Maurice Newman, the chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, has accused the UN of attempting to subvert democracy, of attempting to establish a worldwide authoritarian regime, with political power concentrated in the hands of UN officials.
According to Newman;
Why then, with such little evidence [for dangerous global warming], does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?
In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.
Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.
Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.
Newman’s comments have stirred significant controversy in Australia, and a lot of calls for him to resign. However, in my opinion, it is Christiana Figueres who should face questions, regarding her bizarre statements about “revolutions” and “new economic development models”.
Christiana Figueres is the Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the official in charge of the UN’s environmental effort. According to CNS News, according to the UN itself, Christiana Figueres did say what Maurice Newman claims she said, about centralised economic transformation.
I don’t remember voting for a politician whose manifesto included a policy of “centralised transformation” of the global economy to a new economic model. I certainly don’t remember voting for Christiana Figueres.
Ultimately our elected politicians control the purse strings of the UN. Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ultimately our elected politicians control the purse strings of the UN. Its about time our representatives demanded a little accountability and clarity, from the UN organisations which they so lavishly fund
SPOT ON. Where can we find one with the guts to do it?
First try to find one with the intellect to understand the issues and the drive to be unpopular and do something about it despite the deleterious impact on their career.
In the US, I don’t think you would be unpopular with the people, anymore than would you in whatever country you wish to choose if you decided to fight the good fight and protect those that need protection for ravenous government. You would be unpopular with the people that own the other politicians, however, along with those that own the media. You would be unpopular with that small group that consider this their world and we are all trespassers in it. You would not be elected because you would be unpopular with the ones that control the voting machines, and if you managed to slip in anyway, one person couldn’t change much of anything but perhaps the flight path of the magic bullet that would heading your way. As far as her disgust with democracy, I have no idea why she should since I doubt if there is a real democracy other than possibly Russia left in the world. There certainly is no “partisanship” in the US as the on difference between the two parties is the names they apply to themselves. Other than their names, who they support, what their agenda is, and what their true intent is identical.
I doubt if there is a real democracy other than possibly Russia left in the world
Do I hear you correctly? Are you saying that Russia is the only true democracy left in the world? Is that auto-correct that went completely wrong or are you on drugs?
Figueres, the selected head of the UNFCC, comes from power, wealth, Swarthmore, social anthropology, high-profile appointments among the politically powerful class seeking one-world control, dictated by themselves. The perfect choice for the UN job. No science education or experience, more like a neighborhood organizer. Why should anyone be surprised?
Or their life.
“I doubt if there is a real democracy other than possibly Russia left in the world. ”
Wow, powerful stuff you’re taking, what’s it called?
Would that be the same Russia that jails opposition leaders on trumped up charges?
It’s the same Russia that’s trying to democratize Ukraine by shooting passenger planes out of the sky.
Unfortunately we are realizing this is the reverse…
Dear Stephen,
The answer to your question is in your / our hands: if we all do the following (please see below) it will put a spanner in the works for the UN and their tyranny.
We must protect our families and our countries from these rather nasty, greedy people who steel our money via government weakness and lefty-government greed. The biggest weapon we have is our ability to put pressure on our own elected representatives in a massive way, simply by writing, writing and writing. (There are other pressures but that is for another day).
PLEASE WRITE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE (member of parliament or senator) AND DEMAND THAT THIS PARAGRAPH BE INCLUDED IN THE PARIS TREATY 2015. THANK YOU …….
A get-out clause is a freedom clause.
“At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary”.
Kyoto Protocol, article 27.
(The above paragraph must be included in the Paris Treaty 2015).
Regards, WL
It’s said that governments raise bogeymen to justify their own existence, but who’d have thought that the WEATHER would be used in such a role? I’m sure that “quantitative easing” is responsible for all the cash swimming into left-wing organizations and so distorting society. This is decadence.
Yes, I too was surprised by this one. Climate of all things. I don’t think anyone would have suspected this could happen three decades ago.
Anyway, Figueres is an idiot not a conspirator.
She may well be an idiot, but she’s a very dangerous idiot. I think defunding the UN is an excellent objective, until the manipulators are removed from it, & it goes back to being what it was set up to do!
In all truth, the UN cannot be defunded any more than the government of any country. It is, and they are, needed.
Governments are monopolistic institutions by definition and, therefore, they have a tendency to go astray. Addressing this problem through the removal of governments has, far more often than not, catastrophic consequences for the population.
