*The ‘Zeitgeist Movement’ = most hardcore NWO propaganda ever.
Recently I started a huge debate thread on this matter over at ATS. Of course many ZM’ers tred to step up and not only could they not quite extinguish really any of my talking points, but they also couldn’t answer the hard questions about setting up this system that arose later in the thread. Tonight I reworked the outline, and posted it over at the official ZM forums. Let’s see if they don’t delete it and ban me…
What I wrote in case they do delete it:
Hello. I’m here to challenge. When I look over the talking points of this movement I see the same old things I’ve been observing with the ‘NWO’ agenda. I figure since these critiques exist outside of here it’d be best to have you guys explain this (confusion?). Thing is this board seems to have a bad reputation for deleting critical posts and banning critical posters. I hope thats not the case, as it would seem to confirm the allegations I’m about to post.
Before my NWO list I’d like to highlight the questions I have for you all that will follow this…
The “Zeitgeist Movement” and cosponsor “Venus Project” are a most hardcore front in the New World Order / Neo-Communist / Neo-Eugenicist-Transhumanist agenda, whether witting or not.
They call for:
1. Global Government.
2. AI Automatons replacing humans as workers.
3. AGI (‘Skynet’) Supercomuters controlling most aspects of politics and society, including rationing global resources to global citizens. If they actually thought this out they’d know that soon enough machines will need more resources than humans.
4. A Utopian Agenda that “Peter” claims isn’t Utopian, yet the ‘research institute’ even describes itself as being Utopian / Futurist. History proves that all forced utopias become dystopias.
5. Selfish Transhumanist agenda.
6. Cashless (non-backed by Gold/etc) economic system. A ‘Resource Economy’ has been tried before… in the Soviet Union.
7. Population Control. To meet these targets as policy sounds like a slippery slope to me.
8. The global government run by a global ‘god-on-earth’ AGI computer network to replace all world religions.
QUESTIONS:
Even if you might dismiss the context of my outline above, please answer these questions:
A: How could the ZM be implemented without a totalitarian regime to enforce it? Don’t forget the idea of the ZM is that its to be global in scale.
B: How is it any different than Communism?
C: What about private property rights? What is PJ and JF’s views on this? What is yours?
D: Who will pay for it initially?
E: What about the jobs robots can’t replace? And who decides who gets the crappy jobs or the good jobs?
F: Are there ANY comparable historical examples of this system in history that worked?
G: What evidence exists to support the idea fo the Resource Economy, that is the “abundance” part that is crucial to the feasibility of the utopia.
H: Do you truly believe that there is any one size fits all approach to the entire globe and all of its social systems?
I: How can you have an all powerful, global scale system of the greatest power ever considered, totally centralized, and expect that this thing representing an elite cabal would ever give up said power, no matter what or who has this power? And please spare me, we’re talking about the global management of the entire earth and its resources. The ZM is no less subject to how things work out in practice historically, than is the USA, or am I mistaken??
[b]J: What about transition??
Explain to me the transition! My argument is that it would take tyranny just to maintain it. And how do you transition it in without dictatorial tyranny? How many decades would it take. What suffering is this goal worth to get there? Has anyone actually thought this experiment all the way thru? [/b]
K: Explain the transition to this idea that nobody will have to work anymore, please.
L: How can you promise that this system wouldnt calculate its numbers, in order for the utopia to work, and decide that major population numbers wouldnt need to be exterminated?
M: After handing all power over to the AI god global computer network, how can you promise that it wont decide that all humans wont need to be turned into compost?
N: How does PJ make the jump from the tyranny of the Federal Reserve system as being the problem, to money period as the problem to be eliminated?
O: Explain how we ‘get rid of’ ‘money’. Will there not be a ‘credits’ sort of system? If there is, how is this different than money? No ‘monetary units’ whatsoever? If not, please explain the model.
That should be all. I hope we get to discuss all of this, as it would have to be pretty embarrassing for you if this gets deleted. I mean, if you can’t openly address criticisms then it already proves this system is no different than Stalinism.
*Dear Alarmists, how far is too far to stop global warming??
Lets pretend that ‘Global Warming’ is everything they say. Despite the deterioration of Alarmist talking points, it seems Alarmists still push on. But here I’d like to skip all that and play along in the concept of Alarmist truth. Here we’ll overlook flaws in computer models that make all the predictions, and so on. How far is too far? What is is worth to stop what you believe is going to happen?
These questions may sound cynical, but Al Gore claims its pretty much already too late.
How many trillions of ‘monetary units’ is it worth?
What percentage of your annual income should be taxed for this?
What percentage of your annual income should you be required to personally invest in reducing your carbon footprint?
How high should energy prices be artificially increased in order to get you to use less energy?
How many vacations should we be allowed to take each year, if any?
Should we all be required to use laptop PC’s (or smaller) that use less energy?
What’s the largest TV screen we are allowed to have?
How much privacy do we need to lose, in order that the (world?) can be sure we’re not committing carbon/etc sins?
How many gallons of water per day total should we be allowed to use?
How much in price increases in all things used by humans is too much?
How many days in jail should we face for having a bonfire with friends?
How much jail time should we face for having more than one child?
How much human suffering in general is it worth?
Is it really worth having a communistic dictatorial global government take over the world?
How many humans can die now each year by diverting funds into global warming research and programs?
How many humans can suffer blight and blindness from lack of vitamins now each year by diverting funds into global warming research and programs?
How many humans should be exterminated right away in order to stop global warming?
What percentage of the population should serve as citizen snitch brigades? All?
Should all space travel be put to a halt?
Is Artificial Intelligence (i.e. ‘Skynet’) and the threats it poses to the total existence to humans worth stopping global warming? I ask because that is literally the case right now.
Is it worth near-abandoning the use of most modern plastics in order to stop using petroleum? I ask since we get our plastics at the same time we get our fuel.
What facets of our daily lives should be exempt from global warming policies, if any?
Should technological elitist scientists really be able to over-rule democracy?
Should wars be raged today in order to stop global warming?
Should the eating of ‘farting meat’ be outlawed? If so, what penalties should be imposed on the guilty?
Should large farting animals such as cattle be exterminated?
If beans replacing meat in human diet produces nearly as much methane, how many humans should be eliminated in order to curb methane emissions?
Should air conditioning and furnace units be outlawed? Or what is the highest or lowest temp deviation from the outside environment can be offset by such appliances?
Should we be forced to be strict vegetarians?
Should we only be allowed to buy local vegetables, which subjects us to seasonal availability issues? Dont forget, if we have to become vegetarians we’ll be desperate for variety.
How far should the industrialized world be deindustrialized?
Should we only be allowed to buy a certain amount of clothes, or other items (please list) per year?
What, if anything, shouldn’t be considered in all of this?
To what extent should other everyday real life environmental issues be ignored in order to stop this? It seems most already are with all of the focus in global warming.
While we’re at it, why don’t you scream as loud about mandating industrial hemp for all paper use, as loud as you scream about global warming?
What fine for getting caught using incandesant lightbulbs?
Should we not be allowed to upgrade our PC’s unless the parts actually break?
Should we not be allowed to waste electricity doing things like playing videos games and using our devices for other entertainment purposes?
What are the largest speakers we can have in our homes, our cars?
Are we allowed to drink pure reverse osmosis water? In the RO process, more water is rejected than allowed thru. Municipal water pumping stations use energy.
What are the maximum lumens (measurement of light), or wattage, per cubic foot allowed at night (or day) time inside dwellings?
What do you have against one having brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts or uncles?
How many grams of food per day should anyone be allowed to eat?
Arcades: a good thing?
What sports should be outlawed first? Last?
Are allowed to have a pool, a hot tub?
What should be closed first, waterparks or rollercoaster parks?
Argh. Thats all I have time for.
*Kids Cartoon Depicts Merger of Transhumanism & Mysticism.
Ignorance Is Futile Exclusive:
A while back I was at a friends while out of town and he put the cartoon “Justice League Unlimited” on the TV. It’s not too often I see TV, but sure enough there it was. In the episode titled “The Return”, a nanotechnology based ‘android’ returns to earth to settle an old score with (the reformed) criminal mastermind Lex Luther.
The android is the ultimate god like being, able to ‘destroy’ planets (teleport them to different dimensions actually), communicate across outerspace using telepathy, absorb attacks by any superhero, and so on. The creature smashes through every line of defense of several worlds in its path to earth.
While at first it seems the being is on a war path, it ends up that it was on a sort of soul seeking quest to have Luther advise it what its purpose is. Meanwhile a mutant that embodies mysticism interjects against attempts to destroy the android, and in the end they teleport off to wherever via the mystics’ ‘ahnk’ symbol superpower.
Between the rhetoric and the symbolism the episode is obvious propaganda promoting Transhumanist ideals and New Age symbology. Aside from the obvious ahnk symbol (which stands for “eternal life”), it could also be argued that the end scene depicts a Masonic “point within a circle” symbol. While there are two characters inside the circle, the ahnk event happens in the middle of it. Therefore it’s still worthwhile to cover the meaning of this symbol. Freemason Albert Mackey describes the masonic ‘meaning’:
The point within a Circle is another symbol of great importance in Freemasonry, and commands peculiar attention in this connection with the ancient symbolism of the universe and the solar orb. Everybody who has read a masonic “Monitor” is well acquainted with the usual explanation of this symbol. We are told that the point represents an individual brother, the circle the boundary line of his duty to God and man, and the two perpendicular parallel lines the patron saints of the order–St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist.
