Category Archives: International

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.


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


What Are We Thinking?


When laws, customs, or religion says men are allowed to degrade or harm women, while women must hide themselves as if they’re a shameful creature, then every justification someone uses to defend their beliefs doesn’t come from lofty principles of any supreme intelligence or creator. Those customs are created and enforced by men who are so insecure in their masculinity, they find it necessary to oppress women.

circus_strong_manLet me say it in another way. Lets assume you intermingle on a regular basis with men and women. Notice the big, strong men who are emotionally mature, don’t act act out aggressively or are confrontational. They don’t need to be, they have nothing to prove.

Not so, with many smaller or immature men. Those are the emotionally insecure who demand control and use fear as part of their authority.

There are people who find it necessary to prove they are the pack alpha. They group together and prey upon those they can control. Of course they identify with group think ideology and they want authority over the group. If you’re a man or woman and agree with this, then your mind has become captured and controlled through regimentation and repetition.

male_vs_female_cartoonIt’s tragically pathetic to insist genitalia defines superiority of one human over another. Furthermore, neither man or woman could continue without the creation and incubation of all human life inside a woman. Why then, would this creative, life supporting female be subservient to the male of the species? Only a heretic religious concept would choose to incorporate this thinking into their organization.

The individuals who believe in such fallacy are the universal pariah of any community. There’s no truthfulness in a philosophy, religion or text which seeks to justify this behavior, using word perversion to claim divine authority.

If that’s the kind of leadership a group has, using threats of harm, isolation, family disconnection, against any that try to be independent thinkers, or seek to do good outside of this group, then it’s not of God or Allah, its origins are of man, not the divine.



Are We Doing More Harm Than Good?

I’m a Marine Corps veteran who enlisted during the Vietnam war. As such, I believe I’ve earned the right to make a few observations about our use of the military throughout the world.

I think an overall concern for the welfare and freedom of humanity is a good cause. I’m just not sure that using our military as goodwill ambassadors for freedom and democracy is all that effective. Any military must first be an effective fighting force, but it’s use should be limited to preserving the nation and it’s people. The first loyalty of any person is to serve and protect their family, then their community, and finally their nation. Going beyond that requires more than just your independent will and might.

If for example, another country invaded the US and said, we’re going to install a new government, bomb your cities, kill off anyone that dares lift a hand against us, the average American would think that’s intolerable and would fight against this foreign intervention. Yet for some reason, we’ve been doing this for decades and believe the world is a better place because of this action.

I’m not the first or last to criticize our leadership when they make these type of decisions. I certainly consider myself pro-America, and pro-military. My honorable discharge from the Marines should exemplify that, but I think we do the nation a disservice when we become puppets to a country which leads with its big stick.

I think our influence would go a lot further if we backed away from a strategy of military aggression. Let’s resort to using the military to be able to defend the homeland, not go off and kill other people in a preemptive cause, thinking it’s OK if we kill you, because you might do us harm later.

That’s like sending police into a neighborhood, breaking down doors, arresting all males between 14 to 45 because they might commit a crime.

Then we wonder, why do they hate us and want to commit acts of terrorism?

We just aren’t being honest with ourselves. We must realize we’re fueling and fanning the flames of our own destruction. I’m not creating apologies for terrorists, but there’s two sides to every story. I don’t think we’re doing a good job of examining the other side.

This year, let’s remind ourselves of how our country was established and guided by inspired wisdom. George Washington first explained that our nation should steer clear of foreign entanglements. His words were made even more clear by Thomas Jefferson when he said, “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.