In my opinion, the solution to the problem is not to undermine government but to support the development of alternative, coherent political ideas that befit governance roles. This is possible. There are, as there have always been, conscientious, informed individuals that for whatever motivation choose to participate in government. I often feel that the current situation boils down to a lack of political ideas and that this void has been filled with opportunistic mediocrities claiming to be enlightened while reaching for our wallets. These suspicions are confirmed almost every single time I hear a pedestrian talk about politics, be those of the “left” or “right”.
The intellectual immaturity of the electorate is supporting intellectually immature politicians and, consequently, inadequate policies. For example, everyone knows (including the man himself) why Obama was elected. It is unsurprising he has turned out to be no more than a dignified late-night talkshow host whose regular opening act is a delusional routine that makes his own supporters cringe. Still, this is no reason to choose to choke government. This is the reason, again, why there is a need to develop political alternatives of substance. And, btw, the republicans are failing spectacularly at it.
We are losing a battle of ideas. The climate scare will pass and the cretins will simply move on to the next collective hallucination with equal conviction and viciousness. Nothing will stop them. There are no alternatives of substance.
The UN was never necessary and it’s existence has been a net negative for the world. In the future it will only get worse. The problem with the UN, like the US, is that those who pay the bills have little say in how the budget is spent. The only solution would involve either limiting the vote to those who actually pay taxes, or even better, tie voting to taxes paid. The more you pay in taxes, the more votes you get.
@Brute:
I have often wondered about the answer to the second sentence of your last paragraph. If non-cretins can early-on detect the subject of the next collective hallucination, perhaps the course it runs can be shortened.
@MarkW
Governance has a role. Even if human nature were pure, administration would still be necessary. Since human nature is not pure, politics and legislation are also necessary.
Equating voting power to economic power simply ensures that the wealthiest make all decisions for everyone. This might please you if you are from a first world country and having the rest of the planet in mind. But if consider only your country and you are, say, middle class, you will easily see why you don’t want your level of taxation to limit your participation in the democratic process.
@noaaprogrammer
The fact is that early detection has always been in place. There being sufficient pairs of eyes, someone most often is bound to spot the lurking menace. And thanks to the internet, it is also easier than ever for the warnings to disseminate. The brave labors of our host speak to this fact, for instance.
My concern is rather with the formulation of political ideologies that provide, not only an alternative to the current prevalence of demagogy, but an upgrade to democracy itself. This is, of course, an unoriginal proposition but, imo, the correct course of action.
The crises we face today are only larger because our civilization is global in ways that previous civilizations have never been before. However, our problems are far from new. Demagogy has a long history and it is not for nothing that democracy has been referred to as the dictatorship of public opinion which, in the case of a gullible and unsophisticated public, amounts to the dictatorship of gossip.
Someone had to say it and call the UN bluff… But Newman (and by proxy, Abott) are under heavy fire now in Australia. Why do people instead of reacting with horror, not go, ‘Huh? Now why did he make those claims? Is there any basis for this rational that climate change is not a looming catastrophe? And is that really what the UN is planning?’
First class “brain washing” starting in about the 1st grade has turned nearly every “western” nation into the caricature countries that you see. The “take from the rich and give to the poor” stance that AGWers take has nothing to do with the people, only the governments. If you took 100 billion dollars a year from the rich countries and gave it to the governments of poor countries, there would be no change in the standard of living for the average citizen in those countries, and that is the sad fact. It would come from the middle class of the “rich nations” since the rich there do NOT pay their share of taxes, and would go to the rich people in the poor countries because they, too, are smart enough to buy their politicians. The poor still would suffer and die, no matter how much “wealth was transferred.” And if they don’t die off fast enough, there is always genetically modified viruses that can be used to hasten the process.
Senator Rand Paul said it best, “ODA (Overseas Development Assistance) is a program designed to steal money from poor people in rich countries, to be given to rich people in poor countries….. Why should America be giving money to countries that our calling for America’s destruction?”
Why, indeed…
The entire point in the UN channeling money from the wealthy nations to the poor nations is to prevent the poor nations from ever developing. The dictators/governments of the poor countries would have no interest in using these funds to help their people as then, the next year, the funding would decrease or stop. It would be in their interest to actually make their countries poorer, claiming non-existent global warming damages, to keep the money flowing. Meanwhile, the drain on the developed countries and the push for unreliable “green” energy would serve to destroy the industrialized economies and lower their standard of living.
The top 10% if earners in the US pay over 50% of all taxes. The top 20% pay almost 90% of all taxes.
Only a complete fool could claim that the rich aren’t paying their fair share.
The ‘why’ is because Green has taken the place of Religion. Nature abhors a vacuum, and the void of Catholic guilt had to be filled with something.
Beause it’s been long enough now that they’ve been brainwashed from infancy. My 13 year old grandson’s geography assignment was to write a letter to the Australian Minister for the Environment complaining about the ‘destruction’ of either the Tasmanian forests or the Great Barrier Reef. What hope is there?
“My 13 year old grandson’s geography assignment…”
That is amazing. And disturbing.
@ur momisuglyAntonia, thanks for pointing that out but not at all surprising and what has it to do with geography? @ur momisugly piperpaul “disturbing and amazing” is not even close, this is beyond dangerous. I am stunned that in Australia common sense has left (no pun intended). I was under the impression that with Abott this would change, is the left wing MSM in Australia as strong as it is in North America?
Until the reasons behind the ‘fraud’ that is AGW are brought to full public attention the AGW meme will continue to disguise the agenda that is behind Article 21. Exactly as they hoped it would.
A politician willing to stand up for science. And in Australia of all places. Who’da thunk it. I imagine the CAGW faithful will attempt to tar and feather him in short order.
At the end of the day, the UN is a body that should be dismantled. For the amount of money that the world pours into the UN, very little has ever been achieved that cannot be achieved by NGO’s and volunteers.
The UN has never prevented a war, has never saved anybody from genocide, has never responded to famine on time etc. etc. They DO pontificate a lot and tell everybody what they should do, do they do anything else? NO! The UN is obsolete,get rid of it!
Exactly. The UN is renowned for talking poor by day and expensive partying at night. Third rate bludgers the lot tof them. Get rid of it now.
The UN is useless and it’s absence wouldn’t be missed, but I’m in no hurry to replace the UN with anything, especially NGOs. Look at the wealth and power which they’ve already accumulated.
I agree totally. Think of the money every country concerned would save just by chopping out the UN. Every one of those countries desperately needs that money too. Which, I wonder, will be the first to pull the plug? It’s possibly the only way to stop this green nonsense. I wish one of them would make a start and pull out of the UN, it might prove a very popular move and start the ball rolling.
I am not sure about the percentages of all the countries that give money to the UN but as far as I know the majority comes from the west. ( Canada, USA, UK, Australia etc etc.) It is an absolute waste of time and real estate. If it means so much to the rest of the members why not put in the middle of Russia? (Crimea, nice climate, beaches etc, oh forgot…….)
I don’t know if it is still the same, but up till a few years ago the US was paying 25% of the UN budget.
My answer is to simply remove the UN to a different location, like Burkina Faso.
The UN General Assembly should relocate to Syria-Iraq Northern border region IMO.
Relocate the UN to the Antarctic. They can then shiver to death as they try using green energy to heat their buildings.
“The UN has never prevented a war, has never saved anybody from genocide, has never responded to famine on time etc. etc.”
When the UN show s up to “stop” a conflict, the death rate always goes up, as they shoot both sides. They also have been known to back off while one group genocides another. Remember, they think there are about 6.5 billion too many people and the more that die from disease or violence or are severely crippled is a plus in their minds. These are evil people who do not like other people and seek to rule the world.
The UN has never prevented a war…,
The UN prevented North Korea from overrunning South Korea.
… has never saved anybody from genocide…
UN refugee camps today house tens of thousands of refugees from the deranged fanatics pursuing their ‘final solutions’ in Syria and Iraq.
… has never responded to famine on time…
Nor has anyone else. But the response they did make has undoubtedly saved tens of thousands from starvation over the last 70 years.
They DO pontificate a lot … do they do anything else? NO!
Smallpox has been eliminated world wide. We are closing in on eliminating polio. The UN works to control AIDS, EBOLA, Malaria….
MPB, Antonia, Alan, A.D.,Greg, Higley: I personally agree with you that the UN is a corrupt political body that should be dismantled. But something will need to replace it. And the thousands of front line workers that have risked, and sometimes lost, their lives and comfort over the years to do the humanitarian work of the UN should not be bad-mouthed.
The US saved S. Korea from N. Korea. The UN just gave political cover to what was already happening.
As to the rest of your post, you sure do know how to repeat UN propaganda.
Get rid of the UN altogether, let private charity do the work. They’ve been doing a better job at it for decades.
How long has The United Nations been pushing UNICEF, 50 years at least.
Yet children continue to starve. The UN is has proved itself useless.
Now they prove themselves a threat to Western Democracy.
Maurice Newman is a retired stockbroker and sings that popular new refrain, “So as I said, I’m not a scientist…”
Besides your thinly disguised ad hom, do you actually have anything to say?
Actually Magma, you managed to get in a weak appeal to authority, also. Good job.
You mean like Flannery is unqualified as well.
And John Crook is a cartoonist.
Remind how the predictions of permanent drought are going?
The UN started as a great idea but so did the trade unions. The problem is that these kind of organizations turn into self-perpetuating strong holds in which some key figures play their power/money politics. And of course, the rest of us pay for it.
It’s about time that our friends from down-under start waking up.
Spot On!
The UN stood by whilst the former head of the IPCC the railway engineer “patches” fondled the female staff and creamed for himself a gross 42 million dollars a year – now that is serious swilling at the trough and should finally render this organisation a waste of time AND money.
No, the UN was started in 1946 with the unpublished goal of creating a one-world government as a means of making sure that there would never by a world nuclear war. This noble goal means taking over the world, which would have to be socialist and totalitarian and controlled by a ruling elite. The public purpose was to promote world peace, but, even as early as 1961, they started trying to disarm the United States. They have to disarm the world to take it over. The current Small Arms Treaty is all about this goal.
Surely, with the US population of 350 million odd, you can find some someone with a bit of guts to give us a hand.
Hey, there is only 23 million down here.
Don’t count on Obama administration.
They are busy helping themselves
Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum; The Middle East runs out of water
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/8/daniel-pipes-middle-east-runs-out-water/
Now we know the source of the agenda.
Very interesting, I had no idea it was so bad. Use “submit story”, write this up and send it to Anthony.
A large part of the problem with the Euphrates, is that the Turks are stealing half the flow with the Ataturk Dam. When this was being built is was claimed that it would cause a Middle Eastern war, and if Syria and Iraq had not collapsed economically it might have. But maybe there is still time…..
The only right decision the UN can make to benefit all of mankind is to evacuate the premises, lock all of the doors and throw away the keys.
A full building demolition with the bureaucrazies and their uber-rich handlers still within, like the one executed upon building 7 of the WTC, would be the best approach. Perhaps that would be some form of justice. The UN was, after all, an instrument of their (predecessors’) making devised to lock formerly sovereign nations into binding agreements that constrain their own ability to do as they require for their own people in their own countries. It was NEVER intended as a means of settling international conflicts – thus the complete lack of ever doing so. The initiation of each of those very conflicts (specifically the great wars) was engineered as a means to cause all to believe that a body such as the UN was needed, the League of Nations being the first but failed attempt, the UN being the one that finally worked (that was the purpose of the international conflicts, whatever the means by which they were initiated). In this way, the ones who actually run the international financial systems (CFR, IMF, BIS, Rockefeller, Rothschild, members of the Club of Rome, etc, etc, you know the rest, and not forgetting the Saudi regime) could draw gullible national leaders together in the UN Assembly and through that centralised mechanism engineer cleverly worded agreements between nations to cause them to gradually cede control over their own peoples to the UN bureaucrazies.
May they all rot and burn in hell.
This is the same kind of small political brush fire that can grow into a raging national inferno if the libs and NGOs are not careful.
On behalf of ALL Australians and in the world’s population in general,
I would like to really thank Mr Newman for having the balls to say what we all already know.
It is time this scam had the light shone on it . Watch the cockroaches scurry !
yeah Newmans got a pair:-0
see theyve managed to push the nad less wonders at uni WA to can the lomborg climate setup?
bloody flimflam who raked it in screams frivolous spending sob sob
scumbag
He really gained my respect. That’s for sure.
Figures Figueres is an easy opponent. I would keep her on the job to make sure the joke in Paris gets a few laughs and they keep busy afterwards counting CO2 molecules and adding up donation pledges.
We need to, fairly rapidly, get a constitutional amendment and / or a Supreme Court ruling that “treaties” can not over ride acts of congress. They are being used to remove our laws and our congressional authority. ( The TPP is just one example, and the proposed Paris “treaty” will be far worse.)
Ratified treaties do have the force of Federal Law. But they cannot usurp the US constitution nor invade/deny/diminish States Rights under the constitution anywhere on US soil.
Case in point has been the execution of foreign nationals by Texas for capital offenses committed and tried under state law. The US has a treaty that says forein nationals arrested in the US will have consular notification and consular representation available. Texas law enforcement has of course arrested many thousands of Mexican nationals for crimes while illegally in this country. Several notable capital murder cases have occured where the Mexican government has petitioned the State Dept to intervene using the treaty consular notification rights as a reason to stop the execution. Texas told them to get lost, the Supreme Court upheld the states right as trumping the treaty the Federal government has with Mexico.
Way back when I was in law school I was taught that a treaty is superior to prior legislation and vice versa. Maybe I am misremembering, tho.
But see:
In the United States, the application and interpretation of international
treaty obligations implicate an intricate interplay with Constitutional mandates
and federal statutes.4 As a matter of domestic law, the Constitution trumps
treaties.5 However, the same may not be true of other sources of law. Although
not free from scholarly debate,6
acts of Congress remain on a par with treaties,
prevailing over inconsistent treaty provisions only pursuant to either (i) the
“later in time” rule7
or (ii) an explicit congressional pronouncement.8
According to rules of international law, however, neither a Constitutional
mandate nor the enactment of a statute provides an excuse for a treaty
violation.9
Prevailing opinion holds that an act wrongful under the law of
nations remains so even if a nation’s internal law deems otherwise.10
from the Hastings Law Journal
So I guess domestic law (“later in time”) would override for purposes of domestic enforcement, but would carry penalties in international relations. Maybe even damages.
Jim B
The most telling comment I’ve seen on the UN demands Australia stop mining coal” post :
Anyone who has read the Copenhagen Agreement to the end and thought about who is accountable to whom will come to the conclusion that there will be a central bureau responsible to no one, which is there by government agreement (lots of governments) and they will cede some of their authority to that central group who will be unremovable. Nice work if you can get it.
It has all the hallmarks of political systems prior to the Magna Carta. Even the Greeks in 400 BC had a better system. They managed to beat the Persians with their ‘inappropriate democracy’ so I am willing to take a chance and have a representative, elected, international, federated system based on population and accountable governance. The UN is not that, by a stretch. It is actually quite corrupt. Also, totally getting rid of the UN is not acceptable. It was created for very good reasons. That it was created badly does not mean it is not needed. Democracies do not have vetoes, for one thing.
I feel many people reject this alternative (a real federation with proper membership requirements) because they have short memories. So, after the next massive war, however long it lasts, perhaps the general population will arise to do it properly next time. Abolishing war is not compatible with national policies of perpetual war. Something’s gotta give. It is going to be very messy, again. After, we will once again sit down to work out how to turn the smoking ruins into a viable planetary society. Just because we failed a couple of times doesn’t mean we are not capable of doing it properly and fairly.
Hmm- you just described the E.U….
Crispin said:
It is actually quite corrupt. Also, totally getting rid of the UN is not acceptable. It was created for very good reasons.
“Quite corrupt” is a very good reason to get rid of the UN. It was created to “jaw-jaw instead of war-war”, as I recall Churchill saying. But wars simply got smaller but more numerous after WWII. There are more wars than ever now. And the UN stopped just about none of them, from Korea to Viet Nam to Grenada to the Balkans, to Rwanda to Iraq, Iran, Israel/Arabs, and every other post-WWII armed conflict in-between. So the UN has totally failed in its primary mission, and there is zero indication that it will ever succeed.
Why should mainly U.S. taxpayers finance a thoroughly corrupt organization that has never allowed an external audit of its finances? Where does the money go? Answer: we don’t know! All we have are their assurances: “Trust us.” As if.
Just the fact that all communist and socialist countries demand a world government should be enough of a reason to jettison it. The UN exemplifies everything bad in human nature. Like the Devil quoting Scripture, the UN always says warm and fuzzy feel-good platitudes. But they don’t believe a word of what they’re spouting. Unfortunately, too many people start nodding their heads when they keep hearing the same baseless homilies endlessly repeated.
But a lot of us know they’re lying through their teeth. The UN’s unstated purpose is to destroy America and the West, and looting everything in sight. Never listen to the UN’s words. Always watch its actions. Then you will understand why it needs to be booted out. Would you give your house keys to a known thief? Same-same.
To hell with the UN. It is far too corrupt to save it, or to change it. Totally de-funding the UN and evicting it from our country is the only safe course of action, short of arresting the kleptocrats and razing their UN HQ.
And that’s just my friendly rant. I can’t write what I really think of an organization that absolutely hates America, but loves our dollars. Can you imagine if it had an army? We would be constantly at war with Eastasia — but for real.
We do not need a world government! The entire universe is based on competition. Countries compete economically. The UN doesn’t want that. A UN world government could only be described as the ultimate dystopia.
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto:
“In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.”
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.”
“I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
========================
And have fun doing it, I can almost guarantee he never envisioned this:
That’s one high-caliber gal.
And she didn’t need any cushions for support……!
Heather’s quite a character and a great sport. She’s a tough trooper and proves it in many YouTube videos.
Didn’t much care for the .50 cal ricochet, and she should have a light pad behind the buttstock to cushion her shoulder a bit, but gollee .50 cal is a whackin’ gun. Expensive, but whackin’! A cure for some of what ails us…
Commenters love blaming AGW on capitalism, as if a socialist economy would be emissions-free. There is no historical evidence to back up such an assumption – quite the opposite, in fact.
It does, however, provide them with an excuse to call for the end of capitalism.
Rabbit
How about these too
“Too big to fail” – Bigger than the British Empire then and how did that go?
“One world government” – The British Empire was about a half-world government and how did that go?
WW2 came along, and the US insisted upon the breaking up of the BE in return for support in the war. That is how the US were one of the two big winners out of the war (Russia being the other one).
Of course, it was only a question of time before the sun would set on the BE, and only a question of time before the US became the no.1 global player, it is just that WW2 accelerated events, and the US saw a golden opportunity that it could exploit and so surpass its ‘father’.
That’s Naomi Klein doing that. But she has zero idea what’s she talking about.
Finally someone in authority with backbone is standing up to the absurdity of AGW despite possible repercussions. From what I’m reading Germany and England aren’t too far behind. People are starting to realize that fossil energy deconstruction is a “burn the village to save it” plan and the real catastrophe looming on the horizon. This will surely cause more scrutiny of the warmist claims and activities and can only lead to uncovering AGW as nothing more than propaganda and a means to an end.
Congratulations Maurice Newman.
I am 100% behind what Maurice Newman says. He’s dead-on.
I highly doubt the people who set up the UN didn’t realize an unelected world government would eventually become it’s purpose. The ruling class can’t stand it when us peasants get to cast a vote for governance.
It was set up around the same time as the nascent EU, under the auspices of a common coal and steel agreement. See The Great Deception by Booker and North
http://www.amazon.ca/Great-Deception-European-Christopher-Hardcover/dp/B00IGYSP86/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1431134352&sr=1-2&keywords=the+great+deception+north
Why can’t they? As Stalin said, “It’s not who votes that counts; it’s who counts the votes.”
They control enough of the media to stampede the mindless masses almost however they want to. They are having a spot of trouble with the CAGW meme because the science, the data is so strongly against them.
We have a problem with the media in Canada. They are hatefully against the one man who is doing a great job as Prime Minister. How does one fight against the spoon feeding of lies by the mainstream media to the gullible masses?
David Ball commented:
“We have a problem with the media in Canada. They are hatefully against the one man who is doing a great job as Prime Minister. How does one fight against the spoon feeding of lies by the mainstream media to the gullible masses?”
The “Progressives” aren’t stupid. Over the last 50 or so years they went about quietly taking control of the media by buying it. It’s not just Canada nor just a few countries but rather most of the world. In the US we have media outlets that openly refuse to say/print anything that challenges AGW and constantly bully and shame skeptics. Our POTUS fully encourages and supports this line of attack while proclaiming that wealth redistribution is necessary and ignoring our Constitution to make it happen. To answer your question: The only way to fight it is to buy it back because there will always be useful idiots ready for stupid. In the meantime….be thankful for the few remaining Conservative news oultlets and embrace the internet as a savior to the free world.
There’s not a single country on the planet where ‘progressive’ media leads the debate or has most influence.
??
What the bloody daylights are you talking about? Name a country on earth where a conservative media is dominant. Putin’s Russia, North Korea, Cambodia, China, the Islamic world, the tribal factions across Africa are the repressed media area where the state (or state religion) controls the media. Everywhere else, liberal and ultra-liberal/socialist attitudes dominate all parts of the culture and their media. To our ultimate failure. (American talk radio – bounded by the free market and with the hosts forced to hear corrections immediately when they are wrong – is an exception.)
Ha!
Free market ideology extremism is predictive regarding opinion on climate science. Add in some world conspiracy ideation -> paging Dr. Lew!
Free-market-ideology-extremism. Wow that’s a mouth full. Everything but the kitchen sink, huh.
Ok, extremism may be a bit hard. Let’s call it free market enthusiasm or free market dogmatism, whatever.
“Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ≃ .80 between latent constructs).”
http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf
Sorry EricS,
My answer to you I posted some time ago, but “moderation” interferes. Alas, no discussion possible I’m afraid
[Nothing in the queue. .mod]
[Nothing in the queue. .mod]
Not anymore, thanks.
But before:
http://postimg.org/image/d3eatm8o3/
Extreme progressive political correctness, where disagreement with the meme of the moment reflexively initiates a cacophony of faux-protest through the frappe bubbled lips of the offendodrons, where MSM denial is trumpeted with claims of a jocular hoax, the UN Kollective betrays itself at every turn.
Pure joy Maurice Newman. And thank you for a glimpse of freedom.
They failed at “global governance” in 2009 Copenhagen. Their second stab at the flying apple is Paris, December, 2015.
In the meantime, they are trying to set up the legal framework, and that is the initial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the other so-called “free trade”—cough!—agreements being negotiated in secret in Geneva as I write. They couldn’t get global governance in 2009, so they worked on the legal framework in the meantime.
Want proof? Michael Froman. He’s the current US Trade Representative. Look what he was doing in 2009.
As I have said for some years that the greatest threat that we face in the 21st century is the removal of democracy by stealth – precisely what the UN, the EU and so many of our political ‘leaders’ are determined to achieve for ‘our own good’.
The EU has gone on record stating that voters can’t be trusted to make the ‘correct’ decisions – the UN shows precisely the same view.
‘Climate change’ is the stalking horse intended to end democracy in any true sense whilst, as the EU has done, creating a fig leaf, semblance of democracy that in reality has no longer any real meaning – as is abundantly clear in the governance of european nations by the EU.
+1
+1
Thankfully, the bureaucratic idiots forgot bout the Internet…
Apparently the E.U. doesn’t even think that I can be trusted to buy a vacuum cleaner rated more than 900watt (from 2017).
Unfortunately some of the most baffling ignorant and stupid people in Europe are the bureaucrats who have taken it upon themselves to control such matters as what type of hoover we are legally allowed to buy.
As with most morons, they also lack the facility to perceive that it is they themselves who are most incapable of making good decisions.
Attempts to steer policy back in the direction of good sense are deemed to be “populist”.
Apparently “populist” is now an insult, like “racist” or “denier”.
Why is it not good sense to get a vacuum that uses less power? Even Mercedes and BMW are creating cars that are more economical. I fear your ‘good sense’ is just reactionary bullshit.
Totally agree, to me it is a mystery how the EU have not had their accounts signed off by the independent auditors for 19 years. Actually it is probably a bigger mystery that they have not found auditors who are fraudulent and corrupt as the upper echelons of the EU quite definitely are.
The EU and UN are birds of a feather, don’t let the prols have their say, they don’t know what they are talking about. Controlled socialism by a ruling elite with sumptuous lifestyles and us peasants kept in our place is their idea of Utopia. North Korea here we come!
mike hamblet
Why do you think you or some EU bureaucrat can and do know the requirements for a vacuum cleaner of indefatigablefrog?
Your post post is the unsubstantiated ramblings of an arrogant and self-deluded fool who wishes to impose his pointless whims as constraints on others.
Richard
Mike Hamblit “Why is it not good sense to get a vacuum that uses less power? Even Mercedes and BMW are creating cars that are more economical. I fear your ‘good sense’ is just reactionary bullshit”
Maybe it makes good sense for some…or not, you don’t know…the fact they had to pass a law suggests some people wanted a more powerful vacuum based on their needs but the state wasn’t going to let them….in a free society you don’t want the state telling you what your good sense should be…..and giving you no choice by force. Particularly when it’s for a trumped up reason like energy rationing due to climate change. Which is why climate change alarmism au the highest level of world governments is a massive threat to freedom.