He continues on to explain the ancient meaning:
Perfectly to understand this symbol, I must refer, as a preliminary matter, to the worship of the Phallus, a peculiar modification of sun-worship, which prevailed to a great extent among the nations of antiquity.
The Phallus was a sculptured representation of the membrum virile, or male organ of generation, 76 and the worship of it is said to have originated in Egypt, where, after the murder of Osiris by Typhon, which is symbolically to be explained as the destruction or deprivation of the sun’s light by night, Isis, his wife, or the symbol of nature, in the search for his mutilated body, is said to have found all the parts except the organs of generation, which myth is simply symbolic of the fact, that the sun having set, its fecundating and invigorating power had ceased. The Phallus, therefore, as the symbol of the male generative principle, was very universally venerated among the ancients, 77 and that too as a religious rite, without the slightest reference to any impure or lascivious application. 78 He is supposed, by some commentators, to be the god mentioned under the name of Baal-peor, in the Book of Numbers, 79 as having been worshipped by the idolatrous Moabites. Among the eastern nations of India the same symbol was prevalent, under the name of “Lingam.” But the Phallus or Lingam was a representation of the male principle only. To perfect the circle of generation it is necessary to advance one step farther. Accordingly we find in the Cteis of the Greeks, and the Yoni of the Indians, a symbol of the female generative principle, of co-extensive prevalence with the Phallus. The Cteis was a circular and concave pedestal, or receptacle, on which the Phallus or column rested, and from the centre of which it sprang.
The union of the Phallus and Cteis, or the Lingam and Yoni, in one compound figure, as an object of adoration, was the most usual mode of representation. This was in strict accordance with the whole system of ancient mythology, which was founded upon a worship of the prolific powers of nature. All the deities of pagan antiquity, however numerous they may be, can always be reduced to the two different forms of the generative principle–the active, or male, and the passive, or female. Hence the gods were always arranged in pairs, as Jupiter and Juno, Bacchus and Venus, Osiris and Isis. But the ancients went farther. Believing that the procreative and productive powers of nature might be conceived to exist in the same individual, they made the older of their deities hermaphrodite, and used the term ἀῤῥενοθέλυς, or man-virgin, to denote the union of the two sexes in the same divine person
This symbol can be found in the Washington Monument that was built by Freemasons, and in front of their supposed enemies at the Vatican’s St. Peter’s Square.
In any case, I warned of this combinatorial idea in my video “They Want Your Soul”, that I made in 2006, back when I used to dabble in ideas of religion. It turns out that 2012 New Ager types often claim that in 2012 when the Mayan calendar “ends” there will be a “transformation of consciousness”, that will include ‘hive mind telepathy’. They make these claims without any evidence whatsoever, as there exists no Mayan artifacts that actually tell what 2012 means.
Meanwhile, my other findings back then included DARPA & NASA programs that had their Skynet’esque AI programs as being operational in 2012, and there already exists non-invasive brain-computer interfaces. So in my view, it would seem that these 2012 New Agers are unwitting self-fulfilling prophecizers of the Transhumanist goal of a technological transformation of consciousness.
*The Cold War Lives On: Gorbachev Exposes Global Communist Environmentalism Conspiracy.
The collapse of the Soviet Union didn’t mark the end of the Cold War. The Cold War never ended, and we’re losing this war. As the collapse became imminent, they were already enacting their final strategy. The case is rather simple, and Mikhail Gorbachev is the key.
“Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about Glasnost and Perestroika and democracy in the coming years. They are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant internal changes in the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our purpose is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.” -Mikhail Gorbachev, speech to the Soviet Politburo, November 1987
As the Soviet collapse became imminent in the final years, the Communist strategy became to infiltrate global environmental organizations. Gorbachev was active in this effort as early as 1990.
In 1992, the year following the Soviet collapse, the framework was already underway following the UN’s Earth Summit, after which he founded Green Cross International (GCI) officially in 1993. That same year, Gorbachev’s GCI was the fountainhead of the infamous Kyoto summit, during which he sat as the president of the proceedings. In the video above he actually ‘jokes’ about being the “dictator” of the conference.
The idea of Gorbachev legitimately being en environmentalist is even more absurd than the idea of Al Gore truly being ‘green’:
Formerly leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev is now one of the world’s most vocal global warming activists. This is an unlikely role indeed for a man who during his years in power showed no inclination to address environmental issues. This could not have been for lack of opportunity, given that he presided over a country which suffered from extensive ecological damage wrought by years of gross disregard and mismanagement. Had he had the inclination, there was much to do about the lamentable state of his country’s environmental condition. Gorbachev, however, not only did nothing, but brazenly continued the Soviet regime’s ecologically disastrous policies.
But nothing revealed his true attitudes more glaringly than the explosion of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl. His first reaction was not to launch a clean-up operation, but to conceal the fact. Initially he denied that anything happened at all. Then, when radioactive clouds reached countries hundreds of kilometers away, he claimed that it was only a ‘minor’ accident. It was only under the pressure of growing evidence that Gorbachev finally admitted the truth. While mounting the cover-up, the time and energy that could have been used to contend with the unfolding ecological catastrophe were irretrievably lost. But that was not all, for Gorbachev also decided to sacrifice the lives of thousands whom he refused to evacuate or even notify of the danger. Scores died and countless others suffered from diseases caused by exposure to radiation. Many could have been saved had Gorbachev done the decent thing. Chernobyl thus stands as tragic evidence of Gorbachev’s disdain both for nature and human life which, sadly, is all too often found in those who espouse the communist worldview.
The idea to infiltrate environmentalist organizations was a smart move, as with the right propaganda and phony climate fraud environmentalists would be easy targets as unwitting minions. You see with an issue like Global Warming, the only way it could be solved, if it even could, assuming it were real, would be by a global government dictating and rationing the worlds resources.
As it turns out, that exact thing is being worked towards, as we speak, in Copenhagen. It’s no wonder they also have the head of the UN post op-eds calling for climate based global government, as this year the New York Times hired Mikhail as an op-ed columnist. His column from today is titled “We Have a Real Emergency“, and in it he urges the typical ‘we need a global government to stop catastrophic climate change’ type rhetoric. Similar words are found in another op-ed he wrote earlier this year:
The second question concerns the G-20’s place within the system of global institutions. What is this group: a “global politburo,” a “club of the powerful,” a prototype for a world government? How will it interact with the United Nations?
www.nytimes.com…
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore eventually left the organization as after the ‘end of the Cold War’, communists hijacked the movement including the organization he helped create:
(After the Cold War ‘ended’) “suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
“A lot of those in the peace movement were anti-American and, to an extent, pro-Soviet. By virtue of their anti-Americanism, they tended to sometimes favor the communist approach. A lot of those people, a lot of those social activists, moved into the environmental movement once the peace movement was no longer relevant.” Social activists, he suggests, “are now using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other collectivist agendas, such as class struggle — which I personally believe is a legitimate area, but I don’t believe it’s legitimate to mix it up with environmentalism.”
findarticles.com…
I argue that the UN and the co-opted Environmentalist movement are key facets in the “ruthless and monolithic conspiracy” that JFK warned us all about, as I showcased in my new short film exposing the Climategate UN-IPCC data manipulation scheme to trump up phony “Global Warming” hysteria, in the context of the “New World Order”:
At the end of the video, after all the leaked CRU emails, numerous Western world leaders are shown calling for global government, aka a “new world order” headed by the UN. As it turns out, Mikhail has been calling for the same thing for many decades:
“In October, 1917 we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a New World, a world of Communism. We shall NEVER turn off that road.” -Mikhail Gorbachev at the Kremlin in Moscow, Nov. 2, 1987
“Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a New World Order.” – Mikhail Gorbachev, in an address to the United Nations, December 1988
Today, virtually all world leaders are openly calling for a UN headed “New World Order” global government as I chronicled here: *When all major world leaders openly call for global government.
Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, former ‘prisoner’ (hypothetically) of the Soviet system explain the parallels between Communism and modern Environmentalism:
Czech prez: Environmentalism is new communism:
As the House Energy and Commerce Committee prepares to question former Vice President Al Gore tomorrow morning about global warming, Czech President Vaclav Klaus is warning congressmen that environmental extremism is the modern equivalent of communism.
Responding yesterday to U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, and former House Speaker Denny Hastert, R-Ill., the Czech leader said: “It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment, but a clash of views about human freedom.”
“As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants,” said Klaus, responding to questions posed by the two lawmakers. “Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”
The UN global government structure concept can be best compared to the European Union, to which Klaus also compares to the Soviet Union:
The Czech Republic’s leader has long been one of the most strident critics of the European Union, blasting the bloc with withering attacks at every opportunity. Now he has inherited the ideal pulpit to air his views: The EU presidency itself.
In a startling diatribe before EU legislators Thursday, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, whose country assumed the rotating EU helm in January from France, branded the club an undemocratic and elitist project comparable to Soviet-era dictatorships that forbade free thought.
Despite the uproar, this is hardly uncharacteristic of a deeply Euroskeptic leader who has refused to fly the EU flag over his official seat in Prague during the Czech presidency, saying the country is not an EU province.
“Not so long ago,” Klaus thundered, “in our part of Europe we lived in a political system that permitted no alternatives and therefore also no parliamentary opposition. We learned the bitter lesson that with no opposition, there is no freedom.”
And here a famous Soviet dissident also outlines the ways the European Union is the new Soviet Union:
The UK’s Nigel Farage speaking truth to power in the EU parliment:
Facts suggest that the Rothschild’s & Rockefeller’s are behind the EU, Federal Reserve and UN, while many argue that they’re also behind the origins of Communism.
Leftists Noam Chomsky & John Pilger have argued for many years that the Cold War was just a phony scheme perpetrated by both sides to justify taking over the world. I mean, obviously each side did do this, but the jist I’ve gotten from both of them implies what could be described as a sort of collaboration, much like the Democrats & Republicans.
The elitist families I named were and are key figures behind the UN. So even if they didn’t encourage Communism, it could be said that the elites from both sides eventually came to have a meeting of the minds. Why wouldnt they? The elites from each side both seek to dominate the entire world, yet couldnt defeat each other. At the same time, the ethics of each side are consumed in control freak domination. Considering that, the idea of them having a meeting of the minds later on is perfectly plausible.
Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.– David Rockefeller
In any case, no matter how you slice it, we’re on the verge of a communistic global dictatorship and the time to act is now.
*When all major world leaders openly call for global government.
In doing an exhaustive review of this years NWO type comments from world ‘leaders’, that I had missed, the list is overwhelming! With Copenhagen and everything else going on, this is an important backdrop.
A reverse chronology:
November 2009 (UN): Copenhagen Treaty leaked, exposes global government blueprint.
Nov. 19, 2009 (EU): New EU president announces global governance.
Nov. 9, 2009 (WTO): WTO chief hails “new architecture of global governance”
Oct. 25, 2009 (UN): UN chief calls for ‘global governance structure’ to oversee greenhouse gasses
Oct. 5, 2009 (IMF): IMF seeks role as “global central bank”
Oct. 4, 2009 (World Bank): World Bank welcomes New Economic Order from the ashes of crisis
Sept. 24, 2009 (Austrailia): Rudd push for global power shift as PM praises China on climate
Sept. 20, 2009 (UN): UN plans ’shock therapy’ for world leaders on environment
Sept. 19, 2009 (Hillary Clinton): Clinton Sees Need For ‘Global Architecture Of Cooperation’
Sept. 9, 2009 (UN): United Nations conference calls for new global currency
Sept. 1, 2009 (UN): UN suggests “global tax” to deal with climate change
Aug. 11, 2009 (UN): “We must seal the deal in Copenhagen for the future of humanity”
July 21, 2009 (Obama’s Science Czar): Formulate a ‘world planetary regime’ to manage the earths resources
Note: He said this a long time ago, but the revelation came out about this time.
July 12, 2009 (Egypt): Egypt calls for establishing new world order to overcome crises
July 10, 2009 (Russia):
July 10, 2009 (Canada): Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper: “There Is Going To Have To Be Global Governance”
July 9, 2009 (the Pope): Pope calls for a New World Order, “with teeth”
July 7, 2009:
April 10, 2009 (Russia & Iraq):
Russia, Iraq call for fair new world order
April 3, 2009 (UK-EU): British military preparing to ‘police the world’ under EU flag
April 2, 2009 (UK):
March 26, 2009 (UN): UN panel touts new global currency reserve system
March 25, 2009 (China): China Calls For Global Currency
March 25, 2009 (US):
March 25, 2009 (Brazil): Brazil proposes South American police force
March 2, 2009 (the ‘Orient’): Asean leaders call for EU-style union
March 1, 2009 (UK-US): Brown seeks ‘Global New Deal’ with Obama
Feb. 19, 2009 (UN-US): UN Security Council Expansion Gets New Boost From Obama
Jan. 30, 2009 (Germany): Merkel calls for a “Global Economic Charter” and a UN Economic Council
Jan. 12, 2009 (US): Kissenger: The chance for a new world order
Jan. 8, 2009 (France, Germany, UK): Sarkozy, Merkel, Blair call for a “New World Capitalism”
Jan. 5, 2009 (UK-US): Blair calls on Obama to use his presidency to unify the world
2008 In Review:
Dec. 20, 2008 (Iraq): Iraq plans EU-style Middle East union
Nov. 14, 2008 G20): G-20: Shaping a new world order
Nov. 10, 2008 (UK): Gordon Brown calls for new world order to beat recession
Nov. 6, 2008 (Lord Rothschild): Baron David de Rothschild sees a New World Order in global banking governance
Oct. 22, 2008 (UN): UN announces green ‘New Deal’ plan to rescue world economies
Oct. 21, 2008 (EU): Europe wants new global financial order
Oct. 17, 2008 (Canada-EU): Canada, EU working towards ‘historic’ economic integration
Oct. 17, 2008 (South America): South American nations to establish integrated parliament
Oct. 16, 2008 (Russia-EU): Berlusconi calls for Russia to join the EU
August 8, 2008 (US-EU): EU and US to set up Euro-Atlantic police force
July 24, 2008 (US):
July 13, 2008 (Mediterranian-EU): Mediterranean, EU nations to boost ties with grand new union
June 26, 2008 (EU): EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored
June 13, 2008 (Asia): Presidential candidate John McCain backs Asia union
June 11 2008 (Russia-EU): Russian president Medvedev eyes New European Order
June 7, 2008 (EU): France is plotting to create a Euro Army
June 9, 2008: The Official 2008 Bilderberg Participant List
June 6, 2008 (Asia-Austrailia-US):Australia Proposes Asia-Pacific Union, United States Included
May 28, 2008 (North America): ‘North American Parliament’ under way
Jan. 21, 2008 (UN-UK): UN transformation proposed to create ‘New World Order’
2007 In Review:
Dec. 5, 2007: Australian Prime Minister unveils grand plan to unite world under banner of climate change
Nov. 15, 2007 (UK): EU superstate “should expand beyond Europe” into Russia, Africa and the Middle East
Nov. 14, 2007 (UK):
Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants the New World Order
Reported Nov. 12, 2007:
Giuliani Gave David Rockefeller U.N. Award
Nov. 6, 2007 (Russia-China): China, Russia pledge to step up closer partnership
Nov. 4, 2007: Communist world converges in Belarus to revive Marxism
Nov. 1, 2007 (UN): United Nations plans unprecedented expansion of police missions worldwide
Oct. 9, 2007 (North America):
Sept. 27, 2007 (US): Condoleezza Rice urges UN climate change consensus
Sept. 25, 2007 (France): Sarkozy calls for UN-led ‘new world order’
Sept. 25, 2007 (US): Arnie and Al push for climate action at UN
Sept. 19, 2007 (US): Giuliani says NATO should admit Israel, Japan, India and Singapore
Sept. 6, 2007 (North America): North American Union driver’s license created
Aug. 18, 2007: Bilderberg Pushes American Superstate
washingtontimes.com…
Aug. 18, 2007 (Russia-China): Sino-Russian Coalition flexes military muscle
August 18, 2007 (APEC): China to install sensors along NAFTA highway
July 27, 2007 (US-UN): Schwarzenegger invited to UN meeting on global warming
July 25, 2007 (North America): US Army Used To Crackdown On North American Union Protesters in Canada
July 17, 2007 (US-EU): 14 European states assisted CIA to establish secret jails
July 12, 2007 (EU): EU Chief Hails European ‘Empire’
July 3, 2007 (NAU): Oklahoma City Mayor Calls for North American Union
June 17, 2007 (Italy): Italian head of state told a news conference in Siena last week that “those who are anti EU are terrorists”.
June 13, 2007 (Brazil-India): Brazil and India shaping a new global economic and political order
May 17, 2007 (UK):
March 12, 2007 (UK): Future British Prime Minister Demands ‘New World Order’ Out of Climate Change Chaos
Jan. 13, 2007 (Asia): ASEAN nations agree to form Asian Union bloc
Jan. 2, 2007 (EU): EU expands to 27 countries
Jan. 1, 2007: Global super-union within a decade, says Amicus chief
IIBFilms: “Climategate Explained by JFK & Eisenhower”
FOIA
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re (IPCC)? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?
1228330629
826209667
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
; the decline
; the decline
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set.
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8, 1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
*DISINFO: “Peer”-Reviewed Climate “Science” & “Scientific” Consensus.
Update: CRU admits to dumping pre-1980 data.
*Beyond Climategate.
*Surface Station Data & Urban Heat Island Effect.
*Revealing Climategate Programmers Notes.
*DISINFO: “Peer”-Reviewed Climate “Science” & “Scientific” Consensus.
When it comes to climate science, the ‘companion’ definition of ‘peer’ would be the one to use. When a group of radical partisans collude to hijack the peer-review process, in order to squash research and findings that conflicts with their own agenda, the result is conspiratorial disinformation.
These so-called scientists share their data and methods with each other, but then deliberately withhold them from those who might see their flaws. Then they trump up a so-called ’scientific consensus’ argument using 1. manipulated data inserted into IPCC-type reports, and 2. their self-fulfilling peer-reviewed literature.
