Climate change is real. Yeah, it always has been!

In my experience, most climate-sceptics want responsible consumption, want to reduce real pollution, want to stop the eradication of natural habitats. (I am appalled and outraged that our closest natural cousin, the Orang-utan is on the verge of extinction, because their habitat is being destroyed to be replaced by "green" plant-oil plantations!) We SHOULD be stopping ALL deforestation. We SHOULD be stopping hundreds of un-natural, man made chemical pollutants, but this crazy over-hype about CO2 is getting in the way and preventing urgent action!

What sceptics want, is PROOF, that the CO2 added by man to the atmosphere has stopped behaving like natural CO2 and instead of having a logarithmic increase in radiative absorption, that prevents the earth from dangerously overheating (as there isn't enough carbon based fuel on the planet to do so), but now seems to have an exponential heating effect.

I know the theory about heating causing methane release, but this did not happen over the warmer, preceding 10,000 years.

We want to SEE the original raw data that CRU and NASA Giss used and their method for reconstructing temperature. Because if they used the same GHCN "raw data", which I have, then much of the rural data does NOT show rising temperatures and the urban increases are, well, urban, as in UHI. The methods used by CRU and NASA Giss, to homogenise their data through adjustments creates a large amount of warming in the record. How can we trust their data and methods if they are not fully published?

IF the CO2 scare was real, WHY are so many of the delegates to Copenhagen chartering private jets to get there? If the delegates themselves cannot take this seriously, WHY THE HELL SHOULD I?

Further and most importantly, when my own significant personal reduction in my carbon footprint over the last five years (not flying at all, changing from a large car, to a very efficient, small diesel car, getting rid of many of my aquariums (my personal passion) and changing my personal energy usage), when all these reductions have been cancelled out by just ONE of these gulf-stream jet journeys by a scientist, or celebrity, or politician, or bureaucrat jetting into Copenhagen to lecture me on the need to not fly, then I really get pissed off!

I am incandescent with rage at these lying hypocrites! When I see them screaming at the danger of CO2 and the "end of the world" scenarios that they paint, then I see them flying all over the place, investing in sea-front property (in spite of claiming that seas will rise by 20 feet), and rejecting clean technologies, then it would appear that these people do not want clean, renewable energy, or a solution to the Carbon problem at all. They want control over us, and they want our taxes and they want billions of the world's "useless eaters" dead!

I am reminded of the following quotes:

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Man made climate change sceptics, are on the whole NOT funded by "big oil" but a lot of alarmists are. I love the email where Professor Jones admits to being funded by "big oil" but not to tell anybody!

We catastrophic AGW sceptics are NOT wanting to destroy the earth, we just want TRUTH.

• Truth about polar bears, whose population is increasing rapidly.
• Truth about the plight of the Orang-utan, whose existence is threatened by well-meaning environmentalist idiots in search of the "green dollar".
  
• Truth about ice extent, which is now increasing rapidly and that it has increased and decreased naturally by far more than it has over the last insignificant 30 year satellite record in the past.
  
• Truth about temperatures, which have NOT been recorded accurately by surface stations until very recently and no longer show average temperatures rising.
  
• Truth about the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, and the majority of this interglacial which has been WARMER than this current decade.
  
• The truth that over the last 10,000 year timescale, over which timescale, the earth has been cooling.
  
• The truth that whether the earth is warming, or cooling, depends ENTIRELY on which arbitrary dates are used to start the measurements and end the measurements.
  
• The Truth that any recent warming is completely in line with normal variability and the KNOWN logarithmic increase in CO2, which means that for a further doubling of CO2, there will only be a 0.3 degree rise over the next century, which could be completely off-set by natural variability.
  
• The Truth that climate models cannot predict future climate change IF the people programming them do not understand clouds, do not understand all the ways that the sun interacts with the earth and the oceans, do not even know how many hundreds of undersea volcanoes there are, let alone how much extra heat they may be putting into the oceans at any one time and do not have a clue about so many processes that effect climate far more immediately and radically than CO2 does.
  
• The Truth that without this knowledge and without a system that can predict chaotic, non-linear systems, that climate models are useless as a predictive tool.
• The Truth that models are only good as a way of modelling a hypothesis to test that hypothesis against reality and if the reality does not confirm the hypothesis, then it is the hypothesis that should change, and NOT THE REAL DATA.
  
• The Truth that climate scientists HAVE adjusted the data to fit the hypothesis instead of admit openly that the hypothesis and the models have failed to match reality!
  

There IS still a huge amount of unknowns, and yet we are expected to believe, based on nothing more than blind faith, that the scientists in charge of compiling the IPCC temperature record are doing so accurately, honestly and without ANY bias whatsoever, when we also know that they are totally committed, with a religious zeal, to a political agenda that is 100% dependent upon them finding accelerating warming. [sarc] So no conflict of interest there! [/sarc]

Then when they refuse freedom of information act requests to supply THEIR data and methodology for independent review, we are supposed to trust them? When the leaked CRU emails show prima facie evidence of rigging data, of bullying other scientists, of bullying publications, of bullying editors, of perverting the peer-review process and turning it into a quasi-incestuous "in-group" of co-religionists. All of which are a perversion and debasement of science. These are actions of advocates, NOT of scientists.

Well after these revelations, which DO stand up to close scrutiny (despite what the mainstream media states, with their "nothing to see here" (for God's sake PLEASE do not look for yourself) style coverage), after these revelations, and the appalling stench of hypocrisy from private jets and gas gussling limos in Copenhagen, I am committed to the following reasoned and utterly reasonable position.

I hereby commit to the following:

I shall NOT reduce my carbon emissions unless and until the following two things are done.

1) That all the delegates to the Copenhagen conference, and ALL the politicians, scientists, celebrities and bureaucrats who believe in, and promote policies based on, man-made climate change must lead by example and STOP ALL jet travel, and instead video conference and, only when necessary, travel by wooden sailing ship (made from wood from sustainable resources)

and

2) That ALL the data from CRU and NASA Giss is opened up, fully audited and independently analysed in public and all issues arising from this are publicly dealt with according to the sound fundamentals of the proper scientific method and that the resulting consensus (if any) shows that the earth is warming at a dangerous rate caused solely by CO2 and that we can actually do something about it.

Until then, I refuse to help suffocate any more trees for the lying bastards in Copenhagen!

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.

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

Compulsory parent contracts?

So the state is relying on the ignorance of parents to attempt to enforce their state control, 'big government knows best' attitude in law. They expect us to simply comply to an unlawful enforcement of invalid contracts. There is no such thing in the legal world as a compulsory contract. A contract is defined by two or more 'persons' consenting to terms and conditions for one 'person' to provide goods or service of an agreed value to the other 'person'.

The key word in all that is 'consent'.

They cannot enforce a 'compulsory' contract as the mere attempt to make the contract compulsory renders the contract null and void.

No party in Parliament has the answer to the staggering level of Debt

Government debt: That’ll be £2.2 trillion, please
The amount of money owed by the Government is huge and rising, says Eamonn Butler, so why aren’t we pursuing simple, effective ways to reduce the burden? read more ...


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

My response:

Sure, labour have borrowed excessively and handled the economy in an appalling and incompetent way. They inherited a golden legacy and wasted it.

They gave a huge amount of control to the banks on day one of coming to power, by allowing the Bank of England to handle interest rates. They also removed the oversight of the city from the Bank of England and gave it to a toothless quango.

But having done all that, labour then sat back and let the banks do what they are solely in existence to do; CREATE DEBT!

At first when these monster-sized debts were being run up, the extra spending boosted the economy massively. Of course, this was ALWAYS going to be unsustainable.

This is not realisation with the benefit of hindsight either. I was writing warning of this 8 years ago, when every one else was praising a chancellor for being prudent and overseeing a boom, when in reality all he was doing was encouraging profligate lending and his only, sole action in managing the economy was by the gross overtaxing of the resulting boom, to waste the proceeds building a client state of pen-pushers and layabouts. That was ALL he did! This was the imposition of the remedial version of the old socialist classical labour economic rulebook. Page1 states Overtax and page 2 states spend badly. So I am NOT removing the blame for the terrifying amount of borrowing from labour at all.

However, by so giving so much power to the banks to create uncontrolled excessive debt, and by those banks doing what banks are solely in existence to do, of course the current mess is the Banks' fault. Or more precisely, the fault of the banking system.

Think about it. IF we have the power to create money out of thin air (and we DO. After all money is NOT backed by anything of value today) Then why is there any debt? We can create enough money to pay off the debt and have an instant full economic recovery.

The problem is, the current system of fractional reserve banking of fiat currencies makes it impossible to do. Every single pound created is created with a debt of interest already attached. That interest is NEVER created and so can never be repaid except by the creation of more interest bearing debt. Every new pound created INCREASES the amount of debt.

Unfortunately, none of the current Parliamentary parties are proposing to do anything about it either. Labour, Tories and the Liberals ALL are in collusion with the global banking establishment to keep that system in place to the bitter and totalitarian end. ALL those parties put the banking elite before the needs of the people. They are all traitors.

We need the political will to remove the power to create money from the banks and assign it to elected officials. Money should be created interest free and be based on a resource of real value.

That and ONLY that, will solve the economic problems we have and have the added benefit of returning money to being our servant, a useful tool, and stop being our master and enslaver.

How the few control the many. Or, why do we let ourselves be cowed by inappropriate peer pressure?

Interesting result for the BNP

Bear with me on this and read it all....

After listening to all the candidates that spoke on the media last night, I would rather see Nick Griffin as PM than any Labour member. This is NOT an endorsement of Nick as my choice of candidate, just that I would rather he were PM than any Labour party apparatchik.

What Nick said (I am only talking about his WORDS here, bear with me on this) What he said last night was entirely reasonable, measured and common sense in terms of he was ACTUALLY CLAIMING to be in support of was a form of multiculturalism which INCLUDES the British. Labour believe multiculturalism and Britishness are mutually exclusive to the extent that Britishness is often referred to as racist and offensive to minorities. Nick Griffin NEVER Excluded any racial or religious group from participation in British life.

People do not have a problem with supporting the indigenous peoples of Australia in Oz, or the Native Americans in North America. The difference between the BNP and the others is that they are supporting the indigenous people (Celts, Norman, Anglo-Saxon) of these islands before we are made a minority and our historic and cultural lands are taken from us.

