Happy Christmas and a Peaceful New Year - from THE OTIUM POST
The Otium Post
12/12/2015
Father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'
James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'
The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’
Oliver Milman@olliemilman
Sunday 13 December 201500.33 GMT
Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.
But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.
The Guardian - 12 Dec 2015:>
Hansen, 74, has just returned from Paris where he again called for a price to be placed on each tonne of carbon from major emitters (he’s suggested a “fee” – because “taxes scare people off” – of $15 a tonne that would rise $10 a year and bring in $600bn in the US alone). There aren’t many takers, even among “big green” as Hansen labels environment groups.
Hansen has been a nagging yet respected voice on climate change since he shot to prominence in the summer of 1988. The Nasa scientists, who had been analyzing changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s, told a congressional committee that something called the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere was causing global warming with a 99% certainty.
A New York Times report of the 1988 testimony includes the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide”, a plea familiar to those who have watched politicians who have traipsed up to the lectern or interviewer’s microphone in Paris over the past two weeks.
After that, things started to get a little difficult for Hansen. He claims the White House altered subsequent testimony, given in 1989, and that Nasa appointed a media overseer who vetted what he said to the press. They held practice press conferences where any suggestion that fossil fuels be reduced was considered political and unscientific, and therefore should not be uttered.
“Scientists are trained to be objective,” Hansen says. “I don’t think we should be prevented for talking about the the implications of science.” He retired from Nasa in 2013. “That was a source of friction. I held on longer than I wanted, by a year or two. I was in my 70s, it was time for someone else to take over. Now I feel a lot better.”
“We all foolishly had such high hopes for Obama, to articulate things, to be like Roosevelt and have fireside chats to explain to the public why we need to have a rising fee on carbon in order to move to clean energy,” he says. “But he’s not particularly good at that. He didn’t make it a priority and now it’s too late for him.”
Hansen is just as scathing of leading Republicans who have embraced climate science denialism to the chagrin of some party elders.
Leading presidential candidates Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson have all derided evidence that the world is warming due to human activity while Ted Cruz, another contender, has taken time out from his campaign to to sit on an inquiry into climate science that has heard testimony from a rightwing radio host who has no scientific background.
Advertisement
“It’s all embarrassing really,” Hansen says. “After a while you realise as a scientist that politicians don’t act rationally.
“Many of the conservatives know climate change is not a hoax. But those running for president are hamstrung by the fact they think they can’t get the nomination if they say this is an issue. They wouldn’t get money from the fossil fuel industry.”
There is a positive note to end on, however. Global emissions have somewhat stalled and Hansen believes China, the world’s largest emitter, will now step up to provide the leadership lacking from the US. A submerged Fifth Avenue and deadly heatwaves aren’t an inevitability.
“I think we will get there because China is rational,” Hansen says. “Their leaders are mostly trained in engineering and such things, they don’t deny climate change and they have a huge incentive, which is air pollution. It’s so bad in their cities they need to move to clean energies. They realise it’s not a hoax. But they will need co-operation.”
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
The Guardian - 12 Dec 2015:>
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Bilderberg climate swindle in 2003: >
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
As in 2003, the Bilderberg Group is using the climate change again to keep the people in fear.
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
The former Nasa scientist criticizes the talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, as ‘no action, just promises’
‘Many of the conservatives know climate change is not a hoax,’
James Hansen says. Photograph: Murdo MacLeod for the Guardian
Oliver Milman@olliemilman
Sunday 13 December 201500.33 GMT
Mere mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanor changes.
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.
Paris climate talks: delegates reach agreement on final draft text
The Guardian - 12 Dec 2015:>
Hansen, 74, has just returned from Paris where he again called for a price to be placed on each tonne of carbon from major emitters (he’s suggested a “fee” – because “taxes scare people off” – of $15 a tonne that would rise $10 a year and bring in $600bn in the US alone). There aren’t many takers, even among “big green” as Hansen labels environment groups.
Hansen has been a nagging yet respected voice on climate change since he shot to prominence in the summer of 1988. The Nasa scientists, who had been analyzing changes in the Earth’s climate since the 1970s, told a congressional committee that something called the “greenhouse effect” where heat-trapped gases are released into the atmosphere was causing global warming with a 99% certainty.
A New York Times report of the 1988 testimony includes the radical suggestion that there should be a “sharp reduction in the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide”, a plea familiar to those who have watched politicians who have traipsed up to the lectern or interviewer’s microphone in Paris over the past two weeks.
After that, things started to get a little difficult for Hansen. He claims the White House altered subsequent testimony, given in 1989, and that Nasa appointed a media overseer who vetted what he said to the press. They held practice press conferences where any suggestion that fossil fuels be reduced was considered political and unscientific, and therefore should not be uttered.
“Scientists are trained to be objective,” Hansen says. “I don’t think we should be prevented for talking about the the implications of science.” He retired from Nasa in 2013. “That was a source of friction. I held on longer than I wanted, by a year or two. I was in my 70s, it was time for someone else to take over. Now I feel a lot better.”
FacebookTwitterPinterest A man rides his bicycle on yellow paint poured on the street during a protest by activists from environmental group Greenpeace on the Champs-Elysee in Paris. Photograph: Christophe Ena/AP
From being possibly America’s most celebrated scientist, Hansen is now probably its most prominent climate activist. He’s been arrested several times in protests outside the White House over mining and the controversial Keystone pipeline extension.
Advertisement
He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University. When he’s in New York, he lives near the campus, surrounded by books piled on groaning shelves. Hansen’s not slowing down – he’s involved in a climate lobbying group and still undertakes the sort of scientific endeavor which helps maintain his gravitas.
One particular paper, released in July, painted a particularly bleak future for just about anyone living near the coast. Hansen and 16 colleagues found that Earth’s huge ice sheets, such as those found in Greenland, are melting faster than expected, meaning that even the 2C warming limit is “highly dangerous”.
The sea level could soon be up to five meters higher than it is today by the latter part of this century, unless greenhouse gases aren’t radically slashed, the paper states. This would inundate many of the world’s cities, including London, New York, Miami and Shanghai.
“More than half of the world’s cities of the world are at risk,” Hansen says. “If you talk to glaciologists privately they will tell you they are very concerned we are locking in much more significant sea level rises than the ice sheet models are telling us.
“The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down. You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. We just can’t let that happen. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline.”
The paper has yet to be fully peer reviewed and some of Hansen’s colleagues, including his protege at Nasa, Gavin Schmidt, have voiced their doubts whether sea level rise will be quite this bad, with the IPCC projecting up to a meter by 2100.
Brickbats are thrown in a bipartisan way. Hansen feels Obama, who has made climate change a legacy issue in his final year in office, has botched the opportunity to tackle the issue.
From being possibly America’s most celebrated scientist, Hansen is now probably its most prominent climate activist. He’s been arrested several times in protests outside the White House over mining and the controversial Keystone pipeline extension.
Advertisement
He is also an adjunct professor at Columbia University. When he’s in New York, he lives near the campus, surrounded by books piled on groaning shelves. Hansen’s not slowing down – he’s involved in a climate lobbying group and still undertakes the sort of scientific endeavor which helps maintain his gravitas.
One particular paper, released in July, painted a particularly bleak future for just about anyone living near the coast. Hansen and 16 colleagues found that Earth’s huge ice sheets, such as those found in Greenland, are melting faster than expected, meaning that even the 2C warming limit is “highly dangerous”.
The sea level could soon be up to five meters higher than it is today by the latter part of this century, unless greenhouse gases aren’t radically slashed, the paper states. This would inundate many of the world’s cities, including London, New York, Miami and Shanghai.
“More than half of the world’s cities of the world are at risk,” Hansen says. “If you talk to glaciologists privately they will tell you they are very concerned we are locking in much more significant sea level rises than the ice sheet models are telling us.
“The economic cost of a business as usual approach to emissions is incalculable. It will become questionable whether global governance will break down. You’re talking about hundreds of million of climate refugees from places such as Pakistan and China. We just can’t let that happen. Civilization was set up and developed with a stable, constant coastline.”
The paper has yet to be fully peer reviewed and some of Hansen’s colleagues, including his protege at Nasa, Gavin Schmidt, have voiced their doubts whether sea level rise will be quite this bad, with the IPCC projecting up to a meter by 2100.
Brickbats are thrown in a bipartisan way. Hansen feels Obama, who has made climate change a legacy issue in his final year in office, has botched the opportunity to tackle the issue.
“We all foolishly had such high hopes for Obama, to articulate things, to be like Roosevelt and have fireside chats to explain to the public why we need to have a rising fee on carbon in order to move to clean energy,” he says. “But he’s not particularly good at that. He didn’t make it a priority and now it’s too late for him.”
Hansen is just as scathing of leading Republicans who have embraced climate science denialism to the chagrin of some party elders.
Leading presidential candidates Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Ben Carson have all derided evidence that the world is warming due to human activity while Ted Cruz, another contender, has taken time out from his campaign to to sit on an inquiry into climate science that has heard testimony from a rightwing radio host who has no scientific background.
Advertisement
“It’s all embarrassing really,” Hansen says. “After a while you realise as a scientist that politicians don’t act rationally.
“Many of the conservatives know climate change is not a hoax. But those running for president are hamstrung by the fact they think they can’t get the nomination if they say this is an issue. They wouldn’t get money from the fossil fuel industry.”
There is a positive note to end on, however. Global emissions have somewhat stalled and Hansen believes China, the world’s largest emitter, will now step up to provide the leadership lacking from the US. A submerged Fifth Avenue and deadly heatwaves aren’t an inevitability.
“I think we will get there because China is rational,” Hansen says. “Their leaders are mostly trained in engineering and such things, they don’t deny climate change and they have a huge incentive, which is air pollution. It’s so bad in their cities they need to move to clean energies. They realise it’s not a hoax. But they will need co-operation.”
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
The Guardian - 12 Dec 2015:>
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Bilderberg climate swindle in 2003: >
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
As in 2003, the Bilderberg Group is using the climate change again to keep the people in fear.
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
08/12/2015
The history of Illuminati in 7 minutes
----------------------------------------------------------
The controlling Bilderberg Group in the same Illuminati pyramide.
Europe's migrant crisis is the CATALYST for collapse of EU
Europe's migrant crisis is the CATALYST for collapse of EU, warns Luxembourg minister
EUROPE’S migrant crisis could spark the collapse of the EU, Luxembourg’s foreign minister has declared.
Will Europe Put its Foot Down?
By Hege Storhaug
---------------------------------------------
Commentary:
Administrator
06/12/2015
The migrant crisis is a mere gust....
The migrant crisis is a mere gust of the hurricane that will soon engulf Europe.
Huge population growth in Africa and Asia makes it imperative the EU manages its borders — and promote stability abroad
By William Hague - The Daily Telegraph - 7:50AM GMT 11 Nov 2015
Huge population growth in Africa and Asia makes it imperative the EU manages its borders — and promote stability abroad
Migrants and refugees protest at the port of Lesbos, Greece
Photo: EPA/STRATIS BALASKAS
By William Hague - The Daily Telegraph - 7:50AM GMT 11 Nov 2015
A major study published recently found that many members of the public can forecast economic and political events at least as accurately as the experts, and that some of them do consistently better than the pundits and economists we always turn to for advice.
Pollsters proved hopeless at forecasting our general election, and economists had little clue that the price of oil would plummet at the end of last year. It is a lesson of the modern world that having more data does not inevitably mean more accurate forecasting.
"Both the Schengen border-free zone and the eurozone are central projects of EU unity which are now driving disunity"
Yet the leaders gathering in Malta today to discuss Europe’s migration crisis will only make rational decisions if they pay close attention to the one area of forecasting which can be more accurate – the growth or decline of populations. If they do not, they risk repeating some of the serious errors they have already made.
Demographic forecasts tend to be among the most reliable, partly because we already have a lot of information that will not change: we know how many 36-year-olds there should be in 2050 because they were all born last year. Furthermore, changes in birth rates normally take place fairly slowly, allowing reasonable projections to be made.
A glance at such projections to the middle of this century points to dramatic variations between countries and continents, changing in one generation the political and economic landscape of the world.
We learn that the UK is likely to overtake Germany as the most populous of the nations now in the EU; that the US will boom in numbers while most European countries decline; that many emerging economies have populations ageing more rapidly than they might have expected, constraining their future growth.
Above all it is clear that, according to the UN, fully half of all the population increase globally in the next 35 years is expected to be in one continent: Africa. What is more, that increase will mainly be in poorer, less stable countries, alongside massive growth in numbers in the most war-torn areas of the Middle East, such as Yemen and Iraq.
"The European Union now needs to show it can change in order to survive"
The numbers that emerge are stark.The increase in Africa’s population alone is set to be 1.3 billion by 2050, about two-and-a-half times the entire population of the EU today. Put another way, the number of people in Africa and western Asia is expected to increase by over 110,000 every single day for decades to come.
Such figures put into perspective a crisis caused by the arrival of several thousand migrants a day. What we have seen in recent months is only a hint of what might happen next, mere gusts of wind before the approach of a hurricane.
The implications for European countries are immense and clear. First, it is obvious that any approach signalling an open door to migration, as in the case of Germany in recent months, will rapidly prove to be unsustainable. That means it is better not to send that signal in the first place, a rare but major blunder by Angela Merkel. There need to be strict limits on migrant numbers from now on.
Second, the Schengen zone can only survive at all if there is a massive strengthening of its external borders – otherwise one country after another will close its own borders, not for a few days at a time, but permanently.
Third, Europeans will need to do much more to promote stability, save failed states and avert huge outflows of people within parts of Africa itself, as well as in the Middle East. That means not shying away from intervention abroad in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, but learning how to intervene more effectively.
We will have to do more of what we have been doing in Somalia – funding the African troops who fight terrorism, putting our ships off the coast, establishing a legitimate government backed by the UN and marshalling diplomatic and budgetary support for it. In turn, this will require small, highly mobile armed forces, such as the French units which narrowly saved Mali and the Central African Republic from collapse.
The European Union is fond of “stress tests”, for testing the soundness of financial institutions in the wake of the 2008 crash. Now it needs to recognise that if it is not prepared to take such steps then it will struggle to survive itself the stresses to which vast movements of population will subject it.
Europe has not been good in recent decades at looking ahead and allowing for facts that are inconvenient but obviously true. I say that with some sadness as one, like many of my former colleagues in government, who has always believed in membership of an EU that can be changed.
The eurozone was created in the full knowledge that single currency zones are unlikely to work in the long term without fiscal unity, massive subsidies to some regions and a single labour market. The result is a currency that will face its own severe stresses next time the world economy turns downwards, with serious consequences for millions of people without work or prospects.
Both the Schengen border-free zone and the eurozone are central projects of EU unity which are now driving disunity, and which need a new approach if they are to survive the future strains which we do not need an expert to predict. The European Union now needs to show it can change in order to survive.
That is why the bid for changes in the EU, and in Britain’s relationship with it, launched by David Cameron, is so important. Many people will assert that their opinion on staying in or leaving the EU is fixed, and that the negotiations now under way make no difference either way to how they will vote.
But there are many others who want to know that, as the world changes, Europe can change with it. For them, the response to sensible proposals, which would be fairer for Britain and beneficial to most in Europe, is a key test of whether even bigger issues can be faced.
As usual, Edmund Burke put it very well more than two hundred years ago: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation.” Now, as then, Europe’s leaders would do well to take heed of him.
------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
Administrator
02/12/2015
Bilderberg and The Great Global Warming Swindle..
The Great Global Warming Swindle – 1 hr 15 mins
The big question is, what are the motivations behind this extraordinary hoax?
In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled “The Science of Climate Change”, Senator James Inhofe(R-Okla) concluded by asking the following question:
“With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?”
Inhofe has suggested that supporters of Kyoto such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.
Quoting Inhofe, the American Free Press stated,
“It was an unguarded moment for Chirac. World government is the main goal of the secret Bilderberg group, of which he is a luminary.”
- Fear / New enemy
Does the so-called ‘war on terror’ ring a bell? Not so long ago, we also ‘faced’ the propagated fears of global cooling, population explosions, West Nile virus, SARS, Avian Flu, killer bees… But all of these former ‘threats’ have either been debunked by scientists or simply forgotten.
By creating a common enemy (i.e. terrorists, global warming, communism, drugs) and striking fear and hopelessness in the population, the people come to crave the ‘aid’ of their government – to save and protect them.
We are expected to give-up our rights and our freedoms for the sake of ‘protection’. And when our silent, invisible, fabricatedenemy shall be conquered, the people shall rejoice, be thankful, and ever-more submissive to the will of their controllers. This strategy has used by tyrannies and dictatorships throughout history. People, ignorant and distracted from reality, remain oblivious, uneducated, and under control. - Distraction
Don’t fear your government! Don’t investigate into the real source of your ‘threats’ and ‘enemies’. If ‘terrorists’ didn’t scare the hell out of you, surely the imaginary tidal waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, global apocalypse and Al Gore films will! Go back to your televisions and video games – you’re expected to have the government be your guardian. - Dissuade global development
Indeed, the global warming scare has the detrimental effect on poorer nations, whereby wealthy societies may claim, “Do not develop, burn oil or coal, drive cars, create industry, or any other means of energy consumption – because if you do you will only bring us closer to our demise.” But why wouldn’t our puppet-masters want these countries to grow? A weaker nation is a controllable, vulnerable nation. - Global-warming industry
The creation of a giant industry has resulted in major climate-chaos profiteering.
Surprisingly similar to the drug-war, it has already come to the point where to expose the truth will produce strong opposition by the people who’s jobs depend on it. - Grants and funding
In some cases, scientists critical of the global warming theory have been denied funding. Likewise, there are cases where hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the ‘climate change theory’ in order to protect their research funding. All this to embrace and adhere to a consensus of global disaster. Why?
Because under this guise, government spending can now far more easily be granted, acceptably, due to a belief that we ‘need’ to do all we can to defeat the invisible enemy. - TaxesMany are willing to pay the government to take care of their problems. Under the guise of this threat, governments and ‘protocols’ will certainly be used as an excuse to increase the taxes on carbon emissions. The ‘carbon tax’ will generate massive global revenues with which to fund the further establishment of the new world order, while making the people and the economy weaker.
- International governance
The United Nations, Kyoto Protocol, and other systems have been devised to support the growth of global governance. - Political leverage
Like the so-called ‘war on terror’, the enemy of climate change gives the appearance of a threat great enough to excuse political policies and practices claiming to work against it. Also, it is an effective means of drawing support for the politicians. Furthermore, climate chaos has been used to pass bills and acts designed to combat the situation, while at the same time promoting hidden agendas. - Justify oil-price increase
Are people willing to pay more for oil and gasoline, believing high prices are justified to help reduce consumption? - Other secret motives?The ultimate objective of the powerful elite who control the government, media, and society is to manipulate people and their governments into the formation of a border-less, world government. The complexities of this situation certainly exceed the obvious, and there are surely many other advantages the Bilderberg group and other elites are exploiting from this extraordinary hoax.
---------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
Off-line view of all The Otium Posts
HERE IS A GREAT WAY TO VIEW OFF-LINE ALL THE OTIUM POSTS ON YOUR TABLET/PHONE
Download the AIReader app from Google Play. (FREE) and innstall.
Download the last 250 blogs in ebook format here:
Here are some samples from my phone/tablet.
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
Download the AIReader app from Google Play. (FREE) and innstall.
You can go to Options by doing a right swipe from the left of your screen. Here you can set the directory path to all your ebooks,background,font and font size and much more. Turn pages by doing left-swipes.
Download the last 250 blogs in ebook format here:
Most convenient on your external drive,but means connecting to your PC by USB cable and then just copy and past to a new directory you can call ´ebooks´.
Alternatively just download to your app´s main memory.
At the end of each blog you will find a link to The Otium Post pages which contains videos and illustrations.
Here are some samples from my phone/tablet.
-------------------------------------------------------
THE OTIUM POST
30/11/2015
Syria and the prelude to global war - WW3
JOEL SKOUSEN: SYRIA AND THE PRELUDE TO GLOBAL WAR
Skousen argues Syria a warm-up for the real globalist war down the road
Infowars | Skousen argues Syria a warm-up for the real globalist war down the road -
Skousen argues Syria a warm-up for the real globalist war down the road
Infowars | Skousen argues Syria a warm-up for the real globalist war down the road -
NOVEMBER 30, 2015
Survival expert and author Joel Skousen told Alex Jones on Sunday the events unfolding in Syria and Turkey are a prelude to a larger conflict designed by the global elite — an endgame that includes a nuclear war and ultimately a militarized world government.
The escalation in Syria, Skousen argues, is intended to draw Russia deeper into the conflict and force it to deploy its most sophisticated high-tech military hardware—such as the advanced S-400 anti-aircraft system—so it can be eavesdropped and analyzed by US intelligence.
Additionally, Skousen breaks down Putin’s phony defense of Christianity as fanatical Wahhabi Muslims kill Christians, burn churches and destroy antiquities.
Skousen also examines the move by France to criminalize dissent following the Paris attacks and how this will be used as a template to undermine and control other political movements in opposition to the global elite and their long-term plan to build a militarized surveillance state.
------------------------------------------------
27/11/2015
How a secretive elite created the EU to build a world government - Telegraph
How a secretive elite created the EU to build a world government
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
Now that even the honorable Daily Telegraph has seen the light,is it not about time the rest of our people understand who and what is behind all the terror and grief caused by scaring millions of people from the Middle East and Africa into Europe using hired assassin groups hoping for a new Arab spring,which will never come. Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group oligarchs have agendas like the devil who pays willing hands but destroys them when their usefulness is over. ISIL have done their job,Europe is now full of immigrants with nowhere to stay,at the onset of a long,cold winter. This will cause another planned catastrophe and will also split the cohesion of Europe.
It is about time the people of Europe bring these faceless demons out in the daylight and make them pay for their horrendous deeds and the thousands of innocent lives lost escaping from fear of their lives.
From the devil´s advocate Peter Sutherland to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer,and the German Minister of Finance to Rockefeller and his fellow fat cats, as well as a long list of participants in the last Bilderberg meeting in Tyrol this year,they should not be hard to find.
DON´T LET THESE EVIL MEN CONTINUE THEIR AGENDA TO TURN US ALL INTO FACELESS SLAVES FOR THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER. ACT TODAY !!!!!
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TO THE BILDERBERG MEETING IN TYROL 2015
Final list of Participants
Voters in Britain's referendum need to understand that the European Union was about building a federal superstate from day one.
Harold Macmillan with Edward Heath (right) in 1963 Photo: PA
Telegraph - By Prof Alan Sked
8:30AM GMT 27 Nov 2015
As the debate over the forthcoming EU referendum gears up, it would be wise perhaps to remember how Britain was led into membership in the first place. It seems to me that most people have little idea why one of the victors of the Second World War should have become almost desperate to join this "club". That's a shame, because answering that question is key to understanding why the EU has gone so wrong.
Most students seem to think that Britain was in dire economic straits, and that the European Economic Community – as it was then called – provided an economic engine which could revitalise our economy. Others seem to believe that after the Second World War Britain needed to recast her geopolitical position away from empire, and towards a more realistic one at the heart of Europe. Neither of these arguments, however, makes any sense at all.
The EEC in the 1960s and 1970s was in no position to regenerate anyone’s economy. It spent most of its meagre resources on agriculture and fisheries and had no means or policies to generate economic growth.
"When we entered the EEC our annual growth rate was a record 7.4 per cent. The present Chancellor would die for such figures"
When growth did happen, it did not come from the EU. From Ludwig Erhard's supply-side reforms in West Germany in 1948 toThatcher's privatisation of nationalised industry in the Eighties, European growth came from reforms introduced by individual countries which were were copied elsewhere. EU policy has always been either irrelevant or positively detrimental (as was the case with the euro).
Nor did British growth ever really lag behind Europe's. Sometimes it surged ahead. In the 1950s Western Europe had a growth rate of 3.5 per cent; in the 1960s, it was 4.5 per cent. But in 1959, when Harold Macmillan took office, the real annual growth rate of British GDP, according to the Office of National Statistics, was almost 6 per cent. It was again almost 6 per cent when de Gaulle vetoed our first application to join the EEC in 1963.
In 1973, when we entered the EEC, our annual national growth rate in real terms was a record 7.4 per cent. The present Chancellor would die for such figures. So the economic basket-case argument doesn’t work.
What about geopolitics? What argument in the cold light of hindsight could have been so compelling as to make us kick our Second-World-War Commonwealth allies in the teeth to join a combination of Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Italy?
Four of these countries held no international weight whatsoever. Germany was occupied and divided. France, meanwhile, had lost one colonial war in Vietnam and another in Algeria. De Gaulle had come to power to save the country from civil war. Most realists must surely have regarded these states as a bunch of losers. De Gaulle, himself a supreme realist, pointed out that Britain had democratic political institutions, world trade links, cheap food from the Commonwealth, and was a global power. Why would it want to enter the EEC?
"Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government"
The answer is that Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government based on regional federations. He was also a close acquaintance of Jean Monnet, who believed the same. It was therefore Macmillan who became the representative of the European federalist movement in the British cabinet.
In a speech in the House of Commons he even advocated a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) before the real thing had been announced. He later arranged for a Treaty of Association to be signed between the UK and the ECSC, and it was he who ensured that a British representative was sent to the Brussels negotiations following the Messina Conference, which gave birth to the EEC.
In the late 1950s he pushed negotiations concerning a European Free Trade Association towards membership of the EEC. Then, when General de Gaulle began to turn the EEC into a less federalist body, he took the risk of submitting a full British membership application in the hope of frustrating Gaullist ambitions.
His aim, in alliance with US and European proponents of a federalist world order, was to frustrate the emerging Franco-German alliance which was seen as one of French and German nationalism.
Monnet met secretly with heath and macmillan on innumerable occasions to facilitate british entry. Indeed, he was informed before the british parliament of the terms in which the british approach to europe would be framed.Despite advice from the lord chancellor, lord kilmuir, that membership would mean the end of british parliamentary sovereignty, macmillan deliberately misled the house of commons — and practically everyone else, from commonwealth statesmen to cabinet colleagues and the public — that merely minor commercial negotiations were involved.
He even tried to deceive de gaulle that he was an anti-federalist and a close friend who would arrange for france, like britain, to receive polaris missiles from the americans. De gaulle saw completely through him and vetoed the british bid to enter.
Macmillan left edward heath to take matters forward, and heath, along with douglas hurd, arranged — according to the monnet papers — for the tory party to become a (secret) corporate member of monnet’s action committee for a united states of europe.
According to monnet’s chief aide and biographer, francois duchene, both the labour and liberal parties later did the same. Meanwhile the earl of gosford, one of macmillan’s foreign policy ministers in the house of lords, actually informed the house that the aim of the government’s foreign policy was world government.
"the anglo-american establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal united states of europe"
Monnet’s action committee was also given financial backing by thecia and the us state department. The anglo-american establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal united states of europe.
Today, this is still the case. Powerful international lobbies are already at work attempting to prove that any return to democratic self-government on the part of britain will spell doom. American officials have already been primed to state that such a britain would be excluded from any free trade deal with the usa and that the world needs the ttip trade treaty which is predicated on the survival of the eu.
Fortunately, republican candidates in the usa are becoming eurosceptics and magazines there like the national interest are publishing the case for brexit. The international coalition behind macmillan and heath will find things a lot more difficult this time round — especially given the obvious difficulties of the eurozone, the failure of eu migration policy and the lack of any coherent eu security policy.
Most importantly, having been fooled once, the british public will be much more difficult to fool again.
Alan sked is the original founder of ukip and professor of international history at the london school of economics. He is presently collecting material for a book he hopes to publish on britain's experience of the EU.
8:30AM GMT 27 Nov 2015
As the debate over the forthcoming EU referendum gears up, it would be wise perhaps to remember how Britain was led into membership in the first place. It seems to me that most people have little idea why one of the victors of the Second World War should have become almost desperate to join this "club". That's a shame, because answering that question is key to understanding why the EU has gone so wrong.
Most students seem to think that Britain was in dire economic straits, and that the European Economic Community – as it was then called – provided an economic engine which could revitalise our economy. Others seem to believe that after the Second World War Britain needed to recast her geopolitical position away from empire, and towards a more realistic one at the heart of Europe. Neither of these arguments, however, makes any sense at all.
The EEC in the 1960s and 1970s was in no position to regenerate anyone’s economy. It spent most of its meagre resources on agriculture and fisheries and had no means or policies to generate economic growth.
"When we entered the EEC our annual growth rate was a record 7.4 per cent. The present Chancellor would die for such figures"
When growth did happen, it did not come from the EU. From Ludwig Erhard's supply-side reforms in West Germany in 1948 toThatcher's privatisation of nationalised industry in the Eighties, European growth came from reforms introduced by individual countries which were were copied elsewhere. EU policy has always been either irrelevant or positively detrimental (as was the case with the euro).
Nor did British growth ever really lag behind Europe's. Sometimes it surged ahead. In the 1950s Western Europe had a growth rate of 3.5 per cent; in the 1960s, it was 4.5 per cent. But in 1959, when Harold Macmillan took office, the real annual growth rate of British GDP, according to the Office of National Statistics, was almost 6 per cent. It was again almost 6 per cent when de Gaulle vetoed our first application to join the EEC in 1963.
In 1973, when we entered the EEC, our annual national growth rate in real terms was a record 7.4 per cent. The present Chancellor would die for such figures. So the economic basket-case argument doesn’t work.
What about geopolitics? What argument in the cold light of hindsight could have been so compelling as to make us kick our Second-World-War Commonwealth allies in the teeth to join a combination of Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Germany and Italy?
Four of these countries held no international weight whatsoever. Germany was occupied and divided. France, meanwhile, had lost one colonial war in Vietnam and another in Algeria. De Gaulle had come to power to save the country from civil war. Most realists must surely have regarded these states as a bunch of losers. De Gaulle, himself a supreme realist, pointed out that Britain had democratic political institutions, world trade links, cheap food from the Commonwealth, and was a global power. Why would it want to enter the EEC?
"Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government"
The answer is that Harold Macmillan and his closest advisers were part of an intellectual tradition that saw the salvation of the world in some form of world government based on regional federations. He was also a close acquaintance of Jean Monnet, who believed the same. It was therefore Macmillan who became the representative of the European federalist movement in the British cabinet.
In a speech in the House of Commons he even advocated a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) before the real thing had been announced. He later arranged for a Treaty of Association to be signed between the UK and the ECSC, and it was he who ensured that a British representative was sent to the Brussels negotiations following the Messina Conference, which gave birth to the EEC.
In the late 1950s he pushed negotiations concerning a European Free Trade Association towards membership of the EEC. Then, when General de Gaulle began to turn the EEC into a less federalist body, he took the risk of submitting a full British membership application in the hope of frustrating Gaullist ambitions.
His aim, in alliance with US and European proponents of a federalist world order, was to frustrate the emerging Franco-German alliance which was seen as one of French and German nationalism.
Monnet met secretly with heath and macmillan on innumerable occasions to facilitate british entry. Indeed, he was informed before the british parliament of the terms in which the british approach to europe would be framed.Despite advice from the lord chancellor, lord kilmuir, that membership would mean the end of british parliamentary sovereignty, macmillan deliberately misled the house of commons — and practically everyone else, from commonwealth statesmen to cabinet colleagues and the public — that merely minor commercial negotiations were involved.
He even tried to deceive de gaulle that he was an anti-federalist and a close friend who would arrange for france, like britain, to receive polaris missiles from the americans. De gaulle saw completely through him and vetoed the british bid to enter.
Macmillan left edward heath to take matters forward, and heath, along with douglas hurd, arranged — according to the monnet papers — for the tory party to become a (secret) corporate member of monnet’s action committee for a united states of europe.
According to monnet’s chief aide and biographer, francois duchene, both the labour and liberal parties later did the same. Meanwhile the earl of gosford, one of macmillan’s foreign policy ministers in the house of lords, actually informed the house that the aim of the government’s foreign policy was world government.
"the anglo-american establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal united states of europe"
Monnet’s action committee was also given financial backing by thecia and the us state department. The anglo-american establishment was now committed to the creation of a federal united states of europe.
Today, this is still the case. Powerful international lobbies are already at work attempting to prove that any return to democratic self-government on the part of britain will spell doom. American officials have already been primed to state that such a britain would be excluded from any free trade deal with the usa and that the world needs the ttip trade treaty which is predicated on the survival of the eu.
Fortunately, republican candidates in the usa are becoming eurosceptics and magazines there like the national interest are publishing the case for brexit. The international coalition behind macmillan and heath will find things a lot more difficult this time round — especially given the obvious difficulties of the eurozone, the failure of eu migration policy and the lack of any coherent eu security policy.
Most importantly, having been fooled once, the british public will be much more difficult to fool again.
Alan sked is the original founder of ukip and professor of international history at the london school of economics. He is presently collecting material for a book he hopes to publish on britain's experience of the EU.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Commentary:
Now that even the honorable Daily Telegraph has seen the light,is it not about time the rest of our people understand who and what is behind all the terror and grief caused by scaring millions of people from the Middle East and Africa into Europe using hired assassin groups hoping for a new Arab spring,which will never come. Illuminati and the Bilderberg Group oligarchs have agendas like the devil who pays willing hands but destroys them when their usefulness is over. ISIL have done their job,Europe is now full of immigrants with nowhere to stay,at the onset of a long,cold winter. This will cause another planned catastrophe and will also split the cohesion of Europe.
It is about time the people of Europe bring these faceless demons out in the daylight and make them pay for their horrendous deeds and the thousands of innocent lives lost escaping from fear of their lives.
From the devil´s advocate Peter Sutherland to the British Chancellor of the Exchequer,and the German Minister of Finance to Rockefeller and his fellow fat cats, as well as a long list of participants in the last Bilderberg meeting in Tyrol this year,they should not be hard to find.
DON´T LET THESE EVIL MEN CONTINUE THEIR AGENDA TO TURN US ALL INTO FACELESS SLAVES FOR THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER. ACT TODAY !!!!!
Administrator
THE OTIUM POST
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS TO THE BILDERBERG MEETING IN TYROL 2015
Final list of Participants
Chairman
| Castries, Henri de | Chairman and CEO, AXA Group | FRA |
| Achleitner, Paul M. | Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG | DEU |
| Agius, Marcus | Non-Executive Chairman, PA Consulting Group | GBR |
| Ahrenkiel, Thomas | Director, Danish Intelligence Service (DDIS) | DNK |
| Allen, John R. | Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, US Department of State | USA |
| Altman, Roger C. | Executive Chairman, Evercore | USA |
| Applebaum, Anne | Director of Transitions Forum, Legatum Institute | POL |
| Apunen, Matti | Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA | FIN |
| Baird, Zoë | CEO and President, Markle Foundation | USA |
| Balls, Edward M. | Former Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer | GBR |
| Balsemão, Francisco Pinto | Chairman, Impresa SGPS | PRT |
| Barroso, José M. Durão | Former President of the European Commission | PRT |
| Baverez, Nicolas | Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | FRA |
| Benko, René | Founder, SIGNA Holding GmbH | AUT |
| Bernabè, Franco | Chairman, FB Group SRL | ITA |
| Beurden, Ben van | CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc | NLD |
| Bigorgne, Laurent | Director, Institut Montaigne | FRA |
| Boone, Laurence | Special Adviser on Financial and Economic Affairs to the President | FRA |
| Botín, Ana P. | Chairman, Banco Santander | ESP |
| Brandtzæg, Svein Richard | President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA | NOR |
| Bronner, Oscar | Publisher, Standard Verlagsgesellschaft | AUT |
| Burns, William | President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | USA |
| Calvar, Patrick | Director General, DGSI | FRA |
| Castries, Henri de | Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings; Chairman and CEO, AXA Group | FRA |
| Cebrián, Juan Luis | Executive Chairman, Grupo PRISA | ESP |
| Clark, W. Edmund | Retired Executive, TD Bank Group | CAN |
| Coeuré, Benoît | Member of the Executive Board, European Central Bank | INT |
| Coyne, Andrew | Editor, Editorials and Comment, National Post | CAN |
| Damberg, Mikael L. | Minister for Enterprise and Innovation | SWE |
| De Gucht, Karel | Former EU Trade Commissioner, State Minister | BEL |
| Dijsselbloem, Jeroen | Minister of Finance | NLD |
| Donilon, Thomas E. | Former U.S. National Security Advisor; Partner and Vice Chair, O’Melveny & Myers LLP | USA |
| Döpfner, Mathias | CEO, Axel Springer SE | DEU |
| Dowling, Ann | President, Royal Academy of Engineering | GBR |
| Dugan, Regina | Vice President for Engineering, Advanced Technology and Projects, Google | USA |
| Eilertsen, Trine | Political Editor, Aftenposten | NOR |
| Eldrup, Merete | CEO, TV 2 Danmark A/S | DNK |
| Elkann, John | Chairman and CEO, EXOR; Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles | ITA |
| Enders, Thomas | CEO, Airbus Group | DEU |
| Erdoes, Mary | CEO, JP Morgan Asset Management | USA |
| Fairhead, Rona | Chairman, BBC Trust | GBR |
| Federspiel, Ulrik | Executive Vice President, Haldor Topsøe A/S | DNK |
| Feldstein, Martin S. | President Emeritus, NBER; Professor of Economics, Harvard University | USA |
| Ferguson, Niall | Professor of History, Harvard University, Gunzberg Center for European Studies | USA |
| Fischer, Heinz | Federal President | AUT |
| Flint, Douglas J. | Group Chairman, HSBC Holdings plc | GBR |
| Franz, Christoph | Chairman of the Board, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd | CHE |
| Fresco, Louise O. | President and Chairman Executive Board, Wageningen University and Research Centre | NLD |
| Griffin, Kenneth | Founder and CEO, Citadel Investment Group, LLC | USA |
| Gruber, Lilli | Executive Editor and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV | ITA |
| Guriev, Sergei | Professor of Economics, Sciences Po | RUS |
| Gürkaynak, Gönenç | Managing Partner, ELIG Law Firm | TUR |
| Gusenbauer, Alfred | Former Chancellor of the Republic of Austria | AUT |
| Halberstadt, Victor | Professor of Economics, Leiden University | NLD |
| Hampel, Erich | Chairman, UniCredit Bank Austria AG | AUT |
| Hassabis, Demis | Vice President of Engineering, Google DeepMind | GBR |
| Hesoun, Wolfgang | CEO, Siemens Austria | AUT |
| Hildebrand, Philipp | Vice Chairman, BlackRock Inc. | CHE |
| Hoffman, Reid | Co-Founder and Executive Chairman, LinkedIn | USA |
| Ischinger, Wolfgang | Chairman, Munich Security Conference | INT |
| Jacobs, Kenneth M. | Chairman and CEO, Lazard | USA |
| Jäkel, Julia | CEO, Gruner + Jahr | DEU |
| Johnson, James A. | Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners | USA |
| Juppé, Alain | Mayor of Bordeaux, Former Prime Minister | FRA |
| Kaeser, Joe | President and CEO, Siemens AG | DEU |
| Karp, Alex | CEO, Palantir Technologies | USA |
| Kepel, Gilles | University Professor, Sciences Po | FRA |
| Kerr, John | Deputy Chairman, Scottish Power | GBR |
| Kesici, Ilhan | MP, Turkish Parliament | TUR |
| Kissinger, Henry A. | Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc. | USA |
| Kleinfeld, Klaus | Chairman and CEO, Alcoa | USA |
| Knot, Klaas H.W. | President, De Nederlandsche Bank | NLD |
| Koç, Mustafa V. | Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. | TUR |
| Kogler, Konrad | Director General, Directorate General for Public Security | AUT |
| Kravis, Henry R. | Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. | USA |
| Kravis, Marie-Josée | Senior Fellow and Vice Chair, Hudson Institute | USA |
| Kudelski, André | Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group | CHE |
| Lauk, Kurt | President, Globe Capital Partners | DEU |
| Lemne, Carola | CEO, The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise | SWE |
| Levey, Stuart | Chief Legal Officer, HSBC Holdings plc | USA |
| Leyen, Ursula von der | Minister of Defence | DEU |
| Leysen, Thomas | Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group | BEL |
| Maher, Shiraz | Senior Research Fellow, ICSR, King’s College London | GBR |
| Markus Lassen, Christina | Head of Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Security Policy and Stabilisation | DNK |
| Mathews, Jessica T. | Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | USA |
| Mattis, James | Distinguished Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University | USA |
| Maudet, Pierre | Vice-President of the State Council, Department of Security, Police and the Economy of Geneva | CHE |
| McKay, David I. | President and CEO, Royal Bank of Canada | CAN |
| Mert, Nuray | Columnist, Professor of Political Science, Istanbul University | TUR |
| Messina, Jim | CEO, The Messina Group | USA |
| Michel, Charles | Prime Minister | BEL |
| Micklethwait, John | Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP | USA |
| Minton Beddoes, Zanny | Editor-in-Chief, The Economist | GBR |
| Monti, Mario | Senator-for-life; President, Bocconi University | ITA |
| Mörttinen, Leena | Executive Director, The Finnish Family Firms Association | FIN |
| Mundie, Craig J. | Principal, Mundie & Associates | USA |
| Munroe-Blum, Heather | Chairperson, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board | CAN |
| Netherlands, H.R.H. Princess Beatrix of the | NLD | |
| O’Leary, Michael | CEO, Ryanair Plc | IRL |
| Osborne, George | First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer | GBR |
| Özel, Soli | Columnist, Haberturk Newspaper; Senior Lecturer, Kadir Has University | TUR |
| Papalexopoulos, Dimitri | Group CEO, Titan Cement Co. | GRC |
| Pégard, Catherine | President, Public Establishment of the Palace, Museum and National Estate of Versailles | FRA |
| Perle, Richard N. | Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute | USA |
| Petraeus, David H. | Chairman, KKR Global Institute | USA |
| Pikrammenos, Panagiotis | Honorary President of The Hellenic Council of State | GRC |
| Reisman, Heather M. | Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. | CAN |
| Rocca, Gianfelice | Chairman, Techint Group | ITA |
| Roiss, Gerhard | CEO, OMV Austria | AUT |
| Rubin, Robert E. | Co Chair, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Secretary of the Treasury | USA |
| Rutte, Mark | Prime Minister | NLD |
| Sadjadpour, Karim | Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | USA |
| Sánchez Pérez-Castejón, Pedro | Leader, Partido Socialista Obrero Español PSOE | ESP |
| Sawers, John | Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners | GBR |
| Sayek Böke, Selin | Vice President, Republican People’s Party | TUR |
| Schmidt, Eric E. | Executive Chairman, Google Inc. | USA |
| Scholten, Rudolf | CEO, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG | AUT |
| Senard, Jean-Dominique | CEO, Michelin Group | FRA |
| Sevelda, Karl | CEO, Raiffeisen Bank International AG | AUT |
| Stoltenberg, Jens | Secretary General, NATO | INT |
| Stubb, Alexander | Prime Minister | FIN |
| Suder, Katrin | Deputy Minister of Defense | DEU |
| Sutherland, Peter D. | UN Special Representative; Chairman, Goldman Sachs International | IRL |
| Svanberg, Carl-Henric | Chairman, BP plc; Chairman, AB Volvo | SWE |
| Svarva, Olaug | CEO, The Government Pension Fund Norway | NOR |
| Thiel, Peter A. | President, Thiel Capital | USA |
| Tsoukalis, Loukas | President, Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy | GRC |
| Üzümcü, Ahmet | Director-General, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons | INT |
| Vitorino, António M. | Partner, Cuetrecasas, Concalves Pereira, RL | PRT |
| Wallenberg, Jacob | Chairman, Investor AB | SWE |
| Weber, Vin | Partner, Mercury LLC | USA |
| Wolf, Martin H. | Chief Economics Commentator, The Financial Times | GBR |
| Wolfensohn, James D. | Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn and Company | USA |
| Zoellick, Robert B. | Chairman, Board of International Advisors, The Goldman Sachs Group | |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)