, social, political, national and industry boundaries. These interactions and collaborations are needed to create positive, common and hope-filled narratives, enabling individuals and groups from all parts of the world to participate in, and benefit from, the ongoing transformations.”[2]

One of these “narratives” whitewashes the reasons for which 4IR technology needs to be installed everywhere in the world as soon as possible.

Schwab is frustrated that “more than half of the world’s population—around 3.9 billion people—still cannot access the internet”,[1] with 85% of the population of developing countries remaining offline and therefore out of reach, as compared to 22% in the developed world.

The actual aim of the 4IR is to exploit these populations for profit via global techno-imperialism, but of course that cannot be stated in the propaganda “narrative” required to sell the plan.

Instead, their mission has to be presented, as Schwab himself does, as a bid to “develop technologies and systems that serve to distribute economic and social values such as income, opportunity and liberty to all stakeholders”.[1]

He piously postures as a guardian of woke liberal values, declaring:

Thinking inclusively goes beyond thinking about poverty or marginalized communities simply as an aberration—something that we can solve. It forces us to realize that ‘our privileges are located on the same map as their suffering’. It moves beyond income and entitlements, though these remain important. Instead, the inclusion of stakeholders and the distribution of benefits expand freedoms for all.”[1]

The same technique, of a fake “narrative” designed to fool good-thinking citizens into supporting an imperialist capitalist scheme, has been used extensively with regard to climate change.

Schwab is a great fan of Greta Thunberg, of course, who had barely stood up from the pavement after her one-girl protest in Stockholm before being whisked off to address the WEF at Davos.

He is also a supporter of the proposed global New Deal for Nature, particularly via Voice for the Planet, which was launched at the WEF in Davos in 2019 by the Global Shapers, a youth-grooming organisation created by Schwab in 2011 and aptly described by investigative journalist Cory Morningstar as “a grotesque display of corporate malfeasance disguised as good”.

In his 2020 book, Schwab actually lays out the way that fake “youth activism” is being used to advance his capitalist aims.

He writes, in a remarkably frank passage:

Youth activism is increasing worldwide, being revolutionized by social media that increases mobilization to an extent that would have been impossible before. It takes many different forms, ranging from non-institutionalized political participation to demonstrations and protests, and addresses issues as diverse as climate change, economic reforms, gender equality and LGBTQ rights. The young generation is firmly at the vanguard of social change. There is little doubt that it will be the catalyst for change and a source of critical momentum for the Great Reset.[4]

In fact, of course, the ultra-industrial future proposed by Schwab is anything other than green. It’s not nature he’s interested in, but “natural capital” and “incentivizing investment in green and social frontier markets”.[4]

Pollution means profit and environmental crisis is just another business opportunity, as he details in The Fourth Industrial Revolution:

In this revolutionary new industrial system, carbon dioxide turns from a greenhouse pollutant into an asset, and the economics of carbon capture and storage move from being cost as well as pollution sinks to becoming profitable carbon-capture and use-production facilities. Even more important, it will help companies, governments and citizens become more aware of and engaged with strategies to actively regenerate natural capital, allowing intelligent and regenerative uses of natural capital to guide sustainable production and consumption and give space for biodiversity to recover in threatened areas.[2]

Schwab’s “solutions” to the heart-breaking damage inflicted on our natural world by industrial capitalism involve more of the same poison, except worse.

Geoengineering is one of his favourites:

Proposals include installing giant mirrors in the stratosphere to deflect the sun’s rays, chemically seeding the atmosphere to increase rainfall and the deployment of large machines to remove carbon dioxide from the air.”[1]

And he adds:

New approaches are currently being imagined through the combination of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, such as nanoparticles and other advanced materials.”[1]

Like all the businesses and pro-capitalist NGOs backing the threatened New Deal for Nature, Schwab is utterly and profoundly ungreen.

For him, the “ultimate possibility” of “clean” and “sustainable” energy includes nuclear fusion[1] and he looks forward to the day when satellites will “blanket the planet with communications pathways that could help connect the more than 4 billion people still lacking online access”.[1]

Schwab also very much regrets all that red tape preventing the unhindered onward march of GM food, warning that:

global food security will only be achieved, however, if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops.”[1]

The new order envisaged by Schwab will embrace the entire world and so global governance is required in order to impose it, as he repeatedly states.

His preferred future “will only come about through improved global governance”[4] he insists. “Some form of effective global governance”[4] is needed.

