Category Archives: Fraud

Influencing People Through Fear

People who wish to influence or control others have long since understood one of our prime motivators is the use of fear. It drives our instinct to survive, fight or flight. No normal person wants to sign up for pain & suffering. Secondary control factors include, financial incentives (reward), social status & peer pressure (ego).

torture-devicesGovernments, especially those who have unlimited power to do what they want, have used fear to motivate or control the populace. Torture was part of their tool kit, and the thought of ending up humiliated in shackles, or placed on a rack, was enough to instil fear in most people.

burn_in_hell_graphic

Christianity found their tool with the word, “hell”. You don’t behave, or do what the group thinks, you’re going to end up in a highly undesirable zip code, for eternity.

We see it’s more than peer pressure to influence predictions of climate change, we have government grants for educational and research institutions which measure and computer model predictions. The arsenal of control and scaremongering is reinforced through sympathetic media on “global warming“. If the latest trends don’t follow “scientific prediction”, than it’s called “climate change”. You places your bets, then change the predictions based on latest trends.

Which ever way the thermometer and weather, especially severe weather patterns change, it’s always based on “climate change”. Therefore if you have a drought, a flood, a grouping of tornadoes, it’s attributed to climate change.

Who Decides?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

We’ve been here before – More Lies

In November 2009, hackers gained access to a server used by the CRU and stole a large quantity of data, anonymously posting online more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents.

A series of independent public investigations of the allegations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report exonerated the scientists, but found “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA”. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.

In 2011, an analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, of whom some had stated they thought it was possible the CRU had manipulated the data, however concluded that “these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions”.

So, the hacked emails supposedly didn’t reveal anything that pointed out a bias or a skewing of results. Here’s what some of the email said, you decide. See
University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate

You can click on the above link to see more of these emails.

More critical background and science history of Michael E. Mann found here.

Here we go again!

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth?
| DailyMail February 11, 2017 | The following is an excerpt from their post.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.
Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

The ongoing battle between a radio host and author vs. the scientist.  | Michael E. Mann v. Mark Steyn

ipcc_2001_tar_figure


Now what?

Caught Up With Our Self Importance

Everywhere we look, we can see examples of how we are caught up in our own self-importance. It’s difficult for us to see it in ourselves, but we notice it readily with others.

Driving our cars, we can see examples routinely of people cutting in and out of lanes, crossing the road or turning in front of us, even though there are huge gaps, or no one at all behind us. Public conversation can suddenly be interrupted by another person who walks up and wasn’t part of the discussion. We just can’t seem to help ourselves.

There are international demonstrations of this going on right now. The leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-Un is a prime example of someone who believes his word is supreme. It’s one of many of those who rise to power, who think they’re someone very special.

A recent brief confrontation between an American reporter and a Russian Minister, makes this point when he asks, who taught you manners? She just couldn’t help herself. She thought her interruption was important.

Andrea Mitchell isn’t unique in shouting questions at someone in public. Watch talk shows when they have a guest they either don’t agree with or want to show their disdain for them in public. They haven’t the courtesy to allow the person to finish their answer before they talk over them with another question. It’s as if they’re pelting them with words, since it’s socially unacceptable to throw rocks at their guest.

All of this brings me around to an immense collective of people caught up with their importance, as this is Easter weekend. To many Christians, this is the premier weekend, because it’s a celebration of a person claiming to be a deity, that through martyrdom and the public acceptance of being brought back to life, is going to resurrect any who believe this story. They will go to heaven and live with this deity, forever.

Wait a minute, I’ve gone too far, I’m way out of line for suggesting this is another in a long history of people thinking they are really special and very important. How does this story tie in with our inflated ego?

First, we believe in our significance among the vast universe of billions of stars, in countless galaxies. Many of us think an eternal being, a deity, constantly watches each of us and sacrifices their number one son just to “redeem” us, if only we will believe this story to be true. Our distorted self-centered nature causes us to think we are so very important, that we must be permitted to carry on — forever.

For many, the thought that we don’t go on forever, united with friends and family, is too unnerving, It places us in a vacuum of, now what must I do? If there isn’t an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, intergalactic wizard that restores us back to life, then we’re time limited, hopelessly lost to our own actions, our foolish blunders, even the planet we live and spin on, is our responsibility.

How do you determine if you are being duped?

