The Era Of Natural Climate Is Over

The Blue Marble

I’ll start with a bit of a riddle:

“The Climate Change Agenda” – Stopping Something That Has Always Existed And Replacing It With Something That Has Never Existed.

***

Since ‘Climate Change’ ceased being a question of science and moved into the realm of politics, it has been impossible to have rational discussions about it. Science is about reality, but politics is about perception. Politics is not about what is real, it is about what people believe to be real. It means that things take on a quasi religious quality on both sides of any debate.

With politics, you look at power relationships and how you as a individual fit into those relationships. When an issue becomes political, people come up with scientific heresies such as ‘the science is settled’ and thereby suspend scientific method because it is in their interests to do so.

The current fashionable paradigm of the day thereby becomes consensus, and consensus becomes dogma. Research grants become dependent on it and scientists can become corrupted in order to put bread on the table.  Anyone who attempts to change that paradigm becomes a victim of the inquisition. Reality is suspended, science becomes unscientific, research becomes a series of witch hunts rather than the search for truth.

Today, powerful and ambitious people with a far reaching political agenda, the Davos Globalists, pursue the notion that there is a ‘climate emergency’ with such religious zeal that people get suspicious and question their motives. As the issue is now political, people ask what do they have to gain and what do I have to lose. This is where we are at in the current climate change debate – science has lost the magic of trust.

***

Now, let’s solve the riddle…

Climate change has always existed since the beginning of geological time, it is completely natural. However, because science is now political it must serve the interests of power and has becomes an agenda.

Many will remember the days when ‘climate change’ was referred to as ‘global warming’. But when it snowed in summer or when winters seemed colder, the tagline lost its power. As jobs and political agendas depended on it, a rebranding was necessary and the marketing men needed to be brought in.

What they came up with, probably with the aid of focus groups, was the rather nebulous term ‘climate change’. Perhaps they thought that it would prevent people from pinning things down? It would be unfortunate if the tagline had to be changed yet again. They would have to wheel out their contemporary medieval ‘child saint’, Greta Thunberg, to pluck reasons out of the Akashic record.

But as is often the case when politicians get involved, the term did not reflect reality because climate has always been changing. I suppose they were following the maxim ‘don’t let the truth get in the way of a good story’. This is not a problem in politics because, as I said earlier, they are based on perception. But science is not, they forgot that science has its own rules, rules that cannot be bent to their whims.

The second part of the riddle suggests that we are now doing something for the very first time. What we are doing now is attempting to create a climate that is absolutely stable.

***

In c1760 a new geological era was born in England – the Anthropocene. After this date climate would never be natural again and, as a result, humankind in the future will begin to embrace its ecological destiny to expand the realm of Gaia.

In eighteenth century England an epochal event occurred – the Industrial Revolution. Many people believe that this is when humankind first began to have a serious impact on the environment and started the process of making the climate ‘unnatural’. I also believe this to be the case. But is this such a bad thing?

It is quite possible that without the Industrial Revolution we might now have found ourselves moving from an interglacial into a glacial period within our current ice age. For me, continuing under interglacial conditions is highly desirable. We should do everything we can to remain so – we should play God and we should interfere with the Earth’s climate. As far as the future of the Earth is concerned, we are God! But how do we proceed?

Since breaking through the industrial barrier we have crossed a technological threshold. Humankind now has assumed responsibility to take control of the Earth’s climate on a permanent basis. We might not have wanted the role of God to accomplish this task, but because of our actions we have that role and there is no going back!

There are serious moral and ethical questions at stake as we move forward as ‘gods’. But this means we will probably become more religious as we will need God’s help and guidance more than ever.

If we create a static climate then, potentially, natural evolution will come to an end. We will have the responsibility to preserve all forms of ‘natural’ life as no new forms life will come into existence. Our science will have the capacity to create new forms of ‘unnatural’ life, and we will be able choose to move away from a static climate in order to encourage a particular type of evolution.

The need for anthropogenic climatic control technology has to be thought through very carefully.  The presence of anthropogenic induced climate change is not just a tool for a self-appointed globalist elite to make a wealth and power grab. It is a religious mission for the human race with cosmic implications.

The short term interests of politics cannot be allowed to influence this process. Scientists are already fixated on the present and not thinking long term. They are researching carbon capture technology so that carbon can be extracted from the atmosphere and put into caves at the bottom of the deep blue sea. But they are not considering how that carbon can be rereleased into the atmosphere on demand. To control the climate it is necessary to regulate heat in both directions as human action is not the only variable.

***

It is our destiny to take life out into space, beyond the Earth to places where it currently does not exist. After all, we are the only life form on Earth capable of doing so. That is our natural role, that is our ecological purpose, that is why we exist as part of the natural world.

Responsibility is not just on globalist or government shoulders – it is on the shoulders of us all. We are members of a species that dared to eat from the tree of knowledge and we are all responsible for keeping our leaders honest.

