Sunday, 27 May 2012

Commentary on NATO - Chicago 2012

This report is also on my website Green Fibre Communications News
 
The reported conclusion of the recent NATO conference in Chicago expresses primarily only one conclusion; that its long-planned European missile shield is up and running. NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made the announcement at the end of the first day of the NATO summit, stating that "the shield's 'interim capability' stage is the first step in the goal of providing full coverage and protection for all NATO Europe populations, territory, and forces from threats outside the Euro-Atlantic area by 2022.
 
Considering that this statement was made on the first day of the conference, and that the stated objective of the NATO conference was discussion of 'smart defence' of which the missile shield is only one aspect, the remaining happy talk largely related to Afghanistan defies any true reporting of the conference agenda. As stated in my previous article, NATO's own definition of 'smart defence' is "Ballistic missile defence, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, maintenance".
 
The primary public output is related to Afghanistan yet reading deeper into Official texts from the Chicago Summit 2012 that which is not reported is there:
From 'Summit Declaration on Defence Capabilities': "We are deploying a highly sophisticated Alliance Ground Surveillance system", "We have extended our air policing mission" - while this is focussed on the Baltics, it is a declaration of NATO acting as a police force, and "improving our defences against cyber attacks".
 
While NATO is perceived publicly in a peace keeping profile of military cooperation, it has since its origins been a military force to protect economic and political interests. For an indepth review of NATO's history, see: GLOBAL NATO: A Geostrategic Instrument of Worldwide Military Conquest. The minimal reporting of the event hides the intent of 'smart defence'. Again, quoting the Summit Declaration on Defence Capabilities'  "we must find new ways to cooperate more closely to acquire and maintain key capabilities, prioritise on what we need most and consult on changes to our defence plans.  We should also deepen the connections among the Allies and between them and our partners on the basis of mutual benefit.  Maintaining a strong defence industry in Europe and making the fullest possible use of the potential of defence industrial cooperation across the Alliance remain an essential condition for delivering the capabilities needed for 2020 and beyond."
 
NATO declares its policing role and its primary focus of maintaining a permanent war economy, going on to state..
 "Smart Defence is at the heart of this new approach. The development and deployment of defence capabilities is first and foremost a national responsibility.  But as technology grows more expensive, and defence budgets are under pressure, there are key capabilities which many Allies can only obtain if they work together to develop and acquire them.  We therefore welcome the decisions of Allies to take forward specific multinational projects, including for better protection of our forces, better surveillance and better training.  These projects will deliver improved operational effectiveness, economies of scale, and closer connections between our forces.  They will also provide experience for more such Smart Defence projects in future."
 
Reporting of the policing of protest in Chicago has been low key. However, this itself represents an effective mirror of the nature of NATO engagement and the allied application of policing. "In the final analysis the NATO summit was a microcosm.  The U.S. government displayed an overwhelming force posture replete with bells and whistles, its respective agencies and the city spent more than was needed, it trumped up terrorism to malign forces it perceived as a threat, the entire affair received little media coverage." NATO Summit in Rearview: The Big and Expensive Non-Event
 
As the hidden agenda focuses on full spectrum electro-magnetic dominance to force upon the world the economic and political intent of the military industrial complex, with the Bilderberg group meeting in less than ten days, and the Rio+20 'Sustainable Development' (Agenda 21) summit coming in June, stay focussed, and remember the geo-location technology on your smart phone.

Science and Aesthetic

The paper, 'Re-defining Aesthetics to Develop Human Survival Technology', published by Professor Robert Pope, is a definitive statement addressing the ignorance of the cultural rigidity that establishes a diabolic commitment to ultimate extinction. Such cultural rigidity is diabolic in that it establishes destruction rather than creation as the fundamental basis of Universal Energy Law. This page gives a summary and outline of the conceptual reality of contemporary thought that embraces infinity, zero and fractal dynamics as the substance of understanding Universal Manifestation/Creation drawing from the paper of Professor Pope.

For the past several thousand years the human collective has become dominated by a patriarchal power structure. Over the past several hundred years this power structure has become unstable and diabolic in its manifestations. This is inevitable as balance of female and male energy is a principle foundation of harmony. However, this current condition is also to be held within the context of evolutionary process, as it is not possible to know wholeness if any aspect of behaviour is denied. Religious and spiritual thought tends to condemn the diabolic, destructive (evil = against life) energy and cast it into denial. The collective experience of this energy affords the collective choice beyond denial as belief struture. Through this evolutionary process the diabolic is 'known' and therefore liberated from belief and superstition.

St Augustine first formulated the concept of original sin. Following his canonisation in 387AD, his philosophic worldview began to shift and subsequently had a huge impact on medieval thought. It was St. Augustine who demonised female sexuality. He is also held responsible, within christian ethics, for the concept of 'just war'.

St. Augustine's arguments against magic, differentiating it from miracle, were crucial in the early church's fight against paganism and became a central thesis in the later denunciation of witches and witchcraft and the subsequent murder of thousands of innocents under charges of witchcraft. Here began an onslaught against matriarchal lineages that continues to this day. The Patriarchs of 'one God' have sought, and still seek to eliminate the Goddess as a means to establish their authority of knowledge. In all matriarchal traditions woman is honoured for her capacity of 'direct knowing' through the connected space of her womb awareness. The concept of original sin has wrapped female power in superstitious dogma that creates doubt, fear, guilt and shame as a method of prohibition and submission to the patriarchs authority.

The womb of woman creates life. It is from the womb of woman that all beings become. The Universal space of void, is the pure enrgy space of no-thing, before it comes into the manifest as a thing. The womb of woman and the void of space share resonance. In this way, the patriarchal power structure has to deny infinty and zero. As space is infinite (Universal) and zero (no-thing). This denial of zero and infinity has established a world view that is mechanical and bound to a closed system of beingness. Such a world view not only establishes the 2nd law of thermodynamics but needs this law to validate its conceptual frame. Yet such a mind-frame has erased the value of ethic and morality as it defies aesthetics.

The 20th Century worldview is governed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which Einstein and his colleagues called the 'Universal Heat Death Law', referred to by Einstein as “the supreme physics law of the entire universe”. This governing law held that when all heat eventually becomes completely dissipated into cold space, all life in the universe must be destroyed. Sir Arthur Eddington also undermined the value of aesthetics by confining life to a purpose of ultimate destruction. He added to Einstein’s definition of the heat/death law, calling it “the supreme metaphysical law of the entire universe”.

Here is the entry of diablos as it is manifest at the dawn of the 21st Century because the commitment to the 2nd law of thermodynamics is commitment to the principle of destruction - The Military Industrial Complex. The only possible outcome is entropy, and the structures of the patriarchal dominant governance are collapsing in front of our eyes.

If the universe must suffer a heat death, then human evolution could not possibly be linked to infinity. Therefore the concept of aesthetics, within an infinite universe, became an inconceivable nonsense and impossibility.Aesthetics has been, and still is treated with scientific derision by scientists who are ignorant of the fact that the 20th Century worldview has collapsed.

Aristotle considered ethics to be about the human ‘virtues’ such as love, beauty, compassion, justice, and wisdom, which could be used to benefit the individual and society. The Constitution of the United States of America adopted a definition of ethics, in which the guiding principle of conduct should be about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Immanuel Kant, considered to be one of the world’s greatest philosophers and the foremost thinker of the Age of Enlightenment, associated ethics with the functioning of a universal knowledge.

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the principles of beauty and artistic taste. It was given definition by German philosophers during the 18th Century to assist in the translation of Kantian philosophy and meant “the science which treats of the conditions of sensuous perception”. Kant’s philosophy maintained that  transfer of information energy was held to occur through musical harmonics and beautiful thought forms that resonated as part of the functioning of an infinite universe, although  Immanuel Kant was unable to clearly define the concept of an infinite universe.

Bernard Bolzano used mathematics to solve Kant’s finite-infinity dilemma and concluded that the universe was indeed infinite. Recent discoveries appear to have helped resolve this problem further and at the same time, to confirm the practicality of the ancient Greek geometrical definition of ethics, as being infinite. The Greek definition was the precursor to the 1980 discovery by BenoĆ®t Mandelbrot of infinite fractal geometrical logic, considered to be the greatest mathematical discovery in human history.

From an aesthetics point of view of Kant’s writings, two a priori humanitarian concepts can be deduced.
(1) Unless the physics laws governing human government are about the health and well being of all people, at the same time, then they are meaningless.

(2) Unless the technology sustaining that ennobling government is about the health and well being of all people, at the same time, then it is meaningless.

Aesthetics holds that Democracy should be considered to be a living thing, embracing human virtues as universal principles. Professor Ruggero Santilli’s collaboration with Chris Illert in their book, 'Foundations of Theoretical Conchology' demonstrate that the physics principles governing optimum (healthy) biological growth and development through space-time, depended upon a more general geometrical description of the universe.

Without any doubt the the Universal Time/Space Matrix is  geometric in its formulation. The revolutionary application of the principle of 'increment', that is also the esential functioning of fractal logic, confirms the non-mechanical iteration of infinity, aesthetic unfolds with incredible harmony throughout all of creation.

The former Chief of Brain Biochemistry, Clinical Neuroscience Branch, National Institute of Mental Health in the USA, Dr Candace Pert, discovered a ‘molecule of emotion’ found functioning in a simple cell as well as within the human metabolism. This molecule changes its geometrical form at high speeds to carry out its evolutionary purpose, a process that is relevant to the ancient Greek ethical emotion evolutionary theories.

Dr Pert discovered that the ‘molecule of emotion‘ evolves in direct association with the manufacture of endocrine fluids, needed to maintain the health of the organism. It can be considered that herein may be found the principles endorsing the work of the cosmologist Mario Livio. In his book, 'Accelerating Universe: Infinite Expansion, The Cosmological Constant, and the Beauty of the Cosmos', Livio considers that beauty is a basic part of universal fundamental theories.

Fractal geometric logic is also associated with cellular functioning. The bio-dynamic of RNA/DNA functioning via cell membrane receptors, as first identified by Dr Ror Malcolm, is integral to the process of protien creation and thus 'assemblage' of form.

To return to Kant, he believed that if an action is not done with the motive of duty, then it is without moral value. He thought that every action should have pure intention behind it; otherwise it was meaningless. He did not necessarily believe that the final result was the most important aspect of an action, but that how the person felt while carrying out the action was the time at which value was set to the result.

The 4th World, as it comes to conclusion at the Winter Solstice 2012, is in a state of entropy. It's demise is assured through the construct of its own governing principles. It has been an age of karmic evolution by which the human being as an evolving entity has been brought to recognition of its free will capacity for evil, or intention against life. The 5th World is a dharmic opportunity to exercise free will aligned with and enhancing the aesthetic magnificence of the fractal expression of life force/creation in all of its manifestations. Where the karmic evolution oriented to learning through pain, the dharmic orientation is towards pleasure. The concept of original sin and the condemnation of female sexuality prohibit any true sense of aesthetic and forbid the enjoyment of life force as an erotic energy. Such prohibition and dogmatic superstition subvert the intelligence of zero and infinity. Intelligence transfer requires engagement at a depth of energy union. Such union, to a dharmically liberated consciousness is pleasureful.

Influence must be brought to bear within the crumbling entropic structure that doesn't seek to destroy that structure, but that through the integrity of dharmic resonance, presents with clarity that not only are the solutions offered by infinity and zero beneficial to all, but that the perceptual and sensual engagement with life will be immensely more pleasureful. In this occurance, the chemistry at the cellular membrane will unfold aesthetic manifestations of reality that, at this time of the closure of the 4th World, we can scarcely imagine. In this way the intent to enhance beauty, elegance, and the art of living becomes service to the natural unfoldment that is coded within the very matrix of time/space, and we get to enjoy it. This is experiencing the divine as a lived reality and is the essence of 5th World Assemblage.
 
Referance:
Re-defining Aesthetics to Develop Human Survival Technology
Revised 2nd Edition
Published by

The Science-Art Research Centre of Australia Inc.
An Australian Government Approved Research Institute
ISBN 0-9577784-9-X
June 7th, 2006
PO Box 733
Murwillumbah
New South Wales 2484 Australia
E-mail address:
pope@science-art.com.au
© Professor Robert Pope 2006
 
 

Friday, 4 November 2011

The Great Green Deception

Next year in 2012 Rio de Janeiro again hosts an Earth Summit. Twenty years on from the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, the 2012 event is being dubbed Rio+20.
Rio+20 is in fact the short name for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. As an Earth Summit addresses environmental issues it is natural to assume that sustainable development relates to preserving a sustainable environment. It does not. Sustainable development is the banner of a drive for global government. The 2012 Earth summit website (earthsummit2012) is explicit about this fact: “One of the two main themes for the Earth Summit is the 'institutional framework for sustainable development'. Put more simply, this primarily refers to the system of global governance for sustainable development.”
In 1992 the Rio Earth Summit was in fact The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) and led to what is most commonly remembered as the outcome ‘The Rio Declaration’. The Rio Declaration consisted of 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world. It presents the illusion of an environmental concern; “Working towards international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global environmental and developmental system.” When in fact it is simply carrying forward an agenda established at Stockholm on 16 June 1972.

The drive for a ‘One World Government’ (a New World Order) has used the fear of climate change as a means to create a veneer of acceptability while hiding the actual agenda. Environmental degradation is a serious issue and one that demands pro-active engagement. Our industrialised culture continues to pollute in extreme measure while the process of conferences and subsequent legislation accomplish minimal impact in the real world situation. Extinction rates are currently considered to be at least 27,000 species per year.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) is responsible for environmental issues within Europe. This agency should represent and act in accord with the communities of Europe. It does not. The EEA acts In order to carry through the agenda that has been set for them. That agenda is ‘sustainable development’.
This summer the European Union in its process of preparation for Rio+20, published 'Europe’s environment, an Assessment of Assessments'. It does not foster trust that the EU is actively engaged in addressing pollutants in the environment when the major output from the EEA is an assessment of assessments. The very first sentence of the introduction to this publication establishes the EEA’s purpose: "The European Environment Agency (EEA) has produced four pan-European 'state of Europe's environment' reports in support of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 'Environment for Europe' process."
The EU committed to transform Europe itself into "a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy” in March 2007 with an agreement to the EU 20-20-20 targets. An agreement allows Nation States to determine how to meet their obligation of commitment. But the 'how' is later given specific direction through legislation in 2009. EU Nation States are legally bound to the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), Biomass, and investment in developing Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). None of which are effective in addressing environmental degradation.
The Sixth UN 'Environment for Europe' Ministerial Conference in Belgrade was also held in 2007. At this conference commitment was re-affirmed to the Environment for Europe (EfE) process:
“We are committed to further environmental improvement in countries of the UNECE
region. We recognize the important value of the EfE process as a unique Pan-European forum
for tackling our environmental challenges and promoting broad horizontal environmental
cooperation as a pillar of sustainable development in the region.”  (Economic and Social
Council, ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE, DECLARATION “Building Bridges to the Future” by Ministers of the region of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)).

The EU acts in support of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 'Environment for Europe' process.

UNECE, on its website, defines the process.
"The 'Environment for Europe' process is a unique partnership of member States within the UNECE region, organizations of the United Nations system represented in the region, other intergovernmental organizations, regional environmental centers, non-governmental organizations, the private sector and other major groups.”

At this point I feel it is necessary to underline that the 'Environment for Europe' process emerges from an Economic Commission.
 
The EEA is not concerned about the environment as the assessment of assessments itself states: "Thus, the EE-AoA is not a new assessment of environmental issues but an analysis and assessment of the methods and underpinning information tied to the policy debate." UNECE has already informed us that non-governmental organisations, the private sector and other major groups form its remit, and the EEA reports themselves are produced with the involvement of UNECE, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and other international organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The Organisation for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) was established in 1947 to run the US-financed Marshall Plan for reconstruction of a continent ravaged by war. It became the OECD when the US & Canada joined in 1961. The OECD brings around its table 40 countries that account for 80% of world trade and investment, giving it a pivotal role in addressing the challenges facing the world economy.
What does the environment have to do with a process of ‘sustainable development’ that is pushed by interests of economy and trade?
The environment doesn’t have anything to do with this process, the EEA deals with information to service policy. "Environmental information is an essential component of the environmental policy process. This was recognised at the very first 'Environment for Europe' conference held at Dobris Castle near Prague in June 1991".
Although titled 'Environment for Europe' (EfE) it clearly has little to do with environment and represents a determination made for Europe by globalist interests. Also attending the meeting in 1991 were representatives of the Council of Europe, the Centre for Our Common Future, the Conference on Security and Co-operation for Europe, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Free Trade Association, the European Investment Bank, NATO, the Nordic Investment Bank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations Development Programme, UNECE, the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, and the World Bank, to name only some.

So what was determined at the very first EfE' conference held at Dobris Castle near Prague in June 1991?

One thing that was agreed was that the Conference reaffirmed the importance of the Stockholm Declaration of 1972. The Canadian Governments website summary of the Rio Earth Summit referencing Stockholm states:  "This conference raised a generation's awareness of an issue hitherto little talked about, the global environment. The Stockholm conference secured a permanent place for the environment on the world's agenda and led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). The conference and its aftermath made known the international nature of the environment and introduced the idea of the relationship between development and the environment. It has been said that the only way to unite the countries of the world is for them to face a common enemy; perhaps environmental degradation will be that enemy” (History of Rio Earth Summit, Canadian Govt.)

Since the 1972 Stockholm conference there have been many international environmental agreements. In 1983 the UN General Assembly set up the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission after its chairperson, Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. Its aim was to link environmental issues to the findings of the 1980 Brandt report on North-South relations. The Brundtland report, published in 1987 as “Our Common Future” declared that the time had come for a marriage between the environment and the economy and coined the term ‘sustainable development’.

Perhaps our most urgent task today is to persuade nations of the need to return to multilateralism. The challenge of reconstruction after the Second World War was the real motivating power behind the establishment of our post-war international economic system. The challenge of finding sustainable development paths ought to provide the impetus” (Our Common Future, Chairman’s forward)
Gro Harlem Brundtland is also a member of the Club of Madrid and has attended Bilderberg meetings. The Club of Madrid is a sibling of the Club of Rome. In 1972 “The Limits to Growth” was published by the Club of Rome. The book models the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies, and set the stage for environmental disaster.
The Club of Rome is so named because the club was founded in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy. Interestingly it was also in 1972 that the Rockefeller Commission Report made the infamous statement: “After two years of concentrated effort, we have concluded that, in the long run, no substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population, rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems... By its very nature, population is a continuing concern and should receive continuing attention. Later generations, and later commissions, will be able to see the right path further into the future.
In any case, no generation needs to know the ultimate goal or the final means, only the direction in which they will be found.”

The 1972 Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, Article 5 states:  “The natural growth of population continuously presents problems for the preservation of the environment, and adequate policies and measures should be adopted as appropriate to face these problems.”

From the origins of sustainable development the inter-linking of economy, environment and population are embedded. 20 years after the Stockholm conference at the Rio Earth Summit, the delegates reached agreement on Agenda 21, an action plan for developing the planet sustainably through the twenty-first century. The primary goal of Agenda 21 is to ensure that development proceeds in a sustainable manner; “the system of incentives and penalties which motivate economic behaviour must be reoriented to become a strong force for sustainability." Another goal is ultimately to eliminate poverty throughout the world, through better management of energy and natural resources."

Sustainable Development = Agenda 21.

In 1993 the Club of Rome published “The First Global Revolution”. This book re-affirms and establishes the threat of climate change and further emphasises the issue of population within the context of its ‘problematique’.
“A central feature of the global situation is the enormous increase in the totality of human activity during the present century, which has necessarily led to a huge rise in the demand for raw materials and energy. Much of this increase is due of course, to the spectacular growth of the world population during this period, whose numbers will be added to in the years to come by cohort after cohort of new inhabitants.”

It is also from this book that the better known Club of Rome quote is sourced: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”


Ten years after Rio, in Johannesburg South Africa, the UN 'Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development' Conference occurs. In the report published from this conference the UN assumes the position of representing the peoples of the world: "We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, assembled at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa from 2 to 4 September 2002, reaffirm our commitment to sustainable development.”



In this report the stance of the UN is explicitly clear: "Thirty years ago, in Stockholm, we agreed on the urgent need to respond to the problem of environmental deterioration. Ten years ago, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, we agreed that the protection of the environment and social and economic development are fundamental to sustainable development, based on the Rio Principles. To achieve such development, we adopted the global programme entitled Agenda 21"

"The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio
de Janeiro in 1992,  provided the fundamental principles and the programme of
action for achieving sustainable development. We strongly reaffirm our commitment
to the Rio principles,  the full implementation of Agenda 21".

Therefore it is clear that the European Environment Agency serves Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 directly links population growth and the environment; "it is naive to believe that the population crisis is not a large problem and the cause of much environmental degradation. The developing world must slow its population growth and the developed world must use fewer resources per person. Both approaches are important."

The idea behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people over the use of natural resources. It employs a warring perspective, creating an enemy (environmental collapse or climate change) using an economic weapon of control.

The economic mindset is founded in scarcity and modelled on social response to the crisis of World War II and the mobilisation of people in war time crisis. The collective applied to industry under conditions of rationed (scant) resources. Now climate change has been presented as the enemy to fear in attempting to drive the collective in a specific and applied direction under conditions of resource depletion and scarcity. 