The list is endless of those who can improve or advance us. They convince us to believe they can help us find hidden or ultimate truths. Many are message experts who build their case against some personal defect(s), identifiable yet unseen power(s) or negative world condition. They tell you they have the answers to these and other unanswered questions, in which you desire to have greater knowledge, or they have answers to the great problems in our lives.

They follow a pattern like confidence artists. They have a rehearsed formula to gain your trust, your time, and your money.

  1. Associate
  2. Indoctrinate
  3. Obey
  4. Stay
  5. Pay
  6. Pray
  7. Convert
  8. Rinse – lather – repeat

As we continue to look for hope in a grand scheme which ties all of our mysterious origins and destinies together, we hang in, even if we have doubts. If you decide to leave, they have ways to make you feel guilty or declare some method of punishment to haunt your thoughts of having a safe future. The stories found in religious text bring people together, with the overarching thought, we’re here because of a deity. Our lives are controlled by the whim of this deity. We must obey all that this deity demands or we will suffer after we die, forever.

Now that’s the ultimate penal sentence. If you refuse to follow, choose to independently think, act, and realize you’re nothing more than a tiny life form on a very small planet. When you recognize you’re responsible for your own actions, AND there’s no wizard that will save you from ignorance, bad decisions, or even halitosis.  Then we begin to realize what surely will come to us all is death?

No, that’s too much to take in. Give me back my security blanket.

The Christian knows what will happen to you if you don’t believe in these stories. You will suffer in hell, while they sing and dance and look down on you. All because you dared question the idea of an ultimate spiritual dictator.

Suddenly, Kim Jong-Un, almost seems kind. He can only sentence you for 50 to 90 years of hell, or thereabouts.

The more ambitious use a variety of ideas which ultimately prey upon our own narcissism. They teach us to adopt behaviors and vocabulary which separate the insiders from the outsiders, making us feel superior to those who aren’t knowledgeable or part of the same group. Many flaunt this relationship of exclusivity, just as clever advertisers do with selling luxury cars, perfumes, or clothing.

Examples Using Group Exclusivity

Christianity, Islam, Scientism, Atheism, Polymorphs, Religious Science/Mind Science, “Laws of prosperity”, creating one’s own reality, technologists, reincarnation, meditation, faith/ confession, occultism, pantheism, chanting, mantras, universal force, energy/mind power, gangs, etc.

A Force For Good?

The short answer is yes. Clearly there are many who have joined a group of like-minded people who gain trust, hope and a greater belief in their own self-worth. If it enhances your ability to see the value in others, the consequences of your own actions, observe your own deceptions to self and others, and the need to be independently productive and creative, then those are worthwhile attributes.


Morals – Secular – Judeo-Christian

This is a response to the ideas proposed by some about their concerns of America becoming a secular nation rather than a Christian nation.

Dennis Prager frequently talks about how secular humanism is destroying the fabric of society. Let’s examine this claim, not only from his point but that of other independent thinkers.

I have to assume when people like Prager refer to Judeo-Christian values, he’s using the Bible as a reference. Using Deuteronomy 17, we find people should be stoned if they didn’t believe in their god. For many centuries, national religions had to be adhered to or people could be put to death for their failure to not only swear allegiance to the King or Queen, they had to believe in the official state religion. This is why you see secular influence in the Constitution, the founders of the United States wanted to ensure that people wouldn’t have to be swearing allegiance to a state religion. As a matter of fact, they’re isn’t a test of citizenship or holding the highest office, only if you believe in the supernatural. This in spite of the tradition of swearing-in by holding a hand on the Bible. We are after all, a nation of many contradictions.

You could suggest, this is old news, Christians don’t kill anymore because of the ideals in the new Testament, about loving your brother & sister, and to treat others as you want to be treated. Even this isn’t a new concept or one uniquely held by Christianity.

Cart – meet horse.

“One should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated.” – Hitopadesa; Hinduism: 3200 BCE
“Thou shalt not avenge nor ear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” – Leviticus 19:18: 1300 BCE

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ took obedience and the threat of a horrible after life for failure to comply one step further by introducing the idea of thinking about banned ideas. If you think about committing a sin, you have broken the law. From the sermon on the mount ~
“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

If, as some insist, we take the Bible literally, if you even think lustful thoughts, you’re going to be in trouble and your only get out of jail free card is issued by the person telling you that your eye isn’t all that important, so get rid of it if you see something which makes you think of sex with anyone other than your spouse. That assumes you’re married, and if you aren’t, even the man or woman you might marry could be an object of sin.

I served in the Marine Corps for six years, and at that time was a believing Christian. I thought I was a moral person, but I was being trained to kill other people. The Marines first train everyone identically as infantry. Later, they’re assigned an occupational specialty which usually defines their military career. In my case, I was given the opportunity to go on to electronics schools and thereby was never placed into a kill or be killed situation. Many of my peers weren’t given that choice, they went to Vietnam. We didn’t leave that theater of operations for two years after I enlisted. So what about those who had to take the life of another person? They were told that it was for god and country, but was it really? We killed a lot of people, including our own for a cause our secular (supposedly Christian) government told us it was the right thing to do. Historically, that would be a very tough call, as the country ended up being led by corrupt leadership and becoming communist with Pol Pot taking over Cambodia. This isn’t a dilemma you consider when you’re placed into a life threatening situation, because most of the time you’re going to decide you must kill the other person to preserve your life. How does that fit in with, “Thou shall not kill”, or turn the other cheek when injured by someone?

We constantly see examples of people and their life, their homes, and their values being threatened by a powerful group that uses the authority of law to take away their possessions and their land. How is that justified if we base our laws on Judeo-Christian values? Contradictions in the Bible?

Moral problems have constantly challenged our humanity. Slavery was justified for hundreds of years by Christians, even though Prager said that Christians ended it. We’ve witnessed changes in attitudes toward various ethnicity, black people couldn’t hold leadership roles in the Mormon church until the late 1970’s. A former Mormon prophet once declared that even having one drop of African blood, a person couldn’t hold a leadership role or be married in their temples. This in spite of the fact that one of their past Biblical heroes, Joseph (Coat of many colors), was married to a woman who was black. Asenath was an Egyptian, who some deny her African heritage, stating that Egyptians have various skin tones. That’s a ridiculous stretch in logic to say, she might have had lighter skin, therefore she was Caucasian. Skin tone isn’t a test of African heritage. DNA would certainly be a more accurate marker. The truth is, we may never know for sure, but it’s fairly safe to conclude there were many LDS people who had African heritage but passed for Caucasian and therefore held office in their church prior to 1978.

There are many who insist the Bible tells them homosexuality is a sin, and for some they believe you can pray away the gay. If that’s the case, how do you do that, because I know most of us didn’t make a conscious decision to be heterosexual. There’s a lot more to this than someone going through puberty and becomes straight or gay. Leviticus 20:13 – Romans 1:27 Are we supposed to kill homosexuals. Again the Christian response doesn’t seem to be the higher moral ground, unlike the secular “non-believer” response of kindness and equality. This has changed over the years by many religious organizations, seemingly because of secular influence.

There are many religious organizations who believe having a pair of testicles, gives you greater insight into the workings of god. They insist that anyone who could give birth to another human, isn’t insightful and compassionate enough to be a priest, or in some churches, can’t make public pronouncements officially for their organization. Many churches have changed that view and now have female clergy. Did god tell them that was a good idea, or was it a secular nudge to do what is right?

When it comes to some of the most major criminal activities, we’ve seen Christians adopt changing standards, like murder, rape, or theft. It all depends on the reasons given by the one doing the crime? Justification for these activities have repeatedly been authorized in the Bible. Even the concept of original sin by Adam and Eve seems a bit over the top. Am I to be held responsible for my fathers sins? The LDS church said we were to be held responsible for our own sin and not Adams transgressions but then again, isn’t death itself supposed to be part of the original sin and the introduction of baptism a ritual to signify the person being born again into a new life free of these past problems? Even the death of Jesus Christ and the Garden of Gethsemane was supposed to be an act of getting rid of the past and allowing all who believe this to be factual, were going to be given a ticket into the kingdom of god.

Even the idea proposed by Prager is incorrect. The label “Judeo-Christian” tends to assume, at the expense of Judaism, that Christians and Jews believe essentially the same things. They don’t, and you can find numerous explanations for that if you wish to research it. Secular moral values don’t favor one tribe of civilization over another, unlike what we saw in the Bible or later proposed through doctrines of “manifest destiny in the US”. Just because one tribe of people supposedly has a very particular contract with God, it doesn’t negate the importance of the rule of law for everyone else. That’s a secular concept, too.