We took the responsibility and were expelled from Eden. But we are capable of creating new Eden’s out there on barren rocks across the Galaxy.

There Will Not Be World War 3

There is much talk at the moment about World War 3, but the whole concept is ridiculous. Even if we were invaded by a hostile power the public would do nothing. It would realise that we would only be exchanging one set of dictators for another. If WW3 ever materialises, it will come in the form of a global civil war against the very rulers who want to promote war for their own selfish ends.

The globalist usurpers of Western nation states are not yet in a position to wage a sustained war. You only have to ask a few simple questions to realise this fact.

Are the woke, degraded, and subverted armies of the West even capable of waging WW3? Does the West still have any industrial base to support such a war? Who would be willing to fight and die for globalist oligarchs who hate their own people? Western armies are so depleted they are not even capable of effectively policing their own populations.

Given the contempt in which the globalist elite is held, any move to implement conscription would result in rebellion and revolution rather than shared purpose with the rulers. If the globalists get themselves into WW3 they will be on their own, unloved and unsupported.

The globalists know this, and this is why they promote mass migration. They need a population to join their armies that will be willing to repress and brutalise the Western public who have already rejected them as rulers. Notice the prevalence of young men of fighting age in the armada of little boasts crossing the English Channel. We could soon be seeing a Star Ship Troopers model of ‘Service for Citizenship’ to get things started.

In the meantime, the policy is to deplete our armies and mothball our military resources until the new soldiers are ready for deployment. The whole scheme represents a treason so large and so heinous that it is unprecedented in the whole of human history.

Until the globalists have completed their efforts of population replacement, they are effectively powerless. Like any bully, they just need to be stood up to. They need to learn to appreciate the power and relevance of one word – No!

The technological means of controlling such a mercenary army will also be necessary. Otherwise, the mercenaries could just seize control of the state for themselves.

It is a dangerous time for the globalists as they have not quite got their chess pieces in position and their preferred future still contains an element of doubt. They will therefore not risk recklessly banging the drums of war for the time being.

We are therefore currently in a hiatus period in which a major war is politically impossible. There will be no WW3 in the immediate future. 

Update 22 April:

The globalists have deliberately broken all our institutions, facilitated the biggest mass migration since the invasion of the Anglo Saxons, pursed a policy of deliberate divide & rule, & created political instability unprecedented since the end of the English Civil War.

In the meantime, they strut about the world stage trying to create the illusion that they are even capable of waging WWIII. As such they must be regarded as the biggest theatrical roadshow since Barnum & Bailey, with their leaders taking the role of clowns.

In posturing the way they are, they are merely following the advice of Sun Tzu to appear strong when they are weak. However, the damage that they have already done to their own source of real power, their own people, and the integity of their institutions, means that the resources they can deploy against serious great power opposition is very limited.

Western nations do not have sufficient military and police resources to even maintain domestic order, let alone fight an international war involving great powers. We have seen the police admit that they do not have the capacity to manage the pro-Palestine marches. That is why they arrest observers on the sidelines who they believe might provoke the mob and cause them to lose control. The reality is that the mob are controlling them. How can such a feeble state even in its wildest dreams and vivid fantasies hope to fight and then win WWIII.

Globalists getting us into WWIII is an idea so ridiculous and far fetched that even the Brothers Grimm would baulk at making it into a fairy tale.

Freedom of Movement and the CANZUK Union

I recently joined the Facebook group of CANZUK International (https://www.canzukinternational.com/), the group that purportedly is striving for closer relations between, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Of course, these countries have a lot in common, a shared history, similar cultures, common legal traditions and exactly the same head of state. It is only logical that these countries, with so much in common, should be involved in the closest possible cooperation.

In our current age of globalisation, I would see an even closer relationship than that envisioned by CANZUK International to be desirable. We are so close as countries that we should band together to be a single country. It is impossible for nations to become closer than Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. If the people of our four democratic nations are to be heard on the increasingly important world stage then we must unite together and combine our compatible institutions as a matter of existential necessity.

However, one thing about CANZUK International that is concerning is one of the aspects of its mission statement (https://www.canzukinternational.com/our-mission). The bullet points are good, what reasonable person could possibly object to principles such as Freedom of Movement, Free Trade, Foreign Policy Co-operation, Constitutional Affairs, and Civil Liberties. The glaring issue of concern relates to freedom of movement, which CANZUK International makes a conditional right. Of course a conditional right is not a right of any worth as it can be removed at the whim of the powerful.

Our Mission

The CANZUK International mission statement states:

“Although freedom of movement exists for citizens of these countries, there is an exclusion provision for those deemed to be a threat to the national interest.”