I do have sympathy with that argument. Like what Nick said last night, I to do NOT want to see people who contribute to this nation, who work and pay taxes, to be excluded from the benefits of being British Nationals, regardless of their skin colour, religion or background.

I agree with him that the excesses of extremist versions of Islam (or any extreme religion or group) should be prevented, like the arranged marriages, the deep disrespect for and restriction of women's rights and the punishment beatings and killings of women who choose to marry outside their arranged marriages. Let alone the activitieas associated with Jihad against us. The cruelty inherent in Halaal meat should also be banned.

Such accommodations should not be made, just for political correctness sake. These practices are profoundly wrong and this country should not allow them. IF people wish to practise such things, then they are free to leave and practice them elsewhere, just as anyone is free to leave and practice any activity or belief or ritual that is illegal here, but legal in other nations, Like target shooting with hand-guns for example, or Smoking Canibis (A Rastafarian practice).

I vehemently disagree that people should be excluded on the grounds of their skin colour or religion alone, unless that religion demands adherents to it to cause harm, injury or loss to others.

I also agree with him on protecting British Jobs from being given to foreign people on substantialy below minimum wages here. An EU ruling meant that Employers can source labour from the cheapest countries and undercut the wages in any other member state legally paying substantially less than the minimum wage in that state.

LABOUR in the UK allow this practice and have never issued a peep against it, for to do so would be to go against their precious EU oligarchy.

We have a minimum wage here and it should be either enforced equally for ALL employers, OR scrapped entirely. At the moment it forces employers to discriminate against British workers as it is illegal to pay below minimum wage to British workers, but not to migrant workers from a member state that has no minimum wage. that is an INSANE, ANTI-BRITISH situation that labour have allowed and encouraged in this country.

Now I know I cannot take Nick Griffin solely on his word. I mean, I could barely refute much of what Tony Blair said, (again his words were sound, but his deeds?) I agreed with many of his words and they were all about ending discrimination and promoting peace, but that did not stop him lying to get into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and people of dark skin. The BNP have NO such stain upon them.

That said, UKIP are a dedicated NON RACIST party who also want to take us out of the EU, so that is why I voted UKIP. That and to help them to defeat the real fascists in the Labour party. Congratulations to the UKIP for the marvellous entertainment of seeing Labour BEATEN by a fringe party!!! FANTASTIC!

I know most people still want to be 'in Europe but not run by Europe' and that is my personal preference, but that will NOT be an option soon. Post Lisbon, there will be a choice (if we are LUCKY) and that will either be between (1) a full and complete integration and break up into into separate regions under a new anti-democratic, oligarchical country called the EU, and (2) complete withdrawal from the EU.

There are no plans for, nor will there be any accommodation made for the "stay where we are, this far and no further" option. The EU commission will not allow it. The Council of Ministers will not allow it and the roadmap of the EU is showing the destination to be ONE country run by an unelected oligarchy with all the classic hallmarks of fascist nationalism. Corporacratic institutions run in secret like the 3,500 secret working groups that research and develop policy for the Commission. Rampant Nationalism with the nation's flag everywhere. Rampant militarism will come in the final stages, restrictions in rights and democratic accountability or self determination also at this stage.

If we are lucky we will be granted a choice between being broken up into EU regions and controlled 100% by an anti-democratic oligarchy in Brussels, and withdrawal to independence.

Though the chances are that we will not. We will be marched in without a say to the point at which anti-EU political parties, demonstrations and organisation will be outlawed as seditious and treasonous against the country and leadership of the EU.

Then we will be in a heart of a fascist superstate. A real fourth Reich, and I want NO PART of anything that could become a fully fledged fascist state.

That is why I applaud the BNP in getting their seats and using the opportunity to seek out and expose evidence of REAL Fascism in the heart of both the EU and OUR MAINSTREAM PARTIES!

WOW! How Ironic that the BNP could now expose the real fascists for what they are.

I watch with great interest what will ensue.

It's a terrible atmosphere of doom in Westminster.

I am sick of hearing MP's saying what a terrible fear-laden, terrifying atmosphere in Westminster at the moment.

So MP's are scared? GOOD! We just MIGHT get good democracy if the MP's and Government fear the people. After all we have had appalling democracy for the last 8 years, with the Government trying to keep all of US in a constant state of fear. (terrorism, global warming, pandemics, BNP etc...)

It's is about time that they WERE scared and it is a bloody good thing too!

As for the atmosphere being so doom-laden, well, it cannot be that bad can it? I mean, they could change that very quickly with a General election. But then they like their massive pay and perks more than the desire to really change things by giving their place at the trough up by calling an election.

LET'S SACK THE BASTARDS!!!

DO SOMETHING POSITIVE

The silent coup by stealth continues ...

If you want to enable REAL change join nonvoters.org and DO SOMETHING POSITIVE

So we have Speaker Martin resign and so honesty and decency and integrity shall be returned to the honourable members of the Commons eh?

WAKE UP AND THINK PEOPLE, THIS IS A COUP IN PROGRESS!

I’m not buying it. I am GLAD that he has promised to stand down, BUT, remember Problem, reaction, solution. The old Hegelian dialectic. The EU coup by stealth is almost complete. All they need is to break up our Parliament and remove our constitutional arrangements, and offices that are under Oath to the Queen and then we are TOTALLY consumed by the beast of the EU. Common law could be dead. They already have an army of "pretend police" who take no oath. They have allowed NATO troops, (who take no Oath to our Queen), to operate here whilst our brave soldiers are used and abused fighting illegal wars overseas. (The NATO troops were kitted and ready to go AT the G20 protests).

SO what do we have now? A scandal whereby the it appears (and I may be wrong, but, it still appears) that the Speaker’s power is now to be removed and handed over to a “respected and independent” third party (in the third sector) and the Speaker will become a symbolic and ceremonial position, powerless and usurped by traitors to the Crown.

A HUGE chunk of OUR power may have just been stolen from under our (the people’s) noses AND with our active consent and encouragement!

The only way to redress this is to vote in MASSIVE numbers for independent candidates of honour and integrity who ALSO have a knowledge and a passion and a desire to defend our constitution and our nation!

Vote Independent to SACK the traitorous and greedy MPs.

Speaker Martin's Statement...

No resignation, no call for an election, no remedy. Only a feeble request "Please do not submit expenses claims whilst we look at the system."

This is not even fiddling whilst Rome burns, this is throwing the people on the fucking fire...

They are bitching about the motion of a vote of confidence in the Speaker, not being a substantive motion and if that is allowed, or would some other kind of motion get a debate. Then Speaker Martin says these things are down to the Government...HOW RIDICULOUS AND OUT OF TOUCH!

Time for him, and the entire bunch of charlatans to go! NOW! This ridiculous delaying tactics must NOT be allowed to stand.

The country will find this statement to be utterly and completely insufficient at this time.

Some MP's are even BACKING the thieving scum in these delaying and stalling tactics. Saying that the house and the public must calm down and wait for Mr Kelly's report into expenses. BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT BULLSHIT!

I shall petition the Queen and seek a dissolution of Parliament Forthwith by way of formal written notice of this reasonable request and I suggest that we all do the same, lest I then give notice of an intention to declare lawful rebellion against the state, as indeed thousands of other good men and women have done already!

We MUST take this country back from thieves and fraudsters and traitors.

Yes Your Majesty, Why don't YOU Sort it?

Her Royal Majesty the Queen Elizibeth the second has stated (according to the Sunday Express) that she is most displeased with Gordon Brown's shambolic handling of the expenses crisis. She has told him to sort it.

With Respect ma'am, but why the fuck don't YOU do something about it? Hmmmmmmmmmmm?

YOU are the only one in this country with the power to dissolve Parliament. Sure, that unilateral decision to do so would plunge this country into a technical, constitutional crisis, but then you would be seen by the vast majority of the country as a true heroin for ridding us of this necrotic Government.

Come on your maj, pull your royal finger out, lest you find even MORE subjects launching their declarations of lawful rebellion, and becoming soveriegns themselves.

nonvoters.org has started a campaign to save this nation through a radical, but blindingly obvious and simple idea. Use the general election as a weapon against the Establishent and VOTE for a local independent. SUPER IDEA!

A local independent is beholden to the electorate INSTEAD OF an easily corruptable party. Party MP's ONLY represent their party. By voting for a party, one is turning that weapon upon ourselves and voting for what the party machines want. We should turn the weapon upon the Establishment and SACK ALL THE CORRUPT, THEIVING BASTARDS at once.

Well done you well intentioned brain dead fuckwit knuckle draggers.

I use the vernacular terms in this piece to communicate to the fucking useless retards that are the cause of this story and anyone who thinks that they are "heroes":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7962825.stm

Sir Fred "the shred" Goodwin's home has been attacked. So, I say well-fucking-done to whomever did this. Now you are giving the banker controlled Government every fucking excuse that they could want to restrict the freedom of all UK Person's much much further. Sir Fred Goodwin was merely a very junior puppet in global banking terms and surely does not know his ass from his elbow with regards to what the Global Banking scam is all about.

If these folks that vandalised his home really wanted to be useful, then they should have at least "disappeared" the heads of every one of the elite global banking families. That MIGHT have been useful. As it is they barely scratch a lowly pawn and by so doing, risk getting the rest of us royally butt-fucked by the Banker's guard-dogs in Parliament.

How can I put this simply.... STOP ALL VIOLENT PROTEST. It does NOT work and only plays into the hands of the elite.

Learn and educate yourselves instead. Learn about your unalienable rights in law, the COMMON LAW. Learn about how to PEACEFULLY and LAWFULLY REBEL then REFUSE TO COMPLY OR GIVE CONSENT TO THEIR GAMES! Without OUR CONSENT, they are FUCKED!

GET IT? Acting PEACEFULLY and Lawfully as free flesh and blood men and women created with a soul, endowed by GOD with unalienable rights under natural law and acting within compliance with and full and willing adherence to COMMON LAW in removing OUR consent to contract with them, leaves them FUCKED!

When Hitler killed millions he was labelled a monster ...

When the Climate Alarmists want to kill off BILLIONS of people through mass depopulation, reducing population by 90%, they are given the Nobel Peace Prize.

