Quote from Yan Yan

Experience seems to bear that out.
Governments exist to screw their own people. The United Nations exists to screw the world on behalf of governments who are too busy screwing their own people...... etc etc.

Surely the U.N. does some good somewhere?

Anybody got an example?

They do peace keeping throughout the world, although they sometimes make a hash of it.

I, recently, came across this site:

http://www.wfm.org/site/index.php/pages/2

World Federalism Movement. Apparently it was founded in 1937 with a campaign, in Chicago, for a World Government. A former president was Sir Peter Ustinov. It boast 30 support organisations and millions of members throughout the world with offices in New York, near to the UN, The Hague and The Netherlands. It advertises for recruitment and contributions and lists amongst their largest contributors, The Ford Foundation and member states of the European Union.

Although the organisation states it's not part of the UN, it states it is an international organisation in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council and Dept of Public Information of the United Nations.

'We are not a branch or dept of the UN. We promote a better understanding of the UN. Members often work closely with UN officials and those of other international institutions to further our mission. We are committed to reforming the UN and ensuring effective democratic global governance.'

In the FAQ they say:

World Federalism envisions a federation of nation states, each ceding sovereignty to a larger union through common institutions................
World Federalism is the application of the political philosophy of democratic federalism, developed at the national levels in nations throughout the world, to the international levels and global governance..............................
The European Union represents one example of international federalism.........
Our planet faces serious crises, grave challenges that nations acting separately in an ungoverned world cannot overcome.'


One of its support organisations is the Womens Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO), which advocates for womens equality in global policy. Working in key global forums. such as the UN. WEDO advocates and seeks to empower women as decision makers to achieve economic, social and gender justice, a healthy, peaceful planet and human rights for all...........................Awe


Well, lots of familiar words - I have never heard of this organisation. Has Anybody else heard of them?

Everything is tied in together, as you are no doubt finding yourself. Being an anti-feminist and a conservative by nature, I found the trail to the United Nations not at all difficult to follow. The sinister motives of this organization and the harm it has done to nations world-wide, through forced feminization for example, far outweighs any supposed good it has accomplished.

The end goal is a world-wide, socialist-feminist state. Its proponents, capitalists and communists alike, dream of a world where they can enjoy absolute power over sheeple like us. The wealthy elite power brokers of this upcoming movement toward totalitarianism, really don't like it much when the sheep wake up in the middle of being fleeced. It's kind of like the Matrix really, it's all around us. Carefully assembled and hidden from view for decades, it all seems to be coming into focus.

It has been well understood for some time that women are more accepting of interventionist state actions, and thus, it is not at all suprising that they have been placed in a position of privilege during this transformative social engineering process.

States alone cannot handle the global crises of global warming and terrorism and thus must surrender their democratic authority to the world state. The stuff of fiction, or a slow steady process already underway?

Humans have an adaptive nature. They adapt to whatever environment they find themselves in and are also able to adapt their environment.

The population arguements seem to neglect to mention that if the world is overpopulated, it is certainly not, in the west particularly, over populated with young people..

The reality is, no one wants to face up to the reality that the population in the west is heavily skewed by a vast number of older members of society.

We have a population crisis because of this..

Children do not consume great quantities of resources, children themselves are not the reason for the alleged problems (which I believe are solvable by science, not effective genocide..)..

Consumer society is largely to blame, as is the movement towards family breakdown and having 6 homes to house 3 generations, when maybe 1 home would be better all round??

Mankind can adapt and shape the world, it does not need to do this by self-destruction..

The end goal is a world-wide, socialist-feminist state. Its proponents, capitalists and communists alike, dream of a world where they can enjoy absolute power over sheeple like us. The wealthy elite power brokers of this upcoming movement toward totalitarianism, really don't like it much when the sheep wake up in the middle of being fleeced. It's kind of like the Matrix really, it's all around us. Carefully assembled and hidden from view for decades, it all seems to be coming into focus.

Wise words. It may be coming into focus for you TSP, but we can't assume that the sheep are awake yet. Surely, most of them slumber on? The environment we grow up in seems normal to us. We only question its normalcy when confronted with a crisis. Only then do we analyse the accepted version of normality and wonder "why does it have to be this way?" Most people don't get that far. There are the sheep and the shepherds. Freethinkers are few and far between.

