Search

barbaramckenzie

Trump is Right to Question the ICC and the Institutions of the United Nations

One of the ‘side events’ of the the opening week of the 73th UN General Assembly was a meeting of the Syria Impartial International Investigative Mechanism. The SyriaIIIM was apparently the brainchild of Aurelia Frick, Liechetenstein’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the meeting was hosted by Liechtenstein together with Qatar.

Nobody from the Syrian government, to present atrocities against its people by terrorists and Western regime-changers alike, was at the meeting. Representing Syria were Syrian Civil Defense, also known as the White Helmets.  The White Helmets are funded by NATO countries and George Soros’s Open Society to produce propaganda against the Syrian government in order to promote a Libya-style no-fly zone in Syria.  They are staffed by the most vicious gangs operating in Syria, notably the ISIS-aligned al ZInki, which is known for atrocities such as bombing bakeries

what-kind-of-degenerate-wants-to-bomb-a-bakery-e1525771328900

and sawing off the head of young Abdullah Issa.

.

32-White-Helmets-Terrorists-copy

The fraudulent nature of White Helmet activity is explored in this Photo Tutorial on the Death Squad Helmets from Miri Wood.  Perhaps the most blatant and most unequivocal example of fraud was the staging for the cameras of a chemical attack in a hospital in East Ghouta, Damascus, in order to provoke a punitive strike against Syria, or even open war.  The White Helmets rushed some children into the hospital, hosed them down, rubbing water in their eyes, and later rewarded them with sweets and cookies.  Neither local residents nor hospital staff knew anything of a chemical attack.

Also invited to speak at the SyriaIIIM meeting was Simon Adams of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, likewise funded by George Soros to facilitate the partition and/or the destruction of Syria.  In the speech he planned to give, Adams claims that ‘millions’ of civilians in Syria still face the threat of mass atrocity crimes’.  As time was short, Adams gave way to ‘our friends from Syrian Civil Defense’, which included its chief spokesman Raed Saleh.

In a paper ‘Failure to Protect: Syria and the UN Security Council’ ( here),  Simon Adams argues for an agreement by the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council to refrain from using their veto in future mass atrocity situations – Russia and China have in the past vetoed any attempts to have Syria referred to the ICC.

The relentless propaganda against the Syrian government and its president Bashar al Assad, funded by agents intent on regime change in Syria, all the while ignoring al Assad’s popularity with his people, has been discussed by a number of analysts, including Daniel Lazare in ‘A New Anti-Assad Propaganda Offensive‘.

The underlying assumption of the meeting and of the SyriaIIIM is that it is the Syrian government that should be held accountable – certainly there is no indication that the agenda included any investigation into atrocities carried out by members of the gangs staffing the White Helmets. Thus the Syria ‘Impartial’ Investigative Mechanism clearly has not the remotest intention of being impartial, and ‘by accountability to shape Syria’s future’, Frick means getting rid of Bashar al Assad by hook or by crook, so that NATO and its partners can shape Syria’s future according to their own priorities.

The SyriaIIIM was founded in 2016 as is an ‘independent investigative panel to work toward the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity in Syria. Its functions are:

  • the collection and consolidation of evidence regarding violations of international humanitarian law and human rights violations and abuses as
  • the preparation of files in order to facilitate and expedite fair and independent criminal proceedings, in accordance with international law standards, in national, regional or international courts or tribunals that have or may in the future have jurisdiction over these crimes, in accordance with international law.

Syria’s position is that the body is illegal and violates the UN Charter.  As Syria is not a signatory to the ICC, at present Syrian can only be tried in the ICC by referral from the United Nations Security Council.

The purpose of the SyriaIIIM, therefore, is to prepare and present a case for prosecution to the UNSC.  That someone like Raed Saleh, associated with both fraud and atrocities in Syria, should have a role in bringing members of the Syrian government or armed forces to ‘justice’ in The Hague destroys the credibility of the SyrianIIIM, and undermines that of the United Nations and the concept of international law.

Recently John Bolton, speaking on behalf of Donald Trump and the US government, caused a stir when he announced that the U.S. considered the ICC illegitimate. Of course any suggestion that US citizens should have impunity when it comes to war crimes, but not others, is obnoxious, and people leapt to condemn his position, even outlets one would expect to be critical of the United Nations, such as Global Research, here and here.  The Trump administration has also pulled out of UNESCO, the Human Rights Council, the  negotiations for the Global Compact on Migration, and tragically for Palestinian refugees, their mainstay the U.N. Reliefs and Works Agency.

Whatever Trump’s own motivations and intentions, it is right in principle to question the ICC and the United Nations bureaucracy.  UN institutions are frequently corrupt and should not automatically be given credibility.  All UN personnel and institutions that have concerned themselves with Syria, for example, have been consistently biased, including Staffan de Mistura, the OPCW , who like SyriaIIIM rely on the White Helmets for informtion, and UNICEF  – it is hard to forget UNICEF’s Justin Forsyth pretending to hold a conversation  with propaganda tool Bana Alabed, despite knowing that Bana could not speak a word of English, while at the same time participating in her exploitation.

Forsyth.PNG

The World Health Organisation (WHO) forms, with America’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the pharmaceutical companies, a dangerous network of corruption with no regard for the safety of the public (see also the WHO’s role in the flu epidemic scam.)  The description of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as an amateurish, ramshackle operation’ is perhaps too kind – others have pointed to its propensity for manipulating data to suit a political agenda.  The bodies concerned with nuclear proliferation are a farce – there is no pressure on the UK, for example, not to upgrade its Trident nuclear capability, and the The Secretary-General’s five point proposal on nuclear disarmament mentions neither this issue nor Israel’s undeclared nuclear programme. 

As for international justice, as represented by ICC it is, in Tyler Durden’s words,  a noble ideal but a flawed institution. Those who might not normally agree with John Bolton will be startled to learn that he predicted back in 1998 that the ICC would be ineffective, unaccountable and overly political.  The ICC has failed to bring the likes of Bush, Blair, Cameron, Obama and Sarkozy to trial for their open warring on Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and their scarcely concealed warmongering in Syria, with the result that ICC cases against personnel from the former Yugoslavia give the appearance of bullying weaker countries rather than seeking justice.

While the U.N. Reliefs and Works Agency may do more good than harm, the same can not be said for many of the UN’s other institutions, and their very existence needs to be questioned and reevaluated.

Advertisements

Media Lens and other Globalist Assets

 

‘Founded in 2001 by [David] Cromwell and David Edwards, Media Lens is a media analysis website which monitors the broadcast and the print media in the UK, attempting to show evidence of bias, distortions and omissions on such issues as climate change, Iraq and the “war on terror”. The founders of Media Lens draw on the ‘Propaganda Model’ of media control advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky.’ (Wikipedia, David Cromwell).

As a ‘media analysis site’ Media Lens portrays itself as providing an alternative view to the increasingly mistrusted corporate media.  They claim to focus on calling to account the ‘liberal media’, e.g. the Guardian and the Observer. (See FAQ, Why do you concentrate on the ‘liberal’ media?).

Scrutiny of Media Lens output, however, indicates that rather than being objective analysts of the media, they are promoting their own agenda, and strongly, and this agenda has much in common with that of the media they claim to be critiquing.

Media Lens rely heavily on social media for impact, especially twitter, rather than a high volume of articles (termed ‘Alerts’). The two editors, David Cromwell and David Edwards, have also authored some books, most recently Propaganda Blitz.  They tweet, retweet and write about failings of the media on issues where the corporate media see their role as propaganda or suppression rather than fact.  They are seen as progressive and anti-imperialist, as they largely make the right noises about Gaza, Yemen,  Syria and the Skripal farce.  E.g.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the  Media Lens response to the wars on first Libya, then Syria, appears dutiful rather than enthusiastic, even compromised. They are seemingly unaware that the tradition of the brutality of Gaddafi and Bashar al Assad owes more to Western propaganda than to evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not being seen to defend ‘Assad’ is very important:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Media Lens aspires ‘to show evidence of bias, distortions and omissions on such issues as climate change, Iraq and the “war on terror”‘, drawing on ‘the model of media control advanced by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’.  As well as stressing their left-wing credentials (Iraq), this claim brings together two major issues that are arguably topmost on the Media Lens agenda: promotion of Noam Chomsky and climate change alarmism.

Media Lens and Noam Chomsky

‘Noam Chomsky is often hailed as America’s premier dissident intellectual, a fearless purveyor of truth fighting against media propaganda, murderous U.S. foreign policy, and the crimes of profit-hungry transnational corporations.

‘He enjoys a slavish cult-like following from millions leftist students, journalists, and activists worldwide who fawn over his dense books as if they were scripture. To them, Chomsky is the supreme deity, a priestly master whose logic cannot be questioned.’ (Daniel L. Abramson)

Chomsky has a reputation for being a ‘progressive’, a critic of government and the corporations, and an advocate of democracy.  He has also been strongly criticised as a gatekeeper for the globalist narrative, suppressing discussion on any issue that threatens globalist interests, from the Kennedy assassinations, to 9/11, the activities of the CIA, the Federal Reserve and above all the plan for global government.  The organisations mostly closely involved with global government, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg, the Committee of Foreign Relalations are ignored or dismissed as ‘nothing organisations’.  Chomsky facilitated the invasion of Libya by whitewashing the rebels and demonising Gaddafi, and went on to support the United States with regard to the war on Syria. Chomsky pushes the NATO propaganda line of:

  • the popular Syrian uprising,
  • the brutal response first by ‘Assad’ and then ‘Assad’ in conjunction with the Russians, and
  • the necessity for regime change, by negotiation if possible and if necessary by arming ‘rebels’.

See, for example, Is Chomsky Manufacturing Consent for Regime Change in Syria? and Noam Chomsky on Syria: A “Grim” Set of Alternatives. There is also the Corbett Report, Meet on Noam Chomsky, Academic Gatekeeper.

Media Lens, however, has steadfastly ignored the growing disillusionment with Noam Chomsky on part of anti-imperialists, and lose no opportunity to promote him as a cult figure.

