A Question of Nationality

 

A Question of Nationality

Somehow, it’s become common in most western nations, for straight talking to be interpreted as hate speech where it’s quite possible that prosecution follows. Ironic though that the delegates sitting on the United Nations’ benches just sat glumly when President Trump told the European nations, ‘Your countries are being ruined by migration.’ None of them were brave enough to censure him… at least to his face.

Mass migration was one of the fears predicted by the climate change alarmists, saying the rising oceans were going to swap some countries; so far, there’s been no dangerous sea level rise, but mass migration has happened just the same! The so-called reasons, bad and unfortunate as those things are, aren’t new or different to the past; their countries have been volatile for a long time but there has been no mass exodus. The estimated demographic of migrants flowing into Britain are; 68% adult males, 21% adult women and 11% are children under 18 years old. Why aren’t they all women and children? Why aren’t the men behind fixing the problems they have run away from? Fixing their own country’s problems, may well the answer. Or some unified intervention perhaps? It could be said that young men go ahead and prepare for their families… well isn’t it dangerous to remain for women and children. And families are only going to make the situation more difficult for Britain and Europe.

Consider these quotes from UN officials regarding climate change, ‘It’s a pity we have to dismantle capitalism to fight climate change.’ And, ‘Nations will need to cede their sovereignty to properly fight against climate change.’ Another quote from some professors in a USA university, ‘The way to bring down economies is to flood them with people on welfare.’ And one more observation: The British voted for Brexit, something the European Union didn’t really expect to happen. If Britian was to make a success of being out of the European Union, would other counties want to go their own way too? So as far as the leadership of the European Union is concerned, would they want Britian to be successful?

There’s always been criticism of capitalism, which I’ll get back to, but since 1940. there’s also been a slow move to globalism, a bit like boiling a frog. Dismantling capitalism would mark the demise of democracy as we know it… and that is happened more quickly because the bureaucrats have taken the power away from politicians. There are a number of stakeholders who are pushing the globalisation or world government barrow. It’s led by the United Nations and World Economic Forum but many others have different but similar agendas; one that’s been about for years, and more people are aware of is the Fabian Society; with a wolf in sheep’s clothing as their logo. They too have a number of objectives, but basically a change to social democracy by stealth… which is the antithesis of democracy. But a move to socialism is gaining popularity, gaining a solid foothold in western democracies.

The only certainty in life is change, and if these schemes dreamt up by the likes of the Fabians are by stealth, globalisation and one world government has an ‘air of them and us’ about it. Not a happy place for all… especially with Marxism in the mix. Certainly, the current situation in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, isn’t making for happy places. Flying the national flag is ‘threatening’. Free speech is evaporating and there is a two-tier policing and justice feel. President Trump’s telling off of the UK prime minister said it all. Even language has been weaponised, but this time it’s in order to embarrass ethnic English, Scotch, Welsh and Irish about past historical events, but those who bellyache, should look at their own history. There’s also racism and different forms of bigitory.

One good thing about the climate alarmism is there’s a renewed consciousness about the environment, but few have cottoned on to two wider issues. Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant of threat, and it’s been said that if third world nations want living standards on par with, say, USA, it would require the resources of seven planets. Perhaps that’s just a phrase to show there would be a problem with natural resources. It’s resources, natural or otherwise, where capitalism has its problems. Healthy economies thrive on growth, and growth cannot continue by harvesting resources unabated; this is one of the reasons to dismantle capitalism. But, at what cost and why does socialism have to be the solution? Socialism has never been gentle.

Of course, the globalists are aware of this, hence United Nations’ Agenda 30 for which the western nations have all signed up to. Concerning resources their strategy is a ‘circular economy’, a totally different way of doing things. Detractors say it is the ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ theory, which might be the draconian version of it, but possible. It is strong on recycling and repurposing; it hasn’t been tried, so trust among nonbelievers isn’t high. It is an attempt to address a real problem though. Talking about trust, a reasonable thinker could look at all that is going on in the world, and judge it as all as a huge, purposeful distraction; because in less than five years, 2030 will be here, with it, Agenda 30, and if the strategy is the boiling frog syndrome, too much knowledge will make their imposition of it, all the harder.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat! It’s plain from what we see in Britian and Europe, that mass migration of cultures to another has failed. As a failed experiment it should be stopped, and because the experiment has been wholly purposeful, whatever has been put in place should be easy enough undo. But do you think the British government or the European Union, the bureaucracy or judiciary want it stopped? The United Nations (if it deserves to be retained) should have a role. The populous of Britian and Europe complain that the migrants receive better treatment that their own people, which is true… but if the migrants don’t have food and shelter, they will simply take it, they are there in numbers, and the chaos would make conditions worse. When people become refugees, it is proper for them to go to like cultures and the United Nation’s should have had a role in that; it has always had the responsibility to quell whatever problems there are in those volatile regions, but instead, they a facilitating the entry to countries that they want to deplete of revenue and nationality.

If Socialism was so good, why did all of those countries exit USSR? Why did the people of Hong Kong resist their take over? Why is there a South Korea? Countries formed because of their shared ethnic values; despite historical mistakes, people should take pride in their ethnicity; that way people live in a relatively comfortable peace… take the conflicts that are going on right now, what a waste of resources and human life. Socialism has never cared about human life… the end result is all that matters.

There’s powerful merit in the idea of national identity… sovereignty; it has served us well for centuries. Nevertheless, we do have to be conscious of resources… and perhaps there is a case for lifting poor countries out of poverty, but by how much? And who is to say? The more progress they make, the more resources they will need… what about rich countries? Is there a case for dismantling the throwaway/consumer culture and take back the jobs that technology has taken away? Are we prepared for manual work? And can the welfare culture survive, when humans again become a resource; everyone will need to be productive?

It doesn’t matter if it’s the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, a bunch of oligarchs, big corporates, the European Union, Fabians, the Musim Brotherhood or political parties, if they have an agenda, or an ideology… just stop! Somehow, left alone things have a developed pretty well; evolution. When imposing a new or different system, even with the best of intentions, there are always unforeseen outcomes, usually bad, and some of the intentions are usually seen as nefarious by others and when that happens, no good results.

We have but four years to change their minds.

 

 

 

What They Won't Talk About at COP#)

 

 

 

What Won’t be Talked About at COP30

 

Somewhere in the Amazon forest, there’s climate hand-wringing going on, which will continue long after the talkfest because against the tide, some politicians have plucked up the courage to take their foot off the net zero pedal. Gwynne Dyer (ODT 13.11.25) was still waxing lyrical about the old ‘1.5°C above pre-industrial revolution levels’ narrative. But the narrative lack wisdom, and is easily dispelled through simple logic, without involving complicated science. Let’s ask a simple question, ‘When exactly, is pre-industrial revolution?’ The industrial revolution is said to have occurred between 1750 and 1850, and for sure, since 1850 the planet has warmed somewhat. But blaming carbon dioxide is glossing over some important facts. 1750, was towards the tail end of the 1330 – 1850 little ice age. So, the start point of the ‘pre-industrial revolution’ myth must be somewhere in the middle of an ice age! Why would anyone think the planet’s best or safest temperature would be only 1.5°C above the middle of an ice age? Yes, some may say the little ice age wasn’t worldwide, but we do know that during that period the Thames river was frozen over, our two West Coast glaciers reached the sea, and Argentina’s glaciers were bigger back then. And there another key question, ‘How do ice ages end, if it isn’t with warming?’

 

The little ice age was caused by four known climate-related cycles reaching their minimum at roughly the same time; Wolf, Spöres. Maunder and Dalton. The cold was further compounded by more than usual volcanic activity which sometimes blocked the sun. When those events passed after 520 years, slow natural warming from the sun occurred, which reduced sea ice and snow cover, and therefore, the amount of reflected heat, which allowed further warming.  The climate change lobbyists, erroneously attribute atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuels as the sole cause. Carbon dioxide is a critical gas; around 1850, atmospheric carbon dioxide was at a historical low, barely enough to support plant growth, which is why poverty and disease reigned in the UK and elsewhere. The records are available. Food shortages, disease and superstition are symptoms of scant food production and cold. Without doubt, its cold that is the enemy of humanity. Since 1900, the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased the world’s green vegetation by 30%, the equivalent of three Amazon forests, and since 1900 nature herself, has released four times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than human activity. The litmus test of carbon dioxide’s usefulness, is that world life expectancy has doubled and crop yields are at historical highs. It’s also known that as the oceans warm, they release carbon dioxide, but not necessarily by the sun alone; ocean warming also comes from the ocean’s volcanic activity; fissures and volcanoes; there are about a million of them. Any human cause of warming is most likely from land use… cutting forest and scrubland, bared soils and the heat-island effect of towns and cities.

 

COP30 is bound to talk about sea level rise and how much compensation can be squeezed out of the west. Charles Darwin showed how coral atolls grow, and sure enough, Tuvalu, one nations seeking compensation, has grown 8% over the last forty years. Going back 12,000 years, there was a big block of ice over the northern hemisphere that was, in places, a mile thick. To understand this, think of a raw egg, without its shell, but with the thin membrane underneath the shell. This represents the planet; it’s crust and molten core. Push down on it and it will bulge somewhere else. Ok, back to the northern hemisphere; the weight of the ice pushed the crust down, causing some of the southern hemisphere to rise in sympathy. When the ice disappeared, there has been a slow rebound and still, parts of Canada and Europe are rising, which means some of the southern hemisphere is sinking in sympathy. Remember the one million fissures and volcanoes under the ocean? The Icelandic Laki fissure eruption of 1783/84 spewed up fourteen cubic kilometres of lava - its gas resulted in the death of 6 million. Nobody knows how many of the million undersea fissures and volcanoes are active at once but their eruptions will alter the sea level to some extent. And then there’s geological activity of erosion on the land. For example, our Southern Alps are made of greywacke; metamorphosed sandstone, which means it was once a mountain in Gondwanaland, the mountain eroded to sand, which lay on the ocean floor; the Pacific plate. For 25-30 million years the Pacific plate has been subducting under the Australasian plate, thus ‘cooking’ the sandstone and pushing it up to form the Alps… and they too are eroding about as fast as they are growing… which is how the Canterbury plains formed. The rivers carry the eroded material seaward. Gravity and extreme weather events are the forces that reduce mountains to peneplains; flat and featureless land. So where do the eroded mountains and other land features go? Either into the sea to eventually to be recycled by tectonic plate movement, or to add to the land; all of which alters the sea level. Sea ice melt cannot raise the sea level because it is already in the sea but ice and snow melt on land can. When someone suggests that sea levels are rising, it’s simplistic to say the cause is solely a minor greenhouse gas. But observationally and uncannily, there seems to be a sort of equilibrium. What must be understood about the geology of this planet, is that extreme weather events and geology go hand in hand and floodplains are often the result; they are fertile areas, ideal for growing food, but sooner or later they will flood again, which should raise a red flag for proposed infrastructure. But somehow, the COP30 lobbyists have forgotten that the geological processes of the planet, although slow, will continue relentlessly, as they always have.

 

When governments try to mitigate climate change with net zero policies, it’s important to know from what to what, and for what outcome … it’s far too complicated to be certain. Additionally, there are ‘unpredictable anomalies’ like the Laki eruption which changed the climate for two years; the Tongan undersea eruption, which loaded the stratosphere with moisture that caused flooding around the world; silt-makers like cyclone Gabriel with the aftermath of excellent crops, random heatwaves, cold spells, droughts, all of which may have widespread or local effects, but they do not necessarily signal climate change. Such anomalies have always been.  So, when the United Nations, COP30 and governments propose net zero policies, someone needs to ask the question.

 

 

Buraucracy

 

Bureaucracy

 A mate of mine is up before the court for disturbing a watercourse, which will likely end up costing him a barrel of money, and fair enough, some may think he deserves the penalty, but before jumping to conclusions, let me explain. The law was set when I was a forest ranger back in the ‘80’s… and I guess that working for the government, I too was a bureaucrat, and because we were a government department, we had to know, and tried to comply with the rules set down by office-bound bureaucrats who influenced the politicians but actually pushed paper with no real experience about the practical realities. And those of you who support the penalty, very likely have never owned or been responsible for a sizable parcel of land.

 The rule was, ‘water courses must not be disturbed, and a watercourse is where water flows regularly or infrequently.’ Think about the infrequently bit… when it rains, water flows down the slightest folds of land, where sometimes a mere trickle passes… which may be construed as a watercourse by nosey bureaucrats. Your footpath could be one. So, when we were logging, machinery couldn’t pass through those folds nor could we pull logs through them. Now I’m an environmentalist, and I understand that the world’s water is in peril… I also understand that it is ideal to keep silt out of water, but nevertheless, the rule makes ordinary operations unworkable.

 For instance, we totally ignored the rule when we were roading… of course we needed access so the roadline crossed many waterways, and in creeks and streams we built culverts where vertebrates and invertebrates would have been disturbed or even killed. We couldn’t avoid silt getting into the watercourse either, so we didn’t try. But because of the actions of geology, silt will always find its way into waterways sooner or later on its way to the sea… it’s a part of the natural process.

 We are under attack from bureaucrats, but we usually blame the politicians, who are culpable in that they don’t stand up for the general populace. The government taxes a fair whack out of our income, and they grab another handful from every service we use and everything purchase through a goods and services tax… another fifteen percent is creamed off. We call them ‘rates’, our council charges what amounts to be a property tax which pays for our town roads and street lighting, utilities as well as other services, but they have slowly become involved in non-core activities that are pet projects of the councillors… or the bureaucrats within, or through tules set down by governments. And then there’s the regional council who cover a much larger area, these people are responsible for ‘environmental’ matters but also have their dibs in compliance for many works, or allowing innovation. Our one didn’t really need a new office block, but they built a palace anyway, with the resultant inflation of the rate bill… twenty years ago, an hour’s pay was enough per annum to keep the council going, but nowadays, we’re paying a week’s wage every three months!

 Here's another earlier, encounter: One day I received a phone call from a bureaucrat attached to the old Lands and Survey Department, ‘because they wanted my expertise to gather evidence fit the prosecution of a sheep run for burning some snow tussock’. I was responsible for fires we used as a tool to prepare land for tree planting. It was quite a journey to the homestead, so I headed off at the appropriate time… I could have travelled with the Lands and Survey team, but they were a bit anti-forestry for my liking. Arriving earlier than them Frank’s missus made a cup of tea for us, and over the teacups, he told me the Lands and Survey were going to fine him $20,000, which was a heap of money in those days. Soon the Lands and Survey guys turned up in their flash vehicle, dressed in ‘farmer going-out-gear’ although they were straight-out townies. And straight away I could tell the young bucks had no farming or burning experience, which I supposed was why they called me in. They oozed friendship, while in the back of their minds, they wanted to rip $20,000 out of Frank’s pocket! I travelled with Frank out to the site in his vehicle to show them I wasn’t necessarily on their side… my message zipped over their heads.

 The site was a shady face of about 200 hectares and still black from the burn, which, was nice and clean; any farmer, or indeed forester, would have been pleased with it. Frank had done the right thing and applied of a burning permit from us because he was a neighbour to the forest, he also had to get one also from the Lands and Survey Department. Their permit stipulated that there had to be ten percent snow cover at the time of burning and that he wasn’t permitted to burn in a northwest wind. The danger, it said, was that the fire would kill the snow tussock. Now, first you have to figure out why he wanted to burn the snow tussock. The reason is that when mature, snow tussock is unpalatable for sheep, it grows to waist height and holds moisture which makes the sheep’s wool cotty because of the dampness… cotty wool is low-valued. However, after burning, the soft regrowth is very palatable to sheep and allows clovers to grow between. The other factor is that during summer, the dry tussock becomes a fire hazard from lightning strike and left unburnt, such fires are difficult to control.

 Frank had alerted me the he was going to burn, and I’d seen the smoke from the fire that day; it was blowing a bit from the  nor’west, but because it was back-burning down the hill, I knew it wasn’t dangerous to the forest, so I’d put it out of my mind. Frank tried to explain his position to the three but they were officious and didn’t really listen. Thinking I was on their side, they asked my opinion, and I gave it: ‘Do you guys seriously expect Danthonia to burn with ten percent snow cover?’ I asked, and they just looked at me. ‘That’s just nonsense, you are silly to demand it. Here on these hills with high humidity due to the coastal air, there are only a few days of the year that are suitable for burning and that is when a nor’west wind dries out the foliage properly. Frank is either allowed or not allowed to burn the tussock and if he is not, Lands and Survey should buy the land and retire it or pay Frank compensation for not farming it. I’m prepared to say that in court if it comes to it. Anyway, take a look! Every tussock clump is regrowing! Come on, show me one that isn’t.’ And we walked them over the area until they had seen enough. They were wearing cream moleskin trousers, which didn’t thrill them, because of the black ash that rose as we walked. And they were none too happy because they couldn’t find a single tussock that wasn’t regrowing. Frank phoned me a few days later to say he had heard from the ivory-tower Lands and Survey office, that they had dropped the case… which of course. was the right thing to do.

 While this sort of thing continues, and with consents and regulations on the increase, the bureaucrats too increase, making any money in your bank account flow out quickly. We are losing initiative and our rights, which threatens what democracy we have left. Liz Truss (ex-PM of Britian) said, ‘You’d expect a prime minister to be able to tell the navy to keep the boat people from invading our country. But the secretary of the Home Office, would not accept the order, saying, ‘It would be illegal to do so, because the nation has signed up to the United Nations’ Human Rights Convention.’ Governments have signed up all sort of United Nations declarations which are crippling nations, particularly the west. I’ll highlight one; the Paris climate accord and faux climate emergency. Since 1900… the aftermath of the little ice age, the global temperature has risen by 1.3°C. The following has been the effect on mankind: the population is five times greater; life expectancy has risen by 130%; literacy is up by 400%; GDP is 6.8% stronger; food production is up by 34%; extreme poverty is down by 700%; the weather death rate is down by 500%... all of which indicates the planet is doing quite well, so where’s the emergency?

 We have CEO’s welding more power than prime ministers, and CEO’s wielding more power than mayors. In my country, we have a centre-right government after a very leftist government… and while public or civil servants are supposed to be apolitical and work responsibly for any incoming democratically elected government… this time they have been actively working against our government. Worse, the previous government employed extra public servants just before the handover with long-term contracts and to pay them out is unaffordable in the current environment… an act that was undemocratic, uneconomic and corrupt. But they are not held to account because the mainstream media are with them.

 How does this come about? School teachers are among the public servants; universities, hallowed halls they may have been, but robust debate no longer exists on certain issues, but have they have staunch, even Marxist political ideologies where truths can’t be told and hard work is disincentivised. Logic and critical thinking can’t be tolerated so people use them are cancelled. For a couple (at least) of generations these people have entered the workforce infiltrating government departments, the judiciary, police and the media. This country isn’t alone in this… but can the ship be turned around?

 The iron fist of globalism is closing on the individual… who has heard of the UN’s 2015 Sendai Framework? It’s purported to make the world a safer place… preventing disasters by kicking people off their properties ‘for their own sake… and the sake of the environment’.