The problem we have today is that of a possible “global order deficit”,[4] he claims, adding improbably that the World Health Organization “is saddled with limited and dwindling resources”.[4]

What he is really saying is that his 4IR/great reset society will only function if it imposed simultaneously everywhere on the planet, otherwise “we will become paralysed in our attempts to address and respond to global challenges”.[4]

He admits:

In a nutshell, global governance is at the nexus of all these other issues.”[4]

This all-englobing empire very much frowns on the idea of any particular population democratically deciding to take another path. These “risk becoming isolated from global norms, putting these nations at risk of becoming the laggards of the new digital economy”,[2] warns Schwab.

Any sense of autonomy and grassroots belonging is regarded as a threat from Schwab’s imperialist perspective and is due to be eradicated under the 4IR.

He writes:

Individuals used to identify their lives most closely with a place, an ethnic group, a particular culture or even a language. The advent of online engagement and increased exposure to ideas from other cultures means that identities are now more fungible than previously… Thanks to the combination of historical migration patterns and low-cost connectivity, family structures are being redefined.[2]

Genuine democracy essentially falls into the same category for Schwab. He knows that most people will not willingly go along with plans to destroy their lives and enslave them to a global techno-fascist system of exploitation, so giving them a say in the matter is simply not an option.

This is why the “stakeholder” concept has been so important for Schwab’s project. As discussed above, this is the negation of democracy, with its emphasis instead on “reaching out across stakeholder groups for solution building”.[1]

If the public, the people, are included in this process it is only at a superficial level. The agenda has already been pre-supposed and the decisions pre-made behind the scenes.

Schwab effectively admits as much when he writes:

We must re-establish a dialogue among all stakeholders to ensure mutual understanding that further builds a culture of trust among regulators, non-governmental organizations, professionals and scientists. The public must also be considered, because it must participate in the democratic shaping of biotechnological developments that affect society, individuals and cultures.[1]

So the public must “also” be considered, as an afterthought. Not even directly consulted, just “considered”! And the role of the people, the demos, will merely be to “participate” in the “shaping” of biotechnological developments.

The possibility of the public actually rejecting the very idea of biotechnological developments has been entirely removed thanks to the deliberately in-built assumptions of the stakeholder formula.

The same message is implied in the heading of Schwab’s conclusion to Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “What You Can Do to Shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.[1] The techno-tyranny cannot challenged or stopped, merely “shaped”.

Schwab uses the term “systems leadership” to describe the profoundly anti-democratic way in which the 1% imposes its agenda on us all, without giving us the chance to say ‘no’.

He writes:

Systems leadership is about cultivating a shared vision for change—working together with all stakeholders of global society—and then acting on it to change how the system delivers its benefits, and to whom. Systems leadership requires action from all stakeholders, including individuals, business executives, social influencers and policy-makers”.[1]

He refers to this full-spectrum top-down control as “the system management of human existence”[1] although others might prefer the term “totalitarianism”.

One of the distinguishing features of historical fascism in Italy and Germany was its impatience with the inconvenient restraints imposed on the ruling class (“the Nation” in fascist language) by democracy and political liberalism.

All of this had to be swept out of the way to allow a Blitzkrieg of accelerated “modernisation”.

We see the same spirit resurging in Schwab’s calls for “agile governance” in which he claims that “the pace of technological development and a number of characteristics of technologies render previous policy-making cycles and processes inadequate”.[1]

He writes:

The idea of reforming governance models to cope with new technologies is not new, but the urgency of doing so is far greater in light of the power of today’s emerging technologies… the concept of agile governance seeks to match the nimbleness, fluidity, flexibility and adaptiveness of the technologies themselves and the private-sector actors adopting them”.[1]

The phrase “reforming governance models to cope with new technologies” really gives the game away here. As under fascism, social structures must be reinvented so as to accommodate the requirements of capitalism and its profit-increasing technologies.

Schwab explains that his “agile governance” would involve creating so-called policy labs – “protected spaces within government with an explicit mandate to experiment with new methods of policy development by using agile principles” – and “encouraging collaborations between governments and businesses to create ‘developtory sandboxes’ and ‘experimental testbeds’ to develop regulations using iterative, cross-sectoral and flexible approaches”.[1]

For Schwab, the role of the state is to advance capitalist aims, not to hold them up to any form of scrutiny. While he is all in favour of the state’s role in enabling a corporate take-over of our lives, he is less keen about its regulatory function, which might slow down the inflow of profit into private hands, and so he envisages “the development of ecosystems of private regulators, competing in markets”.[1]

In his 2018 book, Schwab discusses the problem of pesky regulations and how best to “overcome these limits” in the context of data and privacy.