Chomskyquotes.png

Media Lens is anxious to defend Chomsky against the charge of being pro-Assad:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fortunately the admiration for Chomsky is mutual:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anthropogenic Global Warming

David Cromwell , we are told, has a PhD (1987) in solar physics from Glasgow University and then carried out post-doctoral research in Boulding Colorado, according to Wikipedia at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).  (NCAR is a partner of the World Bank in the Climate Change Knowledge Portal, and also carries out research on geoengineering.)  Cromwell subsequently worked for Shell in the Netherlands (four years) and then for 17 years in a research post at  National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, United Kingdom, before leaving in 2010 to work full-time on Media Lens.

Cromwell’s impressive qualifications both explain an interest in global warming and give credibility to his position. However his manner of engagement on the issue is hardly consistent with a scientific interest.  While Media Lens claims to be scrutinising the mainstream media, they are actually in lockstep with the corporate media who are pushing the same message.  Media Lens promotes the globalist position by uncritically tweeting endless alarmist articles from the Guardian, e.g.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or the BBC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no scientific debate on any point.  A recent ‘Media Alert’  could well have come from the Guardian.

‘What will it take for society to make the deep-rooted changes required to prevent the terrifying and awesome threat of climate breakdown? This summer’s extreme weather events are simply a prelude to a rising tide of chaos that will be punctuated by cataclysmic individual events – floods, heatwaves, superstorms – of increasing severity and frequency. How long before people demand radical action from governments? Or, and this is what is really needed, how long until citizens remove corporate-captured governments from power and introduce genuine democracy?
‘Consider just some examples of this summer’s extreme weather. In Japan, ferocious heat killed more than 80 people and flooding killed more than 200. In Greece, 80 people died in terrible wildfires. In Canada, a heatwave killed more than 70. In many places around the world, including northern Europe, central America, Russia and parts of the US, extreme drought has put harvests at risk. Across the globe, 118 all-time records were broken or tied. In the United Arab Emirates, a record temperature in excess of 51C was recorded, Montreal broke 36C, the Baltic Sea reached 25C and the Swedish polar circle saw temperatures in excess of 32C. The Russian Arctic experienced ‘anomalously high temperatures’ more than 20C warmer than usual. And on and on.’

And so on and on ….  The claim of 118 all-time records came from the Daily Mail (previously condemned as a  ‘mainstream climate sceptic‘) apparently quoting the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but no details are given.  The DM article claims that ‘normally chill Norway, Sweden and Finland all saw temperatures they have never seen before on any date, pushing past 90 degrees’ – oddly enough, July high temperature records for Sweden, for one, have remained unchallenged since 1901 (Götaland), 1933 (Svealand) and 1945 (Norrland). Climate alarmists have been warning of a an ice-free Arctic for decades, and continue to do so, but the ice is, if anything,  increasing.

Media Lens’ cry, ‘In Greece, 80 people died in terrible wildfires’, completely overlooks the fact that in 2007 there were fires which killed 84 people, and that then as now, Greeks blamed arson, as do many in California.

The Media alert is sensationalist popular journalism of the worst kind, designed to uncritically push the corporate agenda. Their position is totally partisan – what happened to the objective ‘media analysis’ website?

The Virtue Signalling Left

The Guardian recently reported on the discovery of a 5000 year old burial site in Kenya. The grave was of a community of herders, and the co-director of the dig concluded that an egalitarian and communal spirit prevailed, commenting, ‘There are lessons here for us today’.

Media Lens took advantage of this thought to sneer about ‘Bleeding heart lefties and their crazy ideas about peaceful communities that shun social hierarchies and work together to overcome challenges!’.  Only ‘lefties’, according to Media Lens, would aspire to peaceful and cooperative communities.  Which is of course false, as the cooperative spirit of small conservative communities in Texas, Greece and throughout the world is surely greater than what will be enjoyed by ‘lefties’ in the lifestyle they are working to achieve at the behest of the globalists, living in their soulless (but sustainable) tower blocks next to the railway station.

The Media Lens spin on this story is similar to that of the Guardian on other ‘discoveries’, whereby new findings are supposed to bring out the worst prejudices in people, such as the declaration that 10,000 years ago the British were all black.

‘A great many widely held – but incorrect – assumptions about the expected pale-skinned, fair-featured nature of Britain’s founders were promptly overturned, to the rage of some commentators and the joy of many.’

The science is questionable, as is the assumption that people would be enraged, but in any case, the information is presented in such a way as to make the ordinary Brit feel defensive or threatened.

Soul Mates

‘We also hope to encourage the creation of non-corporate media – good examples are Democracy Now!, The Real News Network and ZNet – that offer genuine alternatives to the corporate mainstream.’  This statement is currently on the ML website (accessed 22 August 2018).  ZNet appears to have folded, but Democracy Now! and The Real News Network remain  Media Lens’ outlets of choice, and have a number of shared interests with Media Lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apart from some start-up support from foundations like the Lipman Milliband trust Media Lens claims to rely on donations from readers.  Both Democracy Now! (DN!) and The Real News Network (TRNN), however, are funded by corporate money: DN! by the Carnegie Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society and Tides Foundations, and the Ford Foundation; TRNN by the the Ford Foundation and the MacArthur Foundation.

Both DN! and TRRN claim to be independent and progressive, however the corporate hand has shown itself very clearly, for example on the issue of the Syrian war, where both outlets are firmly squarely on the side of imperialism and regime change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marwan Hisham, interviewed here on TRNN, collaborated with Molly Crabapple on a book Brothers of the Gun which romantises the insurgents and the insurgency.

Both DN! and TRNN promote heavily the anthropocentric global warming narrative, with  DN! inevitably warning of melting icecaps (blithely ignoring all reports that both Antarctica and the Arctic are putting on ice).  TRNN makes the ridiculous claim that the mainstream are ignoring climate change,  one much favoured by Media Lens, see here and here.

TRNN and DN! are strong promoters of the Noam Chomsky cult, quoting or interviewing him on a regular basis:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In an interview with Media Lens published by BS News in 2016, the editors mooted:

‘Do you think people around the world wouldn’t support a media commune made up of Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Jonathan Cook, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Herman, Chris Hedges, Robert Fisk, Nafeez Ahmed?’

As a group, this does not inspire as one that will take on the globalists and Agenda 21, or even be first choice for revealing the truth about imperialist wars.  Glenn Greenwald, like Amy Goodman, has been referred to as the ‘cruise-missile left’. , ie complicit in American escalation towards WW III. In Nafeez Ahmed, Media Lens is again promoting a fervent propagandist against the Syrian government and its allies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back in 2012, Ahmed wrote, admittedly while opposing direct intervention,

‘The brutality of Assad’s regime cannot be underestimated. The Syrian Army has not only routinely fired into crowds of peaceful protestors. It has followed up with heavy artillery bombardments of civilian districts – including the use of fighter jets.’

 

The priorities of Media Lens – the commitment to the Club of Rome’s climate project, the Chomsky cult, the divisive sneering at non-‘lefties’, the anti-Assad propaganda, and the strong support for anti-Assad propagandists – are consistent with a globalist agenda. It could be that that the editors of Media Lens are simply naive and rather past it.  However the lip service to anti-imperialism in tandem with the rigorous promotion of supporters of the war on Syria, the scientific background of David Cromwell in contrast to the determinedly populist nature of climate change commentary, put their good intentions in doubt.

Sixty Narcissists Declare Themselves Above Debating the World’s Top Climate Scientists

 

With the help of the Guardian, the climate debate has descended into pure farce.

The Graun has just published a letter entitled, Climate change is real. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it, whereby a motley crew of journalists, politicians, activists and academics have announce their refusal to debate anthopogenic global warming sceptics: ‘If “balance” means giving voice to those who deny the reality of human-triggered climate change, we will not take part in the debate’.

The reason for this step, we are told, is that on the one hand there is an overwhelming scientific consensus and on the other, that there is a lobby, heavily funded by vested interests, that exists simply to sow doubt to serve those interests. Scepticism represents  ‘fringe views’ which should be ignored. Giving AGW sceptics a platform is apparently akin to showcasing flatearthers, never mind the fact that the official position of the Flat Earth Society is that it supports the climate alarmist narrative. (Of course it was sceptics who first argued that the world wasn’t flat.)

The purpose of the letter is to justify the already well-established practice of refusing to engage in debate on global warming, by marginalising and belittling opponents, and to deplatform them. Because of the shortage of real scientists prepared to put their names to the letter, we have the unedifying spectacle of the likes of Clive Lewis and Peter Tatchell declaring that they are above debating atmospheric physics with scientists of the calibre of  Eric Karlstrom or Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.

  This exercise in dishonest narcissism demeans all who have signed or lent their support to it.

Why this Letter is a Farce and an Embarrassment

Climate alarmism is heavily funded by big money linked to the Club of Rome, such as the Bill Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.  Academic research is funded by these ‘charities’ to produce only results that serve the globalist narrative. Academics who speak out against the narrative do so at the expense of their careers. The claim that it is the sceptical position that is heavily funded is nonsense.

Counter-arguments from AGW sceptics have never been discredited. Michael Mann, for example, who is in litigation with number of people who have openly called his hockystick graph a fraud, such as Tim Ball and Mark Steyn, is still, to my knowledge, refusing to produce the data supposed to justify it.

The claim of ‘overwhelming scientific consensus’ is long debunked; the much vaunted 97% seems to be based on a figure of 76 peopleIn any case, given the huge numbers of scientists who have declared climate alarmism to be a hoax (see, for example, the American petition signed by 31,000 scientists, or this list of 1000 scientists) it is hard to see where this 97% could come from. 

The vast majority of the signees to the letter would have no show of debating science with a top climate scientist.  Of the 15 or so professors, maybe six are in relevant scientific fields, while the rest are in unrelated fields such as economics, law or psychotherapy. The same applies to others with impressive sounding qualifications – Dr Teresa Belton, for examples, wrote her thesis on the effects of television and video on children. In the case of 90% of the signees – academics, journalist, politicians, activists – the very idea that they could sensibly debate with serious climate scientists is ludicrous.

The letter comes out of the University of East Anglia. The letter was drafted by Dr Rupert Read, Green Party politician and Reader in Philosophy at the University of East Anglia; a the large number of signees have connections to the University. The UEA is notorious as the centre of the Climategate scandal, whereby emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world revealed a consistent, deliberate effort to skew, hide or destroy data.