Consensus?
First of all, the idea of a ’scientific’ ‘consensus’ is patently flawed. True science isn’t based on human opinion, but rather replicable math or observation. Neither of those criteria are reliable, despite the claims of Alarmists. So the consensus is the collective opinion of scientists who have an inherent predisposition with environmental ideology, being scientists who work with nature and all.
Opinion is pseudoscience by definition. And what of past scientific consensus? Pre-Eugenicist, post Civil War scientists claimed that ‘negros’ were of a lower species, not even human, which helped justify their harsh treatment, even to the Civil Rights era. In the early 1900’s the consensus was in Eugenics (even Ted Roosevelt supported it), started in the US & UK, their Social Darwinist theories applied to early genetics ideas fueled the Nazi’s forced sterilizations and death camps.
Others like to refer to the large list of scientific councils most of whom agree with the ‘consensus’. The problem is the figureheads that run these bureaucratic organizations typically number less than 20, and their advocacy of the ‘consensus’ represents profit for their existence. And most, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (yes you red correctly), primarily lean on the consensus as declared by our CRU-IPCC conspirators.
Group Think?
A good examples of how these groups operate is as follows from this insider (Eric Berger) account:
I am and have been an AGU member for many decades, and the “leadership” of this “society” has never even asked members what we think about it. The current leadership is an entrenched, isolated bureaucracy that sits in Washington, D.C. and has become an active political actor, need I say more. In contrast, some of the other professional organizations I belong to actually ask members for comments, and form open committees to work on things like this with member input and critique. The AGU is NOT a consensus organization at all, nor a democracy either.
So with the AGU you have less than 20 people making a statement ‘on behalf’ of the 50,000 members, without virtually any input whatsoever. This one example should be good enough to make it obvious that the ‘consensus’ found in statements by these groups is unscientific in attempting to graph a true consensus.
If anything, listening to actual individuals competent in regards to elements of climate science should at least be considered. Yet Alarmists flat out dismiss the ever growing petition of 31,000+ scientists, including over 9,100 Phd’s, whom reject the global warming agenda.
Don’t listen to the individuals, instead listen to the figureheads of these groups who don’t even poll their members before making a statement.
NOTE: WordPress formatting messed up the paragraph breaks with a lot of stuff I pasted in…
The Hijack!
Today Timothy Ball helped lay out the framework of our conspirators network:
The Scientists Involved in Deliberately Deceiving the World on Climate
The “Ad Hoc Committee Report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction commonly known as The Wegman Report said, “Based on the literature we have reviewed, there is no overarching consensus on MBH98/99 (The infamous hockey stick paper). As analyzed in our social network, there is a tightly knit group of individuals who passionately believe in their thesis. However, our perception is that this group has a self-reinforcing feedback mechanism and, moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that they can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.” Wegman identified most of the people involved with the leaked information from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) – “climategate”.
Cabal; A Secret Political Clique or Faction
Meet the conspirators:
Figure 1: Phil Jones, Current Director of the CRU and Tom Wigley the power behind the scenes.
Figure 2: Wigley and H.H.Lamb, founder of the CRU
Figure 3: No wonder Prince Charles says we have 100 months left, he has a ‘reliable’ source
Figure 4: Jones, Santer and Wigley at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Figure 5: Major players in early and later days of the IPCC
Figure 6: Critical players in CRU and IPCC
Michael Mann
Tim Ball:
The IPCC Connection:
The UN’s IPCC, spearheaded by the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:
Tim Ball:
Phil Jones:
What about the journals?
We’ll start with a bunch of quotes from the emails of the conspirators discussing their strategies for hijacking the peer-review process. The first example has Grant Foster with a list of reviewers another can count on:
Suggested Reviewers to Include
Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).
Tom Wigley [1]wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx NCAR
Ben Santer [2]<santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Lawrence Livermore
Mike Wallace [3]<wallace@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> U Washington [May not be most responsive]
Dave Thompson [4]<davet@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Col State Univ
Dave Easterling [5]<David.Easterling@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> NCDC
Sincerely,
Grant
Phil Jones and Ben Santer talk about a journal wants to force him to release all of his raw data that he used in his paper:
I’m having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I’ve complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don’t get him to back down, I won’t be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I’ll be resigning from the RMS.
Santer:
Thanks, Phil. The stuff on the website is awful. I’m really sorry you have to deal with that kind of crap. If the RMS is going to require authors to make ALL data available – raw data PLUS results from all intermediate calculations – I will not submit any further papers to RMS journals.
Michael Mann on coercing a different journal:
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…[from 1047388489.txt]
In response, Phil Jones writes:
Timothy Carter:
Another chain of emails contained a group discussion about “ousting” a journal editor that they determined to be in the “skeptics camp” for publishing some papers that were contrary to their view:
If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.
Other recent news regarding the AGU ‘ousting’ out the contrary:
We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU.
In response to its acceptance, we were joined by a highly distinguished group of scientists – including members of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, France and China, as well as recipients of the AGU’s own William Bowie, Charles Whitten and James MacElwane medals. Our participants faithfully submitted abstracts for the session.
…The merger was approved by the AGU Planning Committee. Thus our Galileo session now had grown to a total of 27 papers and was approved as a poster session at the Fall Meeting.
However, a few days later, after first approving our session and after we had assigned time slots for these new papers at AGU’s request, the Planning Committee revoked its approval and summarily dissolved our session.
Tim Ball, et al:
www.infowars.com…
Professor Wegman’s ‘43′:
heliogenic.blogspot.com…
Only 20% support anthropogenic (man made) global warming. 55% were papers about climate change itself, covering observed and potential effects of global warming. 25% didn’t apply.
Key Critical: Just because a the abstract of a paper talks about the warming of the 1990’s doesn’t mean it supports a consensus on AGW! In reality only 20% of the paper supported the AGW ‘consensus’, yet Alarmists distort this view and claim that 75% do. Some even attempt to claim that 100% do.
There’s no dispute that the climate warmed during the 90’s. So if you do a search for ‘global climate change’ what results would you expect to get other than papers addressing the current warming trend?
In hindsight, it’s awful convenient that her study ended up ending in 2003, as today we know the earth has cooled since then:
Follow link for the rest of the interview.
*It’s Conclusive: CRU Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst!
// <
At last some data graphing is completed from the Climategate archive, and its obscene! That combined with other revelations provides conclusive proof of wide ranging data manipulation. Yesterday I reported that virtually all temperature data is irrelevent at best, and with this new revelation perhaps Mann & friends might parrot my view, as last ditch damage control. Can anyone say Mann-Made Global Warming?
Read the details of this graph at Climate Audit.
IPCC: “Inappropriate” to hide the decline:
More manipulation: climate ’scientists’ usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com…
Wheres the MWP?
en.wikipedia.org…
Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:
www.eastangliaemails.com…
More from Mann:
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
www.eastangliaemails.com…
Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring ..
Cheers
Phil
www.eastangliaemails.com…
This confirms long held suspicions that YAD061 was phony data, and it also confirms that Jones knew all about it:
“That is tree #YAD061. Seems like an outlier, that should be discarded from the analysis, right? That’s not what Bifra did. Keeping it in, the average of the group was raised a little. Just a little, but enough.” borepatch.blogspot.com…
www.eastangliaemails.com…
Another email shows even more manipulation:
No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite ..
No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):
In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above, as described by Wigley as a “blip” to be adjusted here:
explain the 1940s warming blip.
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we’d still have to explain the land blip.
I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
www.eastangliaemails.com…
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.
What else is to be said?
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.
“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.” -Phil Jones, leading climate ’scientist’
[from Climategate document 1120593115.txt]
In the wake of Climategate, a new study of raw surface temperature data in New Zealand proves that the official government manipulated the 150 year temperature data to show warming in recent decades, when there wasn’t. These two developments underscore the reality that virtually all forms of historical and even present day methods of recording temperature, for projecting global warming, fall somewhere in between irrelevant and fraudulent.
Problems with long count historical proxies such as tree rings and ice cores, to faulty land surface data, to even satellite data are numerous and sobering despite these datasets being used to in an orchestrated ongoing fearmongering campaign to justify global government and global taxes as found in the Copenhagen Treaty.
The first item of interest is the new report that exposes official data manipulation in New Zealand’s land temperature data record. The raw data shows virtually no warming trend in 150 years, but the government graph shows IPCC style warming:
[Report here, and more perspective here.]
The method used to generate the official graph, like all NASA graphs, involves “correcting” the data. Shocking revelations from the recent Climategate scandal includes quotes from leading (and Nobel Prize winning) climate ’scientists’ usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.
The issue of “corrected” data is already prompting a renewed push for the release of raw surface temperature data by many within the scientific community and general public. This Climategate revelation obtained from programming source code notes gives some perspective:
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
[more excerpts from Climategate source code]
Government institutions such as NASA-GISS have a long history of refusing to release ‘uncorrected’ data, while recent insights into the Climategate scandal shows top UN-IPCC ’scientists’ collaborating to delete data in order to prevent freedom of information request releases of their raw data.