OK I know most people do NOT want to see humanity culled. Most people watch the same mainstream media that lied about Iraq's WMD. Lied about so many aspects of 9/11 and 7/7. Lied about the global economy encouraging us to invest in (what are now known as) dodgy speculative markets and take out extra finance on our property and use increasing equity as income because we have ended boom and bust and the markets are growing and there is NO SIGN of a coming crash!!! The same media that John Stewart rips apart here is the same media that refuses to report climate reality, but falls over itself to report unsupported, unproven, speculative and error filled climate alarmism as often as they can. MOST people who are worried about man-made global warming get their information from the propaganda outlets for the global plutocracy AKA mainstream media.

Well below are some quotes from the people at the top of the "green" ecomentalist agenda which give a hint about the thinking behind this movement:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. 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. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

- Club of Rome,

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

- Dr. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”

- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

- Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

“I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community.”

- Mikhail Gorbachev, co-author of The Earth Charter

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

- Professor Maurice King

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”

- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”

- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”

- Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”

- Prince Philip, preface of Down to Earth

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

- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

- Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to resanctify the earth.”

- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.”

- Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”

- Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP

“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”

- Maurice Strong at the 1992 Earth Summit.

“If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

- Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”

- Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

“[I am] a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.”

- Maurice Strong as quoted in Macleans.

“[The Great Depression left me] frankly very radical.”

- Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”

- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC and the person responsible for establishing the future emphasis of the IPCC reporting

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, and the person often described by some IPCC leaders as the inspiration for their environmental efforts with respect to Climate Change

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”

- Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making.”

- Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points, despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”

- Dr James Hansen, NASA researcher

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh, Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”

- Greenpeace International

“This planet is on course for a catastrophe. The existence of Life itself is at stake.”

- Dr Tim Flannery, Principal Research Scientist

“Climate Change is the greatest threat that human civilization has ever faced.”

- Angela Merkel, German Chancellor

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”

- Barak Obama, US Presidential Candidate

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late.”

- Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California

“Climate change should be seen as the greatest challenge to ever face mankind.”

- Prince Charles

“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change. Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible. We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”

- Tony Blair, former British PM

“We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.”

- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”

- Sir James Lovelock, Revenge of Gaia

“In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”

- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“We need a new paradigm of development in which the environment will be a priority. World civilization as we know it will soon end. We have very little time and we must act. If we can address the environmental problem, it will have to be done within a new system, a new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, the way humankind views the world.”

- Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”

- UN Commission on Global Governance report

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

- Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

- Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”

- Dr Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General,

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”

- Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute

“Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”

- UN Commission on Global Governance

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income. Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.”

- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“The alternative to the existing world order can only emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress. We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking.”

- Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

“Adopting a central organizing principle… means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution… to halt the destruction of the environment.”

- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”

- UN Agenda 21

“The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable. Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures. More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity. Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that address the root causes of poverty and environmental degradation are required and they are required now.”

– from the Earth Charter website

“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

- Professor Maurice King

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”

- David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”

- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”

- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”

– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”

- Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”

- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history, but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in the number of game animals and the need to adjust the cull to the size of the surplus population.”

- Prince Philip, preface of Down to Earth

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”

- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

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

- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”

- Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”

- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”

- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

- David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.”

- Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution…. Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”

- Rene Dubos, board member, Planetary Citizens

“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s - and our - being. In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness - currently lost in self-destructive madness. We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves. Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”

- Prof. Michael J. Cohen, Ecopsychologist

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”

- Maurice Strong, first Secretary General of UNEP

“The spirit of our planet is stirring! The Consciousness of Goddess Earth is now rising against all odds, in spite of millennia of suppression, repression and oppression inflicted on Her by a hubristic and misguided humanity. The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism with psychic and spiritual dimensions. With the expansion of the patriarchal religions that focused on a male God majestically stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity was repressed and banished into the collective unconscious of humanity.”

- Envision Earth

“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft. Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere, as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all creatures which constitutes Gaia.”

– Sir James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look At Life

“Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’ its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly see no difference between our earth and the divine. This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age and become what we were always meant to be: the planet of god.”

- Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . . She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth, she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now; she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”

- Sir James Lovelock, Ages of Gaia

“Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.”

- Mikhail Gorbachev, Green Cross International

“The spiritual sense of our place in nature…can be traced to the origins of human civilization…. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity.”

- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”

- Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights

“I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts. Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.”

- Global Education Associates, The Earth Pledge

“By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of responsibility to self to others and to the planet.”

- Global Alliance for Transforming Education

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, the organization responsible for establishing the IPCC to handle Global Warming issues delegated to it by certain leadership figures in the WMO

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

- Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, and responsible for Canada’s contributions to the IPCC

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”

- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

The best ‘too much of you’ quote:

“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”

- Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

The best hypocritical quote:

“We require a central organizing principle - one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change - these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”

- Al Gore, Earth in the Balance

This is why the mainstream news media is considered a joke...

Whilst the comedy news is getting more and more viewers all the time....

Who out of the mainstream news media and the comedy media tells it like it IS over the bank bail-outs???

Here's a little clue:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

If ONLY the mainstream news had the balls? Trouble is, the banking elite OWNS the mainstream news. So banking bailouts are good. Bailouts for the public = bad.

The current bail-outs are only guaranteed to create MORE debt. Whose interest is that in? The bank's, or the public's? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Why do governments refuse to create all this bailout money and issue it direct into circulation in the form of grants to businesses and the public? The money would be given to the banks anyway in the form of deposits, but, it would massively benefit the public. NO. They create all this extra money and give it wholesale to the banks to LEND AT INTEREST. But the banks STILL will not lend. Why? They want to destroy the global economy to the extent that the public will be begging for a global solution in the form of the new global banking order that Gordon Brown keeps banging on about!

With all this bailout billions going straight to the bankers (bypassing people altogether) IF you take out a loan, (I would strongly advise against it) you will not ONLY have to repay that loan, but you will have to find the interest on that loan and you will have to repay it all over again in increased taxes to the government so that they could fund the bank to give you the loan. You will be repaying the loan twice plus interest.

How INSANE IS THAT???

Talk about over rewarding corporate failure, but shafting the fuck out of the public.

So we have traitors in Government fucking us over for our money to give to the banks for free so that they can lend us OUR OWN FUCKING MONEY AT INTEREST!!!!!

What do we do about this? Revolt? Forgedaboudit!!!! Their would be martial law enacted and the permission to shoot protesters enacted before the first petrol bomb lands.

We HAVE been given one solitary legal and peaceful and legitimate weapon though. One that WE can use against the evil fucks that are mugging us daily. The mainstream media will not tell us what it is, because they want to remain in control of the flow of information. The elitist bastards that are screwing us over daily depend on them to mislead and manipulate us into welcoming our daily betrayal. So what is this secret weapon??? Well that is not strictly true. The media are constantly telling us what this weapon is, BUT they are constantly instructing US to use it AGAINST ourselves and they instruct us how to use in to favour the rich elitist bastards that mug us everyday.

So what is this marvellous weapon?

Actually you will be disappointed to learn it is democracy. Honest, the humble general election. How is this our powerful weapon? Well, IF we all actually got bothered enough to USE IT PROPERLY, then we can finish off these corporate pricks who worship these banking fuckers FOREVER! And this is the great part, it will be ridiculously EASY to do. All we have to do is to vote against ALL those parasitic vultures that are trying to bleed us dry. All the people who support handing hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds straight to the banking bastards that ruined this country.

Instead, give that money direct to the people in the form of business grants to help the manufacturing and export sectors create real employment and then home improvement grants, grants to scrap old cars and replace them with new, grants for domestic solar energy and wind energy improvements, etc.

Unelect EVERY sitting politician, vote against ALL mainstream political parties and ONLY vote for local independent candidates at the next general election.

Political parties can too easily be taken over and controlled by these evil elitist parasites. Look at what has happened to UKIP. Taken over by elite backed tories and destroyed as a political force by internal strife by design. The BNP will also be targeted if they become a threat to the establishment. Hierarchical political movements are very very very unlikely to be able to change anything owing to the pyramid structure which removes the power of the people to control them. They depend on a "leader" figure and this it what makes it so easy for the elite to take over these organisations. The communist agenda of Common Purpose has taken over many city councils already by simply targeting key decision makers. We need to take this country back and not by replacing one elitist hierarchy with another hierarchy.

IF you agree then spread this idea. Only vote for a local independent candidate at the general election this is the ONE tool we have to stop the parasitic bastards who are stealing OUR money to lend back to us at interest.

The establishment media will tell you that any vote that is not going to an establishment party is a wasted vote. What would you expect the establishment to tell you? The media does NOT control the Government and the Government does NOT control the media. BUT THEY BOTH WORK TO DEFEND THE ESTABLISHMENT AT ALL COSTS.

The media will mislead you into believing that a vote against the establishment is a wasted vote, I disagree. Think of elections as a weapon. Think of your vote as a bullet. Would you rather point the gun at yourself? or at the establishment?

A grass-roots campaign to raise awareness on how effective your vote can be at destroying the current evil greedy establishment will be overlooked or at best ridiculed by the establishment media. So it has to remain a grass-roots, quiet campaign.

People in each constituency should organise themselves behind an independent candidate that values democracy, values the UK and is dedicated to honestly serving the people of that constituency in Parliament against ALL foreign and domestic enemies and putting the people of that constituency first.

The electoral numbers speak for themselves. I am not trying to convert tories or labour or lib-dem supporters. Why not? We do not need them. There are far more disillusioned and pissed off non-voters in this country than there are supporters of the mainstream. and the supporters of the mainstream are split between the mainstream parties. If we all unite behind a local independent candidate, just once, in the name of democracy and for the benefit of the PEOPLE of this country. ALL the people, not one person excluded, then we CAN eradicate the labour party, the Conservative party and the liberal party as political movements forever, instantly and at a stroke.

Here's the maths:

The opinion polls EXCLUDE non voters from their results, so I have added them to the above under "other" and shown HOW MUCH REAL POWER THEY HAVE. Click on the image to change the figures and add your own. It is fun to see how little support is needed for a big swing in power.

So let's save our country. Spread this idea of ONLY voting for a local independent. Every other political party has been compromised. The elite cannot compromise us ALL!

Every single vote for a local independent candidate is a bullet to the head of the elite establishment bastards that have stolen hundreds of billions of pounds from us to lend back to us at interest, that have taken our personal and private data and entered them into insecure database systems and then lost them, that have removed centuries old liberties, many of these liberties have been secured by our forefathers fighting to the death to preserve them against foreign enemies hell bent on destroying our traditional freedoms and liberties. And now our establishment are removing them at an alarming rate.

Defend our liberty, Defend our money, Defend our way of life from elitist banking bastards and their political pet guard dogs. USE our democracy to take BACK this nation for ALL the people of this nation.

SPREAD THIS IDEA FAR AND WIDE AND WE CAN KILL OFF THE POLITICS OF CORRUPT ELITE CONTROL.

A friend asked me to post this:

Why we went to war in Iraq:

the BBC moderators have referred this comment so I have asked my friend to post it here instead.)

In light of the Government being ordered to publish the minutes of their cabinet meeting discussing the decision to go to war in Iraq, the BBC's Nick Robinson posted a blog here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/01/cabinet_minutes.html

My reply to post number 50 is as follows:

@ 50.

50. At 08:53am on 28 Jan 2009, rahere wrote:

Whilst a lot of people on here do not do any real research, I did know who Craig Murray is and I have read much of his work.

Here is a long brain dump, from the top of my head, I apologise for the length of this, but it needs to be written. Please read on...

I also researched UN inspectors, looked up interviews and reports (in the public domain) from intelligence operatives on the ground, from Politicians, bankers, reporters, independent bloggers and NGO's and other actors involved directly and indirectly in the search for WMD.

Oh, I did the vast majority of this extensive research PRIOR to the invasion of Iraq and could only ever come to the conclusion that the invasion was illegal in international law sans a specific resolution authorising force... The existing UN resolutions gave no time-limit, nor automacity to military action. Whilst the inspectors on the ground where getting full co-operation from the Iraq regime (and the inspector's themselves stated many times that they were) and they only had a few months to go, then there was NO legitimacy in launching the invasion.

The French NEVER said that they would veto a second resolution "no matter what". That was another Blair lie. The French said that "SO LONG AS INSPECTORS ARE STILL WORKING IN IRAQ then they would veto a second resolution no matter what" I think that was a reasonable policy.

The UN inspectors were repeatedly given co-ordinates of places where the US/UK intelligence agencies "knew for a fact" (high level confidence) that WMD's, their pre-cursors, programmes, parts or parts thereof would definitely be located. EVERY time there was nothing there. It could be a lab, that had been sealed and not accessed for 13 years, the locks rusted shut. Or it could be a pile of rubble that used to be a factory, or even just a pile of sand. (which would be meticulously excavated to reveal that it was just a pile of sand).

It turned out most of this information was NOT coming from intelligence services at all, but was coming from the whitehouse Iraq group, or the Office of special plans or Rockingham or other agencies outside of the intelligence network that were created to cherry-pick existing intelligence or invent new intelligence that was "fixed around the policy" of invasion, no matter what. The real intelligence services were repeatedly leaking to the media that they could not verify ANY of the claims that where coming in about WMD in Iraq. But each agency was played off against the other. MI6 could not verify the data but were told that CIA could. Meanwhile the CIA could not but were told that the Russian's could, The Russians couldn't but were assured that the Italians could etc etc etc. America was using Chalibi's group of criminals to disseminate false information and feeding all of the different agencies lies.

In spite of these agency games, every single claim of evidence pointing to Iraq's growing stockpile of WMD was empty, and proven false before the invasion.

They could NOT let the inspector's finish the inspections though. Why? Well, the inspectors would have concluded that Iraq had no WMD, then there could not "legally" be an invasion.

The invasion was illegally launched on the back of deliberate lies. The fact that the UK and USA were still pushing the yellowcake from Africa lie after it had been publicly debunked by Hans Blix as a deliberate forgery proves that they were lying and they knew that they were lying. Why else continue to tell what was a known lie? They merely said that they had "more sources" for the story than one forged and then debunked memo. Well it turns out that, that was a lie too.

Why was this not exposed as the blatant lies that it was at the time?

Actually, It was. It was screamed from the rooftops at the time, but ONLY by people in the blogosphere.

These people were written off by the criminally servile mainstream media as wild conspiracy nuts. I wonder why? Could that be because it was all, in reality, an actual, real, live, wild conspiracy? It was, but it was a true one nonetheless.

The media were criminally subservient supine servants to the elite criminals pulling the strings of the neo-con push to war.

I believe that if they had been able to get Tony Blair to debate this issue with Hans Blix, or even Scott Ritter (one of the most eminent experts on Iraq's WMD and one of the inspection chiefs) on prime-time TV on the day before the war vote, then the UK would not have gone to war. The BBC did interview Scott Ritter, at 3:30 AM on talkback, weeks earlier.

Blair was given prime-time to regurgitate repeated lies, un-challenged in any meaningful way.

He lied about the Iraqis throwing out the inspectors in 1998. (The Americans withdrew them) He lied about the properties of the alleged WMD allegedly in Iraq's possession. He was never even asked if the "unaccounted for stocks" would even still be viable as weapons.

It turned out (again, known at the time) that the only stocks that were unaccounted for were due to accounting errors between Iraqis and the UN and the UN and Governments of member states.