James Taylor wrote: Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

  1. prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
  2. these scientists view global warming as a political ’cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and
  3. many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Signees may still be happy to debate global warming, just not with experts in the field. After I replied to one of the many twitter postings of this letter, Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology, turned up in my mentions. It was interesting how quickly the debate was reduced to the personal – while I myself was not the politest, I did at least stick to the point.

Maslin Faud Fraud fraudABarbara

Maslin Faud Fraud fraud .PNG

MaslinErrorBetter

(Nb: Maslin had also changed the timeframe, from 1000 years to 10,000.  My link is to ‘The Marcott Reconstruction Debunked’)

Maslin Ad hominem lmao2

Maslin used classic troll technique: dubious assertion, switch when discredited, ad hominem, personalisation of debate. But more importantly, he appears quite happy to debate with an AGW sceptic when she is a completely unknown to him arts graduate – just not a senior scientist.

After publishing countless alarmist predictions that have not delivered, the Guardian has finally destroyed its last shred of credibility in the matter of ‘anthropogenic global warming’.

However, while the letter invites ridicule and hilarity, it is a deeply worrying thought that climate alarmists can write any old rubbish, and know that the mainstream media, and most of the so-called alternative media, are going to make no attempt to expose them.

See also:

Climate activists have long history of ducking debates with skeptics

Climate Alarmism is a Scam and a Hoax

Climate Alarmism is a Scam and a Hoax

6555555555559999999999999999999999

Man-made climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW) is a scam and a hoax and until the average joe and jane wakes up to the truth this nonsense will continue to corrupt the scientific community, which depends on grants from those same economic and political powers, and more importantly will corrupt politicians worldwide who too are dependent upon them for campaign contributions. (Dr Eric T. Karlstrom)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  And if it quacks like a fraudulent narrative, the same applies.

The climate change project was officially launched in the US on  June 23 1988, when NASA’s James Hansen told a Congressional committee that global warming had begun: that the then-current heat wave in Washington was caused by the relationship between ‘the greenhouse effect and observed warming.’ (To get the point across, Hansen and sponsor 98ii+68/Senator Tim Wirth chose what promised to be an exceptionally hot day and then sabotaged the air conditioning in the meeting room the night before.)

Global warming is one of those plain sight conspiracies, where the primary movers hardly bother to conceal the contrived nature of the project, or the vast sums of money they make from it.  The Club of Rome in 1990 put out a report called The First Global Revolution saying:

‘In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…’ (p. 75)

The motivation, then, was not to solve an urgent problem, but to find a threat, real or not, that would ‘unite’ people. And divert them from real issues.

The Club of Rome was founded in 1967, one of a group of organisations committed to a globalist agenda, including the Committee on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg and the Trilateral Forum.  The Club of Rome has been described as being at the apex of the New World Order pyramid: it drives the global climate change project as well being concerned with population control and vaccinations. Members are world leaders and captains of industry, and have included Al Gore, Tony Blair, George Soros and other people you’d buy a used car from.

Climate alarmism is seen as fraudulent by many (probably all) top scientists, who have described it as a scam, a hoax and dangerous nonsense.  As the science for significant anthropogenic global warming does not exist, the position relies on falsified data and especially on diversion from factual-based debate through emphasis on apocalyptic scenarios on the one hands, and spurious (and patently false) references to ‘consensus’.

Anthropogenic Climate Change: the Official Position

The International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) was founded with the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change.  Major points of its 2007 report are as follows:

  • Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.
  • Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.
  • Continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would cause further warming.
  • Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change.
  • Notable achievements of the UN and its Kyoto Protocol include the creation of an international carbon market.

Scientific rejection of the IPCC’s position

The IPCC’s findings were opposed by scientists worldwide. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, for example, slammed the IPCC report as ‘dangerous nonsense’  and produced a list of pillars of wisdom to counter the UN IPCC climate report.

  • Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been
    warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.
  • A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun’s magnetic field and solar particles. […]  Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.
  • Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.
  • Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly. For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.
  • Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models. Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.
  • The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to
    world temperatures. The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria and Aids.
  • Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts, and storms.  The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes.

In essence, proponents of the theory of significant anthropogenic climate change need to show two things:

  • There is significant and dangerous global warming
  • This global warming is caused by human activity, ie greenhouse gas emissions, primarily co2 emissions.

Whereas sceptics need only show one thing:

  • global climate is not significantly or dangerously affected by human activity

It’s the Winning that Matters

The AGW cause has the richest people on the planet promoting and exploiting the narrative, including the late  David RockefellerBill Gates, several members of the Rothschild family (e.g. David Rothschild and Edmond de Rothschild, see also here and here). All of these are closely associated with the Club of Rome and related globalist organisations like the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg.  Vast sums of money are made available for research that produces the right results, and most of the corporate media is on message, churning out alarmist messages almost on a daily basis. The fact that neither science nor nature itself support the theory hardly seems to matter.

Like all narratives pushed by the powerful onto the masses, the global warming hoax is supported by relentless fallacious argument, so that the public are battered with endless ad hominem, cherry-picking and appeals to authority. Much of the data is suspect, to put it mildly, and a very large part of the ‘debate’ consists of apocalyptic scenarios, with threats of doom unless the public pours more money into the coffers of those profiting from the carbon hoax.

In 2009 Climategate scandal broke, when 3000 leaked emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) and their colleagues around the world revealed a consistent, deliberate effort to skew data as well as destroy and hide contradictory data.

After the second lot of climategate emails was released in 2011, James Taylor wrote:

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:

  1.  prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
  2. these scientists view global warming as a political ’cause’ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry; and
  3. many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

The Data

Petition Slide01 Warming

[Source of image]

The IPCC’s position is still that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years, increasing at an exponential rate as we pump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Many scientists disagree, pointing to higher temperatures in the 30s, and a cooling since 1998.   During 2017, there were 150 graphs from 122 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals indicating modern temperatures are not unprecedented, unusual, or hockey-stick-shaped — nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

Data to promote the idea of runaway global warming has been questioned, for example the graphs used by NOAA ( National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NASA have been shown to have been ‘updated’, as it were.

Temperature Graphs2

In 2015, German professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert accused NASA of ‘Massive’ Temperature Alterations’, i.e. of intentionally and systematically rigging the official government record of global temperatures

‘A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own data sets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.’

Back in 2008, the UK Telegraph reported NASA as claiming October as the hottest on record, by using September figures.

The name ‘hockey stick graph’ was coined for figures showing a long-term decline followed by an abrupt rise in temperature, specifically applied to the findings of ‘a little known climate scientist named Michael Mann and two colleagues’ as described here by the Atlantic Council.

HockeystickT_comp_61-90.pdf

Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional principal component analysis but it handles data in such a way that whatever data was fed in, it produced a hockey stick.  Mann has queried their findings, but refused to provide necessary additional data (McIntyre and McKitrick’s adventures with Mann are described here).

Michael Mann has been suing various critics for libel, including Mark Steyn, whose  A Disgrace to the Profession is a compilation of scientific commentary on Michael Mann and his work Steyn has also termed Mann a Big Climate huckster), and also emeritus Professor Dr. Tim Ball, who likewise suggested Mann was guilty of data fraud.  Mann has been reported as being in contempt of court in the Ball case for failing to provide essential data.

HockeystickT_comp_61-90Tim Ball.pdf

When the promised global warming failed to eventuate, the phrase ‘global warming’ gave way to ‘climate change’.  So when cherry-picked claims of extreme heat are met with examples of low temperatures, they are countered with, ‘there you go, extreme climate change!’.

Carbon Dioxide

The cause of ‘runaway global warming’ is, according to alarmists, the production of CO2.  Not carbon monoxide, note, the one that is poisonous (we’re not worried about that), but carbon dioxide, which is necessary for plant life, and which greenhouse owners often add to improve the growth of their vegetables. (See New York Times Hysterical over Global Greening)

Scientists have pointed out in vain that the level of carbon dioxide has been far higher in the past, during the Cambrian period about 18 times higher.  Moreover, during the glaciation of the late Ordocivian period, CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today, according to one report. (This study has similar results.)

Winter is Coming

Ice age.jpg large.jpg

From the early 14th to the mid nineteenth century, Europe and other parts of the world experienced what is called the Little IceAge.  It led to much misery, with cold and hunger from the failure of crops, political upheaval, and the decolonisation of Greenland. In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII recognized the existence of witches and echoed popular sentiment by blaming them for the cold temperatures and resulting misfortunes plaguing Europe. (N.b. Greenland still has not recovered from the Little Iceage.)

For some years, scientists have been predicting the coming of a new mini-iceage. In 2009 Professor Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Technical University of Denmark, advised that ‘global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning – enjoy global warming while it lasts‘.

The response of British institutions like the Met Office and University of East Anglia has been interesting.  In 2012 they released data that showed that the warming trend ended in 1948, but insisted that cooling from natural sources will be offset by carbon emissions. See Scientists Predict Coming Iceage

The thought of the world’s governments being able to serious affect the climate is not a comforting one: ‘If we didn’t have the greenhouse affect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse affect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.’  (Augie Auer)

Climate Alarmism

Evidence of the Earth cooling has not given any pause to alarmist claims of dramatic warming, which have been present from the outset. In 1989 Nasa’s James Hansen was predicting that global temperatures would rise up to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by 2050.  In his film An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore warned that increasing carbon dioxide emissions would spur catastrophic global warming that would cause more extreme weather, wipe out cities and cause ecological collapse. (The claims and predictions of An Inconvenient Truth were scrutinised 10 years on by Michael Bastasch in An Inconvenient Review.)

In his review of the book that accompanied Gore’s film, Hansen claimed: ‘As explained above, we have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions’.

To give a sense of urgency, the global warming threat has been described in the most extravagant terms. Hansen warned of a ‘global warming time bomb’ when he spoke to the Club of Rome in 2009.  The concept of a ‘tipping point’ came into vogue, the peak of climate alarmism. Marc Morano prepared a full list of apocalyptic declarations,  exclaiming ‘Hours, days, months, years, millennium  – the Earth is serially doomed’.  Some examples:

It is suggested that the only authentic climate ‘tipping point’ is the one proposed by New Zealand’s Augie Auer, who predicted in 2007 that it was all going to be a joke in five years time. (Auer reckoned without the powerful forces behind the climate hoax.)