Yet the real issue here is the validity of any and all of the data itself. The now infamous Climategate “hide the decline” quote is claimed torefer to modern era declines in proxy data measurements. Proxy data would include tree ring & ice core data, opposed to ‘real’ measurement such as surface station thermometer & satellite measurements.
The “decline” in question is likely rooted in the fact that proxy data is considered (by the Alarmist ’scientists’ even) as accurate, until the modern era. They call it a ‘phenomenon’ as their own proxy data shows a decline in temperature starting in 1940, 1960 and so on. Despite their ’scholarly’ ‘peer-reviewed’ papers claiming that humans are “causing” global warming, in truth they typically only use the proxies up to more modern times, and then they overlay surface and satellite data over the proxy data, which results in the warming you’ll typically note when viewing Alarmist graphs.
>other’s). After all, the early ( pre-instrumental) data are much less
>reliable as indicators of global temperature than is apparent in modern
>calibrations that include them and when we don’t know the precise role of
>particular proxies in the earlier portions of reconstruction it remains
>problematic to assign genuine confidence limits at multidecadal and longer
>timescales.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]
So the issue becomes the accuracy of the ‘real’ temperature data, but first lets consider a key form of proxy data.
In contemplating the idea of using tree ring data to measure historical temperature data the everyday gardener could see its flaws, especially one operating a container garden. I currently have a massive container garden, with at least one hundred containers of different sizes, all the way up to 35 gallons, containing all different types and amounts of vegetable and perennial food plants. I’ve been gathering different soils here and there throughout the year. Beyond the obvious already said, different plants planted together can stunt or increase growth.
The potential for different results in identical temperature and moisture under these conditions is astounding. Yet beyond that, a look at Wikipedia reveals one single paragraph covering the advantages of tree ring data, while there are 9 separate sections on the disadvantages.
This is ‘alarming’ considering tree ring data was the primary source of the “Hockey Stick” graph, a key graph in Global Warming Alarmist mythology. It single handedly ‘disappeared’ the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), it is a key piece of material used in Global Warming Alarmism, and was mainly authored by Michael Mann, one of the most damned in the Climategate scandal.
Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:
I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
[from 1054736277.txt]
More from Mann:
thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
[from 1256735067.txt]
Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:
Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
[from 1256747199.txt]
Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material,
but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk
something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm
what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating
the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought
at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation
even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle
the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just
are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).
[from 0843161829.txt]
Another email shows even more manipulation:
There are also issues with ice cores, although not as profound as tree ring data, in my view.
>Incidently, arguing that any particular series is probably better
>on the basis of what we now about glaciers or solar output is flaky indeed.
>Glacier mass balance is driven by the difference mainly in winter
>accumulation and summer ablation , filtered in a complex non-linear way to
>give variously lagged tongue advance/retreat .Simple inference on the
>precidence of modern day snout positions does not translate easily into
>absolute (or relative) temperature levels now or in the past.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]
None-the-less, ice cores along with other proxies still show a decline in the modern era, as discussed in Climategate emails and source code. Kevin Trenberth:
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. …
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
So let’s get “real”. The “increased temperature” that the Climategate documents discuss, that they “know” is there despite it not existing in their own data, is based on surface station and satellite data. Yet surface data is perhaps the most flawed, while satellites don’t actually measure direct temperature and require math modeling in attempts to derive temperature data.
The “hide the decline” phrase refers to proxy data. The fact that New Zealand temperatures have hardly risen, would seem to explain why it is remote-based proxy data would show a decline when surface temp station data has risen since the 1940’s & 60’s (when urbanization has been rapidly expanding to this day).
‘Check me out, I know the temperature of my roof!’
Which brings us to the issue of unscientific surface station locations & methods, including instruments located near blacktop pavement and air conditioning unit exhausts, while already counting on humans to walk outside and record the high and low temps, daily, decade after decade.
To understand this issue you must first comprehend Urban Heat Island Effect. UHIE is the reality that urban modernization skews surface temperatures, and it turns out that most US based surface stations are located in urban or at least semi-urban locations. SurfaceStations.org is an open database project to visit and photo each of the over 1200 station sites in the US. So far they’ve visited over 80% of US sites, and the results are ‘alarming’:
The results thus far show that about 10% of U.S. based surface stations are what we’d consider scientific. The rest are what we’d consider real data as far as our daily lives are concerned, as being in the city you’d want city temperatures reported to you each day.
Here is an example of a scientific station, and its 100 year data graph:
And an unscientific one:
[more surface station & UHIE info is found here]
So in assessing global climate change you’d want to check if ocean temperatures have risen. Tom Wigley to Phil Jones:
We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since
1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might
claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.
[from 1257546975.txt]
In any case, it’s clear and obvious that surface station data is completely irrelevant in attempting to assess global climate change, which brings us to satellite data…
Satellites do not measure temperature as such. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.[1][2] The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data to calculate temperature trends have obtained a range of values.
Kevin Trenberth, in October 2009, admits that NASA’s CERES satellite data is “lacking”:
At the very least the extra rain on land means a lot more heat goes into evaporation rather than raising temperatures, and so that keeps land temps down: and should generate cloud. But the resulting evaporative cooling means the heat goes into atmosphere and should be radiated to space: so we should be able to track it with CERES data. The CERES data are unfortunately wonting and so too are the cloud data. The ocean data are also lacking although some of that may be related to the ocean current changes and burying heat at depth where it is not picked up. If it is sequestered at depth then it comes back to haunt us later and so we should know about it.
[from 1255523796.txt]
However, today Global Warming skeptic Dr. John Christy suggests satellites today have about 95% accuracy. The problem still is that they have only been in existence since 1978, and we’ve already seen what we have to go by historically.
No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite data):
No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):
In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above (described by WIgley as a “blip” here):
The UN’s IPCC, along with the ‘hacked’ CRU, has been the primary driving source of Global Warming Alarmism. This admission by Keith Briffa about the IPCC’s ethics is ‘alarming’:
I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC , which were not always the same.
[from 1177890796.txt]
More heart-felt doubts by Alarmist Keith Briffa:
> There is still a potential problem with non-linear responses in the
>very recent period of some biological proxies ( or perhaps a fertilisation
>through high CO2 or nitrate input) . I know there is pressure to present a
>nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand
>years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite
>so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and
>those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some
>unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do
>not think it wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate.
[Keith Briffa, 938018124.txt]
So in closing, “Global Warming” ’science’ is in effect baseless. But what we do know is that life supporting plants breath in CO2, which means more food for the world and a better vegetable garden for me.
*Revealing Climategate Programmer Notes (beyond the emails).
Here goes a sample of remarkable notes embedded in the Climategate source code data. I’m just throwing these in rough style to link back to for a wider encompassing article I’m working on:
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;
pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
===========================
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;
=======================
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;
======================
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO – WHICH MEANS I’m ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON
====================
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
=====================
frs_gts_anom.PRO:
print,’Calculating synthetic frs normal’
for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin
tmpfl=strip(string(tmp_prefix,iy))
dtrfl=strip(string(dtr_prefix,iy))
rdbin,tmpgrd,tmpfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
rdbin,dtrgrd,dtrfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
tmn(nland)=(tmpgrd(nland)-(0.5*dtrgrd(nland)))/10.0
frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)+frscal(tmn(nland))
endfor
frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)/(nor2-nor1+1)
for im=0,11 do begin
temp=frssyn(*,*,im)
nfin=where(temp gt 0)
temp(nfin)=(temp(nfin)/100.0)*days(im)
frssyn(*,*,im)=temp
endfor
frssyn(nsea)=-999.9
; Calculate synthetic frs from tmin, convert to anomalies
; relative to synthetic mean frs, and apply to normal frs
print,’Calculating synthetic anomalies’
============================
mann/abdlowfreq2grid:
; The calibrated (uncorrected) versions of all these data sets are used.
; However, the same adjustment is then applied to the corrected version of
; the grid Hugershoff data, so that both uncorrected and corrected versions
; are available with the appropriate low frequency variability. There is some
; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades – so a new adjustment
; would be unwelcome. Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards
; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly
; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter.
===================
mann/mxd_eof_rotate:
; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and global
; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead.
; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs.
=======================
mann/mxd_pcr_localtemp:
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
==================
mann/oldprog/hovmueller_lon:
; growing season reconstructions. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
=========================
mann/oldprog/calibrate_correctmxd:
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
*Equip your vehicle with a Smoke Screen, Armor.
Have a dense smoke fog eject from your vehicles exhaust pipe, without damaging your engine. I saw this in a show called “Ultimate Bulletproof Car”. It’s quite simple and cheap by my estimation.
The concept is simple: add a 2nd sort of windshield washer fluid tank under your hood, fill it with everyday radiator ‘antifreeze’, and hook it the exhaust manifold with copper piping. In-line you’ll need either an electronic valve, or perhaps a pump, but I’m not sure; 12 volt either way. The kit this site sells only uses a valve to release, but their pricey can of smoke solution is aerosol, so a pump might be the more likely part needed in an antifreeze setup. For you big screen TV pillaging survivalists: ‘antifreeze’ primarily consists of ethylene glycol, the same nasty fluid found inside the 3 projector lenses, in high grade form, which happens to be the largest problem in waste disposal from scrapping out rear projection TV’s. BTW: projector lens coolant costs about 10 times as much as vehicle radiator fluid.