What on Earth is the ‘national interest’, and who decides what this nebulous term means. This is a glaring hole and a weakness in CANZUK International’s plan of action. How can anyone get behind the idea of a conditional ‘freedom’? For instance, if people from all the CANZUK members got together to create united parties that would contest elections across the CANZUK area, then they could be deemed to be operating against what some my regard as the ‘national interest’. They could be against the interests of an privileged and empowered elite group that regarded itself capable of defining the ‘national interest’. That elite group would then assume it had licence to disrupt the activities of those parties and restrict the movement of its members and therefore its ability to organise.

With that one restriction, external international bodies such as the World Economic Forum or other privately organised international regimes have the ability to subvert the democracy of a united CANZUK state and the ability of its people to articulate its wishes on the international stage. This is significant because a CANZUK Parliament should be founded on democratic principles and the united will of the people.

Universal Basic Income (UBI) – Lessons From the Cherokee

The situation outlined in this video seems like a living example of the concept of universal basic income. Members of the tribe are entitled to share of the profits from the casino. This gives them huge life opportunies. It has turned an impoverished community into one that can move forward with increase confidence and sense of purpose.

This is an example of how North Sea oil could have been used for the benefit of the British people. Instead, at the time, we got cynical Thatcherite tax cuts that benefited only a few. Money is always found for the countless unnecessary wars and pointless Covid lockdown but never for genuine help the people as a whole.

When UBI does come, and it will come because, counterintuitively, it benefits the elites. It will allow a tiny minority to contune to recieve the lions share of the bounty that comes from mass automation while keeping the masses quiet and in their place. The crumbs that are given will come with strings attached such as signing up to the controlling tyranny of Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), 15 Minute Cities, and a Social Credit system of behaviour management. The ‘free money’ will conditions, restrictions, stipulations and sanctions for anyone who may hold dissenting views.

UBI could undoubtedly be done without restricting basic freedoms, but I doubt Western powerbrokers would be as benevolent as those of the Cherokee. However, the short film about the Cherokee gives us an insight into the possible alternative economic models that might be available as catalysts for economic and social development in the future.

The Proposal For A Universal Basic Income

Is the proposal for a Universal Basic Income more a tool to consolidate political power and less an act of altruism and humanity?

//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js

I have been thinking about the general issue of the Universal Basic Wage long before the idea of a Universal Basic Income was first mooted. I was pondering about the impact of increased, and ultimately comprehensive, automation of the productive process as well as the impact of artificial intelligence (AI). What would such a society look like? What would be the socio-economic and indeed the political implications of this?

It would certainly put the Marxist question about the ownership of the means of production into stark focus. It would be a world with minimal work for the mass of the population and consequent mass unemployment. It would also be a world where the means of production would be completely owned by a tiny minority. What would the ‘owners’ do to forestall the predicted Marxist Revolution.

The worst case scenario, for them, would be sharing the rewards of the productive process evenly throughout the entire population with them getting their equal share as individual members of society. Not the best outcome for them at all.

The second option would be to throw the masses enough crumbs to meet their basic needs and keep them happy. This of course could be called a Universal Basic Income for all. It would appear to be a selfless and indeed benevolent act on the part of the elite, even though it would be in effect robbing the average citizen of their ‘fair share’. It would also ensure that they would still have a population to serve their needs and their egos as the ‘Downton Abbey’ staff of the future. After all, what good is it to be rich if you cant ‘lord it over’ your fellow citizens.

Of course, the owners of the means of production could increase their dominant share still further by implementing policies that encourage a reduction in the size of the population. This would mean that the budget for the Universal Basic Income would shrink in proportion to the success of the policy. They would need to have a cover story though, perhaps that would come from a concern for the environment.

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the UN’s Agenda 2030 seem eminently progressive and humane. Again, this might appear to have altruistic motivations, but can you be certain that it is not also driven by cold self interest? The same applies to The Great Reset put forward by the World Economic Forum, the organisation that appears to represent to one percent that will probably become the ‘owners of the means of production’ in our automated future. Somehow I cant see them in the position where they ‘will own nothing and be happy’.

There is much talk of sustainability from the mouthpieces of the one percent. However, if this was really true our tax systems would be penalising consumption of the world’s resources. Economic policies such as interest rates close to zero or indeed negative interest rates coupled with quantitive easing that encourages inflation certainly encourages people to spend their money on consumption as a matter of urgency.

Recent moves to research Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), with the potential to program your money with an expiry date in order to encourage consumption does not point to a mindset focused on sustainability. On the contrary, it points to trying to squeeze even more out of the existing economic system that has been failing and continues to fail. Perhaps this is just to buy time for the one percent to consolidate their position on the eve of mass automation.

In this context, can we conclude that the proposal for a Universal Basic Income is just a political tool to consolidate political power into the hands of a tiny few? It is a modern example of bread and circuses used to preserve and indeed increase the status and privileges of the emerging global aristocracy?