The Melting of the Polar Icecaps

Poles 2018-04-10181524_shadow.png

[Source of image: Climate Science In A Death Spiral For At Least 10 Years]

Melting of the icecaps would be a truly dramatic event, a serious indication of warming.  Accordingly climate alarmists have seized on this ‘danger’, in defiance of all the evidence.  In 2007 — during his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech — Al Gore mooted that the northern icecap could be gone by 2014.

‘One study estimated that [the North polar ice cap] could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years.   Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.  [pause for effect] Seven years from now.’

In 2015 NASA data indicated that the polar icecaps were not receding, but in fact growing.  This did not deter Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at Cambridge University from predicting in 2016 that the icecap at the North Pole would be completely melted in the next year or two, ie by the end of summer 2018 at the latest. As it is now August, and the Polar caps seems to be doing well, his prediction is hardly odds on.

Others are sure that the icecaps will be gone by at least 2050.  This view is expounded in an article by Gilbert Mercier, who is sure that by 2100, the countryside will be parched earth and major cities like London and New York will be under water.

The End of Snow

In An Inconvenient Truth Gore claimed that Kilimanjaro, Africa’s tallest peak, would be snow free within a decade.  On March 20, 2000, the British Independent reported that snowfalls were a thing of the past.

 ‘Global warming is simply making the UK too warm for heavy snowfalls. […]  Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.

The source of these claims was Dr. David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, of Climategate fame.  The Independent article appears to be gone from the Web, melted away as it were, but was well reported, and certainly criticised.

Cherry-picking

Apocalyptic predictions are supported by a relentless reporting of supposedly extraordinary events proving a trend towards global warming. The cherry-picking in many cases is both obvious and ludicrous, and often the actual facts open to question.

Earlier this year, for example, it was proclaimed that Nawabshah, Pakistan, had provided the hottest shaded temperature ever recorded for a reliable weather station in April, anywhere on Earth. ‘It’s only May, and this year is setting new standards in terrifying extreme temperatures.’

Coincidentally, it was also recorded that 2018 had the coldest April in the US for 30 years.  At the same time New Zealand and Australia (the Daily Mail always nice pictures, if nothing else) were predicting the coldest winter on record  -so far this has not come to pass, in NZ at least. It is probable that one could find (or contrive) an extreme temperature somewhere on the globe at any time in history.

Discrediting the Opposition.

(There are, of course, a LOT of bankers behind the climate hoax.)

There is no science behind the Club of Rome’s global warming project, and nature itself is not cooperating. In order to eliminate scrutiny of the facts, the campaign relies very heavily on totally discrediting the opposition. Sceptics are attacked with a barrage of fallacious argument: namecalling is inevitable (climate denier, climate change denier, flatearther etc), with an assumption of vicious motives or great stupidity.

The 97% Consensus

The claim that 97%  of the world’s scientists  support the climate hoax (99.9% according to George Monbiot) is a mantra repeated ever more shrilly in the face of unwelcome factual evidence.  One might well ask, who cares? The argument is an appeal to authority, a red herring fallacy, and the beliefs of a claimed 97% of ‘scientists’ don’t actually change the scientific facts.

As often happens with the use of fallacious argument, the premise is completely false as well. It is clear that the there has been concerted and substantial opposition from scientists to the AGW narrative and the carbon fraud. Essentially the 97% claim is a bare-faced lie, designed to make sceptics look like loonies.

Over 31,000 American scientists signed a petition in response to the 1997 Kyoto Accord:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Attached to the petition is a summary of peer-reviewed research with 132 references.

Marc Morano has given a breakdown of more than 1000 international scientists who dissented over man-made global warming claims from 2008 to 2010.  Morano refers to, for example:

  • U. S. Senate Minority Report:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims:  Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008 & 2009.
  • 712 Prominent scientists from 40 countries signed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). The 2008 declaration states in part, ‘Global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life’.
  • In 2009, more than 100 international scientists rebuked President Obama’s view of man-made global warming. The scientists wrote: ‘Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.’
  • December 8 2009, an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General from 166+ scientists declared ‘the science is NOT settled’.
  • 2010, 130 German Scientists called climate fears ‘pseudo religion’ and urged the Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ her views.
  • In 2010, more than 260 scientists who are members of the American Physical
    Society (APS) endorsed the efforts of skeptical Princeton University Physicist Dr.
    Will Happer to substantially amend the APS alarmist statement on man-made
    global warming.
  • A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 showed 90 per cent of
    the participants do not believe the IPCC report.

The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008. It prominently featured the voices of scientists sceptical of man-made global warming fears. This report from the conference, by someone, who does not himself appear to question the AGW narrative declares that ‘skeptical scientists overwhelmed the meeting, with ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ (full reports here & here ]

Professor Larry Bell of Houston University has also debunked the 97% claim, reporting.

  • A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.
  • A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.
  • A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that ‘…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.’ Only 26% of them attributed global warming to ‘human activity like burning fossil fuels.’ Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, ‘We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.’

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, and supervisor to James Hansen, Dr. John S. Theon has called Hansen an embarrassment, and added himself to the list of NASA scientists who dissent from man-made climate fears. Others include:

  • Aerospace engineer and physicist Dr. Michael Griffin, the former top administrator of NASA,
  • Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA,
  • Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut,
  • Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt,
  • Award-winning NASA Astronaut and Physicist Walter Cunningham of NASA’s Apollo 7,
  • Chemist and Nuclear Engineer Robert DeFayette was formerly with NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor,
  • Hungarian Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Ames Research Center,
  • Climatologist Dr. John Christy,
  • Climatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer,
  • Atmospheric Scientist Ross Hays of NASA’s Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility].

In a New Zealand context, scientists who have opposed the man-made global warming narrative have included some of New Zealand’s top academics and scientists, including:

  • Professor Augie Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming,  and Chief Meteorologist with the MetService
  • Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University
  • David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research
  • Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry), PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations,Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
  • Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics

Rather than there being a consensus of 97% of scientists who believe in climate alarmism, the opposite is more likely to be true: that 97% of scientists of integrity and without a financial interest believe that AGW alarmism is fraudulent.

Given that most scientists in fact reject the AGW scenario, and the public itself is growing increasingly sceptical, why has Augie Auer’s prediction, that it would be seen as a joke by about 2013, not come to pass?  Carbongate is seen as a victimless crime – ok, the taxpayer is paying out a fortune, but afterall, who hasn’t nicked a Biro from a government office? The other reason, of course, is money: AGW alarmism is a construct of the rich and (thus) the very powerful, who are practically unstoppable. And getting richer.

 

See also:

Climate Change: a Hypothesis. This is an article which aimed to address the relationship between war and global warming.  Unfortunately it relies on graphs provided by NASA which are almost certainly false, and so the article has little value except for some background information – I am probably the only person who has written about climate change who actually believed those graphs.

David Kear, former Director-General of NZ Scientific Research, says global warming is a non-existent threat. This should be of interest to New Zealand readers as, once upon a  time, Kear would have been considered NZ’s top scientist.

Guy McPherson – Human Extinction Within 10 Years [Video].  Good example of climate alarmist propaganda (the first 9:30 mins can be missed).  McPherson predicts an ice-free arctic by 2019, and the end to human existence by 2028.

Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, The Green Agenda: Using false science to create a ‘global crisis’

In Is Man-Made Climate Change a Hoax and a Scam? Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, California State University, provides an analysis of the global warming fraud (2010)

  1. ‘In this paper, I document some of the many disproofs of the hypothesis of unprecedented, catastrophic, anthropogenic global warming (AGW). In the process, I demonstrate that AGW is and has always been a fraud. I also:
  2. Demonstrate that there is no consensus amongst scientists in support of the AGW hypothesis.
  3. Show that natural climate fluctuations have had a far greater influence than humans on the climate system and that the claimed rate of modern warming (0.6° C in the 20th century) is well within the normal range for natural temperature fluctuations.
  4. Show that atmospheric CO2 does not drive temperatures and plays a minor role in the climate system.
  5. Discuss the historical benefits of relatively warm climates vs. more damaging colder climates.
  6. Demonstrate that human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are minor (about 3.5%) as compared with nature’s contributions. And water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.
  7. Detail the many ways in which science fraud has been systematically and is still being used to create the common misperceptions associated with AGW.
  8. Discuss problems and limitations of the GCMs (global climate models) that provide the basis of the alarmist claims of human-induced global warming
  9. Expose the fallacies of the many propaganda ploys, including melting glaciers, rising sea levels, die-off of polar bears, increase in extreme weather, etc., that are now commonly attributed to AGW.
  10. Speculate on the political, economic, and social agendas served by the AGW fraud.’

 

Dear Matrix, from Chris Kirckof

 

Ultimately Chris Kirckof is an optimist. 

Dear Matrix,

I am aware of your efforts to dumb down, sedate and control the world’s populations. I am fully aware of your destructive programs to sicken and alter humanity through the chemical, electromagnetic and genetic modification of our food, plants, animals and ourselves. I am aware of your careless destruction of our earth, skies and oceans through resource exploitation, geoengineering and weather modification. I see all of your many false flag events and devious schemes purposely designed to keep the world in perpetual fear and continual wars against fabricated outside enemies for control and profit. I have caught on to your fascist medical system designed to drain and destroy humanity via the decrepit allopathic medical system based on profit and ill health at every level, including the proliferation of pharmaceuticals, invasive and debilitating treatments and deliberately damaging vaccines.

I see every move you make toward a worldwide police state based on manufactured fear and disinformation to manipulate humanity in order to execute your program of control and subjugation. I see the con job and am aware that your political puppet establishment is all staged and designed to distract from the real issues and keep the populace occupied and feeling like participants while you work your manipulative program. I am aware of your falsely imposed taxation system that is designed to fund further the agenda that controls an overarching agenda of genocidal wars on innocent peoples. I know that a select few major corporations with vested interests in this global agenda now control almost all media and that mass media is nothing more than a mouthpiece of propaganda to further the elistist agenda.