He comes up with the suggestion of

public-private data-sharing agreements that ‘break glass in case of emergency’. These come into play only under pre-agreed emergency circumstances (such as a pandemic) and can help reduce delays and improve the coordination of first responders, temporarily allowing data sharing that would be illegal under normal circumstances.” [1]

Funnily enough, two years later there was indeed a “pandemic” and these “pre-agreed emergency circumstances” became a reality.

This shouldn’t have been too much of a surprise for Schwab, since his WEF had co-hosted the infamous Event 201 conference in October 2019, which modelled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.

And he wasted little time in bringing out a new book, Covid-19: The Great Reset, co-authored with Thierry Malleret, who runs something called the Monthly Barometer, “a succinct predictive analysis provided to private investors, global CEOs and opinion- and decision-makers”.[4]

Published in July 2020, the book sets out to advance “conjectures and ideas about what the post-pandemic world might, and perhaps should, look like”.[4]

Schwab and Malleret admit that Covid-19 is “one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years”, adding that “the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics”.[4]

They add:

It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.” [4]

Yet, incredibly, this “mild” illness is simultaneously presented as the excuse for unprecedented social change under the banner of “The Great Reset”!

And although they explicitly declare that Covid-19 does not constitute a major “shock”, the authors repeatedly deploy the same term to describe the broader impact of the crisis.

Schwab and Malleret place Covid-19 in a long tradition of events which have facilitated sudden and significant changes to our societies.

They specifically invoke the Second World War:

World War II was the quintessential transformational war, triggering not only fundamental changes to the global order and the global economy, but also entailing radical shifts in social attitudes and beliefs that eventually paved the way for radically new policies and social contract provisions (like women joining the workforce before becoming voters).

There are obviously fundamental dissimilarities between a pandemic and a war (that we will consider in some detail in the following pages), but the magnitude of their transformative power is comparable. Both have the potential to be a transformative crisis of previously unimaginable proportions”.[4]

They also join many contemporary “conspiracy theorists” in making a direct comparison between Covid-19 and 9/11:

This is what happened after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. All around the world, new security measures like employing widespread cameras, requiring electronic ID cards and logging employees or visitors in and out became the norm. At that time, these measures were deemed extreme, but today they are used everywhere and considered ‘normal’”.[4]

When any tyrant declares the right to rule over a population without taking their views into account, they like to justify their dictatorship with the claim that they are morally entitled to do so because they are “enlightened”.

The same is true of the Covid-fuelled tyranny of Schwab’s great reset, which the book categorises as “enlightened leadership”, adding:

Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes. They will, in effect, make ‘good use’ of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste”.[4]

The global capitalist ruling elite have certainly been doing their best to “take advantage of the shock inflicted by the panic”, assuring us all since the very earliest days of the outbreak that, for some unfathomable reason, nothing in our lives could ever be the same again.

Schwab and Malleret are, inevitably, enthusiastic in their use of the New Normal framing, despite their admission that the virus was only ever “mild”.

“It is our defining moment”, they crow. “Many things will change forever”. “A new world will emerge”. “The societal upheaval unleashed by COVID-19 will last for years, and possibly generations”.

Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never.”

They even go as far as proposing a new historical separation between “the pre-pandemic era” and “the post-pandemic world”.[4]

They write:

Radical changes of such consequence are coming that some pundits have referred to a ‘before coronavirus’ (BC) and ‘after coronavirus’ (AC) era. We will continue to be surprised by both the rapidity and unexpected nature of these changes – as they conflate with each other, they will provoke second-, third-, fourth- and more-order consequences, cascading effects and unforeseen outcomes. In so doing, they will shape a ‘new normal’ radically different from the one we will be progressively leaving behind. Many of our beliefs and assumptions about what the world could or should look like will be shattered in the process.[4]

Back in 2016, Schwab was looking ahead to “new ways of using technology to change behavior”[2] and predicting:

The scale and breadth of the unfolding technological revolution will usher in economic, social and cultural changes of such phenomenal proportions that they are almost impossible to envisage”.[2]

One way in which he had hoped his technocratic agenda would be advanced was, as we have noted, through the phoney “solutions” to climate change proposed by fake green capitalists.

Under the title “environmental reset”, Schwab and Malleret state:

At first glance, the pandemic and the environment might seem to be only distantly related cousins; but they are much closer and more intertwined than we think.” [4]

One of the connections is that both the climate and virus “crises” have been used by the WEF and their like to push their agenda of global governance. As Schwab and his co-author put it, “they are global in nature and therefore can only be properly addressed in a globally coordinated fashion”.[4]

Another link is the way that the “the post-pandemic economy” and “the green economy”[4] involve massive profits for largely the same sectors of big business.

Covid-19 has evidently been great news for those capitalists hoping to cash in on environmental destruction, with Schwab and Malleret reporting:

The conviction that ESG strategies benefited from the pandemic and are most likely to benefit further is corroborated by various surveys and reports. Early data shows that the sustainability sector outperformed conventional funds during the first quarter of 2020.”[4]

The capitalist sharks of the so-called “sustainability sector” are rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of all the money they stand to make from the Covid-pretexted great fascist reset, in which the state is instrumentalised to fund their hypocritical profiteering.

Note Schwab and Malleret:

The key to crowding private capital into new sources of nature-positive economic value will be to shift key policy levers and public finance incentives as part of a wider economic reset”.[4]

A policy paper prepared by Systemiq in collaboration with the World Economic Forum estimates that building the nature-positive economy could represent more than $10 trillion per year by 2030… Resetting the environment should not be seen as a cost, but rather as an investment that will generate economic activity and employment opportunities.” [4]

Given the intertwining of climate and Covid crises set out by Schwab, we might speculate that the original plan was to push through the New Normal reset on the back of the climate crisis.

But evidently, all that publicity for Greta Thunberg and big business-backed Extinction Rebellion did not whip up enough public panic to justify such measures.

Covid-19 serves Schwab’s purposes perfectly, as the immediate urgency it presents allows the whole process to be speeded up and rushed through without due scrutiny.

This crucial difference between the respective time-horizons of a pandemic and that of climate change and nature loss means that a pandemic risk requires immediate action that will be followed by a rapid result, while climate change and nature loss also require immediate action, but the result (or ‘future reward’, in the jargon of economists) will only follow with a certain time lag.[4]

For Schwab and his friends, Covid-19 is the great accelerator of everything they have been wanting to foist upon us for years.

As he and Malleret say:

The pandemic is clearly exacerbating and accelerating geopolitical trends that were already apparent before the crisis erupted.” [4]

The pandemic will mark a turning point by accelerating this transition. It has crystallized the issue and made a return to the pre-pandemic status quo impossible.” [4]

They can barely conceal their delight at the direction society is now taking:

The pandemic will accelerate innovation even more, catalysing technological changes already under way (comparable to the exacerbation effect it has had on other underlying global and domestic issues) and ‘turbocharging’ any digital business or the digital dimension of any business.[4]
[…]
With the pandemic, the ‘digital transformation’ that so many analysts have been referring to for years, without being exactly sure what it meant, has found its catalyst. One major effect of confinement will be the expansion and progression of the digital world in a decisive and often permanent manner.

In April 2020, several tech leaders observed how quickly and radically the necessities created by the health crisis had precipitated the adoption of a wide range of technologies. In the space of just one month, it appeared that many companies in terms of tech take-up fast-forwarded by several years.[4]

Fate is obviously smiling on Klaus Schwab as this Covid-19 crisis has, happily, succeeded in advancing pretty much every aspect of the agenda he has been promoting over the decades.

Thus he and Malleret report with satisfaction that “the pandemic will fast-forward the adoption of automation in the workplace and the introduction of more robots in our personal and professional lives”.[4]

Lockdowns across the world have, needless to say, provided a big financial boost to those business offering online shopping.

The authors recount:

Consumers need products and, if they can’t shop, they will inevitably resort to purchasing them online. As the habit kicks in, people who had never shopped online before will become comfortable with doing so, while people who were part-time online shoppers before will presumably rely on it more. This was made evident during the lockdowns.

In the US, Amazon and Walmart hired a combined 250,000 workers to keep up with the increase in demand and built massive infrastructure to deliver online. This accelerating growth of e-commerce means that the giants of the online retail industry are likely to emerge from the crisis even stronger than they were in the pre-pandemic era.[4]

They add:

As more and diverse things and services are brought to us via our mobiles and computers, companies in sectors as disparate as e-commerce, contactless operations, digital content, robots and drone deliveries (to name just a few) will thrive. It is not by accident that firms like Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix or Zoom emerged as ‘winners’ from the lockdowns.[4]

By way of corollary, we might suggest that it is “not by accident” that governments which have been captured and controlled by big business, thanks to the likes of the WEF, have imposed a “new reality” COV under which big businesses are the “winners”…

The Covid-inspired good news never stops for all the business sectors which stand to benefit from the Fourth Industrial Repression.

The pandemic may prove to be a boon for online education,” Schwab and Malleret report. “In Asia, the shift to online education has been particularly notable, with a sharp increase in students’ digital enrolments, much higher valuation for online education businesses and more capital available for ‘ed-tech’ start-ups… In the summer of 2020, the direction of the trend seems clear: the world of education, like for so many other industries, will become partly virtual.[4]

Online sports have also taken off:

For a while, social distancing may constrain the practice of certain sports, which will in turn benefit the ever-more powerful expansion of e-sports. Tech and digital are never far away!” [4]

There is similar news from the banking sector:

Online banking interactions have risen to 90 percent during the crisis, from 10 percent, with no drop-off in quality and an increase in compliance.” [4]

The Covid-inspired move into online activity obviously benefits Big Tech, who are making enormous profits out of the crisis, as the authors describe:

The combined market value of the leading tech companies hit record after record during the lockdowns, even rising back above levels before the outbreak started… this phenomenon is unlikely to abate any time soon, quite the opposite.” [4]

But it is also good news for all the businesses involved, who no longer have to pay human beings to work for them. Automation is, and has always been, about saving costs and thus boosting profits for the capitalist elite.

The culture of the fascist New Normal will also provide lucrative spin-off benefits for particular business sectors, such as the packing industry, explain Schwab and Malleret.

The pandemic will certainly heighten our focus on hygiene. A new obsession with cleanliness will particularly entail the creation of new forms of packaging. We will be encouraged not to touch the products we buy. Simple pleasures like smelling a melon or squeezing a fruit will be frowned upon and may even become a thing of the past.”[4]

The authors also describe what sounds very much like a technocratic profit-related agenda behind the “social distancing” which has been such a key element of the Covid “reset”.

They write:

In one form or another, social- and physical-distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. After a while, the enduring concerns about technological unemployment will recede as societies emphasize the need to restructure the workplace in a way that minimizes close human contact.

Indeed, automation technologies are particularly well suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions. Our lingering and possibly lasting fear of being infected with a virus (COVID-19 or another) will thus speed the relentless march of automation, particularly in the fields most susceptible to automation.[4]

As previously mentioned, Schwab has long been frustrated by all those tiresome regulations which stop capitalists from making as much money as they would like to, by focusing on economically irrelevant concerns such as the safety and well being of human beings.

But – hooray! – the Covid crisis has provided the perfect excuse for doing away with great swathes of these outmoded impediments to prosperity and growth.

One area in which meddlesome red tape is being abandoned is health. Why would any right-minded stakeholder imagine that any particular obligation for care and diligence should be allowed to impinge on the profitability of this particular business sector?

Schwab and Malleret are overjoyed to note that telemedicine will “benefit considerably” from the Covid emergency:

The necessity to address the pandemic with any means available (plus, during the outbreak, the need to protect health workers by allowing them to work remotely) removed some of the regulatory and legislative impediments related to the adoption of telemedicine.” [4]

The ditching of regulations is a general phenomenon under the New Normal global regime, as Schwab and Malleret relate:

To date governments have often slowed the pace of adoption of new technologies by lengthy ponderings about what the best regulatory framework should look like but, as the example of telemedicine and drone delivery is now showing, a dramatic acceleration forced by necessity is possible.

During the lockdowns, a quasi-global relaxation of regulations that had previously hampered progress in domains where the technology had been available for years suddenly happened because there was no better or other choice available. What was until recently unthinkable suddenly became possible… New regulations will stay in place.[4]

They add:

The current imperative to propel, no matter what, the ‘contactless economy’ and the subsequent willingness of regulators to speed it up means that there are no holds barred.” [4]

“No holds barred”. Make no mistake: this is the language adopted by capitalism when it abandons its pretence at liberal democracy and switches into full-on fascist mode.

It is clear from Schwab and Malleret’s work that a fascistic merging of state and business, to the advantage of the latter, underpins their great reset.

