OWG | Agenda 21 and Diet

22 10 2010

James Delingpole is oh so more eloquent than myself in the writings of rage, that I shall direct you to his piece in the Telegraph regarding the ideas thrown around about our collective, and that word is important, diets.  I won’t cut and paste it all but just highlight the third from bottom paragraph and one phrase in particular.

‘Let them eat vegetables’ says the Eton Grocer’s eco-fascist quango

Apart from being riddled with false assumptions – the main ones, of course, being that “Greenhouse Gases” need to be controlled in the first place; that their effect on “Climate Change” is anything to worry about; that any of this is any business of the Food Standards Agency anybloodyway – the document is really just a means of further advancing the cause of the Quangocracy, Big Government and the UN’s Agenda 21.

Now, just what is the UN’s Agenda 21?  Well, according to the following video, just another step towards One World Governance resulting in property rights suspended, collectivism imposed, and just a general corporatisation of the entire globe under one roof.  One glove fits all.  Or possibly one iron gauntlet to keep all in check.

The official plan can be read HERE, yet unsurprisingly, once more the authors deliberately skirt around the written bush, using all sorts of soundbites that no sane human could reject, yet what one says they are going to do and what they actually do, are two very different things.

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.

(source)

Redistribution of wealth which of course will be handled by a respected banker who of course wouldn’t dream of skimming some of the top…  whose ever heard of an untrustworthy public servent 1US??? 2UN??? 3UK???

2.4. Governments recognize that there is a new global effort to relate the elements of the international economic system and mankind’s need for a safe and stable natural environment. Therefore, it is the intent of Governments that consensus-building at the intersection of the environmental and trade and development areas will be ongoing in existing international forums, as well as in the domestic policy of each country.

(source)

Consensus-building usually means “We’re right, you’re wrong and if you step outta line, we’ll smack you one“, or worse, ‘blow you up‘ as if the below was an innocent mistake.  (warning, those with a nervous disposition should not view this as this is uncensored)

I could go on but it’s best if you skim through the whole thing yourself, and I say skim otherwise it’s like reading any governmental release, mind-numbingly protracted bullcrap that actually has the ability to make you vomit.  When something looks too good  to be true, it is usually bullcrap.  And after all them years finessing this art, the political masters and their puppets in the world do a splendid job of smoke and mirrors and top of the range bullcrap.

Even the best intentions can have the worst consequences.  And every time I hear the UN and various whores mention sustainability, I can’t help but picture euthanasia on tap.  Remember our business partners in the Chinese government’s approach towards over-population.  No problem with murdering an unborn soul to sustain their economy.  How long before the UN adopts this stance as a way to save the planet?  And why, in the age of equality restrict this barbaric and sadistic measure to those conceived yet not received?  Why not the over 50s?  Or the unemployed?  Or the disabled?  Or those on low incomes?  Or anyone else that doesn’t tag along?

Just like UN Peacekeepers raping their way across Africa to the dodgy dealings with Saddam and the Oil for Food programs, I wouldn’t trust this bunch of despots with my shed.  Bet the UN is just one giant horse-trading show in which each representative tries to outdo the others in vying for the UN’s cushy jobs. Oh yeah, we’re the horses.  And oh yeah, the Owners of this planet appoint the cushy jobs;  for economic power can buy political power, ad infinitum.

The root of all evil is the love of money…  money buys many things, yet most sought, is good old-fashioned control.  And it doesn’t matter how well-off you think you are, compared to Earth PLC’s stockholders, you’ve got sweet FA.

All’s fair in love and war.

Advertisements




ConDem | Immigration

25 06 2010

The ConDem Coalition are planning to implement their immigration cap policy and once again will ignore the English people who will inevitably live next door to them.  Instead, they wish to ask businesses and universities (same thing in my book) how many new ‘customers’ they need.

For the love of God, this is the whole reason we have a multi-million pound race relation industry due to the constant disregard of the social costs.  Time and again, the wants of the few, in this case the business and university leaders, are put over the needs of the many.  This leads to resentment which sadly manifests into hatred towards those who seek a better life.

In simple mathematics for all you thick arseholes.

MORE people = MORE competition.

Wages decrease while rents increase due to this competition.  This will breed resentment and unrest which will lead to ever more draconian laws through the back-door.

It isn’t rocket science!

So I will not begrudge anyone in the back of the lorry who tries their luck doing a Houdini, instead, I will send dog shit to the addresses of those who caused it.  And due to my laziness in finding the individual guilty parties will randomly send them to anyone who is associated with the Establishment.

If I can be deemed racist by my promotion of nationalist perspective, then by rights’, all twenty-odd million c**ts who supported the shite I have to put up with are also guilty by association and will be the ones receiving Fido’s fudge.

If England doesn’t become England again, I’ll renounce my nationality and invent my own!





Earth PLC | Whose in whose bed

5 06 2010

Considering that every class and creed of people have their own favourite watering holes, it is surely no different for the Political Class.  Like celebrities like to hang around with fellow celebrities, so do the powerbrokers.  Problem with the powerbrokers meeting under Chatham House rules means the unmentionable is not only mentioned, but discussed in such a manner to make it seem as trivial as brushing ones’ teeth.

A wonderful snippet from the Daily Wail’s Tony Blair bashing piece gives us a link between the Gaddafi clan of Libya with the Eurocratic Club in the EU along with the supervision onf their bankers.

The social web that connects the rich and powerful

Saif Gaddafi sits at the centre of a remarkable social web that has ensnared both Tony Blair and Lord Mandelson.

The men are bound together by their interests in Libyan business and their friendship with the multi-billionaire financiers of the Rothschild family.

Lord Mandelson once remarked that he was ‘intensely relaxed’ about extreme wealth, a position he has justified ever since. It was only natural that he should share an interest in networking and wealth with one of the world’s oldest banking families.

But even the Rothschilds have probably never described him as a ‘killer of a man’.

That was Saif Gaddafi’s take on the former Business Secretary. After Labour’s election defeat, Mr Gaddafi said: ‘It’s bad news for the UK that he left because he is a killer of a man. It’s a loss for the UK.’

The two men met briefly last summer at the secluded cliff top mansion compound of the Rothschild family on the holiday island of Corfu.

Curiously, their stays overlapped by one night and came only a week before the announcement-that the perpetrator of the Lockerbie bombing could be released from prison.

They ‘fleetingly’ discussed the fate of the bomber Abdelbaset Ali Al Megrahi but Lord Mandelson’s spokesman said he was ‘ completely unsighted’ on the impending release.

Last November, Lord Mandelson spent more time in the company of Saif during a shooting weekend at Waddesdon Manor, Lord Rothschild’s mini-Versailles in Buckinghamshire. Cherie Blair was also a guest.

Earlier this month, the former business secretary was seen zipping around the Swiss ski resort of Klosters in Nat Rothschild’s £250,000 Ferrari convertible.

An Anglophile, Col Gaddafi’s likely heir Saif studied for a PhD at the London School of Economics. He has a £10million London home.

The International Money-Merry-Go-Round.  I wouldn’t mind so much if I got to see some of the cash, yet nine times out of ten, it is the underclass who carry the burden.

Nothing gets in the way of business, be it Libyan dictatorships or Burmese juntas.





Israeli Fallout | Hasan Nowarah

2 06 2010

Over a hundred and twenty failed peace activists have been released, and I say failed as they have achieved the complete opposite of what they intended.  Saying that, only one British National was released with many claiming that they had either left or destroyed their travel documentation.

Mr Nowarah was released due to injury sustained in the badly planned, badly executed military assault upon the flotilla.  Now back in the safety of Her Majesty’s Islands, proceeds to tell all and sundry of the ‘orrible hospitality he received when trying to break another man’s barrier.

“We were completely swamped by soldiers.

They came alongside us in boats and as soon as they boarded our ship they started hitting us.

We were trying to push them back but they started shooting us with paintball guns. Some people were shot in the face.

The soldier retaliated by hitting me in the back with the butt of a rifle, which knocked me to the floor.

Then when I was down, he smacked my ankle with his gun. I’m in agony now and my leg is completely black from the bruising – I can’t walk.”

He pushed a soldier and is surprised that the soldiers retaliated.  Now my only experience of military men is one of admiring the training of professional soldiers, and considering said training, the last thing I would want to do is push them.

Brains of a rocking horse this one if he expected a more homely response from such an encounter.





Israeli Stupidity | An Arabic Analysis

1 06 2010

An excellent review of the Israeli Military f**k-up from an Arabian perspective, considering that my own underclass view of the matter is to sit back and do a Tony Sopranos on the fallout’s leftovers.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not totally heartless but when an ideological battle has been raging for over 1500 years and still at full sail, it is kinda hard to think that now is the time for salvation.

Back to the now though and the following analysis shows that even a Nation that kicked the living daylights out of three Muslim States in six days can do ‘stupid’ sometimes.

ANALYSIS / Israel has forgotten the lessons of the Exodus

Israel played into Hamas’ hands by storming the boats of the ‘Freedom Flotilla.’

By Yossi Melman.  Haaretz.com Published 22:52 31.05.10.  Latest update 22:52 31.05.10

Despite having its eyes wide open, Israel fell into a trap. Israel knew that the organizers of the flotilla wanted to present the Israel Defense Forces to the world as an army that does not hesitate to use force. The flotilla organizers wanted deaths, casualties, blood and billows of smoke. And this is exactly what Israel gave them.

Every child knows that the conflict here is one of consciousness,images, emotion and gut-feelings; not one of justice or logic. Therefore, Israel should have acted differently.

Israel’s decision-makers should have revived memories of Israel’s own history. It shows just how short a historical memory the prime minister, defense minister, chief of staff, and Navy commander all have. They don’t remember the story of the Exodus ship in 1947.

The British Mandate authorities imposed a blockade on the shores of the land of Israel and Jewish leaders believed it was their right and their duty to break it. The Jewish immigrants on the Exodus decided to forcefully oppose every attempt to stop them. The Jewish leadership wanted to arouse the world’s conscience and gain a victory in the
battle for international sympathy.

In our day, Hamas leaders believe and act similarly. Without getting into the question of the justification or logic of the blockade imposed by Gaza and its residents, it was indeed clear that it was only natural that Hamas would try to break the blockade by force. They have been doing this by means of the smuggling tunnels and via the sea. It was clear that they saw it as their natural right to oppose attempts to stop the ships.

In 1988, when the PLO organized a ship named “The Return” to be sent to Israel with Palestinian refugees, Israel chose a different method to stop it. It sent Mossad agents and Naval commandos to Cyprus to sabotage the ship before the passengers had embarked. The ship was damaged but no one was hurt.

Israel should have considered a similar approach with the Gaza flotilla. But apparently the days in which Israeli agents could operate freely in friendly countries are gone.

There was another possibility. During Ehud Olmert’s term as prime minister, Israel permitted a lone aid ship, filled with supplies and activists, to enter Gaza. The skies did not fall on Israel in the wake of this.

The Israeli government could have acted similarly this time. No disaster would have occurred. The boats would have landed, the supplies would have been unloaded and the activists would have disembarked.

So what? You may argue that this would have set a precedent. But I argue that if Hamas had tried to do the same thing again in the future, Israel would still have had the ability to operate differently and outsmart Hamas.

As a last resort, it would also have been possible to simply sabotage the motors of the boats, halting their voyage without having to seize control of the ships. Instead of this, the Israeli government preferred to take control of the ships by force.

Apparently Israel, which prides itself as having the best intelligence in the world, should have known better that there were violent elements aboard one of the boats, equipped iron bars, knifes and slingshots. Had Israel known this, it would have probably used more appropriate ways to storm boat, to avoid death and injuries. And that did not happen.

Israel has played into Hamas’ hands. It’s not the fault of the young soldiers who obeyed the orders of their commanders. The responsibility lies with the cabinet and the military planners.

No matter how one looks at the conduct of the Israeli government and the IDF, it is hard to understand how stupid and tragic it was. Time and again, Israel tries to prove that what can’t be solved by force can be solved by more force. Over and over, the policies of force fail. The problem is that with each failure, the part of the world in which we would like to belong is losing patience with us.

The IDF took the bait and no amount of wiggling will undo this propaganda win.  To have commandoes rappelling down from  helicopters in the dead of night is just so damn provocative and risky that it is usually reserved for only the most daring hostage rescue missions.  If the ship posed any form of danger, that is what torpedoes are for.  Damn, could have torpedoed the entire flotilla and blamed the North Koreans dodgy guidance technology, even that would have been an improvement.





GE10 | BNP analysis

15 05 2010

It has been near enough two weeks since the result of the election and finally we are finding out how the Establishment fended off the Nationalist advance in Barking.

Thanks to the leftarded Guardian, find out it was not policy or personality that smashed the BNP in Barking but an Obama-style campaign of PR and intimidation coordinated by the Establishment’s agents.

The answer is a tale of determined activism by Griffin’s opponents, aided by the antics of his self-harming party. That activism began to develop a sharp focus two weeks after those Euro elections, when Lowles chaired a meeting of MPs, anti-BNP campaigners, church groups and trade unionists. He gave them a detailed breakdown of the BNP’s support. The message was stark.

“A decision was made to draw a line in the sand,” says one Labour party figure who was at the meeting. “The coming general election was going to be the defining moment. Everyone knew that if they won then, it would be almost impossible to remove them in the future.”

There was never a single anti-BNP campaign in Barking. There were meetings, events, leafleting initiatives run by Hope Not Hate – which coordinated much of the activity – and also by Labour and Unite Against Fascism. Hope Not Hate set up a base in derelict premises, and volunteers travelled across the country to prepare it for the coming battle; putting up a new ceiling, plumbing in toilets and setting up a print room. Some slept on the floors.

“The response was truly overwhelming,” says Lowles. “On one day of action, we had 541 people; on another, 385; and even on election day itself, 176 people came out to help get the vote out.” Many of the volunteers had not been involved in political activity before. “We had teenagers travelling up from Kent, old ladies from the other side of London turning out. It felt like a liberating experience for people who felt like we were doing something politically important.”

The Hope Not Hate campaign was supported by Joe Rospars, chief digital strategist for Barack Obama from 2007 until his inauguration, and his company Blue State Digital.

Rospars said it was the “best example” of a British organisation applying the lessons of the US presidential elections. “We are seeing a genuine community-based organisation, with people coming together around a common purpose,” he said.

Campaigners were able to identify the key groups least likely to vote for the BNP – women, pensioners and people from ethnic minorities. They built up an online volunteer force of 140,000 people, and Rospars advised on how to use them for maximum impact. In the month before election day, Lowles says more than 1,000 volunteers descended on Barking, delivering 350,000 specially tailored leaflets and newsletters.

At the same time, the Dagenham MP John Cruddas, and his neighbour who seemed most under threat, Barking MP Margaret Hodge, were fighting a parallel ground war against the BNP. Hodge escalated the effort she had begun some four years earlier to reconnect with voters Labour had lost to the BNP. Their rise in Barking had seen the then culture secretary heavily criticised by many inside her own party. For her, this election result represents a triumph for decency, and personal redemption.

“When Griffin announced in September that he would stand, that gave me a real scare,” Hodge says. “My husband had not long died, and I was still in grief. It was a tough period. I was quietly confident that I would win, but I really wanted to smash him. And I was really concerned about the prospects for the council.”

Hodge, with the help of volunteers from Unite Against Fascism, turned to the politics of shoe leather, knocking on doors and listening to people’s concerns. “‘What do you want to talk about?’ I would ask. It was up to them.”

Most talked about street cleaning, wheelie bins and antisocial behaviour, but inevitably many raised the BNP trump card of immigration. Even black residents raised the issue with Hodge. “I would say to them: ‘I can’t turn the clock back, but this is why the borough has changed, and we must make it work for all of us.’ Some people hated that. Some would understand. But they came to feel I was listening.”

Of  course the internal problems of the BNP didn’t help but the mobilisation and coordination between the Establishment and Vested Interests would put Robert Mugabe to shame.

And you still believe you live in a democratic country?





EU | Climate Wars

4 05 2010

According to some Kruat news-polluter of the dead tree press, tapes released to them confirm that far from healthy scientific and economical debate in the deal-making backroom, was actually a full-out Climate War of Words.  Sadly, as confirmed by the ever-so-visable presence of the leaders involved, it didn’t become a bloodbath.

Leaked tapes show EU leaders’ frustration at climate summit

Valentina Pop, EUObserver, 03.05.2010 @ 09:30 CET

Leaked tapes from the failed climate summit in Copenhagen published in German weekly Der Spiegel have documented a deeper rift between France, Germany and the US and China and India than previously thought.

The tapes were recorded “accidentally” on 18 December 2009, during a meeting of 25 leaders, including Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, US President Barack Obama and the representatives of China and India, Der Spiegel reports.

Angela Merkel expressed her frustration at India’s representative who refused to commit to precise overall CO2 emission reduction figures. “Then you don’t want anything legally binding!” she said, only to be countered by the Indian side: “Why do you make presumptions? That is not fair!”

When she presented Europe’s demand to have a commitment for a global reduction of 50 percent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, China’s negotiator intervened abruptly and said: “Thank you for all your proposals. We’ve already said we cannot accept the long-term goal of 50 percent.”

At that point, French President Nicolas Sarkozy jumped in. “With all due respect and friendship for China,” he said, the West had already committed itself to an 80 percent reduction by the mid-century mark. “And China, who will soon be the biggest economy in the world, now tells the world ‘these engagements are for you, not for us.’ This is unacceptable. One has to react to this hypocrisy,” he scoffed.

US President Barack Obama tried to moderate the discussion, but also expressed his frustration that the Chinese premier preferred to stay in his hotel room and to send his chief negotiator instead. “I know there is a Chinese premier here, one who takes important decisions,” the US President said. Mr Obama then told the Chinese negotiator, He Yafei, “[the premier] is giving you instructions at this stage.”

Mr Yafei replied: “I do not speak for myself here. I speak for China. I heard President Sarkozy talk about hypocrisy. I would avoid such terms.” He argued that industrial countries had to assume their responsibility after causing 80 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions within one century. “Don’t run away from that,” he said.

The two Western-proposed targets, of an internal 50 percent cut by 2050, and an international cut of 80 percent, have long been a bone of contention between rich and poor countries.

The latter argue that according to their analysis, this would require a per capita cut in emissions of 60 percent, or 20 percent in absolute terms.

Because these countries are starting at a much lower per capita level of emissions, this would mean that the amount of carbon emissions allowed would ironically be higher for developed countries than for the third world. The rich world would be permitted two to five times higher per capita emissions than developing countries.

The global south argues that for them to be able to continue to develop, the west must look to achieve negative carbon emissions by 2050, a proposal the EU and US reject.

The tapes also document a statement from Mr Obama suggesting he was already considering sealing a deal in a smaller format outside the formal UN process. He said he was hoping to reach an agreement “later, outside this multilateral framework,” arguing that everybody had “more important things to do.”

The end of the week-long Copenhagen summit was particularly frustrating for the Europeans, as their demands were left out of the final declaration agreed between the US, China, Brazil and South Africa. Yet not even that text could be endorsed by all delegations, who only “took note” of it.

‘Lack of trust’

Meanwhile, Ms Merkel, seeking to revive international talks ahead of the follow-up to the Copenhagen summit, set to take place in Cancun, Mexico, at the end of this year, said at an informal climate discussion in Germany on Sunday that environment ministers must “find a basis of trust” in order to avoid a second fiasco.

“One thing that did not work well in Copenhagen is that a small circle met and the regional groups felt left out of the debate,” she told delegates from some 45 countries gathered outside Bonn.

The former Danish chief-negotiator and host of the Copenhagen summit, Connie Hedegaard, has meanwhile taken up the post of EU commissioner for climate change. In an interview with UKdaily The Guardian, she defended Denmark’s handling of the event.

“It’s always easy to say after that we shouldn’t have done a lot of things,” she said. “But if we had not done so, we would not have had this whole debate and this whole mobilisation we have today.”

Ms Hedegaard accepted that a global deal was unlikely at the climate conference in Cancun at the end of this year, but she said there should be a focus on substance and action rather than legal form.

“It would be fine if we can have everything done at Cancun, but it is not likely to happen so then we must include as a next step South Africa.”

Got to hand it to the Governmental Drones, they sure have perseverance.  Far from letting a little bit of scientific doubt get in the way of political progress.