To hook into the exhaust manifold I recommend using a brass flare fitting, and you’ll need a matching “Tap and Die” bit to create the threads. I haven’t yet done any this, so it’s possible the manifold walls are too thin to tap proper threads into. In this case a ‘bulkhead’ method might be required which could suck, requiring removal of the manifold. I’m also unsure of whether or not a sprayer nozzle is required inside the manifold chamber, but if so a salvaged fuel injector sprayer would likely be ideal.
Without major complication, I can see this project being completed in a Sunday afternoon for less than a hundred dollars. I also see where people experienced in this practice could make some decent side cash by outfitting others vehicles after showing off with this ‘James Bond’ tech. I imagine there might be several sites containing more detailed info on the process, but the one I linked above is the best one I found in about 5 minutes of searching.
========
Vehicle Armor: I’ve seen some episodes from the new show “Weaponizers”. In one episode they do armor tests using plate steel. I can’t remember if it was 1/4″ or 1/2″ plating, but the results weren’t too impressive using 30 cal. rounds, especially not for the weight added to the vehicle. But this reminded me of a show I watched many years ago on ‘Armored Cars’, the type used for cash transportation between banks and so on.They don’t use steel. Instead they use several layers of thin aluminum, and achieve better results using less weight. The bullet resistance is dramatically higher than if they were t use a solid thick aluminum layer of the same thickness.
A key form of bulletproof glass also uses layering (of actual glass), but higher grade bulletproof glass is one thick layer of polycarbonate. So with these lessons I figure that stacking thin layers of steel, aluminum and polycarbonate might get the best weight vs. bullet resistance, especially if tough adhesives (2 part adhesives and paints are always the best) are used to stack the layers together. Without proper adhesives, the metals might work better by using all idenitcal materials, and ‘weld-riveting’ them together, as welds are typically stronger than than the materials themselves. The main point is the more layers the better, which gives true samurai swords their ‘edge’ over other swords of the same thickness.
*Don’t Ignore The Blue Sky.
I realize that many of the things I try to ‘expose’ here are technically “Blue Sky” technologies, but since such alarms aren’t known to be existing technologies does that make them any less critical? This is a look into “Blue Sky” technologies becoming reality in the short term if Artificial General Intelligence succeeds.
First and foremost, I must point out that my warnings in areas such as Skynet’esque ‘AGI’ aren’t my own predictions. Instead, those are the predictions of those trying to make it happen, which I try to warn everyone about. I will add that they have compelling arguments in their favor, and the constant and ‘predictable’ technological progress that they cite does hit home in their favor. So while overall I might be a theorist of sorts, the ‘theories’ I’ve always put the most energy towards are in fact the theories of those I’m against.
My entire motivation is based on the fact that such AGI / Technological Singularity notions are openly stated and well funded goals by the government and the bankster run Corporatocracy that controls it. To me, this alone is the cause for concern, even if they didn’t have compelling arguments that they might actually succeed. Look into the National Debt and realize that this nation is already bankrupted. We can’t even afford to fund such programs even if they could ensure the whole “Terminator” or “Matrix” scenario could actually be avoided (the AGI advocates all admit that it can’t).
My concerns would still exist even if we could afford it, and if there was no such thing as the “New World Order” or “Neocommunism” (designed to bankrupt all of society to ensure that the masses will never be able to afford to reap the benefits of the technologies their tax dollars are being spent to create). Humanity still faces being run over by a freight-train juggernaut machine, even those realities aside. After countless thousands of hours of research in recent years, I’m convinced that the tyrannical Ruling Establishment is perpetrating what most call the “New World Order”. Due to this, the implications of the Blue Sky are vastly more alarming.
Some would argue that if such a control freak establishment were in control as I can almost literally prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, then why would they risk their control? The easy answer would be they believe they’ll be “gods” via such technolgies, with the nanobot neural implants jacked in the Google God machine, but I argue much further…
The motivations I speak of are quite beyond just mere neural enhancement driven collective consciousness. So many times in the past, here and there, I’ve argued that a key motivation is in kick-starting the Technological Singularity.After passing that “Event Horizon”, the technological progress of multiple exotic ‘new’ technologies such as bio and nanotechnology will go into overdrive. That would inherently mean that whatever sorts of possibilities there ar ein terms of Life Extension and other things could come in a few or so years instead of decades.
I apply the same reasoning to whatever other Blue Sky technologies one could imagine. A couple years ago at “ATS”, I argued that the AGI agenda is also about other “Blue Sky” tech’s such as Weather Control. I add to that other things such as Light Speed and beyond, and things like Time Travel. Whatever is actually possible would become reality ‘lightyears’ faster with the advent of AGI.
In regards to Weather Control, there already exists methods and materials to modify weather in certain ways. I argue, and history shows that the dream of military commanders would be to control weather. I argue that this would require not only specialized satellites, but also vast networks of intelligent computational machines to be able to calculate such. While it wouldn’t surprise me if “They” actually could control storms, I don’t think they can yet do it under computational technologies that we know about actually existing.
The implications of weather control in the hands of a tyrannical global hegemonic empire should be obvious. What I’m concerned even more about is actually Time Travel. In particular, anyway of sending people, materials or even simply messages of whatever sort back in time is of maximum concern. I’d be concerned about anyone getting this actually, but the current masters of the world getting such power are to be feared most.
No one knows how things really work, if there are in fact parallel universes, meaning that if they went back and changed something it would just apply to some other reality that wouldn’t effect us. For all we know they could already be doing it. Imagine that nightmare. There’s no telling what would happen. Even if there are parallel universes why should some other worldwide reality be subject to such potential tyranny? Given enough time, such tyrants could infect and desolate virtually limitless possibe realities.
That would be terrible in itself, but as far as we’re all concerned what if whatever they change only affects us? Would we even be able to notice or prove such occurences? If there were any chance, would we be even more dumbed down and indoctrinated into deeper mindsets of absurdity to have any chance of awakening to the evil and fighting back?
These ideas are but more reason why the advent of AGI is the most important and potentially devastating path humanity must consider. Over the years I’ve extensively proven the Technological Establishment’s AGI Manhattan Project, as chronicled in my site here. The only theory about it is their own, that they can do it.
I refuse to sit back and wait for the results, but for now there exists no national or global debate. They’re attempting to march us head first into this thing, while bankrupting us all on the way there. Meanwhile a global dictatorship worldwide Police State is being built as the platform. In my view, it’s easy to guess what such an AGI would become, according to its own designs.
In conclussion, don’t ignore the Blue Sky. Don’t wait for it to fall.
*CAPTCHA as an AGI enabler.
In the past I’ve tried explaining ways that we in effect make Google God smarter by using its services, or even just by browsing the web. It turns out that by solving “CAPTCHAS” we’re now also helping advance AI fields such as Machine Vision.
CAPTCHA stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.
What I’m arguing here is that it goes beyond the reality of hackers / spammers from developing AI to beat the CAPTCHAS, and then CAPTCHA developing better AI in response. First it must be noted the developers interest in their technology advancing their AI goals. Take the following Carnegie CAPTCHA document for example, and be sure to also note how they like their kind call not having AI a “problem”:
We introduce captcha, an automated test that humans can pass, but current computer programs can’t pass: any program that has high success over a captcha can be used to solve an unsolved Articial Intelligence (AI) problem.
Much like research in cryptography has had a positive impact on algorithms for factoring and discrete log, we hope that the use of hard AI problems for security purposes allows us
to advance the field of Artificial Intelligence.
In this paper we will present constructions of captchas based on certain AI problems and we will show that solving the captchas implies solving the AI problems.
Now their latest version of it seeks to take it beyond the spam war and in effect declare war on you.
The computer scientists at Carnegie-Mellon and IBM who came up with the idea of Captchas and have promoted their public use noted in a widely-read 2000 research paper that “either the Captcha is not broken and there is a way to differentiate humans from computers, or the Captcha is broken and a useful AI problem is solved.” In any case, progress will be made.
Yet another Carnegie-Mellon approach turns the solution of Captchas into a good deed. With some 200 million Captchas being solved by humans every day, and each one requiring maybe 10 seconds of time, researchers thought why not get some useful work done, too? Their answer was to make Captchas based on snippets of optically scanned text from old books and newspapers that legitimate computers have been unable to correctly recognize. But how does the computer know if someone has interpreted the old text properly? Each reCaptcha presents a challenging sample of old text next to a standard Captcha image for which the answer is already known. It’s assumed that anyone who solves the latter will also have entered a correct answer for the former. The two main sources of old texts are those in the Internet Archive (www.archive.org), a vast collection of freely-accessible digitized media, and scanned editions of the New York Times.
Other players are also developing their own, like Microsoft and Google. As its Google’s bread and butter to have you teach their systems for them, you can bet that people will be helping them solve their problems via their “Socially Adjusted CAPTCHAs“.
These sorts of things really irritate me. In my vision, the day is approaching that the only solution to remain human in a Transhumanist dominated world would be to resort to “Neo-Amish” communities. The idea is to build permaculture type cities but where we can still enjoy things like the Internet and so on, unlike actual the Amish. But by ‘them’ designing the Web where we can’t use it without helping them advance their march is like an act of war against humanity, in my view.
*Obama nominates AI pioneer as Pentagon Director of Defense Research & Engineering.
Obama, who likes to talk about innovation in technological revolutions, has nominated one Zachary Lemnios as DoD Director of Defense Research & Engineering. This guy helped setup DARPA’s IPTO to spearhead the type of AI you see in the movies. Danger Room has more details. In other recent Obama-DARPA news, they might be nominating one Regina Dugan as DARPA chief, although her story is far less interesting.She’s not an AI/AGI ‘pioneer’ as is Lemnios, but he’s her boss along with the rest of the DoD science R&D machinery:
SEE ALSO:
*Nearly Zero-Impact Garden Watering.
A few ways to beat water issues. Lets get right to it:
Rainwater Capture:
I’ve been wanting to do this post for a couple weeks but held off until I had this part of my water project set up. The best thing I’ve come up with is using 275 gallon liquid “Totes”, but 55 gallon drums work too. Totes are the size up answer to drums. They have cool cages wrapped around them with undersides designed for forklifting, with a large 8″ screw off lids in the center of the top, with a 2″ ball valve drain spigot on the bottom front side.
Gravity is key for water pressure. To water my loading dock garden I needed to elevate it considerably, so I went with pallets. Note the base & top platforms are plywood with 2″x6″ planks running longways. The way the pallets happened to stack non-flush worked out well on the slope in leveling the top platform out.
I don’t have the piping for it setup yet, but a friend does and he confirmed the ball tapper threads are standard 2″ PVC threads. We managed to get 5 of them for a combined $300 off of Craigslist. I always recommend buying things in bulk, and trying to pool money with others to get the best deals possible.
Next you just need less than $10 in gutter downspout fittings and tubing, and then I’m confident you can figure out the rest from there.
You can also place other open topped containers, such as old aquariums, underneath areas where the water pours over or leaks out of the roof / gutters.
Sink Water Capture:
This is probably most practical if you do a considerable amount of your sink work out of a laundry size sink. During the first several weeks of starting my seedlings I was able to water almost exclusively using captured sink water, mainly from washing my hands or rinsing off dishes etc.
You basically just need a suitable rubbermade style bins that fill about half of the bottom of the sink just right, and large plastic containers on wheels. Seal any holes with liquid nails for durability, let it dry, and then go over that with silicone for water protection.
A few designs:
Roll around toolbox thing with lid and insides removed.
Sturdy storage box on top of "4 Wheel Dolly".
More flexible storage bin, in/on base part of a cabinet from a scrapped out 60" Phillips rear projection TV. It has castor wheels underneath it.
You can also place these under roof-water pour-over spots if convenient.
Hose Fittings:
I adhere to a spend a few dollars extra to save lots of time ethic, although I do prefer to build anything I can myself. If you’re running different hoses for different things then I advise shopping around to find a good deal on quick disconnect fittings. Also cutoff valves wherever you would disconnect to prevent the water rushing out every time you switch lines. Be sure to use hose fitting gaskets and teflon tape everywhere you can.
Seedlings:
Don’t start seeds right in large pots or the ground. I wont explain why. You can use things like those “Jiffy Strip” trays, at $3+ per 50 plants, and keep the $1 trays after the paet pots are removed later. I did this at first and used graph/grid paper for a good way to catalog what was in what.
But I later decided that using small cups is better for a number of reasons. I bought a bag of 455 2″ cups at a Costco type store (BJ’s) for $8, and I can reuse them. They need something around their edges to keep them all from tipping. Be sure to use a solder iron to poke holes in the cups.
About 260, my last wave of plants for this years first season.
Mulch:
Use mulch. If you have a budget get cedar/eucalyptus. If no budget search around for tree guys. Even with mulch having value, most will gladly deliver free mulch.
*Using Google to fight Google.
For the past year or so I’ve been using the Google News “Gadget” in a Google homepage. I have queries such as: google “artificial intelligence”, and: “al qaeda” herion. So whenever these terms are together in the news thay pop up in IE automatically.
I normally argue that using Google makes it smarter, so don’t use it, but using the News Gadget instead merely puts workload on the system which doesn’t produce a tiny gain in the Google Machine’s general ‘intelligence’ as it would normally. At least not as far as I’m concerned. In fact, a simple search (the news autofeed) and click (when you click on any results) on this scale would ‘teach’ it 2 things: First, to weigh relvence to this term in the auto search fuinction where it pops up common search queries as you type in the box. And second, it would ensure that Google knows that the sort of thing you like to monitor.
I must add that where you go from there and what you do may also teach it a thing or 2. You see its total monitor’able web activity that ‘teaches’ Google. Sites with Google embedded to operate the sites search and/or ads functions help extend the machine’s view. So there is some loss, but its something you have to weigh. The machine is awesome, in that it still might gain even something from you using it.
But what about if you were to deliberately try to make it ‘dumber’?
Over a year ago I thought of the idea to build “simple” ‘dummy Google search bots’ that everyone would be able to run on their computers, when not using them or whatever, to collectively strain the system while making it dumber in the terms in which it normally learns.
It seemed that relatively ’simple’ software could be made for doing this, although the more advanced the dysfunctional words and logical jibberish the better. Now I’m no software engineer, but I think that a talented one (or group of) might be able to relatively easily build such a program tht uses small computational resources. I cant see how using “Artificial Unintelligence” to ’search’ the Google sphere would be illegal considering that Google’s AI searches through our lives wherever they can amass data from.
UPDATE:
I forgot to mention the most obviously inherent ways to use Google for your ambitions:
1. Wherever you can, link to pages and videos that you find important.
2. Search for terms that you’d like to also see.
These are 2 factors that influence the way Google’s search results are tabulated. The most important that I know of is the ‘popularity contest’ of number of pages linking to a page. The way people search, and then what they click on from the results also have influences.
I now think that the word combinations that you search for also influence the predictive ‘auto form fill’ results that appear while people are tying into the search box. Still no “Ignorance Is Futile”. So for example, the way it is the more times somebody has searched for say “Obama Deception” the more likely it might appear once you hit the “D”. So if you search for ‘counterculture’ terms you can make Google work for you, but everything else helps Google’s own efforts to work against you… while making it easier for you to search the web.
I think an AI bot to concently perform that last example would be very easy to make. Vastly easier than theidea to try to literally make it dumber, as that may require sophisticated and morphing linguistic models to trick it into believing its learning from your bogus queries. But here it’d simply be an updatable listing of desirable key phrases that suit your interests. So with such an applet, the more people using it the more we could lop-side things in our favor. Now that I think about it, I don’t know that others with poltical agendas have thought of the same, but now that I’ve published the idea, the Ruling Establishment might also try this meaning we might need to in order to keep Google God from further dumbing down the masses. Or by making the software they might just use it to do the same. Ain’t that a bitch.
*”Anti-Technology Extremsists” (Neo-Luddites) Added to the Terrorist List.
The new Homeland Security “Lexicon” document has been making rounds, and many others have noted the “Anti-Technology Extremsists” (ATE) portion. I’d like to explain what that is all about, and my answer to the related Unabomber Manifesto.
Here’s the quote from the document:
A movement of groups or individuals opposed to technology. These groups have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They have targeted college and university laboratories, scholars, biotechnology industries, U.S. corporations involved in the computer or airline industry, and others.
(also: Neo-Luddites)
Neo-Luddites:
The Luddite Movement began in the 1800’s in light on the ‘new’ machines of that day replacing jobs that used to be done manually by humans. The ‘founder’ was a actually a folklore character named Ned Ludd. During their heyday machines were vandalized and so on. Eventually it fizzled out.
Despite Ned Ludd being fictional, Neo-Eugenecist Ray Kurzweil claims that Ned Ludd wasn’t prosecuted because he was in Kurzweil’s own words “feeble minded”, on page 125 in his book “The Age of Spiritual Machines”. That term is specifically the same term used roughly in the Luddite period by Eugenecists to justify forced sterilizations and even death for the “feebleminded”.
The “Neo-Luddite Movement” is widely projected to be symbolized by the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski, Ph.D.) in circles who criticize the movement, although the masses at large hardly rememer anything about what he stood for while HLS is now labeling Neo-Luddites as violent terrorists.
Kurzweil actually quotes a most daunting section from the Unabomber Manifesto that went largely ignored and is most eye-opening:
172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better that human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.
173. If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decision for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better result than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.
174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car of his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite — just as it is today, but with two difference. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless the may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consist of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.
In his total works he proposes destroying the system and moving into the wild as the only solution to our own problem child.
He might be right about it being the only total solution. I’ve taken on the view that it might be possible to stop the New World Order, but not the technology. But if we do stop the NWO there’s a chance to setback AGI and the Technological Singularity by several decades as these are deliberate agendas whereas these events will not come about in the next few years without such an effort. As it stands society is nowhere near being ready for such a transition, and havent even been consulted as to if its even a road we want to go down.
So the best case scenarios to stop Kaczynski’s nightmare is total chaos ridden systematic and societal breakdown which would inherently result in a massive ‘culling’ of the populations of the idustrialized world, or a global dictatorship to control the advancement of technology. Ironically we’re already facing each disaster ’solution’ being engineered by the architects of the NWO, although they’re attepting to bankrupt us in order to stop us from being able to afford the advanced technologies for ourselves.
I propose another solution: Stop the NWO now, and then move off into “Neo-Amish” cities of humans. These wouldnt be total counter-technology based domains like todays Amish, instead we can still have the technologies and such that we’re all used to except we’ve all chosen to remain as non-upgraded or nanobot / microchip implanted autonomous individual humans not inteterested in the Transhumanist world that would view us as obsolete sub-humans who would try to get us to join the their collective, in a system where we wouldn’t be able to compete with them and the AGI machines for jobs anyways.
Under this solution global scale class and species warfare like never before will still be inevitable after a long enough time, but we’ll be able to live good lives for however many decades that would buy us.
*Cheaper than dirt urban gardening.
In my situation I’m forced to mostly plant in containers, even on the roof. To me this is actually ideal, because if SHTF and I have to GTFO my garden is mobile, although it would require an entire box truck trip or more to move it all. Even where I have earth to plant in its dark sand. So the 2 main ingredients of my concern are free containers and (free) rich-soil.
Containers:
Get a hold of any landscapers you might know, or canvass any that you dont know seeking to recycle their used black plastic planter pots. Landscapers go through thousands of these per year and they often become a burden. You can also try using services such as Craigslist or the local classifieds to search for or request. A little bit of luck and you’ll have more than you can handle. Also, people are planting their annual rounds this time of year which means they have starter trays and smaller pots leftover.
Soil:
You need to track down some manure, compost. Anyone with lots of horses, cows etc has too much of this, and many if not most of them will gladly give you about as much as you can handle. I dont know about cow manure, but horse manure is scent free after no time. All it is is partially digested grass. Most suff out there thrives in this type of soil.
———
Once you get these key ingerdeients, along with seeds and you’re almost ready. Next you just need to solve the water issue…
*21st Century Protest Shields.
Old news: The military and police have silent high tech long range non-lethal crowd dispersal directed energy weapons. We’re on the verge of being shot with microwave beams on our skin, acoustical waves in our ears, and strobing laser stun rifles in our eyes for peacefully assembling in protest of the machine. And that’s when they already have water cannons, rubber bullets and other nasty’s. And they have shields. Its simply not fair…
The idea is rather simple, and you can build them at whatever dimensions for one person, or 6′x8′, or make them 4′x8′ with bottom girders to protect your legs.
I don’t have time to create imagery of the shield concept I’ve thought of, nor have I built such a device, but I’ll try to explain the overall concept where you can go from there.
The ideal ingredients are simple: “rigid” lexan greenhouse paneling, sheet lexan / polycarbonate (high grade ‘plexiglass’), and foil lined foam insulator board.
These components staked with the foam sandwiched inside should stop even rubber bullets, with the insulating foil blocking the microwave beams. The board comes in thicknesses less than half an inch, up to over 3″ thick. So bolt your layers together and bolt handles made from lumber to them. With 8′ long shields you might want to put two rails across longways for even force distribution. Cut little port windows in the inner foam layer to peek thru.
Then be sure to wear mirrored sunglasses, ear plugs, gloves and gas mask and then you’re ready to exorcise your 1st Amendment. You might also consider some ‘Mad Max’ sporting pad ‘armor’. It’s not a right anymore, especially not if you have to go through all that just to stand in a street, but its still an amendment.
Bonus: If you get enough plexiglass panels from big screen TV’s you can also stack those in similar fashion.
*Survival Berries.
In contemplating Survivalist / GTFO / Going Off the Grid scenarios, an expansive garden is key. And in terms of health, berries of various types provide some of the most nutritional content out there.
Vitamins, blah, etc, and even cancer fighting anti-oxidants. Some even have defensive purposes from property perimeter barricading to bird flu pandemics. So attempting to get as many different types of berries as possible is recommended, but below a few in my interest are highlighted. Be sure to keep some in pots in case you have to move or GTFO, and plant right away because basically all of them are perennials that you have to wait a great deal of time to actually get product from.
GOJI BERRY:
These little marvels come from the Himalayan Mountains. You could almost live off eating nothing but these. They contain 8 different antioxidants, 6 of which are world exclusive to this berry only. When they’re old enough they produce almost all year round, given the proper climate, and the berries can be dried for eating during the off months.
The dried weight of the berries is 12% protein, amongst other things:
11 essential and 22 trace dietary minerals.
18 amino acids.
6 essential vitamins.
8 polysaccharides and 6 monosaccharides.
5 unsaturated fatty acids, including the essential fatty acids, linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid.
beta-sitosterol and other phytosterols.
5 carotenoids, including beta-carotene and zeaxanthin (below), lutein, lycopene and cryptoxanthin, a xanthophyll.
numerous phenolic pigments (phenols) associated with antioxidant properties.
They’re drought, heat and frost tolerant perennials. Seeds here.
BLACKBERRY:
These are also good for you. But my interest in in their use is as defensive perimeter barriers. As shown above, these grow into nasty ‘brier patches’. Try to run through that. I dare you. So while the outside world is held back by nasty thorns, you’ll have plentiful fruit to eat and do other things with.
My advice is to determine the places you might GTFO to, and go right away and plant hundreds of seeds around the property line and even outwards.You can harvest the seeds from store bought berries, but its a pain to get them out. The best way is to mash them up, add some water, and leave them in the sun in a see-thru tupperware type container until the goopy fiber decomposes from the hard seeds.
ELDER BERRY:
As far as I’m aware, this is about the best thing you can grow / create yourself to have a line of defense against something like a Bird Flu Pandemic. There are some other (even everyday) herbs that could help, and I’ll cover later, but this is the big dog.
From what I’ve read, the extract ‘tincture’ form is the most effective. A recipe I read involved taking the dried berries, and basically soaking them in vodka for a week or 2. Then strain off the berries, and hope and pray that you never have to drink it in the event you think you’ve contracted a deadly flu.
Be sure to get the North American version seeds, not just because they’re native, but because they have the best climate zone survivability out of the ones I’ve read about.
ACAI BERRY:
Most berries, and many other things, contain cancer defense. But these berries provide cancer OFFENSE. Talk about barter value.
The only catch for most of us is that you either have to live in the true south of Florida, or you’ll need a greenhouse to grow them in. As far as palm trees go, they’re apparently prolific growers.
If it isn’t too cold where you live, I read one case where the greenhouse grower used blue plastic drums full of water to capture solar heat during the day to warm the trees with radiant heat at night. You can also employ small pot fires to help warm the air.
If you gather enough big screen tv’s you might end up with enough pieces of plexiglass to build a greenhouse for any tropical exotics on your list.
About
IGNORANCE IS FUTILE!
By “Ignorance Isn’t Bliss” (IIB)
THE BLEEDING EDGE OF THE MERGER OF TYRANNY AND TECHNOLOGY.
Subscribe to daily email updates.
IIB Films Lab Releases:
Eisenhower & JFK expose the undeclared war, by the ‘communist’ ‘technological elite’, while the others admit that the agenda is a UN ‘New World Order’. Obama, along with a few other key world heads of state (Canada, Russia, EU) are also included in the end-climax segment confirming the ‘ideals’ of their related contemporaries.
Final Version on ATS
Draft Version on Youtube
Climategate References
“iXo A.I. Control Grid”
My exclusive film constructed entirely of quotes from government / military websites and documents. Presented as if from the war machine’s own ‘minds eye’. This video goes where no other film in existence does with the subject of the US military’s dream for engineered super-soldiers and a god-like cognitive self-aware artificial intelligence global computer grid. The animations and graphical images are also directly from military sources.
Research Guide: LINK
Google Video: LINK
“Road to Terrorstorm”
A project I started in 2006, got carried away with, then finally scaled it back down to the original ’simple’ concept and finished recently. A condensed compilation film of several older Infowars films mainly focusing on Police State & False Flag type tyranny pre-9/11. See them all in one package.
About Page: LINK
Google Video: LINK
“Neocon Wars”
An entertaining Ron Paul Star Wars parody that features intense style debate on US foreign policy which debunks the occupation of Iraq, and the “War on Terror” in particular.
Google Video: LINK
“They Want Your Soul”
My first short video, from 2006. The first film in history to ever discuss US military (DARPA) “AI” (AGI) ambitions. Begins with a cynical look at “American” culture, with a touch of conspiracy and concludes with potential religious implications.
About Page / Research Guide: LINK
Google Video: LINK
Key Exclusives:
Comms:
Myspace
Youtube
Email: ignoranceisntbliss AT hotmail.com
Wired: Danger Room- Secrecy News
- Infowars
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Dandelion Salad
- President Obama and the Democratic Leadership Council by Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
- Glenn Greenwald on the Five Wars US Is Fighting in Muslim Countries
- 2010: U.S. To Wage War Throughout The World by Rick Rozoff
- Why Obama Must Continue Releasing Yemenis From Guantánamo by Andy Worthington
- Flying Kites for Peace + Afghans protest against the killing of civilians + Befriending a potential Afghan insurgent
- Global Research
- The Memory Hole
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Empire Burlesque
- Climate Audit
- Defense Tech
- Fact Check
- Advertising Lab
