What’s more nefarious than the UN’s Paris Agreement?

Perhaps you thought that the UN’s Paris Agreement was nefarious.  But the Paris Agreement is nothing compared to this UN agreement.  Here is an analysis:


Here’s the agreement.  https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf

And here are two UN IPCC explaining the global warming/climate change agenda in their own words.   Short video.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bvE8hkB1Tc



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The tragedy of so-called “progressives”

In his post below, David Chaney probes so-called “progressive” collectivism. So-called “progressives” never learned or were mistaught the lesson of the Tragedy of the Commons, mistaught probably by a Red Diaper Baby or a descendant of one. I call them so-called “progressives” because they are not progressive at all, but instead they are regressive to behaviors back in time to the centuries of feudalism, when kings, queens, emperors, sultans and caliphs owned everything including the people. You and everything you accumulated were property then, and that is exactly UN/EU globalist elite dogma today, whether you believe it or not. Today, so-called “progressives” are rushing backwards to those same class identity times and behaviors, when you bowed to and paid your ruler through his vassals with your goods and your life, submitting to political correctness enforced by the ruling elite classes assumed to be noble. Your natural adaptive ability to discern right from wrong has been defeated by propaganda, but you are not aware of that fact. Hail Caesar! You are in the throngs waiting for crumbs and circuses, waiting for your naked emperor to remove your guilt and victimhood, manipulated to madness or violence by the town crier. “Et tu, Brute?”

The following is a post by David Chaney:

“Fools weren’t just invented yesterday… “progressive” collectivism of all genres is simply the end state of characterless and foolish societies that have dominated history. It takes an exceptional people to be free–and aggregately as a society we no longer are that exceptional people of character. We’ve been lulled by proverbial hook and crook into serfdom. Carry on, suckas.

“Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths. Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naïvely, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books” — Étienne de La Boétie, 16th Century French political philosopher in his “Discourse on Servitude” (ht Phil Pausmer for this excellent quotation)

The following is by the playwright Arthur Miller, February 27, 1949

Tragedy and the Common Man


In this age few tragedies are written. It has often been held that the lack is due to a paucity of heroes among us, or else that modern man has had the blood drawn out of his organs of belief by the skepticism of science, and the heroic attack on life cannot feed on an attitude of reserve and circumspection. For one reason or another, we are often held to be below tragedy-or tragedy above us. The inevitable conclusion is, of course, that the tragic mode is archaic, fit only for the very highly placed, the kings or the kingly, and where this admission is not made in so many words it is most often implied.

I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were. On the face of it this ought to be obvious in the light of modern psychiatry, which bases its analysis upon classific formulations, such as Oedipus and Orestes complexes, for instances, which were enacted by royal beings, but which apply to everyone in similar emotional situations.

More simply, when the question of tragedy in art is not at issue, we never hesitate to attribute to the well-placed and the exalted the very same mental processes as the lowly. And finally, if the exaltation of tragic action were truly a property of the high-bred character alone, it is inconceivable that the mass of mankind should cherish tragedy above all other forms, let alone be capable of understanding it.

As a general rule, to which there may be exceptions unknown to me, I think the tragic feeling is evoked in us when we are in the presence of a character who is ready to lay down his life, if need be, to secure one thing-his sense of personal dignity. From Orestes to Hamlet, Medea to Macbeth, the underlying struggle is that of the individual attempting to gain his “rightful” position in his society.

Sometimes he is one who has been displaced from it, sometimes one who seeks t attain it for the first time, but the fateful wound from which the inevitable events spiral is the wound of indignity and its dominant force is indignation. Tragedy, then, is the consequence of a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly.

In the sense of having been initiated by the hero himself, the tale always reveals what has been called his “tragic flaw,” a failing that is not peculiar to grand or elevated characters. Nor is it necessarily a weakness. The flaw, or crack in the characters, is really nothing-and need be nothing, but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lot without active retaliation, are “flawless.” Most of us are in that category.

