At midnight last night, the United Kingdom ceased to be a sovereign state

"

We woke up in a different country today. Alright, it doesn’t look very different. The trees still seem black against the winter sun; the motorways continue to jam inexplicably; commuters carry on avoiding eye contact. But Britain is no longer a sovereign nation. At midnight last night, we ceased to be an independent state, bound by international treaties to other independent states, and became instead a subordinate unit within a European state.

Yes, a European state. Take a quick dekko at the definition set out in Article One of the1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

Until yesterday, the EU qualified on grounds (a), (b) and (c). Now it has ticked the final box. Under the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force today, it acquires “legal personality”, which gives it the right to sign accords and treat with other states. Nor is this right simply theoretical: the EU now has a foreign minister, a diplomatic corps (the European External Action Service) and 160 overseas embassies."

More ...

It is far worse than we thought!!!

The Climategate, meaning the "leaked" CRU emails, are damning enough. However, even if you accept the good, well meaning and eminent and world renowned scientists at CRU and their explanations for their use of words that obviously mean one thing, even though they claim that they meant the complete opposite, (which demonstrates a blatant inability to communicate with clarity) then the simple task of looking at the comments in the "leaked" raw code (and the code itself) shows clearly that the temperature reconstructions that all the "peer reviewed consensus" is based upon is absolutely shot to hell! It is rubbish. The whole temperature reconstruction is fixed! It is a classic example of the data being fixed to match the theory. That is not science, it is naked propaganda and it is, according to better informed people than myself, a fraud.

Whatever else this may mean for other areas of climate science, from ocean levels to ice extent and thickness, one thing is for sure, and that is the fact that the Hockey stick is dead, in spite of the staff at CRU tying string around the corpse's arms and flailing it about like an electrocuted puppet. It is DEAD!

Without the Hockey stick, there is NO empirical evidence showing anything unnatural or out of the ordinary about today's temperatures in relation to historical temperatures. The Medieval Warm period can come back and the Roman warm period as well as any other warmer periods in the last 12,000 years. We can also say a frosty hello to the little ice age with its ice fairs on the frozen river Thames.

I guess the warming from the mid 1800s can be attributed to all those executives of the East India Company flying first class in massive jets to conduct their imperial business then? Oh, silly me, we did not have Jet travel back then, did we?

The former Chancellor, Nigel Lawson is entirely correct in calling for a full and independent inquiry into the use of science and programming and data retention and everything that has happened at CRU.

As for the alleged "hack" to release this data? as one commenter put it on a Daily Mail story,

"So would you rather take the word of respected scientists or bunch of criminals who have stolen confidential mail and published it out of context?"

Does that apply to Dr Hansen? A man who has encouraged global law-breaking to cause criminal damage to power stations? A man whose own hysterical alarmism brands life giving coal trains (without whom millions of elderly and sick and infants would freeze to death every winter) "death trains!"

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Given that this propaganda for AGW was happening, surely an insider blowing the whistle to prevent the crime of mass-murder in the form of global depopulation would be a small crime to prevent a larger crime.

Surely the climate alarmists would not be so hypocritical as to be against such a thing when they have used this in their own defence in court! That to commit a smaller crime in order to prevent a greater crime, is not only acceptable, but one's duty if all other legal means are prevented.

To explain. The long established agenda of the climate alarmist movement, according to their own leadership, is massive global depopulation as my post,

"When Hitler killed millions he was labelled a monster ...
When the Climate Alarmists want to kill off BILLIONS of people through mass depopulation, they are given the Nobel Peace Prize."

conclusively demonstrates.

Mass Murder, or the alarmist's 'final solution', if you will, is their primary goal to save GAIA from evil humans. Though they would publicly DENY this in spite of all the documentary evidence for it, we know what a bunch of deniers they all are. Well they deny natural climate change, even though that has been the default state of climate for ever. They deny a lack of consensus, in spite of spending more and more time arguing with other climate scientists, they deny fraudulently fixing the data around the theory, in spite of the emails, documents and raw code comments that prove otherwise. They are the deniers.