Way back at the end of Gulf war 1, Saddam was ordered to disarm. He refused. he made life difficult for the inspectors and he hid stuff. The UN inspection teams found everything he was hiding because of the sophisticated forensic techniques and tools at their disposal. Including the paper-trails from all the supply chain, inside and outside of Iraq. Because of this initial difficulty from Saddam, the UN knew it could not trust him fully, so they decided to "estimate" what the THEORETICAL maximum capacity of Iraq's WMD manufacturing capability was. in other words, They estimated how much stuff Iraq's weapons factories and labs could produce.

Over time this estimate became a fixed actual real amount of weapons according to enemies of Iraq. They never existed in reality.

So the unaccounted for weapons did NOT exist and never ever did exist at all.

BUT, what if they did? would they still be viable? To my knowledge, the media never asked Blair to back up his claims by asking him about the shelf life of these weapons. most of which had a shelf life (if kept in perfect refrigerated conditions) of months. Some only of a few weeks. So even if these non-existent weapons were still to be found, they would have been rendered inert by the laws of physics and chemistry.

So we went to war over non-existent out of date and harmless weapons? No, we went to war for a number of reasons, NONE of them legal.

The real reasons (for there were more than one) I discovered were (in no particular order)

1. Regime change.
2. Bush Juniour's revenge against Saddam's threat to Bush Senior.
3. Saddam selling oil in Euro's instead of Dollars, weakening the petrodollar and risking economic collapse for the US.
4. The oil itself.
5. To remove a risk to Israel.
6. To liberate specific artefacts from the museum in Baghdad and destroy Babylon.
7. Strategic advantage over Iran (getting troops in all the countries surrounding Iran)
8. To send a strong message to Libya, Syria and the "axis of evil" countries

Whilst several of those reasons are understandable and reasonable, (and resulted in Libya changing course) none of them were lawful reasons to invade a sovereign nation.

Tony Blair is a war criminal and should be put on trial in the Hague.

Back for a one-off post

*UPDATED*

The BBC are claiming that they cannot help the reputable and politically neutral charities with their appeal because helping impartial charities appealing for aid to help avert a humanitarian catastrophe would breach their own impartiality.

WHAT THE FUCK? Helping impartial humanitarian reputable charities risks impartiality?

Oh really and how the FUCK do you work that out then? eh????

The BBC has aired appeals by the Disaster Emergency Committee many times before to help the victims of politically inspired crisis'. By politically inspired, I mean victims of war, and victims of Governments or rebel forces that cause people to live in drought infected areas and any other disaster that is instigated by human means, as opposed to natural disasters like earthquakes or floods etc...

Well, the BBC aired the appeal for the Former Yugoslavia (a political crisis) in 1994:


The BBC aired the appeal for Rwanda (a political crisis) in 1994:


The BBC aired the appeal for Kosovo (a political crisis) in 1999:


The BBC aired the appeal for the Sudan (a political crisis) in 2004:


The BBC aired an appeal for the Congo (a political crisis) in 1998:


So why would the BBC NOT air the latest appeal to help the innocent victims in Gaza?

Has the BBC ever refused to air an appeal of this sort before?

Well, yes, actually, it has. The BBC refused to air an appeal for the victims of Lebanon after the last Israeli incursion there.

Notice a pattern here?

The BBC has only ever refused to show a charitable appeal by impartial charities if it is to alleviate the suffering of the victims of Israeli aggression and disproportionate violence. That is the ONLY time the BBC refuses to help these impartial charities.

Why would the BBC refuse to help the victims of Israeli aggression?

Marcus Agius Senior Independent Director

Agius has been a non-executive Director of Barclays since 1 September 2006, and succeeded Matthew Barrett as Chairman from 1 January 2007. He was previously chairman of the London branch of investment bank Lazard and non-executive chairman of BAA Limited.

Born into a Jewish family, Agius is married to Katherine (born 1949), daughter of Edmund de Rothschild of the Rothschild banking family of England, with two children, and has a close involvement with the Rothschild family estate, Exbury Gardens in Hampshire.

That could be a reason? They have Zionist Jews at the very highest level of the corporation. Their political bias shows loud and clear that the BBC has failed to behave in an impartial manner in this sordid and disgusting episode.

In refusing this appeal, the BBC are colluding with the war-criminals of Israel and exasperating the disaster in Gaza and by taking this decision, the BBC are going to ensure that more people die as a result of war-crimes than would otherwise be the case. IN reality, the BBC are aiding and abetting war crimes. (As they did in failing to report the Blair and Bush Governments lies about Iraq's WMD, but merely acting in supine acquiescence to parrot blatantly inaccurate propaganda as fact).

It is only the bravery of some BBC journalists and the fury that they feel at their employers that has ensured massive publicity for this Gaza cause. Had the leadership of the BBC had their way, then there would have been no publicity for this cause at all.

These brave journalists, going against the stated BBC policy, (but in reality acting in the spirit of it 100%) are mitigating those deaths and they should be rewarded for it.

Without further ado, please follow the link to the disaster emergency committee website and donate all you can:

Here is the video that the BBC and SKY TV did not want you to see. I can see why now too. The scale of the destruction of civilian areas is nothing short of collective punishment and is therefore a war-crime. The BBC and SKY are aiding and abetting war criminals.

Here's the video: