Breaking the illusions

In the bible the devil was not an openly evil person, as everyone would turn against him and he'd have no power at all. Instead he had to offer everything, deliver enough to gain trust and then screw you up the arse. By then you'd think he was the messiah and may even defend him as it would be impossible to have meant to do something like that and must have been a mistake.

So as our current politicians, who pretend to help and four years later you look back and wonder where your money and rights went, and why so many innocent people abroad are dead.

The current system is built on illusions, but if you learn to recognise them then they are no longer going to be able to work. Here are the major ones I have unpicked to save anyone else having to work it out themselves.

BIG OIL IS AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE LAWS

I have dealt with this already, so will summarise again. There is no such thing as 'big oil'. What you see as 'oil companies' like Shell or BP are energy companies and also diversify in many other areas. Economics works on supply and demand, so if you restrict supply and keep the same demand the prices rise. So restricting all fossil fuel exploration and production will simply raise the prices of what they have and make it last a lot longer. Not to mention the subsidies to diversify into renewables and free carbon permits they sell for millions. Maybe that's why the Climate Research Unit was partly funded by 'big oil'.

 GLOBAL WARMING


This is so complicated and hard to decipher it takes a statistician and knowledge of the original, often secret data, Luckily every so often someone is good enough to admit the truth directly to save everyone else the trouble. Like the chief IPCC economist Ottmar Edenhoffer who said in a 2010 interview with 'Bild' magazine:

"...one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

Although stated openly well before that by Margaret Mead in 1974:

"What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats"

Otherwise the material is freely available online besides the secret figures we are not allowed to see due to 'commercial sensitivity'. Now since when were weather reports a commercial issue? The answer is since man made global warming became an issue. The fact there are climate change investment funds all over the world tells you most of what you need to know in itself. If it was to save the world it wouldn't be a worldwide business opportunity. Carbon trading, one of the mainstays, was what got the board of Enron convicted for fraud, yet is now used in most countries, and compulsory within the EU. Before it was made legal carbon trading and anything similar was fraudulent. Why would there be so much of a trillion pound business on the back of what was supposed to be environmental unless it was actually designed with that in mind originally?

UN AGENDA 21


This looks like a worthy attempt to protect the environment, so needs a full translation into truth. It was developed back in the 70s by such luminaries as Margaret Mead and the late Stephen Schneider, who, like Edenhoffer, saved people the trouble of investigating too far by stating their aims openly. The bottom line there is the overpopulation problem, which most reasonable people would accept, would be solved not by education but any means they could, ie deliberate depopulation. You can work out what that means yourself. Other implications are means to make the previously rich and polluting countries so poor as to no longer pose such a threat to the environment. There are lists of how to carry these measures in ICLEI, the local implementation rules for councils. These have been adopted in nearly 200 countries.However, such individuals are proud of their beliefs, so if you find their own quotes then they are happy to translate what had since been sanitised into plain English, and once you know the routine can then convert any part or whole of Agenda 21 into the same intentions. Here are some of the actual sentiments which created it:

The Club of Rome's 1991 publicly available report 'The First Global Revolution'

“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." 

"At Bucharest it was affirmed that continuing, unrestricted worldwide population growth can negate any socioeconomic gains and fatally imperil the environment…. The earlier extreme views that social and economic justice alone can somehow offset population increase and that the mere provision of contraception can sufficiently reduce population—were defeated"

"Unless the peoples of the world can begin to understand the immense and long-term consequences of what appear to be small immediate choices—to drill a well, open a road, build a large airplane, make a nuclear test, install a liquid fast breeder reactor, release chemicals which diffuse throughout the atmosphere, or discharge waste in concentrated amounts into the sea—the whole planet may become endangered…."

This quote is a perfect mixture of truth (waste and chemical discharges) and dark forces (oil wells, roads, planes) but happily merged them seamlessly as does today's 'environmental' movement.  

Margaret Mead, 1974

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/

"Global cooling—the coming of an ice age—had been in the headlines in the 1970s, but it could not easily be used to sell genocide by getting the citizens of industrial nations to cut back on consumption. Something more drastic and more personal was needed."


-------------------------------------------------
"The mantra of radical environmentalists is that humans are parasites, as seen in this clip of an unwashed David Suzuki comparing humans to fruit flies and maggots.
David Suzuki is an environmental activist who is big especially up in Canada, and has for years been preaching about how humans are a cancer to the earth."

"After they break from a comfortable egg, the human maggots move in two dimensions and become second-level maggots who crash other maggots in proportionality with their own weight, who defecate all over the environment, and who eat the defecation from the other, usually larger maggots.
Some of these humans become tenth-level maggots who are big wheels. That's what the consensus environmentalist and global warming science knew about the humans and their co-existence with the environment at least since 1972."

http://thesecretsofvancouver.com/wordpress/is-our-beloved-david-suzuki-still-a-eugenicist/environment

LOW INTEREST RATES

What's that- low interest rates help people as it keeps repayments down? Let's analyse this using basic economics. Interest rates are for two types of loans, mortgages and others. Mortgages are more or less compulsory for anyone not rich enough to buy a home for cash or too poor to buy one at all, so cover the majority of people. But then you must look at the difference (the 'spread') between the nominal interest rate, currently 0.5% in the UK, and the actual one. In fact the interest rate is what the banks themselves and the government borrow at. Not you and me. They do track them up to a point, especially when saving, but borrowing rates tend to change only a small amount when they go down and the difference between what they borrow and lend at increases, giving them more (like oil) for doing exactly the same thing, or in the case of giving them money to lend you some, absolutely nothing. Nope, they didn't even earn it, they just lend out investor's money, and then pay them for doing so at the low side of the spread. Therefore when rates are low they borrow at next to nothing, do deals overnight on commodities which go up 1p and they make a million or so as they can invest half a billion (and in the process put the price up simply from their own bid), while again doing no more than press a few buttons. The spread between borrowers and investors increases, so the savers get less but the borrowing rate barely falls, and their profits go up, for doing, well, nothing.

And what about the lucky homeowners? They at least cancel out the losses by the worthy savers who have spent years working for their retirement and now can't pay the bills. They are younger and just starting out in life and really need the help. Well, not exactly. In fact the house prices are related directly to the interest rates. The estate agents use a rough formula of monthly repayments. If a house is £150,000 and rates are 10% then the monthly rates are similar (pardon my maths, it doesn't exist, so only a token example rather than an accurate one) to 5% and £200,000. The customer does not pay any less, at least when buying initially, whatever the interest rates, as the lower the interest rate the higher the price of the house, so the customer ends up paying the same every month regardless as it's the market rate. The worst off are new buyers, as when they buy it's at the highest possible price, and although the current payment is the same for the house regardless of the interest rate, if you buy when they are higher they can go either way, but now they can only go up, so you have paid the most, the savings are temporary, and if you sell after the rate goes up the price will usually go down and you are likely to be in negative equity. No one benefits from low interest rates except the banks and the government, and property developers. A government applying quantitative easing does so to keep interest rates down, but as they are creating cash without increasing the assets with no growth they are only creating future inflation, something we all suffer with except those borrowing at base rate and lending, as they will have their debts eroded away by inflation if already in place, while everyone buying new will pay the higher amounts. And beware savers, many savings rates are below inflation, especially when low.