So we have evidence of fraud, of hiding declining temperature data, of breaching FOI law, of intimidating scientific publications and interfering with and gerrymandering the "peer review" process to the extent that they hand-picked their own reviewers who they knew in advance would accept their already dodgy, conclusion lead papers as the data had already been fixed to support the conclusions. We have evidence of the attempt to ostracise and blacklist other eminent scientists who wanted to follow the evidence to see IF the theory stood up to testing. Whenever any part of the theory failed, the sceptical scientists were rejected, their data was rejected and anything that contradicted the theory was rejected and called silly childish names. That they did all this to propagandise for a (failing) theory that is to be used as a reason to cause mass murder shows evil intent. Leaking this data was a small crime by comparison.

Well, the Hockey stick is still dead, and I welcome back the MWP, the RWP and the LIA.

I hope that this shit-storm gets bigger and bigger. Humanity may end up depending upon it. The Emails are the small stuff in this, a mere smoking BB gun. The raw data is the mushroom cloud and long may it grow.

Climate Alarmist Hypocrisy

So some of the people who wrote emails that have been leaked, following the disclosure of hundreds of megs of data from the CRU servers, are claiming that it is terrible that an illegal act has been used to pursue a political goal.

EX FUCKING SCUSE ME???

SO the criminal damage that alarmists partake in to further their aims is OK? Shutting coal powered power plants is fine. After all committing a crime to prevent what you perceive to be a greater crime is OK is it not?

Well that is all that happened here. It appears that someone committed the crime of stealing computer data (much of which SHOULD have been made public under FOI act requests anyway, and which the tax-payer has paid for in some cases) to publish in order to discredit the Alarmist's political arguments which may be used to support policies of mass murder in the form of massive depopulation.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The metamorphosis of remembrance

They went with songs to the battle, they were young.

Straight of limb, true of eyes, steady and aglow.

They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,

They fell with their faces to the foe.

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,

We will remember them.

Lest we forget.

We are witnessing this day, Remembrance Sunday, a metamorphosis of the mission and reason for remembrance.

I sit here today in abject horror at what is unfolding. This is a slow and deliberate misrepresentation of what Remembrance Sunday is all about.

As I recall from the past, remembrance was all about remembering the sacrifice of our troops to defend our sovereignty and all that our sovereignty protects. That is fundementally important.

Now rememberence is having the sovereignty erased. It is changing into a propaganda agent of current mis-directed, and piss-poorly directed wars.

We are seeing the message change from remember what they fought for, OUR sovereignty and independence from foreign oppression into support of our current misadventures and invasions and occupations of foreign lands.

Watching the Remembrance Sunday Parades, I never heard the word Sovereignty mentioned once, but there was lots of references to supporting our current missions.

It was sickening to watch our Prime Minister and leader of the opposition lay wreaths to the fallen, whilst they simultaneously gave away the same sovereignty that the troops had died to defend.

The truth of the EU from Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/110289-0/

If they cannot recognise Marxist fascism and fundamental infringements of human rights, then NOBODY can.

The only way to prevent this catastrophe is to vote UKIP.

Eh?

The Palestinian "leader" has announced that he will not stand for re-election.

When the fuck was he ever elected?

Hamas won the last elections with an overwhelming majority.



-- Posted from my iPhone

After careful consideration I have decided to vote UKIP!

What is planned in the EU for the next two decades:

Multi-regional, single competency administrative bureaucracies. For any given area of policy, there will be regional councils that comprise of pan-national regions. In other words, a region will consist of small parts of several countries. For example, Transmanche would be Southern England (excluding London) , Northern France and part of the Nederlands.

Each region will be small, trans-national and only responsible for one area of political competency. But there will be a myriad of these regions covering everything from crime and punishment, to town twinning.

So for the Environment there will be another European level of competency that is comprised of regions that cross former national boundaries.

BUT, HERE IS THE BEST PART (if you love EU bureaucracy that is) Each area of political competency will have DIFFERENT geographical regions to any other area.

SO for fishing you will live in one region, but for energy it will be a different one, and for environmental concerns, another different one again, for taxes, yet another and so on and so forth.

This is the eventual plan. REMOVE NATION STATES FROM THE MAP ENTIRELY and make it impossible for people to live in ONE single political region.

Geographically they will live in one house in one town, but that town will be represented politically in many different over-lapping regions.

There will be an over arching EU that is responsible for EVERYTHING, but then each area of competency will be devolved into regional centres, SO THAT ALL the things that we USED to have a central Government, with separate departments for, now we have many different regions! The borders of these regions will all be different for each area of competency.

You will effectively live in one country for fishing rights, and another for agriculture and another for education etc etc.

That is how they are destroying the nation state, from the policy areas upwards. Everyone is looking for the EU to create political regions, like county councils, that control everything IN that region. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

They are setting up thousands of policy areas that are devolved to small-regional centres of operations. For example the European mechanisms for managing town twinning. That is all those regions are responsible for.

This is how the liberal media are accurately and correctly rubbishing the idea that national borders will be immediately replaced with smaller-transnational regions.

We will not notice that our borders have slowly been erased until they are already GONE. All the power that used to reside in Westminster and Whitehall is NOW being devolved to separate quangos that will form the future multi layered administrative regions of the EU. It has been happening for years

How else can I explain this …

Think of a blank map of the EU showing the outline. Then randomly draw borders inside that split it up into 36 regions. These could be the regions for education.

Then get another blank map and split it into 42 different random regions and these would be the regions for energy.

Then do the same again, but with only 12 regions, and that could be the judicial system. And so on and so on.

You will only have ONE physical address in a geographical region, but your life will be controlled and monitored from hundreds of different political regions.

All to make sure that you cannot recover ANY national sovereignty or independence AT ALL. People will not be able to be loyal to their old nation states, because essentially ALL the old nation states will not exist anymore.

The only way to prevent this is to STOP the Lisbon Treaty from allowing the changes that will permit it.

We will NEVER get a referendum on each part,

The only way to stop this now, is to vote UKIP and get the hell out of the EU entirely!

BNP on Question time ....

Well, I will be getting the popcorn and snacks ready for what is sure to be the political let-down of the year. A massively hyped episode of BBC's Question Time, with Nick Griffin from the BNP on the panel.

I am sad about this for a number of reasons.

The usual intolerant 'ban-free-speech brigades' will be out in force claiming that we must be intolerant of different views and that we are not "grown up enough" to make up our own minds. What are they afraid of? That we may actually catch some truth? You know, for a change?

Well, let me make this clear from the outset. I am opposed to any and all racial discrimination. ALL OF IT! I vehemently oppose negative and positive discrimination. Neither works.

So why am I sad. Two fold.

Firstly, I am sad because as a human who welcomes other cultures into the country of my birth, and this is the only country where I can claim a cultural heritage, and who has been a strong supporter of integrating other cultures and offering protection for other cultures. I am saddened that I was actually shocked when I realised that NO "mainstream" political party proposes to protect MY traditional culture. Indeed may of them, particularly on the left, claim that I do not even HAVE a traditional culture and what possibly, just passes for one should be eradicated and consigned to the history books.

It is true. None of the mainstream parties have any desire to offer the same protections to the "indigenous" British culture that are enshrined in law for any foreign culture. MY culture WILL be eradicated entirely if the current trends continue. These trends are encouraged by ALL "mainstream" parties.

This saddens me a lot. Other cultures should be able to practice their religions, traditions and customs here, but only so long as they are lawful, do not cause harm, injury or loss according to common law, and they do not restrict, prevent, or replace OUR culture by so-doing.

This should not be a mutually exclusive deal, where we welcome them at the expense of our culture. We ought to be able to accommodate them inclusive of our culture.

So WHO is going to stand up for and protect MY culture?

What saddens me even more is the fact that the ONLY political party that proposes the protection of MY culture is those foul socialists in the BNP!

The "mainstream" parties are, in reality, deeply entrenched, anti-British extremists filled with crooks, thieves, liars, incompetents and war-criminals. They make the BNP look positively rational, reasonable and mainstream by comparison.

This is why I am sad. I am a pro-British, conservative libertarian who believes in truth, self-reliance, the family unit, honest-free-enterprise, small-government providing the essentials only, and freedom of speech, thought and deed under the sovereign law in a sovereign nation.

What party out there speaks for me?

Perhaps I should seek election myself?

What Happened to what happened to global warming?

There is much fuss and bru-ha-ha over this particular BBC article titled "What happened to global warming?"

I was going to write an article that was broadly sceptical of claims that the BBC has had any kind of change of heart. I could not believe that the BBC really had invested all that time, money and energy to blatantly come down in favour of the AGW alarmism, in direct contravention of it's charter, terms and rules just to pull the biggest U turn in media history. It is NOT credible.

I may be more open to that possibility if the BBC had announced clearly, unambiguously and with authority across all of its news channels that that the pro AGW science was NOT settled, but it did not. It was a minor correspondent putting the feelers out on his blog, nothing more.

Now it would seem that my scepticism was justified.

From the amount of hype building in both the blogosphere and the mainstream media about this apparent "U turn", this BBC story was propelled to the top of the BBC "MOST POPULAR STORIES NOW" list. This has had mainstream correspondents in the "dead tree press" salivating at the prospect of exposing the BBC's discomfort at being exposed so widely.

However, as I checked the "MOST POPULAR STORIES NOW" to write this article, the "What happened to global warming" story has vanished from the list!

Is this credible? With the world waking this morning to the biggest BBC U-turn in decades being reported ever wider throughout the world's mainstream media, (with accompanying links) one would logically reason that this would INCREASE the number of hits to that BBC page? But NO! Alas, the hits for that page have stopped! Apparently more people are interested in reading about a letter that the once legendary double act Morecambe and Wise showed that Ernie Wise wanted to break the act up in the early days.

More people are apparently interested in an obscure story about "Worthing's birdman contest"

REALLY? or has the BBC succumbed to PRESSURE FROM THE ALARMIST LOBBY AGAIN???

I do NOT believe that the BBC has done a U turn at all. It was only a sop to it's charter to prove impartiality. They have to run a "sceptical" article every now and then even though they later amend, or contradict it completely.

When the BBC news announces an official change, THEN I would believe that they have changed and change they must.

However, unlike many, I do not believe that they should become climate sceptics either. The BBC should remain impartial. This means that they should merely acknowledge the glaring fact that the science is far from settled, there is NO scientific consensus on the total causes of climate change, or the amount of change caused by any particular mechanism. Then report accurately on the science of BOTH SIDES, until such a natural consensus can be found, if ever.

What is the case is that there is a terrific amount of good, sound, in-depth scientific theory that suggests that man's carbon emissions are causing our climate to change. There is also a lot of very VERY well-funded advocacy dressed up as science supporting AGW and a lot of incorrect, false and possibly deliberately fraudulent data used to support AGW.

On the other side there is a terrific amount of science and empirical evidence that supports several counter views. All views from 'there has not been ANY noticeable or scientifically significant warming' (as the historic measurements cannot be relied upon to show that the whole earth was so much cooler earlier during the last millennium). Right through to 'yes man's CO2 emissions are causing some, moderate or mild warming, but there is no sign whatever of any catastrophic warming at all'.

All these views are supported by scientific research by eminent and published scientists from across valid scientific disciplines INCLUDING climatology on ALL sides. What is LACKING is CONSENSUS!

Claiming that the science is settled, because there is consensus amongst pro-AGW supporting scientists, is NOT proof that the science is settled. No more than saying that Jesus IS the physical embodiment of God, because there is consensus amongst devout Catholics, is proof that Jesus is the actual physical embodiment of God.

And do not even get me started on the 'so-called' scientific impartiality of the peer-review publishing process which has undoubtedly prevented many sceptical scientific papers from being published without valid scientific reason.

Funeral for a hockey stick and the exposure of the 21st century's greatest hoax!

I was going to write my own response to the Yamal Implosion and the work that Steve McIntyre has done to expose what appears to be deliberate and wilful fraud in the science behind the infamous "hockey stick" and to write what that means.

However, a commenter on the excellent wattsupwiththat blog (science blog of the year) has already written this in far better terms than I could. So with full attribution to wattsupwithtthat.com and to the poster of the comment, I paste his comment here:
------------------------------------------

Richard (02:41:50) :

This is what I gather is the larger implication of the Yamal hockey stick saga:

Ross McKitrick: “Here’s a re-cap of this saga that should make clear the stunning importance of what Steve has found… the Schweingruber data completely contradicts the CRU series… Combining the CRU and Schweingruber data yields .. a medieval era warmer than the present…”

All the spaghetti graphs of the temperature in the IPCC report breakdown.

The IPCC says, based on these spaghetti graphs utilising Briffa’s cherry picked Yamal data, – “Palaeoclimatic information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years.”

Now suddenly this is not so. The medieval warm period, when all the Yamal data is used, without cherry picking, shows up clearly as warmer than the present. There is nothing unusual in the warmth of the last half century.

The IPCC also says that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” Why?

Because “Observed patterns of warming and their changes [in the last 50 years] are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcings.”

If the models couldn’t simulate the changes of the last 50 years without including “anthropogenic forcings”, which are due to “the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations”, they could not possibly simulate the warmer medieval era either, without these “anthropogenic forcings”.

This is enigmatic. There were no “anthropogenic forcings” in the medieval era.
Could it then possibly be there is something commonly wrong in all these climate models?

Also if there is nothing unusual in the warmth of the last half century, then where is the cause for alarm? Why are we spending billions of dollars trying to alleviate or avoid a problem that doesnt exist? Why must we shut down our power plants, curtail our manufacturing and production, reduce our gross national products and legislate global poverty as a solution to a threat that doesnt exist?

We are spending billions of dollars frantically trying to button up the Emperors new coat only to discover he has no clothes.
-------------------------------------------

Couldn't have put it better myself, which is why I nicked it!

And please do go to the webpage it was posted on to see much much more ...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/29/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/

So, what did happen on 9/11?

I am not supporting ANY wild and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about 9/11. I am sick of having bollocks about 9/11 shoved down my throat.

We are in a situation of multiple theatre wars over 9/11, we have had our liberties severely restricted and our traditional way of life altered somewhat.

So what did happen? Well, NOBODY can officially tell me. NOBODY! The official 9/11 commission report has been comprehensively debunked and disowned by none other than the lead council for the commission itself! Chairman Thomas Kean had already publicly stated that the commission had been prevented from obtaining the truth, had been hampered and obstructed by the Bush administration and that both co-chairs of the commission did not consider the report to be the whole truth.

Now when people talk of "tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories", I shall ask them what they believe the truth is, as the official 9/11 commission report is one of the worst of these tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories, as admitted by their own commission members including the co-chairpersons and their chief legal council. And where they can point to a conclusive and rational and consistent version that not only satisfies what is known on public record, but also is supported by the laws of physics.

Besides? what is wrong with wanting to know the truth? So called "Truthers" are vilified in the media, yet all we want is to know what really happened, who knew what, when did they know it and why was this plot not foiled by the known and established Standard Operational Procedures that were NOT put into effect that fateful day.

So where can I find the definitive proof of what happened that day and who was behind it all?

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php

Where are the ice age articles?

When the unusually low minimum Arctic ice level was reached in late September 2007, the world's media and climate alarmists went nuts. Some extrapolated that the arctic would be ice free in only 5 years.

Well since then the minimum ice extent has increased by over 10% per year. Extrapolate this amount in the same way as the alarmists extrapolated the melting and Britain will be in an ice age, covered by glaciers in only 200 years!

Where is the balance in reporting guys?


-- Posted from my iPhone

That's alright then ...

"The head of MI6 Sir John Scarlett tells the BBC the British secret service has not been involved with torture."

I am so relieved that the man whose lies "justified" the UK's participation in the invasion and subsequent destruction in Iraq now states with such sanguine and lucid authority that our intelligence agency personnel were not involved in any way with torture of people who had not been even charged, let alone convicted, of any crime.

Clearly this man would not lie about something so serious twice, would he?

His assurances carry the same value as Gordon Brown's promises of an end to boom and bust.



-- Post From My iPhone

WHO Recommends Mandatory Injections ...

It is Official: WHO Recommends Mandatory Injections to Almost Two Hundred Countries

http://www.naturalnews.com/026723_health_vaccines_immune_system.html

Conspiracy theory eh? Now they are proposing to assault the entire populations of almost 200 countries with an untested mercury based injection? FUCKING FUCK THAT RIGHT FUCKING OFF!!!!

I shall be spending my weekend drafting a legal and lawful notice of understanding and claim of right including a very fat fees schedule. Assault upon my physical body contrary to my full and validated consent shall be very costly indeed.

I encourage all independent minded men and women to do likewise.


-- Post From My iPhone

No excuses

Now I have a blog app on my iPhone, I have no excuse to not be able to post.

There should be more updates from now on :)


-- Posted From My iPhone