I am aware that your “entertainment” industry is simply socially engineered mind control. I am informed of your AI, electromagnetic grid and mind manipulating designs and technologies that are being imposed to further expand your psychopathic control program. I know that you repress emerging technologies that threaten existing parasitic profitable ones, such as the hazardous petroleum and nuclear industries, when alternative energy sources and other such solutions have arisen for many decades which you have suppressed. I am aware that you sequester knowledge and information in a vast array of fields to keep the general populace in the dark and thereby disempowered as to our true historical context, while you are coveting secret information and carrying out advanced covert research for your own ends.

I know that you have stigmatized, marginalized and seek to outlaw any form of criticism, questioning or dissent using whatever excuse you can manufacture. I am aware of your oppressive, enslaving monetary and legal control scams, private fractionalized banking pillaging, and twisted cravings for money and power in an imposed control system that never needed to exist in the first place. I am aware of your agenda steering institutions, foundations, institutes, charitable organizations and international bodies such as the so-called United Nations and its many agencies and agendas being used to further develop your global control plans and programs. I know all about your secret societies, blood line allegiances and luciferian, freemasonic, Babylonian and otherworldly roots that propel the wickedness of your self appointed leaders. I know all about your ritual sacrifices, paedophelia, bestiality inclinations, and other insane practices.

I am aware that you know we are on to you. I stand fearless, fully committed to humanity’s well being. You are shallow, self-serving and seriously misled guns for hire working for a control system being engineered by powers beyond your knowledge that will devour you, just as you seek to devour us. I know who you are. Your days are numbered. You know it, and I know it. If there is an ounce of humanity left in any of you, defect and help us expose and bring down these dark forces.

A warning…

We are aware. We are awake and activated. We will do everything within and without our personal power to see our race and planet survive and shake this parasitic invasion. Our planet itself will not take this attempted overthrow. Know that, and expect repercussions from Her, as well as us, a gathering storm of sacred truth you cannot possibly fathom. Your opposition, resistance and puny, short-sighted efforts are dwarfed by what awaits you.

Will you find your humanity in time? We think many of you could, and those of you who do will be welcomed amongst the awakened. However, we realize many are beyond redemption. But don’t try to fool us. We’re more on to you than you could ever imagine. Just watch and see. We will surprise you, just as you fear. We’re here. We live. We cannot be stopped nor thwarted by any means despite your flimsy efforts.

Truth cannot be denied. Awaken and rise up.

We are coming….

First They Came for Alison Chabloz

On Friday 25 May musician Alison Chabloz was found guilty of sending, by means of a public electronic communication network, a message or other matter that is ‘grossly offensive’, and awaits sentencing – the judge has indicated that a custodial sentence is possible.

In fact, Alison Chabloz has been found guilty of Holocaust denial.

Alison Chabloz makes her living as a singer-songwriter.  She is also a Holocaust revisionist.  Prior to being banned from twitter in 2016, Chabloz’s frankness on both the Holocaust and the Palestine issue attracted the attention of zionists who not only trolled her on twitter, but were instrumental in a job offer of a singing spot on a cruise ship being withdrawn.

Alison Chabloz lodged a complaint of harassment with the police.  She also, in a spirit of defiance against her attackers, wrote three songs satirising the harassers and the Holocaust.  In November 2016 she was informed that her complaint of harassment was rejected, and a few days later arrested and charged under the act, on evidence supplied by the very people who were the subject of her own complaint, well-known zionist trollers Stephen Applebaum (@NemoNemo50, @Sicaro72 ) and Stephen Silverman (@BedlamJones).  Further background is available from Chabloz’s website, and interviews with e.g. Windows on the World and Richie Allen.

Alison Chabloz’s offence

Alison Chabloz’s conviction relates to the satirical songs in three videos that she uploaded to Youtube: Nemo’s Antisemitic Universe, I Like the Story As It Is, and (((Survivors))).

Nemo is named after one of the trolls who were harassing Alison Chabloz on twitter. Part of the song is dedicated to him, another part to the illegitimacy of the state of Israel – Chabloz sings of a Palestine free from the river to the sea, and ends with, ‘Free Palestine!’.

All three songs refer disparagingly to the Holocaust narrative. Auschwitz, a major grief tourism site, is termed to as a theme park – Chanloz refers to the fact that the gas chamber, initially claimed as genuine, was eventually proved to be a reconstruction. There are mocking references to former traditions, now debunked, that Jewish bodies were used to make soap, and their skins into lampshades.

Chabloz devotes (((Survivors))) to ridiculing three ‘Holocaust survivors’.  The authenticity of the accounts of these survivors is no longer accepted: Irene Zisblatt claimed to have escaped from a gas chamber not once but twice; there are whole websites devoted to the flaws in the Elie Wiesel story;  Anne Frank’s Diary was written mainly in ballpoint, not invented until after the war. There have been other cases of Holocaust survival fraud, , e.g. Binjamin Wilkomirski, and Herman Rosenblat, whose book Angel at the Fence was withdrawn by its publisher after doubt about its veracity was expressed by scholars, relatives and fellow survivors.  Some, like Rosemarie Pence, are not actually Jewish.

Alison Chabloz has made it very clear that she believes that the Holocaust is a hoax and that Israel is an immoral and illegitimate state, that truths about these ‘institutions’ trump the feelings and the self-interest of those who claim to have a special relationship with them, and that fraud, particularly well exposed and agreed fraud, is a legitimate target for satire.

The Trial of Alison Chabloz

Alison Chabloz was charged under the provisions of s.127 (i) of the Communication Act 2003 with sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive, or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character or causing such message or matter to be sent.  The trial transcript is in a recent newsletter of the Adelaide Institute (pdf, last section).

The case was brought by Gideon Falter, Chairman of the Campaign against Antisemitism and heard by Judge John Zani in the Westminster Magistrates Court.  The previous judge associated with the case, Emma Arbuthnot, recused herself after it was revealed that she was a Friend of Israel.

The Judge decreed that : ‘The Court is not obliged to decide whether the Holocaust actually occurred, or whether records maintained in respect thereof are accurate’. What the judge actually meant was that the veracity of the Holocaust was taken as read, and not up for debate.  He based his decision on the following assumptions, taken from previous judgements:

  • Holocaust denial is the utterance of demonstrably untrue statements of fact.
  • The Holocaust is an essential part of Jewish personality and human dignity, i.e. an attack on the Holocaust is an attack on all Jews.

Counsel for the plaintiff was permitted to question Chabloz on her views regarding different aspects of the Holocaust narrative, such as the six million figure and the gas chambers, as they were deemed to be relevant to the case.

In his decision the judge referred to several judgements from countries where Holocaust denial is illegal.  In the case of Garaudy v France, the court held that 6 months imprisonment for the applicant, who had written a book disputing the existence of the crimes against humanity committed against the Jews by the Nazis, did not violate the convention of free speech. In Witzsch v Germany, the applicant was convicted in connection with protests about the introduction of Holocaust denial legislation.

The judgement assumed, therefore, the illegality of Holocaust denial, even though this is not formally part of British law.

According to the judge, ‘the relevant test is the standards to be applied of an open and multicultural society’.  The judge cites Collins, in the House of Lords:

‘it is not the reactions of the actual listeners to the messages which must be considered, rather the reactions of reasonable members of society’ and
‘if a member of a relevant ethnic minority who heard the messages would have found them grossly offensive, it is not easy to escape the conclusion that the messages would be regarded as grossly offensive by reasonable persons in general, judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society’.

What Collins meant by ‘a member’ of a minority is unclear, whether he referred to a single one, most, all. If it can be shown that a proven majority of a particularly group would be offended by ridiculing their sacred cows, must these be sacred cows for the majority? If it can be shown or claimed that the majority of Somali immigrants into Britain favour female genital mutilation, should female genital mutilation be legal, sacrosanct and free from criticism?

The judge ruled that:

‘certain historical events affecting members of the Jewish community as well as comments made of certain selected Jewish individuals (the defendant has here focused on Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt) have been deliberately portrayed in a way that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful’.

Alison Chabloz’s offending songs focused on aspects of the Holocaust that are almost universally held to be fraudulent.  Fraud that is exposed and in the public domain is almost always seen as an obvious, legitimate and necessary target for British satirists, no matter who is responsible.  The judge decreed, however, that members of an open and multi-cultural society would find the satirising of gazetted fraudsters Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and Irene Zisblatt ‘particularly insulting, upsetting and disrespectful’.

Judge Zani, for reasons which remain obscure, chose to refer to a speech by ‘the respected French writer Albert Camus’ called ‘Create Dangerously’, ‘wherein he underscored the important role of the artist to be prepared to express views and opinions’.  The judge then went on to ignore the implications of Camus’ view, and concluded:

‘Put shortly, this Court is entirely satisfied that the material in each of the songs complained of is grossly offensive, as judged by the standards of an open and multi-racial society’

The response of the plaintiff, Gideon Falter, to the judgement was: ‘Essentially this is a ruling on the legality of Holocaust denial and antisemitic conspiracy theories in the UK.’

Gideon Falter’s response has been quoted more fully by The JC, who forgot to clarify exactly who was the ‘anti-fascist’ in their picture (below).  Antifascist.PNG

Thus while there is no British law formally criminalising Holocaust revisionism, such a law is no longer necessary. The judgement of Judge Zani serves as a legal precedent which can be used for suppression of debate about the Holocaust and events of World War II.

Antisemitism redefined

Alison Chabloz was not accused of smearing Jewry as a whole, or of attacking individual people or their possessions physically, verbally or in writing, simply because they were Jews.

As a definition of antisemitism the court used (on Falter’s recommendation) the International Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted both by the EU Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia and seemingly the British government:

‘a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or towards Jewish community institutions.’

The full definition makes it clear that the ‘institutions’ of the Jewish community include above all the state of Israel (mentioned in six out of eleven examples), the Holocaust, and the exceptionally evil nature of the Nazi regime.

If the British government has indeed adopted the definition, as promised by May in December 2016, then it has formally declared Holocaust denial and certain criticisms of Israel to be hate crimes.

Although British institutions such as the Royal Family and its members can be ruthlessly satirised, and Norwegian institutions such as seal hunting can be openly pilloried, the same does not apply to institutions perceived to be intrinsically Jewish, even when Jews also question or mock them. Jews who do criticise are also deemed to be antisemitic.

Frankie Boyle has made jokes that many people consider outrageous, often attacking institutions like the Royal Family or the Vatican Church, and is often very personal and hurtful. Alison Chabloz scoffing at frauds who exploit the Holocaust narrative is tame in comparison. But while Frankie Boyle may have lost work as a result of his cruel jokes, he still has many thousands of fans, and certainly no-one is putting him in prison – because he is not ‘antisemitic’.

The redefinition of antisemitism as undermining institutions dear to the Zionist lobby is already well established in the British Labour Party. The mention of uncomfortable but indisputable facts about Hitler’s support for Zionism was enough to force Ken Livingstone from the party. Tony Greenstein, Jewish and dedicated to outing ‘antisemites’ such as Gilad Atzmon, likewise a Jew, was himself declared an antisemite because of his criticism of Israel and so lost his party membership.

The word antisemitic is almost never used in its original sense, in parallel with terms like racism. In the majority of cases usage is purely for the purpose of suppressing debate or mention of actual established facts relating to, e.g. WWII, or about Israel. It is very often used by non-Jews to denigrate Jews they disagree with, see for example Ali Abunimah’s’s Disavowal of Gilad Atzmon.

The definition of antisemitism is now everything to do with the primacy of Jewish suffering, exceptionalism, power and corruption, and nothing to do with truth, natural justice or protecting the vulnerable.  Use of the word antisemitic is now inevitably and intrinsically linked with denial of truth.

The ontological arguments for the Holocaust.

The ontological argument for the existence of God goes something like this: ‘God is perfect, a God that exists is superior to one that does not exist, therefore God must exist’. God is, therefore, defined into existence.

A similar argument is used to argue for the existence of the Holocaust, or similar: ‘this is the most terrible atrocity, a crime that exists is more terrible than one that doesn’t exist, therefore it exists’.

The same specious reasoning drives inexorably to the indictment of those who question any aspect of the Holocaust, or other alleged atrocity. The bigger the atrocity it seems, the bigger the crime in refuting it: ‘a terrible atrocity has taken place, you are questioning that it took place, you are offending people who are affected by this atrocity (relatives, all decent human beings, me)’.  This argument has had very wide application, e.g. to Assad’s alleged atrocities, the Jo Cox murder, or the Florida shootings.

The enormity of the alleged offence is in itself, therefore, sufficient to justify the criminalisation of any doubt.  George Galloway precedes his judgement on Holocaust revisionism with a ponderous and uninformative recapitulation of the main points of the Holocaust narrative, which he then proposes as a reason for locking up Holocaust deniers and throwing away the key.

 

Zani’s judgement normalises the suppression of free speech and dissent

The strategies for suppressing scrutiny of the Holocaust narrative are increasingly applied to other narratives. These strategies include the extensive use of ad hominem instead of proper argument, derision, vilification, discrediting, deplatforming, job loss, and in the case of speaking out about vaccine damage, child theft. Holocaust revisionists, of course, face imprisonment – some adherents of the climate change story believe that ‘climate change denial’ should also be criminalised.  Where history is deemed to be ‘settled’ in the case of the Holocaust, the expression ‘the science is settled’ is used to stop questioning of vaccinations and climate change.

To return to the case in hand, Gideon Falter sees the judgement as opening the way to criminalisation of ‘antisemitic conspiracy theories in the UK’. One can only conjecture what he is referring to: linking Mossad to 9/11 is often called an antisemitic conspiracy theory, even by people who criticise Israel.  Criticism of George Soros or Jacob Rothschild is often declared to be antisemitic, and assumed to be purely due to their being Jewish rather than being related to their actions. Criticism of bankers as a group is also described as antisemitic, simply because some very prominent bankers are Jews.  Or perhaps Falter is referring to the plain-sight conspiracy of global governance – reference to the New World Order may be the next thing to be criminalised.

 In setting a legal precedent of criminalising debate over the events of World War II, the conviction of Alison Chabloz for ‘Holocaust denial’ further normalises the suppression of thought, speech and dissent.  The future of free speech and dissent in Western democracies could not look more bleak.

.

 

The Arrest of Tommy Robinson and Questions of Due Process in Britain

Last Friday, 25 May, there were two events in Britain which raise serious questions relating to free speech, dissent, due process of law, but also of who is actually committed to those concepts. One of these was the conviction of Alison Chabloz for holocaust denial, although holocaust denial is not yet a criminal offence in the UK – the judge has indicated that she is almost certainly facing a custodial sentence.

The other is the arrest of Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Tommy Robinson is an activist heavily involved in exposing the Muslim grooming gangs in Britain.  He also campaigns against extremist Islam, specifically violence, intimidation and support for terrorism by extremist Islamic groups, and the double standards relating to the treatment of Muslims versus non-Muslims.  He is a strong supporter of the state of Israel.  Although he insists that he is only targeting extremists, he conflates, or is seen to conflate, all Muslims, by using the term so freely, while many of those involved in grooming gangs have a different history to those responsible for terrorism.

Robinson’s concerns are seen as valid by a large section of England, even those who do not like his style – he has been termed a working class hero.  He is also described as racist and a thug, and also a fraudster, Israeli agent, globalist.

Tommy Robinson was arrested while live streaming outside Leeds Crown Court.  This is the most common clip of his arrest.

The events on Friday appear to be as follows:

Tommy Robinson was live streaming into his cell phone outside the courthouse in Leeds where a group of men were being tried for raping underage girls – they were allegedly part of a grooming gang.   Robinson was already serving a suspended sentence of three months.

Robinson is left undisturbed by the police while he films and talks into his phone. However at a certain point the judge looks out the window and a few minutes later, police arrest him “on suspicion of breach of the peace”.

Inside the courthouse the charge is changed to contempt of court. Within a few hours, Robinson is convicted and sentenced to 13 months in prison.

The ban makes it difficult to verify the timing, but here is one breakdown:

A reporting ban is imposed, leading to a number of news outlets taking down their articles.

Gag order

There are reports that Robinson’s lawyer was unable to get to the court in time, and Robinson was obliged to make do with a court lawyer, who knew nothing about his case, possibly knew little about contempt of court law, and possibly was not sympathetic.

Robinson’s friends and family are concerned for his life. An alternative scenario, however, is that he will spend 13 months in solitary confinement.

Based on the clip above, widely disseminated, a number of aspects of the case are open to question:

1) The change in charge – did the judge tell police to arrest someone without specifying the charge? Or did he order an arrest on the grounds of disorderly behaviour and then change tack once he realised the disorderly behaviour charge wouldn’t stick?

2) The speed of the trial.

3) The severity of the sentence – the three months was increased to 13

4) The ban on reporting (sometimes referred to as a D-notice).

However, the highlights in the clip above do not give a full picture of the events leading up to the arrest.  According to the fuller version posted on facebook, Robinson was in front of the courthouse for an hour and a quarter, without any suggestion from the police that he move on.

As the accused arrive in court, Robinson calls out to them, “How do you feel about the verdict?, got your prison bags with your?  any guilt?”.

Robinson lists the names of and charges against those going into court, and then at 3:30 states “One of these men is actually working in a chicken shop in Huddersfield [..] would you want your children going into a chicken shop where men are alleged to have gang raped, prostituted and trafficked and drugged young victims”. Most or all of the alleged perpetrators are said to be from Huddersfield, and their names were already in the public domain.

The live stream also show that Robinson checked with police about where he could stand in relation to the courthouse. It was agreed with the police that while he could not stand on the steps of the courthouse, he could stand in front of or near them.

So there are further issues:

5) Whether reporters calling out to accused as they go into court  is acceptable and legal, and whether the disclosure of the information provided by Robinson, already in the public domain, constitutes contempt of court by prejudicing the trial.

6) Why did the police not warn Tommy Robinson that he was guilty of disorderly behaviour or in contempt of court?

There are also concerns over Robinson’s safety, given his high profile (or notoriety): one member of the House of Lords has threatened the Home Secretary with prosecution if Robinson is injured or killed in prison.

The Response

The response from those who involve themselves with alternative media in order, presumably, to find and disseminate the truth has been divided, as was to be expected.   There is much outrage from those who are totally in tune with all that Robinson stands for, or those who share some of his views, for example on the failure of Britain to address the problem of grooming gangs.

Many of those who feel a strong antipathy towards Robinson cannot see beyond the reasons for that antipathy.  The first response is to gratify that antipathy; the legalities and principles often come a poor second.

Emma

A good many people are confident that all due process was observed:

Questioning of the event has come from less obvious sources, such as the Spectator and Rob Liddle (both title and stub of the article have since been changed to “At last, a speedy police response”).

Spectator3.PNG

Several ex-police officers have posted statements giving their opinion that Tommy Robinson had not transgressed in anyway, such as this one.

Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris posted a video of their discussion about the arrest.  Mercouris make a reasonable fist of explaining Tommy Robinson’s appeal to a “large constituency in England”, though mistakenly assumes (3:05) that Robinson is still leader of the EDL (he left in 2013 citing concerns about right-wing extremism).

Mercouris echoes Liddle when he puts forward the view that

“he was arrested not because of anything he actually did, but because he was Tommy Robinson […].  I cannot see that anything that happened outside that courtroom justified it taking the action that was taken”.

Both Christoforou and Mercouris see the matter of the reporting ban as the most serious aspect:

[The reporting ban] “is even more worrying than the arrest itself, because when somebody is arrested in Britain, when somebody is threatened or placed in imprisonment, reporting of that fact ought to be in itself ought to be an important safeguard to ensure that there is no actual violation of due process, and that proper justice is being followed, because if it is not, then that is when things begin to go badly wrong, and abuses of the system happen […].   If there are things about him which justify what is being done to him, we should know more clearly what they are”. (Mercouris)

Christoforou and Mercouris discuss the influence of the deep state, and draw parallels between what is happening with Tommy Robinson and other events involving the British state, such as Julian Assange’s position and the Skripal affair, where there have been major violations of due process.

Several people have portrayed Robinson as an agent provocateur, a puppet of the government, or an Israeli agent. It is claimed that Robinson is working for dark forces in deliberately trying to create division, that he has exacerbated racial divisions and anger arising out of the grooming scandals in places like Rotherham, Telford and Huddersfield.

Mark Window, of the podcast Windows on the World, responded to the Tommy Robinson arrest by describing him in a series of tweets as a “state sponsored agent provocateur in court pantomime drama”, “This puppet and traitor to Britain”  and “glove puppet agent provocateur”.  Windows is implying that what happened outside the courthouse was actually a charade.

The idea that Robinson may have staged his arrest in collaboration with the UK or Israeli governments is of course far more interesting than the simple fact that he gives support to Israel (given that so many members of the UK and Scottish Parliaments, and of the British public, also strongly support Israel).

Assuming that Robinson, who has a wife and three children, was happy to go back to prison for at least three months, the arrest could in theory have been staged in order to create division, make Robinson a hero, or cause civil strife, possibly leading to draconian counter measures.  One should also bear in mind that the Tommy Robinson arrest has completely overshadowed the conviction of Alison Chabloz for holocaust denial, which also happened on Friday.

However, even presupposing that the arrest were indeed a “charade”, if it can be shown that the process was illegitimate then the British authorities are still complicit in this abuse of process, and this should still be of interest to everyone, not just to Tommy Robinson’s supporters.

At the very least there remains the issue of the reporting ban – not only do people not know what is going on but, as with the Skripal case, they do not know why they are not allowed to know what is going on.  As with the Skripal case, there is huge suspicion and anger at being kept in the dark.  Common sense dictates that a statement showing exactly where Robinson transgressed and whether he pleaded guilty (which would explain the speedy hearing) must reduce tensions.

If the British are not prepared to demand accountability and freedom of information over situations such as the Skripal case or the Tommy Robinson arrest, it will only embolden the authorities and make accountability even harder to achieve in the future.

Climate Change – a Hypothesis

On Saturday 14 April France and the UK joined with the United States to carry out airstrikes on Syria, supposedly as punishment for carrying out a chemical attack.  It seems that at least 118 missiles were used Tomahawks or the equivalent would each explode a 1,000-lb warhead. If all missiles had found their mark, that would be a lot of TNT for a night’s work of disputed value.

Macron is now visiting Washington, where Macron, who has frequently criticized the U.S. president for not making climate change a priority, hopes to discuss the Paris accord.

Nobody is talking about the contradiction in Macron’s two positions

The earth has heated and cooled numerous times over its history. However, recent increases in temperature are attributed to a rise in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity.  It follows that global warming in theory at least can be reduced or eliminated by changes in human activity. The scientific consensus, we are told, is that global warming is real and anthropogenic.

There are dissenters who question whether the world is actually warming up, and/or whether any change is anthropogenic, see e.g John Everett, Climate Realists or Piers Corbyn.

This map from Nasa shows temperature data from four international science institutions, showing rapid warming in the past few decades.

Map 1309_consensus-graphic-2015-768px

The striking thing about this chart is the big spike around World War II. Global warming reached its highest point in recent history, dropping away sharply after the war.  It did not reach the WWII level again until 40 years later, despite the massive recovery and development in the industrial sphere in countries like Germany and Japan.  Since then the temperature has continued to rise, but then wars have continued as well.

Based on Nasa’s data, wars cause global warming

The effect of wars on global warming and climate change could be due to  the effect of explosions, fires, the increased activity of munitions factories.

There has been little or no discussion of how man-made explosions affect world temperatures, but it is assumed that explosions caused by meteorites hitting Earth would cause global warming. It has also been argued that nuclear testing causes global warming.

There were immense conflagrations in WWII, e.g. Gdansk and Dresden.  But then fire is a feature of other wars, e.g. the burning of oil-fields in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

A wider issue is the huge use of petroleum by military in general: the US Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest oil consuming government body in the US and in the world.

Nobody talks about wars causing global warming

There is little or no acknowledgement of the role of warmongering in the global warming debate. While there is condemnation of, for example, the production of greenhouse gases from Indonesia’s palm oil fires, or from controlled burning of wasted natural gas or oil (flaring), there is little concern over the deliberate burning of oilfields.

In 2016  ‘responsible scientists‘, academics from the world’s most distinguished universities, including Stephen Hawking,  wrote in an open letter begging for action on climate change

‘Human-caused climate change is not a belief, a hoax, or a conspiracy. It is a physical reality. Fossil fuels powered the Industrial Revolution. But the burning of oil, coal, and gas also caused most of the historical increase in atmospheric levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. This increase in greenhouse gases is changing Earth’s climate.’

 So no reference to war.

In 2017 the New Scientist condemned Trump’s priorities of defence over addressing climate change,  though it did acknowledge, ‘Such nostalgia is not entirely unjustified. Whatever you think of the ethics of the military-industrial approach, it delivered’.  The article goes on to compare Trump’s moves with ‘Barack Obama’s final priorities for R&D, which included climate change, Earth observation and Arctic science’  – there is no suggestion that  Obama’s wars on Afghanistan and Libya could have had a negative affect on the state of the planet.  Nor was there by the Guardian when it reported that Obama had dropped 26171 bombs in 2016.

The 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), described by George Monbiot as ‘perhaps the biggest and most rigorous process of peer review conducted in any scientific field, at any point in human history’ makes no mention of the effects or war or military activity on global warming, and nor do subsequent report’.

The Club of Rome

The Club of Rome describes itself as ‘an organisation of individuals who share a common concern for the future of humanity and strive to make a difference. Our members are notable scientists, economists, businessmen and businesswomen, high level civil servants and former heads of state from around the world’.

The Club of Rome has been described as being at the apex of the New World Order pyramid. While it has a lot in common with groups like Bilderberg, the Council for  Foreign Relations and other organisations dedicated to global governance, the Club of Rome focuses on issues to do with ‘global health’ such as climate change and overpopulation. The members have included people like Al Gore, Maurice Strong (co-author of the Kyoto Protocol), David Rockefeller, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Bill Gates and George Soros (see The Green Agenda).  Many of these people are involved in the Bilderberg Group – the Dutch Royal Family and Rockefeller have been prominent Bilderbergers from inception.

In 1991 the Club of Rome released a report called The First Global Revolution (archived here) , which openly admits the contrived nature of the global warming scare.

‘In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill […]’  p. 75

‘So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity […]’ (The Green Agenda)

The climate change scare fulfills a function of diverting attention from other global issues, from war to banking bailouts, but has also proved to be a source of enrichment.  Among the leading proponents of the climate change narrative are those making money out of the carbon credit scheme – many of these also promote war.

Al Gore, who was given a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in climate change activism has made a great deal of money from carbon trading (see Obama’s Involvement in the Chicago Climate Change).

George Soros, who funds propaganda for wars on countries like Syria, is also heavily involved in carbon trading, while at the same time having  $811 million of his own money invested in a Brazilian oil company – see Paul Joseph Watson, Globalists Race To Enforce Criminal Carbon Tax, (subtitled ‘$100 Billion A Year Levy Is About Bankrolling Global Government And Lining The Pockets Of Con Artist Oil Men’ Soros, Strong and Gore, Has Nothing To Do With Saving The Environment’).

The Rothschild family have also seen the opportunities, here and here.

Conclusion

The alleged concern of politicians and scientists with regard to global warming is fraudulent, and is used as a strategy for enrichment and diversion.

The Hypothesis:

Assuming that global temperatures are in fact affected by human activity, and the graphs commonly used to show global warming are correct:

  • Wars are the only sure cause of anthropogenic global warming.
  • Climate change activists and politicians deliberately conceal the role of wars in global warming, in order to prevent opposition to war on those grounds.
  • Therefore the function of the global warming scare is nothing to do with concern for the planet, but serves different purposes, such as self-enrichment and diversion from other global problems.

 

Disclaimer: this article is based on  the assumption that the data provided by Nasa etc is correct.  Piers Corbyn argues that much of the data concerned with climate change is falsified: if so the findings here of a relation between war and climate change are invalid.

The British Foreign Office and the Propaganda War on Syria

On his first official visit to Turkey in September 2016, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson announced that the British government was giving about £2.3 billion in aid to Syria. Of course when Johnson said ‘aid to Syria’ he meant anything but – Britain may be contributing to the odd refugee camp outside of Syria, but most of that £2.3 billion goes to support al Qaeda and ISIS-linked groups in order to bring down the legitimate government in Syria.

Since 2011 the British government has had an official policy of regime change in Syria – Assad must go. While the UK has not yet formally invaded Syria, it has played a significant military role, including training insurgents in Jordan from 2012. The British air force has a presence in Syria, ostensibly to fight terrorism, though whether it has ever targeted anyone but the soldiers of the Syrian Arab Army is open to question (the presence in Syrian airspace of the British airforce is in clear breach of international law).

Perhaps the biggest role played by the British government is that of creating propaganda designed to undermine the Syrian government and its supporters in their fight against ‘insurgents’.

The official position of the NATO states is that the Syrian government has ‘lost legitimacy’, and that there is a ‘legitimate opposition’ made up of ‘moderate rebels’. To create support for this view NATO states, including the UK, the US, France and the Netherlands, have invested heavily in a two-pronged propaganda campaign to shape public perception of the war by:

  1. Demonising the Syrian administration, particularly the person of Syria’s popular president, Bashar al Assad, and all the forces that support the administration: the Syrian Arab Army; the National Defence Forces (part-time reservists, rather like a Home Guard); non-Syrian forces from neighbouring countries, such as Hezbollah.
  2. Creating a false perception of a popular uprising spearheaded by ‘moderate’, ‘democratic’ forces that are acceptable to the Syrian people, and thus can eventually form or be part of a viable government.

The target audience is the West – Syrians themselves are not going to swallow the bizarre fiction that groups who look like ISIS, act like ISIS and have the same ideology as ISIS, should somehow be seen on the one hand as heroes in preference to their own sons and daughters in the Syrian Arab Army, and on the other as a legitimate political opposition to their government.

A typical example of the moderate opposition in the eyes of NATO is the al Zinki gang, whose crimes include sawing off the head of a 12 year old child, and who clearly identify with ISIS (they were careful to pose in front of the ISIS flag in this picture).

alzinkiheadchopper

In the context of Aleppo, the State Department has claimed throughout 2016 that it has been endeavouring to separate out the ‘moderate rebels’ from the extremists. This is clearly nonsense: al Nusra dominates in eastern Aleppo, and when a a ceasefire was agreed in September 2016, 20 ‘moderate’ groups including Ahrar al Sham and al Zinki refused to take part because al Nusra, as an officially designated terrorist group, was not included.

The propaganda campaign also serves to draw attention away from the role NATO have played in creating instability in Syria – it is painfully clear that British anti-war politicians and organisations such as Stop the War UK believe that honour is satisfied as long as Britain is not openly bombing in Syria.

The immediate aim of the propaganda is to gain acceptance for increased NATO intervention in Syria, above all a no-fly zone, as was approved by the UN for Libya in 2011, which would then be interpreted by NATO forces as a  license to bomb with impunity, and destroy Syria as a functioning independent country.

The UK’s propaganda effort for the Syrian armed opposition began after the government failed to persuade parliament to support military action against trhe Assad regime.  In autumn 2013, the UK embarked on behind-the-scenes work to influence the course of the war by shaping perceptions of opposition fighters. (Cobain, Ross, Evans, Mahmoud, 3 May 2016)

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), working with the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Prime Minister’s Office founds or contracts companies for the express purpose of creating ‘targeted information’ in relation to the war on Syrian.

In effect the British government has funded a comprehensive top of the range advertising campaign to promote sectarian extremists in Syria who function as units of al Qaeda and ISIS.

Contractors hired by the Foreign Office but overseen by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) produce videos, photos, military reports, radio broadcasts, print products and social media posts branded with the logos of fighting groups, and effectively run a press office for opposition fighters.’ (Cobain and co., 3 May 2016)

The contractors also develop specific public relations projects such as the White HelmetsBana Tweets From Aleppo and the Civil March on Aleppo.

In parallel with these operations the British Government funds social media trolls to get the desired message across.  In January 2015 the Ministry of Defence announced the formation of its 77th Brigade, which would consist of social media activists engaged in ‘non-lethal warfare’, by attempting to control the narrative in media such as Facebook and Twitter.  (According to the report in the Guardian, the US and Israel were already heavily engaged in such operations)

Two closely aligned companies working with the Foreign Office and other UK departments are Incostrat and Mayday Rescue.

Mayday Rescue and the White Helmets

‘Mayday Rescue supports vulnerable communities in the most dangerous and challenging places in the world by training and equipping local groups to prepare for, respond to, and recover from the impact of war, disasters, and emergencies.’ (Mayday)

At the present time Mayday’s sole responsibility appears to be management of the ‘Syrian Civil Defense’ or White Helmets, a supposed first responder organisation staffed by ordinary Syrians, which are in fact an extension of the terrorist groups in Aleppo and Idlib. Their function is to cooperate with the Aleppo Media Center in the production of material which shows the White Helmets both as heroes and legitimate authorities on the Syrian conflict on the ground, and the Syrian and Russian governments as war criminals, deliberately targeting hospitals, schools, bakeries, animal shelters etc.

To that end, Mayday is generously funded by the UK, US and other governments, with offices in Amsterdam, Turkey, Jordan and Dubai. As at March 2016 its operational headquarters in Istanbul employs 30 staff, located in the operational centres of Istanbul, South-East Turkey, and has an annual operating budget of US$35,000,000.

Founder James le Mesurier, according to Mayday,

‘has spent 20 years working in fragile states as a United Nations staff member, a consultant for private companies and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and as a British Army Officer. […] Since 2012, James has been working on the Syria crisis where he started the Syrian White Helmets programme in March 2013. In 2014, he founded Mayday Rescue.’

Incostrat

‘We are a communications and media consultancy that provides a customised end-to-end service for government and private clients: we specialise in strategic campaign planning, narrative development, message distribution and feedback generation in support of policymaking […]

‘We have proven track records of designing and delivering complex communications and media projects in conflict and post-conflict environments. We have over two and a half years of continuous experience of Syria-specific work, co-operating with the moderate armed opposition, politicians, tribal and civil society’

Incostrat was founded by Paul Tilley, who has a similar background to le Mesurier, with experience of both the army and the Foreign Office. His CV on LinkedIn reveals the following:

“2011-12 Director of Strategic Communication (STRATCOM) in the Ministry of Defence for the Middle East and North Africa.

2012-current. Developed and Project managed several multi-million dollar media and communications projects that are at the leading edge of UK and US foreign and security policy objectives in the Middle East.”

Both Incostrat and Mayday Rescue were formally founded in November 2014, according to the LinkedIn profiles of their respective founders, but le Mesurier and Tilley were doing development work 2013 or earlier. The White Helmets first officially appeared on the scene in April 2014, when the BBC assisted in the launching of the brand by producing a documentary on ‘Civil Defence’ in Aleppo, which coincided with the White Helmets appearance on social media.

Incostrat is described by Thierry Meyssen as ‘a communications company in the service of the jihadist groups. It designed logos, made video clips by portable telephone, and printed brochures for a hundred of these groups, thus giving the impression of a popular uprising against the Republic.’

The difference between the older ISIS flag with the Incostrat designs for groups like Jaish al Islam, Jaish al Fatah is striking.

(left: ISIS; centre Jaish al Fatah; right: Jaish al Islam)

Meyssen continues:

‘together with the SAS, [Incostrat] made a spectacle of the most important group, Jaysh al-Islam (Army of Islam). Saudi Arabia supplied the tanks which were delivered from Jordan. Uniforms were made in Spain and distributed to the jihadists for an officer promotion ceremony. All this was choreographed and filmed by professionals in order to give the impression that the army was organised like regular forces and was capable of rivaling with the Syrian Arab Army. The idea was planted that this really was a civil war, and yet the images only showed a few hundred extras, most of whom were foreigners.’

Who actually does what in the Syrian theatre is not quite clear.

On the one hand Mayday Rescue appears to have total responsibility for ‘Syrian Civil Defense’. On the other there are similarities in the branding and marketing of the terrorist groups with their logos, letterheads and social media pages, and projects like the White Helmets. One possibility is that Incostrat, as well as having responsiblity for the design aspects of the propaganda campaigns, may also have the task of finding ‘creative solutions’ in broad terms, such as the Bana Project, the Civil March and maybe the White Helmets.

Mayday’s responsibility would then be the management of the White Helmets and the Aleppo Media Center both of which function as part of terrorists groups in Syria. Whether the Bana Project and the Civil March are managed from within Incostrat or whether there are separate groups or companies overseeing these projects too is not clear.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

SOHR, founded in 2011, is a UK-based organisation that provides information on the Syrian conflicts to the world’s media. The Observatory is run from Coventry, England by Rami Abdulrahman,  a three-term convicted criminal in Syria  who left that country more than 10 years before the war started, and is openly opposed to the Syrian government.

The Observatory is almost certainly the brainchild of the Foreign Office:

His funding comes from the European Union and “an unnamed European state,” most likely the UK as he has direct access to former Foreign Minister William Hague, who he has been documented meeting in person on multiple occasions at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London. […] it was the British government that first relocated Abdul Rahman to Coventry, England after he fled Syria over a decade ago because of his anti-government activities. Beau Christensen, Propaganda spin cycle: ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ is funded by US and UK governments

Although the Observatory is manifestly biased, only showing the conflict from the perspective of the insurgents, and consistently showing the Syrian government in a bad light, the information provided is considered by the corporate media, the United Nations and trusted non-government organisations to be authoritative, and is widely quoted.

Clearly for real journalists, Abdulrahman is a useless, utterly compromised source of information who has every reason to twist reality to suit his admittedly politically-motivated agenda of overthrowing the Syrian government. However, for a propagandist, he is a goldmine. That is why despite the overt conflict of interests, the lack of credibility, the obvious disadvantage of being nearly 3,000 miles away from the alleged subject of his “observations,” […] the Western media still eagerly laps up his constant torrent of disinformation. (Tony Cartalucci, West’s Syrian Narrative Based on “Guy in British Apartment”)

These organisations by no means represent the total of British spending when it comes to creating or influencing propaganda while dressing it up as humanitarian endeavour or intellectual objectivity.  The government is a major funder of a number of NGOs that are openly committed to ‘humanitarian intervention’ (regime change) in countries like Syria, such as Amnesty International.  In his article Unravelling BanaQoppa has raised the question of the relationship of the much derided ‘research organisation’ Bellingcat with the British government, pointing out that one of the authors of Bellingcat’s own article on Bana is an ex-army officer.

Incostrat, Mayday and SOHR however have direct and undeniable links with the Foreign Office.  Their function is to create, via tools such as Bana Alabed and the White Helmets, or directly in the case of the SOHR, fake news for Western consumption that bears little or no relation to the reality within Syria.

The fake news is distributed via the corporate media and the reports of the industrial human rights complex.  Social media, however, is by no means forgotten.  There is an incestuous relationship between the Foreign Office projects, in that Bana promotes the White Helmets, and the activists of the Civil March promote both Bana and the White Helmets.   At the same time the MOD’s 77th Brigade push incessantly the general themes of Assad and Russian war crimes versus the ‘popular uprising’ on social media, but also reinforce the FCO’s major projects – such trolls are easily detected on Twitter accounts like Bana’s.

So what we have is the , while also creating a false image of a legitimate opposition, all of which the said taxpayer is then supposed to take in good faith. The purpose of all this is to garner support for a no-fly zone over Syria, imposed by the UK, the US and allied countries, as the first step to overthrowing the legitimate government.

Bibliography

Thierry Meyssan, The Techniques of Modern Military Propaganda

Thierry Meyssan, For Britain’s Media and Secret Service (MI6) War Propaganda Is an Art

Ian Cobain, Alice Ross, Rob Evans and Mona Mahmood, Inside Ricu: the Shadowy Propaganda Unit Inspired by the Cold War

Ian Cobain, Alice Ross, Rob Evan s and Mona Mahmood, How Britain Funds the Propaganda War Against ISIS

Tony Cartalucci, West’s Syrian Narrative Based on “Guy in British Apartment”

Beau Christensen, Propaganda spin cycle: ‘Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ is funded by US and UK governments

Gearóid Ó Colmáin, Amnesty International, War Propaganda, and Human Rights Terrorism

Vanessa Beeley, The White Helmets Campaign for War not Peace

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