The population arguments seem to neglect to mention that if the world is overpopulated, it is certainly not, in the west particularly, over populated with young people..
The reality is, no one wants to face up to the reality that the population in the west is heavily skewed by a vast number of older members of society.

... and by immigrants Drex, who are generally more vigorous at breeding than the indiginous population, because they have different priorities.

In a few decades of travel, I've noticed that the the further east one goes the younger the people get. For every grandfather or grandmother there's a dozen grandchildren. It feels right somehow.

The western lifestyle is a black hole. Fewer and older people consume more and more resources and the system is slowly imploding.

Naturally, I exclude from the argument, the delights of this board. A few watts of current and a few slivers of silicon enable particles of pure thought to gently coalesce here on a Avogadrian scale, sucking in still more, as old ideas become repulsive and new ones become attractive. Perhaps a new sun will form??

Quote from Percy

At most, 5% of the 0.04% carbon dioxide in the air comes from human sources such as power plants, cars, oilsands, etc.

The problem with this argument is that in its natural state, the carbon cycle is in balance. Nature absorbs as much as it emits. Humans upset that balance.

It may only be by 3%, but it cumulates over the years, resulting in a 35% increase in CO2 concentration since 1850. Luckily nature is able to absorb back about half of human emissions, otherwise things would have been worse.

I will not dispute there are many uncertainties about climate change, but simplism, politics and conspiracy theories don't help (I know, it holds for all sides).

Well, it's no conspiracy theory that those who oppose global warming in the science community are told to shut the hell up if they know what is good for them, and are threatened with career ruin and even physical attacks on themselves and their families, if they don't tow the line. I just don't buy into the notion that global warming is due to the accumulation of co2 at all. Now I would have in the past, but there exist certain unmistakeable evidences to the contrary, that I was unaware of.

Again, these are: #1. global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto!? and #2. The confirmed existence of a Medieval Warm period. Combine these with a number of leaked scientific facts - ie. the earth is cooler at higher altitudes in direct conflict with the Greenhouse theory, they I think you have strong reason to be skeptical.

Oh, and there's nothing paranoid about suggesting that the United Nations is looking for excuses to push its power base towards world government either. The UN has been advocating for world laws and a world tribunal, as well as for its very own military force.

Add in the Beijing Factor:

The Fourth World Conference on Women:

13. Women's empowerment and their full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, including participation in the decision-making process and access to power, are fundamental for the achievement of equality, development and peace;
14. Women's rights are human rights;
17. The explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the right of all women to control all aspects of their health, in particular their own fertility, is basic to their empowerment.
18. Local, national, regional and global peace is attainable and is inextricably linked with the advancement of women, who are a fundamental force for leadership, conflict resolution and the promotion of lasting peace at all levels;
19. It is essential to design, implement and monitor, with the full participation of women, effective, efficient and mutually reinforcing gender-sensitive policies and programmes, including development policies and programmes, at all levels that will foster the empowerment and advancement of women;
21. The implementation of the Platform for Action requires commitment from Governments and the international community. By making national and international commitments for action, including those made at the Conference, Governments and the international communisty recognize the need to take priority action for the empowerment and advancement of women.
28. Take positive steps to ensure peace for the advancement of women and recognizing the leading role that women have played in the peace movement, work actively towards general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and support negotiations on the conclusion, without delay, of a universal and multilaterally and effectively verifiable comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty which contributes to nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects;
29. Prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls;
36. Ensure the success of the Platform for Action, which will require a strong commitment on the part of Governments, international organizations and institutions at all levels. We are deeply convinced that economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependentand mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development, which is the framework for our efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Equitable social development that recognizes empowering the poor, particularly women living in poverty, to utilize environmental resources sustainably is a necessary doundation for sustainable development. ... ; a commitment to equal rights, equal responsibilities and equal opporunities and to the equal participation of women and men in all national, regional and international bodies and policy-making processes...
38. We hereby adopt and commit ourselves as Governments to implement the following Platform for Action, ensuring that a gender perspective is reflected in all our policies and programmes....

Read through some United Nations policies one day when you have some spare time, and see if you can't find them in your own local and national government policies, programmes and initiatives. I bet you can!

Just by way of a few examples from the above:gender equity programs to ensure entry of more women into the sciences and higher doctoral degrees. Equity in police, fire and ambulance hiring. Preference in university and medical schools...

Violence against women inititatives which completely ignore and exclude violence against men and boys.

Educational initatives for how girls learn best while boys are flunking out at record levels.

The acknowledgement by my national leaders and the media that women in power will result in a more peaceful world, and the commitment of major political parties to ensuring 50:50 distribution of politicians in upcoming elections, regardless of the democratic rights of the constituents.

Our laws, written before we even cast our ballots.

Now an interesting Article on "global warming":


Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne GunterNational Post

Monday, March 12, 2007


Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.

Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.

A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate:

Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."

Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?

At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.

Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

Quote from TheSharpenedPen

global warming on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto

It's strange that Jupiter would be getting warmer by 6 °C in the last few years, while Earth has only gotten warmer by at most 0.1 °C in that time span.

What is happening on Jupiter is that due to the formation of a new Red Spot the atmospheric heat flow from equator to pole is disrupted. This leads to an increase of temperatures at the equator and a decrease at the poles.

Why don't we see similar warming on all planets and satellites? Also, I can find no evidence that the effect gets smaller the farther away from the Sun one gets.

Quote from TheSharpenedPen

the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Then I find it puzzling that there is no correlation between solar output and temperature rise in the last 30 years, when temperatures have risen fastest:



A direct connection between solar output and global warming is too simple.

Again, I know there are valid alternative theories. They just don't seem the most likely based on current understanding.

Lastly, I should note that I *very much* dislike the hijacking of this subject by various political pressure groups.

I'm sure you can find plenty of stats with an upward trend that seem to correlate with the temperature stat.

If the climate is the product of a non-linear system then how can we ever hope to predict the outcome of our counter measures. It's not like we have our hand on the thermostat of the world, as some of these activists suggest. For all we know, we could be making things worse by polluting less.

Some time ago I saw documentary about global dimming. According to that theory, the fact that we were polluting the air was actually helping to cool the earth.

The reason activists make this fuss about GW is that it gives them a stick to beat the corporate world with, their traditional enemy. If GW was caused by emissions from whales, in stead of allowing the whales to be killed, I bet they would argue that such developments are perfectly natural and we should not be so stuck in our ways and accept that the world changes and adjust ourselves.

This is why the mens movement is important.. We are talking about saving the earth, (or modifying it!) we need to ensure that our universities are training the calibre of student required, that resources are not diverted..

Sad Geek says:

It may only be by 3%, but it cumulates over the years, resulting in a 35% increase in CO2 concentration since 1850.

So, in 150 years the concentration has risen from 0. 04% to 0.054, an increase of 0.014%. The arguement still stands. It is still so tiny, one hundreth of one percent per century, that the effects assumed are ridiculous.

Regarding the movement toward One World, this is a trend that has been inexorable since time immemorial. We have gone from small family groups, to small groups of more extended related people, to tribes, to villages, to towns, to cities, to city-States, to more widely dominant city-States, to States, to Nations, to Blocks.

Those blocks, built on several diverse philosophies and recognitions of the role of human beings vis a vis the State, will meld at some point.

It is inevitable that the world will one day be totally united and coherent. Its institutions will be common; its trade and economy will be comprehensive and inclusive; its levels of governance will be contributory to a single governing body.

The issue isn't the continuance of older forms of governance and organisation, but its shape, tone and integrity.

Just as the idea that one current culture should dominate, or one current sex dominate, or one current economic system dominate, is unlikely and frankly daft, the pressures to determine the direction that the future will take is full of competing tensions. A major tension divide, expressed in a variety of ways is Independance vs Common Effort.

The future coherence cannot be built on local or specific systems that currently exist. And it MUST recognise and combine the two sides of the major tension. That tension is inherent in human nature. It must be built on a sound, agreed, conceptual base, unconnected to locality, gender, economy or originator of institution.

The only conceptual externals, commonalities that provide integrity, are Truth, Freedom, Justice, and Equality. To, for, of, by, with and from all people. And God.

It seems that three major forces are at work at the moment to unify the world. The UN, Feminism and Global Warming. Two are built on hysteria and blame. One on a reaction to fear. All three completely dismiss Truth. They are uninterested in Justice; Freedom is reduced and reduce by the day. Equality is a mangled concept that elevated sex and money above all else. God has been declared dead.

Aye, if anyone has read the book 1984 (I read it last week) it suggests that in the future we will basically have a few similiar but competing mega states. I dont think it is part of human social nature to be able exist with no concept of "the enemy" so there will be always a need for at least 2 mega states..

The likely candidates now are China and the US, they are likely to be the superpowers by 2050..

Drex, Orwell, a socialist, saw forward just a small distance. Hardly a seer, but his tone was spot on. he did not pretend that the situation would last forever.

As for the future beyond 1984, which is now 20 years in the past, you are likely right in the short term that the blocks that are entrenching right now (and there are South America and Africa yet to make their mark), America (+Canada and Mexico), China, India - don't forget the 1 point something billion there - Europe etc, will continue their struggle for dominance but that will eventually pass too.

We have, as you say, always had 'in group' and out group. See it that way rather than 'enemy' and things could become different. What of a new group? Non-human. Or even a threat that is non-human but integrating us.

For example, while we are discussing the Environmental changes: Two years ago, at Christmas, overlooked by most people, there was an event that nearly destroyed our whole Planet. An EMP from a star some 50 million light years away, hit us and squashed out magnetosphere to half its normal extent from the surface. Had that star been 20% closer, every living thing here would have fried. All life would have been destroyed.

We are activly looking for Extinction events. Meteorites may hit us and wipe us out. Detection may well bring the world together to combat such an event. It would be as much an 'enemy' to humanity as a sports match is seen as a substitute for war. Just bigger and more final.

There are things that drive humanity forward which have little to do with choice or even understanding. We usually have worked out the 'whys' and 'hows' much later when the change has occurred and the new arrangements become the norm.

Yip, These threats are the biggest threats to our existence.. Mankind (not womankind!) will need to be dealing with it..

I found orwells book interesting, but it seems that we have not "big brother" more like "big sister"..

Looks also like the date 1984 was optimistic..

But we are certainly going down that road in many ways..

Political correctness, the manifestation of "newspeak"..

Doublethink, thoughtcrime and the like..

The state is modifying minds using much stronger psychological methods, however, than predicted in the book..

Who would have guessed that it would be possible for the state to so easily ensure compliance as it seems now?

Forever destracting the proletariat with cheap entertainment "prolefeed" while keeping an eye on everything that is happening..

Creating non-existent threats, such as global warming etc, to keep the populace on their toes..

Kids spying on their parents, its looking real..

The only major difference is that in the book 1984, the party did not actually impose any laws upon the population, it was a completely libertarian state with no laws or restrictions whatsoever.. People were free to do as they chose.. It was just the fact that the penalty for behaving in a manner that "big brother" did not approve of was the risk of torture, death, etc..

Well, first off SadGeek, I've seen similar graphs showing precisely how global warming is complete bunk. If I have time and can figure out how, I'll present them here so that you can contrast them with your own.

The idea that all planets might see similar temperature rises based upon the sun's increased radiation output is not reasonable. Each planet has a different makeup and will heat and cool in different fashions. Pluto's temperature range increase, as well as Mars, fit reasonably well with those experienced on Planet earth. That Jupiter was a sun that didn't quite take, makes it quite an oddity by comparison. What is relevent is that they're all warming up, not by how much - at least not in the case of Jupiter.

The most interesting thing about the debate on global warming, above all else, is that the debate isn't really happening. There simply isn't any acknowledgement of the work of other scientists on this topic, which have tended to tear apart the arguments for a "greenhouse gas" effect.

In reality though, all we need do is create a discourse on the subject of global warming, challenge it, and reveal that is not as unshakeable a theory as many believe it to be. Then we break their stranglehold on power.

Exerpt:


The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, professor and director of the Geoscience Centre, Carleton University
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called “proxies”) is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century’s modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun’s energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth’s atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long, medium and even short time scales.