But there are among us today, as there always have been, those who act against the scheme of things that degrades them, and in the process of action everything we have accepted out of fear of insensitivity or ignorance is shaken before us and examined, and from this total onslaught by an individual against the seemingly stable cosmos surrounding us-from this total examination of the “unchangeable” environment-comes the terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy. More important, from this total questioning of what has previously been unquestioned, we learn. And such a process is not beyond the common man. In revolutions around the world, these past thirty years, he has demonstrated again and again this inner dynamic of all tragedy.

Insistence upon the rank of the tragic hero, or the so-called nobility of his character, is really but a clinging to the outward forms of tragedy. If rank or nobility of character was indispensable, then it would follow that the problems of those with rank were the particular problems of tragedy. But surely the right of one monarch to capture the domain from another no longer raises our passions, nor are our concepts of justice what they were to the mind of an Elizabethan king.

The quality in such plays that does shake us, however, derives from the underlying fear of being displaced, the disaster inherent in being torn away from our chosen image of what and who we are in this world. Among us today this fear is strong, and perhaps stronger, than it ever was. In fact, it is the common man who knows this fear best.

Now, if it is true that tragedy is the consequence of a man’s total compulsion to evaluate himself justly, his destruction in the attempt posits a wrong or an evil in his environment. And this is precisely the morality of tragedy and its lesson. The discovery of the moral law, which is what the enlightenment of tragedy consists of, is not the discovery of some abstract or metaphysical quantity.

The tragic right is a condition of life, a condition in which the human personality is able to flower and realize itself. The wrong is the condition which suppresses man, perverts the flowing out of his love and creative instinct. Tragedy enlightens-and it must, in that it points the heroic finger at the enemy of man’s freedom. The thrust for freedom is the quality in tragedy which exalts. The revolutionary questioning of the stable environment is what terrifies. In no way is the common man debarred from such thoughts or such actions.

Seen in this light, our lack of tragedy may be partially accounted for by the turn which modern literature has taken toward the purely psychiatric view of life, or the purely sociological. If all our miseries, our indignities, are born and bred within our minds, then all action, let alone the heroic action, is obviously impossible.

And if society alone is responsible for the cramping of our lives, then the protagonist must needs be so pure and faultless as to force us to deny his validity as a character. From neither of these views can tragedy derive, simply because neither represents a balanced concept of life. Above all else, tragedy requires the finest appreciation by the writer of cause and effect.

No tragedy can therefore come about when its author fears to question absolutely everything, when he regards any institution, habit or custom as being either everlasting, immutable or inevitable. In the tragic view the need of man to wholly realize himself is the only fixed star, and whatever it is that hedges his nature and lowers it is ripe for attack and examination. Which is not to say that tragedy must preach revolution.

The Greeks could probe the very heavenly origin of their ways and return to confirm the rightness of laws. And Job could face God in anger, demanding his right and end in submission. But for a moment everything is in suspension, nothing is accepted, and in this sketching and tearing apart of the cosmos, in the very action of so doing, the character gains “size,” the tragic stature which is spuriously attached to the royal or the high born in our minds. The commonest of men may take on that stature to the extent of his willingness to throw all he has into the contest, the battle to secure his rightful place in the world.

There is a misconception of tragedy with which I have been struck in review after review, and in many conversations with writers and readers alike. It is the idea that tragedy is of necessity allied to pessimism. Even the dictionary says nothing more about the word than that it means a story with a sad or unhappy ending. This impression is so firmly fixed that I almost hesitate to claim that in truth tragedy implies more optimism in its author than does comedy, and that its final result ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker’s brightest opinions of the human animal.

For, if it is true to say that in essence the tragic hero is intent upon claiming his whole due as a personality, and if this struggle must be total and without reservation, then it automatically demonstrates the indestructible will of man to achieve his humanity.

The possibility of victory must be there in tragedy. Where pathos rules, where pathos is finally derived, a character has fought a battle he could not possibly have won. The pathetic is achieved when the protagonist is, by virtue of his witlessness, his insensitivity, or the very air he gives off, incapable of grappling with a much superior force.

Pathos truly is the mode for the pessimist. But tragedy requires a nicer balance between what is possible and what is impossible. And it is curious, although edifying, that the plays we revere, century after century, are the tragedies. In them, and in them alone, lies the belief-optimistic, if you will, in the perfectibility of man.

It is time, I think, that we who are without kings, took up this bright thread of our history and followed it to the only place it can possibly lead in our time-the heart and spirit of the average man.




Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The real agenda behind climate change

Here it is in the words of UN and UN IPCC executives:

What’s the real agenda behind climate change alarmism?


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A new U.S. dollar if you dare

The Russians have been interfering in American elections since the Russian Revolution. Americans have been interfering with Russian elections since WWII. Where’s the beef? Just more sour grapes from sore losers attempting to cover up the corruption of so-called “progressive” politicians.

American voters have soundly rejected so-called “progressive” values and their agenda. During Obama’s 8 years in office, Democrats lost a net of more than 1000 elected offices at the national and state level. RINO Republicans are also losing offices. Trump ran against them all and won. Since the agenda of so-called “progressives” in both parties, which includes almost all of mainstream media, has been rejected, now all they have left is to run against Trump to try to stop him from reversing Obama’s policies. Trump is rapidly, on a daily basis, reversing many Obama’s policies.

Unfortunately though, Trump is continuing the fully bipartisan neo-con regime change wars of hegemony by the military industrial complex started by Brzezinski under Jimmy Carter. And neither has Trump drained the festering sore, the treasonous swamp that is the U.S. secret intelligence agencies.

We need to make peace and business with the Russians while keeping our head about us. Trump is the only negotiator since Kennedy with the skills to accomplish that. Ever since Stalin, it has been Russian policy to diminish U.S. power, prestige and confidence.  Putin is no different.  But could he become so?  Today the U.S. has more in common with Russians than we do with the EU, except that Hungary, Czech, Romania, Poland are good allies. The U.S. can no longer be allied with western Europe because of their infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose mission is nothing less than global domination, under the color of authority provided by the United Nations and European Union. Italy and Greece will fall soon to the Islamic invasion and debt. Business in western EU nations will crash hard now. The European Central Bank (ECB) is unable to rescue Italy and Greece, and a major financial and humanitarian crisis will accelerate, but the U.S. under Trump will not bail them out on the backs of U.S. taxpayers.

If the U.S. Federal Reserve tries to bail out the ECB, that will instigate a crisis between the Trump administration which will have congressional and popular support versus the Federal Reserve. That crisis is likely to result in the re-nationalization of the U.S. dollar under the U.S. Treasury, which of course reports to the President, to replace the current global $200 TRILLION U.S. dollar-based debt bubble built by the Federal Reserve Notes piled onto the full faith and credit of U.S. taxpayers. We will have a new U.S. dollar based on reserves of some kind. However, despite the profligate 100+ years of progressive annual devaluation of the wealth of U.S. citizens by the quasi-private banking industry known as the Federal Reserve System, is it a good idea and time to give the U.S. federal government more power?

The U.S. also needs a new mainstream media of record. Call it Radio Free America. Mainstream media in America is now the cover story for sedition and resistance to our republican government by the people and for the people.

“If I haven’t made it clear, let me do so now. The behavior of much of the media, but especially The New York Times, was a disgrace. I don’t believe it will ever recover the public trust it squandered.” …

“The 2016 election was the media’s Humpty Dumpty moment…In case there is any doubt, 2017 is confirming that the standards are still dead. The orgy of visceral Trump-bashing continues unabated.”

Quotes from Michael Goodwin, Chief Political Columnist for the New York Post, journalism professor at Columbia Univ Graduate School of Journalism, former reporter and City Hall Bureau Chief at The New York Times.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming

“The precautionary principle has been invoked to justify a policy of aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) emission controls that would go beyond “no regrets” actions to reduce global warming. However, this justification is based upon selectively applying the principle to the potential public health and environmental consequences of global warming but not to the adverse consequences of such a policy. This report attempts to rectify this one-sided application of the precautionary principle. It finds that such a policy, despite its claim to be precautionary, would, in fact, be incautious in many areas because it has a high likelihood of increasing overall risks to public health and the environment. Specifically, GHG emission reduction requirements that go beyond secular improvements in technology and elimination of unjustified energy subsidies could retard economic development, leading to greater hunger, poorer health, and higher mortality, especially in developing countries. Moreover, higher oil and gas prices would reduce food availability and would also retard switching from solid fuels to more environmentally benign fuels for heating and cooking in households of the developing world. Indoor air pollution resulting from current heating and cooking practices in these nations is a major source of premature deaths. A truly precautionary principle argues, instead, for focusing on solving current problems that may be aggravated by climate change, and on increasing society’s adaptability and decreasing its vulnerability to environmental problems in general and climate change in particular. These could be achieved by bolstering the mutually-reinforcing forces of technological change, economic growth, and trade. Moreover, enhancing adaptability and reducing vulnerability will raise the thresholds at which greenhouse gas concentrations could become “dangerous.”” ~ Abstract to the paper at the link below by Indur Goklany


Murray Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy Washington University in St. Louis Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming (PDF Download Available).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Global socialists vs. national capitalists

The climate accord is another vehicle to transport wealth to struggling socialist systems.

The author, Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016).


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The fantasy of wind and solar renewables

“The fantasy of quick and easy renewable energy” is the headline of this Fellow at The Brooking Institutions, the liberal, so-called “progressive” think tank. She and her references are still true believers in catastrophic human-caused global warming, but she and one reference rebut other true believers that “overly optimistic analyses and assumptions can get in the way of true progress toward decarbonizing.”


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Progressive Case for Reducing Immigration, according to a Progressive

The author is a so-called “progressive,” a former graduate student in American History at University of Georgia, “a budding environmental activist” working to kill the Oconee River dam project, now professor of philosophy and an affiliated faculty member in the School of Global Environmental Sustainability at Colorado State University at Fort Collins.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Obama EPA claims on soot/coal deaths refuted in peer-reviewed science

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first claimed in 1996 that fine particles emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes — that is, soot — caused 15,000 Americans to die prematurely every year. Over the years, EPA escalated its body count to the point where first Obama EPA administrator Lisa Jackson testified to Congress in 2011 that fine particulate matter in the air (PM2.5) killed 570,000 Americans per year. That’s almost one-in-four annual deaths in the U.S. The United Nations adopted the EPA’s PM2.5 [i.e. fine particulates in the air] claims and extrapolated them into a global claim of 6.5 million deaths annually caused by soot.”

“The Obama administration used the EPA’s PM2.5 claim to destroy the U.S. coal industry with its various war-on-coal rules. Oddly enough, the Obama administration’s climate rules and “social cost of carbon” metric all depend on the notion that PM2.5 kills. The claimed effects of carbon dioxide pale in comparison.”

“So does PM2.5 actually kill that many people? Or really anyone at all? A new study just published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology drives a stake through the heart of EPA’s claims.”

Highlights (quoted from the science paper)

• California air quality and daily deaths are analyzed, 2000–2012.

• An extensive sensitivity analysis is done; 78,624 models are computed.

• No association of acute deaths with levels of PM2.5 or ozone is found.

• The data set and analysis code are made publicly available.

• With no association, causation is called into question for California.

Conclusion by the scientists, at this link: “The present paper adds to that literature by showing that, even by applying a variety of different statistical methods, we were unable to find any association between daily mortality and either PM 2.5 or ozone in what we believe to be the only public dataset based entirely on data since the 1997 revision of air pollution standards. Therefore, we conclude that the case for further revision of those standards is unproven at the present time.” https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.03062.pdf

Quotes above, except the scientists’ conclusion, are from the following publication:  http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-behind-the-scientific-fraud-that-claims-air-pollution-is-killing-people/wcm/c076478d-92f0-4c60-b81b-9daf3815cad1

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Shouting at windmills

“Whereas 300 tonnes of steel in a combined cycle gas turbine can use natural gas to produce a generator with a capacity of 600 MW [i.e. 600 Megawatts or 600 million watts, or 2 thousand Watts per kg of steel] the same kilogram of steel in the nacelle of a wind turbine contributes 2 Watts of capacity, and once the concrete in the plinth and foundation of a wind turbine is included the ratio deteriorates still further.”

~ Date: 05/07/17, Prof Michael J Kelly, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0FA, UK



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment