Today all over Australia thousands of misinformed people marched for action on climate change. They received mainstream media coverage, had their speeches and what not, but all failed the most important point: CO2 does not, has not, and likely never will create climate change. If atmospheric CO2 ever creates climate change, we will have all died of asphyxiation by that point as the required levels of CO2 required would be toxic to us. We would probably need 100,000 times as much CO2 to get the touted ‘green house’ effect, and honestly where would we get the CO2 from, what would we burn? How could we maintain it in the atmosphere when every photosynthetic plant and animal would be having a bonanza absorbing it.
CO2 up & temperature down, feel that cognitive dissonance!
Any barely competent scientist would tell you the graph shows now relationship between CO2 and temperature.
Today’s marches were testament to the fact that many people can’t tell the difference between real science and propaganda.
As the warmers will be looking to pick this article apart, they may stumble onto the fact I have said some animals are photosynthetic. Technically this is true some bacteria are photosynthetic and are not plants so therefore are animals having animal biology. And there is this much larger example http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/green-aphid-photosynthesis/
A week is a long time in politics.
In in the last few days the Wikileaks party has undergone seismic changes due to a factional split and calls of hypocrisy, lack of democracy and autocratic control.
A third of the party council have quit, along with one of the candidates.
Four of the eleven Wikileaks party council members quit along with one of the candidates, Leslie Cannold. The straw that broke the camels back: the preferences for the senate races.
One would suspect that the lack of democracy and adherence to their own ideals of democracy and party internal rules would have been noticed earlier. So I suspect that what it is really over, is which other parties Wikileaks would align itself with, and there come the compromises and dealing with other political parties. As a party claiming to wanting to fill an oversight role in the senate they would need to do deals with other parties or just be completely shut out of the game at that level, unless of course they won 30 seats, which is unlikely in the first term at least.
So where does Wikileaks see itself aligned?
Well as a party essentially of protest, the strongest supporters would likely come from the left, third option voters, people who have wavered between ALP and The Greens largely, but have other political affiliations. And her lies the rub, The WA race put them head to head with Scott Ludlum.
If you look at our wonderful supplied info-graphic you will see the lay of the senate table.
The current make up of the senate:
The seats are colour coded to show which party holds it and in a few cases the names of the senators holding seats.
Seats with a dark border are up for reelection this senate cycle.
The first 3 states are where wikileaks party is running candidates.
NSW and VIC
NSW and VIC are quite similar, a reasonably even split between left and right, both have an ALP senator quitting, to run for the lower house. NSW has all 4 ALP senator up for re-election and both have a Wikileaks candidate running, both also have a Greens senator safe for another 2 years. So in both of these senate races Wikileaks will be able to draw support from traditional or wavering ALP voters and not greatly challenge the Greens current standing. Wikileaks might even get a few liberal / nationals voters or even inspire some donkey voters.
The Situation for WA is very different:
Scott Ludlum has his Greens senate seat on the line, and may lose support due to the new possibility for the third option voter, the Wikileaks party. The Greens in WA will likely be facing a backlash over The Greens carbon tax and the double whammy of a new third option party might be enough to send Scott Ludlum out of the senate.
And this is what has got the Green leaning faction of the Wikileaks party upset, along with the way preferences were debated over and then finally selected against the wishes of a significant minority (perhaps even a majority) of the party council and party members. The departing Wikileaks party members are even openly canvassing for Scott Ludlum now against their own former candidates.
TAS and SA
The situation with TAS is similar to SA , the Greens have 2 senators in each state and one is up for re -election.
Peter Whish-Wilson is up for re-election in TAS as Bob Brown successor, and no opposition from Wikileaks party.
Sarah Hanson-Young is up for re-election and no opposition from Wikileaks party.
Interestingly both Greens candidates (in SA and TAS) have double barrel surnames, oh yeah, that’s right a hallmark of inherited money, status and detachment from reality.
What is most interesting is the lack of candidates for QLD, perhaps they are deliberately standing aside.
This reference to the Greens party might make more sense once you consider how close Lesile Cannold is to The Greens. Cannold, the protégée of Peter Singer, a previous Greens candidate who co-wrote a book with Bob Brown the Greens founder and recently retired co-leader. She is effectively one person removed from the founder of The Greens party. Why didn’t she stand for the Greens in the first place? it’s entirely possible she entered the Wikileaks party to collapse it from the inside to prevent The Greens losing votes from their brainwashed masses. She used the phrase ‘white anted’ to attack the Wikileaks party, and of course this is a way of attacking your opponents, accusing them of using your own tactic.
I would not be surprised to see Leslie Cannold standing for The Greens in the not too distant future.
She has all the credentials; academic, feminist with some odd utilitarian ideals and best of all has helped collapse a third option rival from the inside. She has probably used the experience of the Wikileaks party to give her self a political party education.
So for the resigned part staffers and Party council members we can only refer you to the experiences people have had with Wikileaks.org and the whistle blowers who have been badly burnt by Assange; leopards don’t change their spots.
I would say this is the death-blow to the Wikileaks party getting a senate seat, but there are another two long weeks in politics to go.
So our commiserations to those people who put in a lot of effort trying to make a difference by attempting to enter the political system.
Changing the corruption in the political system from the inside is like preaching for chastity in a brothel.
Sean we can’t wait for the rage quit video, post one online and we’ll give you the slab of XXXX that Kevin Rudd promised us months ago, but still hasn’t delivered.
Politics: the lies, the games, the BS!
Since we mentioned a feminist and we were critical, we’ll quote another feminist to offer balance.
You can’t use politics to change politics, just like you can’t use your left hand to scratch your left elbow.
Recently the Greens in Melbourne City Council decided to do some party promotion media stunts. They got Carl Scrace to hastily make a media release stating that he wanted MCC to investigate the Occupy Melbourne City Square eviction of November 21 2011. Of course this was a media stunt because a federal court case is still ongoing, no investigation by anyone is really appropriate. It was just an opportunity for the Greens and any other political opportunist to grandstand about how 18 months later they support the Occupy Melbourne protests. Thanks for declaring your support now, you still aren’t actually helping us. We predicted this little ill conceived media stunt would simply crash and burn, and it did. But it made us rethink again how the Greens really did nothing for us and really could have done something, especially considering their claimed ideals.
Adam Bandt -Greens Federal for Melbourne.
the MCC media stunt pro investigation votes.
Dr Jackie Watt – RMIT Education PhD. ALP links.
As we can see two pro votes were from Greens , one from an opportunist, one from someone with ALP links. We’ll give Dr Jackie Watt the benefit of the doubt for now.
So there we have it, a Greens inspired media stunt to leverage media coverage of Occupy Melbourne, which they put nothing into and now are attempting to claim as their own.
Were the Greens involved from the beginning?
Right from the beginning we all wondered if there was a connection between ‘The Greens’ political party and Occupy Melbourne or even the movement as a whole. They deny it.
The first clue was Nick Carson, who made the disclaimer that he let his Greens membership lapse. The next clue was Adam Bandt (federal member for Melbourne) arriving at the City Square During the first OM camp.
The next clue was the City Square eviction. How was that a clue? Well Adam Bandt and the Greens held the balance of power in both the Senate and the House of Representatives at the time. Had they decided to make and issue of Occupy Melbourne’s rights to make a political point and demonstrate, they certainly had the power to bring down the government over the issue. Remember this was a government that was a minority government that needed alliances with 3 independents and Adam Bandt from The Greens to have the numbers to govern. Just one dissenter in their ranks was enough to make things very complex for them. Adam Bandt could have voted against them on any bill they tried to pass into law. Adam Bandt’s Green party in the Senate could have struck down two bills and caused a snap election. He was literally holding the government by the balls and just quietly moaned as they slapped against his chin.
So rather than care about our legal right to protest, the Greens turned their backs on us and just complained afterwards.
Most ironically Adam Bandt talks about his highest passions , human rights and the environment, but he allowed dozens of peaceful protestors to be brutalized in the middle of Australia’s second biggest city, he allowed 17 truck loads of their possessions to be destroyed and thrown into landfill.
Because the Greens planned to do nothing socially useful in their entire term and need to attach themselves to a populist cause, preferably something high profile and no longer existent, a martyr cause.
The Greens used Occupy Melbourne as an opportunity to find a popular cause, kill it from the inside, and then use its remains as a platform, simply put: to grandstand on our corpse. After killing it, they just needed to make sure it was completely silent or only making pro Green party murmurs. How’s that working out for you guys?
To make sure OM died the Greens got their operatives in the camp. Most never even stayed one night there, though they felt completely entitled to make decisions that affected those who did.
To make sure OM never said inconvenient things or figured out the truth, their operatives stymied debate, hijacked groups (most significantly the media group), installed politically correct language and culture.
All of the media assets were hijacked and controlled to make sure the messages could be controlled before during and after the protest in the parks.
One of the most obvious Greens operatives was Nick Carson a former greens candidate, he surrounded him self with other operatives to form a quorum to back up his position and point of view.
He hijacked the main Facebook groups putting himself and other operatives as administrators to completely control everything.
Winter 2012 they released ‘Occupy Reflects’, to whitewash themselves out of any possible guilt and to proclaim OM dead and buried.
Nick Carson was probably promised some form of political position for his efforts, but with the discovery and publication of his actions that is now unlikely.
It was relatively obvious who Nick Carson’s fellow Greens operatives were, they all have one thing in common, Marxism.
It’s well known many green movements are watermelons, Marxism disguised as environmentalism. The Greens Party in Australia are no different.
Marxism in brief.
Karl Marx’s ideas were a response to the industrial revolution, the transformation of economic systems from feudalism to capitalism. Marx’s ideas we initially successful in places like Russia and China but the as the rest of the world looked on, other disenchanted workers saw it as less desirable (less freedom, less wealth) than capitalism or feudalism. So in the 20th century Marxist ideas (second wave) were not targeted to the working class (who rejected them), but instead to second rate academics and the marginalized members of society. The biggest success of Marxism’s second wave was Feminism, Gay rights, Racial equality, Environmentalism. This is not to say they were not good things, but rather to point out these areas of academia are absolutely full of Marxist ideology.
Lets look at the Marxist greens and tie some threads together.
Criticize everything except Marxism, don’t offer a solution, because the unspoken solution is Marxism. Critical theory is a hijacking of the term critical thought. Critical thought comes from critique, whereas critical theory comes from the term criticize. Subtle distinction you might say, but a critique is a careful examination that is balanced and objective. Criticize is usually emotionally charged and unbalanced, leaving out opposing arguments.
The Greens just criticized the local council, they didn’t use their political power to stop them. 18 months later they attempted to get political/media profile out of Occupy Melbourne, hoping everyone forgot they denied all connections at the time, did nothing to help, and now care because its an election year.
*OM: many Marxists just criticized what everyone else was doing, but did nothing to help or offer a better solution.
Keep Marxist though secretly as a corner stone of all thought. Promote specific thought terminating cliches to defend Marxism. Make people think they are smart if they can recall which (thought terminating) cliche is the best to end a debate.Marxist thought absolutely pervades arts, social sciences and education departments in higher education. Marxists even created a whole language of cliches and word for things called politically correct language. The politics that was correct in this language was Marxism, but that wasn’t specifically stated. If you think you know everything about the world straight out of university, you are a fool. Much of what you learned was dogma and after leaving university you should find out what was true and what was false. Much of the education system is geared toward leveling everybody out to the same mediocre level, praise the fools and chastise the clever.
Most of the Greens candidates are educated in law, arts and education, most of them are Marxists whether they realize it or not.
*OM: While we had a education working group it largely did nothing, I think it was just there to promote thought terminating cliches and promote politically correct language.
Hijack a group of women who want a better life in capitalism and tell them they are a oppressed by the man’s system (capitalism), make them hate and wish to subjugate men.
Women: men and women are not equal, just as apples and oranges are not equal. Men and women are different but have similarities.
In some circumstances they could be treated equally. I could use either to make apple juice or orange juice. Often both are needed to make a better product, orange juice is better with an apple base. Sometimes one is never a substitute for the other, Apple pie, duck l’Orange.
This is not to say men and women shouldn’t be treated equally where it makes sense to do so.
In the siege of Stalingrad the Russians used many female snipers, some as young as 12 years old, because a rifle can be used by either gender at more or less the same difficulty, unlike the sword that came before it. The use of women in the military in Russia wasn’t so much a triumph for women’s rights, it was more a consequence of the desperation of the Russians who lost more people to world war 2 than any other country.
It wasn’t just the Russians that were keen to use women for the war effort, Women all over the world were encouraged into factories and industries where they had never been before, apart from being secretaries or eye candy. The real feminist push came in the generation following this, when women grew up with mothers who have been in wartime factories and traditionally male dominated professions, only to find their mothers’ careers were somehow off-limits to them. This also coincided with the consolidation of Marxist thought in the embryonic feminist theory being taught at universities.
But men and women should not attempt equality where it makes no sense.
Men can give birth, but does it make a lot of sense to go through all the required surgery and operations, when most women are naturally equipped to to so?
How would women feel paying a tax so men can have operations to get a uterus and give birth?
If you are a woman and you want equality that really means something in the real world, get a gun, that is a real equalizer.
Find a feminist who is not an environmentalist, pretty rare, there is no other obvious logical connection between these two ideologies other than Marxism.
Feminists if you really care about the environment stop using sanitary products containing sphagnum moss, which is harvested by destroying wetlands.
*OM: There was a feminist working group, most of the attendees were women of course, a few men went along, most sessions were apparently to complain about men doing relatively minor things that upset their sensibilities. Most of the men and some of the women attending these meeting were just trying to find women to sleep with. Interestingly they never complained about male (or female) sex predators which did exist sadly.
Lack of democracy.
Democracy sounds good and fair, people like the sound of the word, it implies fairness, Marxists subvert it where possible with bloc voting, stacking elections, forming committees, if needed Marxists find reasons for when it should be abandoned (in favor of Marxist agenda).
Find a democratic reform group that doesn’t use lots of politically correct language: Marxist infiltration.
OM: Many important decisions were made in working groups, though these groups were supposed to be open and transparent, in reality most were closed and didn’t have or release minutes. The facilitation working group was designed to help moderate debates, it was meant to be neutral but in many cases steered debate, or simply denied democracy.
Bureaucracy and cronyism.
Always have cronies and useful idiots at all levels ready to distract and deflect debate with thought terminating cliches. Always have a committee, committees are great, they appear to be a collection of experts and affected individuals making a decision, and it appears to be democratic. Nothing is further from the truth. Committees are usually stacked from the beginning, have very little knowledge of the subject they are making decisions on and are generally unaffected by the decision they make. Committees often have hidden agendas and love making rules for everyone else that they are immune from somehow.
Successful small businesses don’t have committees. Committees and boards of directors are for large inefficient dinosaurs. The communist party has a chairman, governments have committees.
OM: Working groups were often filled with cronies to stack votes and sway opinions.
Lack of transparency.
You don’t need to cover your tracks if there is no transparency in the first instance. The Greens in Australia do not allow media at their conferences, however ALP the Liberals do. Why so secretive?
If Marxism is so great, why is it hiding in so many places?
OM: General assembly minutes sometimes got lost and were sometimes altered before release. Working groups were very much closed. The most secretive were Facilitation, Media and First aid and care.
Facilitation and media should have been the most open, not the most closed. First aid and care certainly covered up at least one sexual assault, probably more.
Does anyone remember the environmental slogan of the 90’s ‘Think Globally, act locally’, it’s an example of the global aspirations of environmentalism and Marxism.
Think Marxism globally, Act Marxist locally.
OM: It was a global movement, I think about the word ‘global’ differently now.
After East Germany collapsed and was absorbed by the capitalist west, enclaves were discovered where the party elites lived, They were full of luxuries the working class could not afford to buy. Many luxuries were illegally imported products from the west that no one was permitted to posses in their glorious workers paradise. Ultimately communism in East Germany was just a dishonest version of capitalism disguised as communism to keep the workers uninformed and compliant.
Hypocrisy is a really strong trait in Marxists, they always have a reason why ‘some animals are more equal that others’.
OM: The Greens operatives almost without exception never stayed in the park from dusk till dawn. Because they were better than everyone else. A true polit bureau.
Ever heard of meteorology or climatology? You have more likely hear of climate science which is not a science at all but claims to be. The committee raises its ugly head again and claims to be an expert (wrong) or claims to have consensus (it doesn’t). Committees don’t do science and consensus is what hold back science not what advances it. The number of people who died because of their scientific idea is staggering, many people died believing outdated theories. Much of the newer paradigms in science were only adopted as truth when people literary grew up in the new paradigm with the old guard simply dying of old age. This didn’t make them right (repeatability and making correct predictions made them correct) but science is a culture and one very resistant to change. In the 90s it was called global warming, because the globe was warming in that period, in the 2000’s it was called climate change (because it was actually cooling down), there’s a big change of the goal posts right there. In the 70s scientists were terrified of a new ice age.
Global warming is not happening, humans are not a significant factor in global temperature.
Global warming, Global scam for Marxist control.
OM: Most people believed in global warming. Most people had no idea this is a massive scam. I’m not sure who’s idea it was for use to eat off plastic disposable plates and use disposable cutlery, but everything else got stolen or destroyed by the council ultimately.
One political term with Greens having some real power:
So our Green party in Australia, what have they done with their small dose of power? Installed a huge tax on everyone in Australia to sending the money offshore to unaccountable people.
If you are a big polluter you pay very little.
Corruption and cronyism: big businesses in bed with the state are protected. Some animals are more equal that other animals.
If you are small business you can’t blame your recent cost increase on carbon tax (that is an offense).
Promoting secrecy around the secret tax , the secret theft.
If you are a poor house holder you will be compensated (at least for now) for the cost addition to your expenses.
Pushing more people to welfare where they can be controlled.
Where did the tax payment really come from, more foreign debt?
More foreign debt means less control over you own country, it slowly slides into the hands of the globalist Marxists.
What went wrong?
They all underestimated a hard core who refused to give up despite the slander, insults lies and offensive behavior of Nick Carson’s Marxist Green hijacker cell.
We bled for this movement, we were harassed 24/7, we were robbed by council workers and other less organized criminals, we were assaulted and threatened by police. For most people this is enough to turn them off, but for some it meant the sunk cost was too high to just walk away, and let the parasites bleed the movement dry and use it for infecting the rest of society.
But that’s the trouble with using delusional flunkies to do your dirty work, it’s hard to get good flunkies, because flunkies are usually incompetent and stupid.
Beside every main gate there is a side door, this is that door. And the door is getting more and more traffic, so much so, it’s going to eventually be the main door.