Phenomenal sums of money have been transferred from the public purse into the bulging pockets of the 1% since the very start of the Covid crisis, as they acknowledge:

In April 2020, just as the pandemic began to engulf the world, governments across the globe had announced stimulus programmes amounting to several trillion dollars, as if eight or nine Marshall Plans had been put into place almost simultaneously.
[…]
COVID-19 has rewritten many of the rules of the game between the public and private sectors […] The benevolent (or otherwise) greater intrusion of governments in the life of companies and the conduct of their business will be country- and industry-dependent, therefore taking many different guises.
[…]
Measures that would have seemed inconceivable prior to the pandemic may well become standard around the world as governments try to prevent the economic recession from turning into a catastrophic depression.
[…]
Increasingly, there will be calls for government to act as a ‘payer of last resort’ to prevent or stem the spate of mass layoffs and business destruction triggered by the pandemic. All these changes are altering the rules of the economic and monetary policy ‘game’.[4]

Schwab and his fellow author welcome the prospect of increased state powers being used to prop up big business profiteering.

They write:

One of the great lessons of the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.”[4]

And they add:

Looking to the future, governments will most likely, but with different degrees of intensity, decide that it’s in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role.”[4]

The idea of rewriting the rules of the game is, again, very reminiscent of fascist language, as of course is the idea of permanently increasing the role of the state in helping the private sector.

Indeed, it is worth comparing Schwab’s position on this issue with that of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who responded to economic crisis in 1931 by launching a special emergency body, L’Istituto mobiliare italiano, to aid businesses.

He declared this was:

a means of energetically driving the Italian economy towards its corporative phase, which is to say a system which fundamentally respects private property and initiative, but ties them tightly to the State, which alone can protect, control and nourish them”.[5]

Suspicions about the fascistic nature of Schwab’s great reset are confirmed, of course, by the police-state measures that have been rolled out across the world to ensure compliance with “emergency” Covid measures.

The sheer brute force that never lies far beneath the surface of the capitalist system becomes increasingly visible when it enters it fascist stage and this is very much in evidence in Schwab and Malleret’s book.

The word “force” is deployed time and time again in the context of Covid-19. Sometimes this is in a business context, as with the statements that “COVID-19 has forced all the banks to accelerate a digital transformation that is now here to stay” COVD or that “the micro reset will force every company in every industry to experiment new ways of doing business, working and operating”. [4]

But sometimes it is applied directly to human beings, or “consumers” as Schwab and his ilk prefer to think of us.

During the lockdowns, many consumers previously reluctant to rely too heavily on digital applications and services were forced to change their habits almost overnight: watching movies online instead of going to the cinema, having meals delivered instead of going out to restaurants, talking to friends remotely instead of meeting them in the flesh, talking to colleagues on a screen instead of chit-chatting at the coffee machine, exercising online instead of going to the gym, and so on
[…]
Many of the tech behaviours that we were forced to adopt during confinement will through familiarity become more natural. As social and physical distancing persist, relying more on digital platforms to communicate, or work, or seek advice, or order something will, little by little, gain ground on formerly ingrained habits.[4]

Under a fascist system, individuals are not offered the choice as to whether they want to comply with its demands or not, as Schwab and Malleret make quite clear regarding so-called contact-tracing:

No voluntary contact-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system; if any individual refuses to download the app (and therefore to withhold information about a possible infection, movements and contacts), everyone will be adversely affected.” [4]

This, they reflect, is another great advantage of the Covid crisis over the environmental one which might have been used to impose their New Normal:

While for a pandemic, a majority of citizens will tend to agree with the necessity to impose coercive measures, they will resist constraining policies in the case of environmental risks where the evidence can be disputed.” [4]

These “coercive measures”, which we are all expected to go along with, will of course involve unimaginable levels of fascistic surveillance of our lives, particularly in our role as wage slaves.

Write Schwab and Malleret: “The corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does. The trend could take many different forms, from measuring body temperatures with thermal cameras to monitoring via an app how employees comply with social distancing”. (135)

Coercive measures of one kind or another are also likely to be used to force people to take the Covid vaccines currently being lined up.

Schwab is deeply connected to that world, being on a “first-name basis” with Bill Gates and having been hailed by Big Pharma mainstay Henry McKinnell, chairman and CEO of Pfizer Inc, as “a person truly dedicated to a truly noble cause”.

So it is not surprising that he insists, with Malleret, that “a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available”.[4]

He adds:

“The next hurdle is the political challenge of vaccinating enough people worldwide (we are collectively as strong as the weakest link) with a high enough compliance rate despite the rise of anti-vaxxers.” [4]

“Anti-vaxxers” thus join Schwab’s list of threats to his project, along with anti-globalization and anti-capitalist protesters, Gilets Jaunes and all those engaged in “class conflicts”, “societal resistance” and “political backlash”.

The majority of the world’s population have already been excluded from decision-making processes by the lack of democracy which Schwab wants to accentuate through his stakeholderist corporate domination, his “agile governance”, his totalitarian “system management of human existence”.

But how does he envisage dealing with the “sombre scenario” of people rising up against his great new-normalist reset and his transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution?

What degree of “force” and “coercive measures” would he be prepared to accept in order to ensure the dawning of his technocratic new age?

The question is a chilling one, but we should also bear in mind the historical example of the 20th century regime into which Schwab was born.

Hitler’s new Nazi normal was meant to last for a thousand years, but came crashing down 988 years ahead of target.

Just because Hitler said, with all the confidence of power, that his Reich would last for a millennium, this didn’t mean that it was so.

Just because Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret and their friends say that we are now entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution and our world will be changed forever, this doesn’t mean that it is so.

We don’t have to accept their New Normal. We don’t have to go along with their fearmongering. We don’t have to take their vaccines. We don’t have to let them implant us with smartphones or edit our DNA. We don’t have to walk, muzzled and submissive, straight into their transhumanist hell.

We can denounce their lies! Expose their agenda! Refuse their narrative! Reject their toxic ideology! Resist their fascism!

Klaus Schwab is not a god, but a human being. Just one elderly man. And those he works with, the global capitalist elite, are few in number. Their aims are not the aims of the vast majority of humankind.

Their transhumanist vision is repulsive to nearly everyone outside of their little circle and they do not have consent for the technocratic dictatorship they are trying to impose on us.

That, after all, is why they have had to go to such lengths to force it upon us under the false flag of fighting a virus. They understood that without the “emergency” justification, we were never going to go along with their warped scheme.

They are scared of our potential power because they know that if we stand up, we will defeat them. We can bring their project crashing down before it has even properly started.

We are the people, we are the 99%, and together we can grab back our freedom from the deadly jaws of the fascist machine!

NOTES:

[1] Klaus Schwab with Nicholas Davis, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World (Geneva: WEF, 2018), e-book.

[2] Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: WEF, 2016), e-book.

[3] Kevin Warwick, I, Cyborg (London: Century, 2002), p. 4. See also Paul Cudenec, Nature, Essence and Anarchy (Sussex: Winter Oak, 2016).

[4] Klaus Schwab, Thierry Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset (Geneva: WEF, 2020), e-book. Edition 1.0.

[5] Benito Mussolini, cit. Pierre Milza and Serge Berstein, Le fascisme italien 1919-1945 (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1980), p. 246.

=====================

Previous articles 

John’s newsletter

This post provides John’s latest newsletter which covers a range of topical political, technical and environmental issues.

John’s newsletter, 13 December 2020

Hi Guys,

Investments…

 The Reserve Bank of NZ and all other central banks expect a continuation into lower and even negative interest rates during the next several months.  This means investment yields will fall;  and inflation will sooner or later become hyper-inflation.  Even with no news to report the share markets headed higher this week and dividend yields in percentage terms fell further.  Unless invested in companies mauled by the impact of Covid, the actual dividends being paid have held steady in dollar terms. But the rush to shares has had a huge impact.

In New Zealand, the attempted hostile takeover of the Infratil group by “Australian Super”  has also had an impact share prices on energy stocks as well as for Infratil, and not just for Trustpower.

Real estate prices continue higher as bank interest rates for funds on deposit fall through the floorboards.  This affects yields on rentals for both commercial and industrial real estate.  House prices rose on average by $24,000 in November alone.  Incompetent government now driving incompetent central bank policies.

Politics

 By the end of this week, if Boris Johnson holds his nerve, the British will have a “no deal Brexit”.  This will be a lose/lose for both Britain and the EU…

https://youtu.be/iUAzwJBtemI

How could Britain have won in 1945 yet lost to both France and Germany’s bullying in 2020?    The wealthy UK “remainers” have simply persuaded the EU leaders that Boris will cave to their pressure.  Nigel Farage is also continuing his political opposition to Britain either remaining in the EU or the EU continuing to make UK laws…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBQjmjixIl0

In the USA a form of civil war has begun as 19 states sue the states that changes their rules for this specific election. This has nothing to do with Trump versus Biden but the equality of the treatment of a vote from state to state…yet the US Supreme Court is reluctant to get involved.

The Russia-gate effort to impeach Trump was an attempted “soft coup”.  Going after General Flynn was also just a hyped-up attack on Trump’s White House arrangements…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pERAU2e332Q

The votes stats look very iffy…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijtaV5Twf6o&feature=youtu.be

But by the end of next week Trump will either have scored some major surprise victories or will likely have conceded.  As they say, “He is running out of runway”.  The Electoral College votes for the POTUS on Monday and at this point I cannot see that being delayed.  The problems with the Bidens’ obvious criminality are more likely now to see the active communist, Kamala Harris as POTUS than Trump at this stage.  While the Hunter Biden issues have been public knowledge for 70% of US citizens, the news media has protected the Bidens by enforcing an embargo on publication.  Now, instead of the long-running FBI investigation into the conduct of the Biden family being blamed for the attack on “Sleepy Joe”, the mainstream media finger the FBI and IRS actions as being a “loser’s” complaint by Trump.  The Democrats threw the Bidens under the bus during the Congressional impeachment hearings in early 2020 yet the mainstream media completely suppressed the news.  You may recall I was commenting about this at the time.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/joe-biden-deeply-proud-son-hunter-who-just-admitted-facing-federal-tax-fraud?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

and according to Wall Street Journal, US AG Bill Barr intercepted information implicating Hunter Biden and concealed it during the presidential election campaign to Trumps disadvantage.  Now the matter is all over the news despite CNN also having been involved in the cover up.

https://cms.zerohedge.com/political/chinese-money-launderer-called-james-biden-after-fbi-arrest-who-said-he-was-trying-reach?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

Our own media reflects that mainstream globalist media agenda and simply treats the allegations against the Bidens that originated from the US State Department as Trumps sour grapes.  So it seems to me the dystopian Orwellian world of “1984” is here in New Zealand.  Now there is a fourth investigation into Biden…

https://youtu.be/Go7TkInP0mQ

Onto the Great Reset, planned by the global Uber-elites.   Just as the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi, many of the Nazi opinions have now re-surfaced under the guise of the drift towards socialism and the need for practical eugenics to depress global population.  The globalist billionaires are all for it and the leading proponents are now Soros, Schwab and Prince Charles.  But who is Klaus Schwab?

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/youll-own-nothing-and-youll-be-happy?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

The Economy

 Thanks to Covid, the big get bigger and the small get gobbled up…

https://www.mauldineconomics.com/frontlinethoughts/survival-of-the-biggest

No-one seems interested as China sustains more flooding.  What they have had this year is flooding of biblical proportions and the 3-Gorges Dam is still at risk.  No wonder they have famine…

https://youtu.be/LokuLywuXxk

Would China be a better banker to the world than the USA is?

Energy

This looks pretty significant for China but they are still a long way off from viable nuclear fusion power generation…

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Will-China-Win-The-Nuclear-Fusion-Race.html

Trouble in paradise for Bahrain…

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Tiny-Oil-Nation-At-The-Center-Of-A-Middle-East-Power-Struggle.html

It looks like US oil producers are struggling following Covid-19…

Covid-19 and implications

 The inevitable result of the decimation of the ocean cruise industry and the halt in globalisation – however temporary…

https://youtu.be/qo-2gDg-37w

So Melinda Gates reckon they miscalculated?  Of course they are being blamed in some quarters…

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/melinda-gates-admits-we-hadnt-really-thought-through-economic-impacts?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

The Climate and Space Weather

 While the space weather drives climate change, major anomalous solar events can cause mayhem on Earth…as solar cycle 25 gets into gear there are signs of possible CMEs in our near future…

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/digital-economy-disruption-possible-terminator-event-suggests-strongest-sunspot-cycle?utm_campaign=&utm_content=Zerohedge%3A+The+Durden+Dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_source=zh_newsletter

This will be my last email before Christmas unless something  really surprising happens.  In the New Year I fear we will awaken to a Kamala Harris presidency in the USA and to the reality of Brexit.  A brave new world – 1984 2.0 accelerates.  As Mel Brooks said ‘Be afraid, be very afraid’.

 Merry Christmas to everyone…

 Best regards

John

The great ‘reset’. Fiat currencies and economies collapse? Then what? And what role will gold play?

Key parts of the world’s financial affairs have been hi-jacked by self-serving financial organisations, bureaucracies, country leaders and individuals.   The outlook is dire.  Note: The article by Professor Hall, AHT, provides one of the most comprehensive accounts of financial affairs, both recent and back to Biblical times.

Scroll to end to view previous articles

The Fed Has Never Been Right