It is sustainable development policy that the polluter pays.
Hence, the ‘greening of the economy’ pushes through so called 'smart' metering.

By Rio+20 the UN has had 40 years to address environmental contamination, which is a legitimate issue. It has not done so. Instead it has deceived people with a ‘care for the environment’ guise, while pushing through its own economically driven agenda, which serves profit motive and greed. If the intent were truly benevolent we would already have infinite energy sourcing that is wholly non-polluting.

The strategies being furthered in Europe are the EU 20-20-20 targets:-
20% reduction of emissions
20% energy sourced from renewables
20% energy efficiency improvements

The strategy for emissions reduction amounts to legally binding EU members to the Emissions Trading System (ETS).
The strategy for renewables is targeted at biomass with an allowance of acceptance for solar, wind and hydro.
The strategy for efficiency is driving through smart metering and smart grids as usage control and surveillance.



The principle of Free Energy has been within human reach since Nikola Tesla at the turn of the last century. The potential has been developed within the last 40 years and is proven.  Our scientific capabilities now are phenomenal, yet the science and technology of zero point energy has been vilified and suppressed throughout this period. It has also been demonstrated that new energy technology is non-polluting with some research demonstrating beneficial by-products from energy sourcing. A sincere approach to emissions reduction would see this technology implemented at an industrial and domestic level as soon as is necessary, which is now. In the same way that the perceived ‘necessary’ accomplished developing the nuclear bomb in World War II.
It was J P Morgan who refused Tesla funding with the infamous quote “If you can’t put a meter on it… “. The banking and private interests in the UNECE serve the same function. Their policy is to create a tradable commodity of pollution.

The maintenance of focus with renewables, while stimulating environmental fear through climate change and natural disasters in the news and other media, representing environmental doomsday scenarios, solar, wind and hydro alongside alignment with the green agenda, allows consumer and producer to furnish a public profile of correct and responsible behaviour. While pollution is an issue, energy sourcing has become a problem of national security status. This drives environmental control of land usage. Bio-mass was seen to be a profitable strategy to compliment the green agenda profile. Bio-mass itself has a harmful impact to the environment through ‘agri-business’, making a turn towards arable land usage for mono-cropping genetically modified crops for bio-fuels and bio-mass energy production; which exacerbates a further weapon of fear and control, food shortage.

The pressure to present a green profile denies the capacity of infinite energy sourcing and the free energy potential that could furnish a strategy that would not only erase concerns of energy security but also facilitate ending poverty through the sharing of abundance, allowing communities to self organise and prosper. New energy technologies present this opportunity, alongside the capability to transform infrastructure and transportation through subsequent development of new technologies such as anti-gravitic propulsion that will accompany the advancement of new science.

If efficiency were truly an imperative, then the sciences of over-unity would now be developed.

Smart metering ensures that energy users pay at the level of consumption, and suggests that the burden of fuel cost can be managed through usage behaviour. The thinking here follows a logic of ‘pollution is the problem’ - the consumer drives production pollution by creating a demand, and simultaneously pollutes with consumption waste, thus the consumer causes pollution. It is policy that the polluter pays, which places the burden of cost with the consumer through extreme levels of taxation, increased product cost and an absurd debt burden. While passing the blame onto the people, the strategy is to amplify your concern for the environment in order to socially sculpt behaviour patterns and responses. The desired response is to accept the agenda, while also gaining approval in the public and private sector for demonstrating correct ‘green’ behaviour.

Social sculpting is very much the function of organisations such as ‘Common Purpose’. The injection of words such as ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable’ into the collective, manipulates opinions.
A recent film advertisement was telling the world “Smart is Sexy” and of course, that we should be concerned and have an opinion about the environment does matter.
Social influence of this nature, within the current manufactured global economic crisis, presents us with the standard of “Greening the economy”. This is the face of sustainable development and the implementation of Agenda 21.

The EEA Assessment of assessments (AoA) defines greening the economy as: “Greening the economy: mainstreaming the environment into economic development”.

UNEP defines it as: “[A] green economy [is] one that results in improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities.”




The EEA AoA goes on to state: “The concept of green economy in the context of poverty eradication and sustainable development, will attract further attention, as it will be one of two key themes at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio in 2012”.

The nature of this context of ‘poverty eradication and sustainable development’ is clarified in a subsequent statement: “The green economy can also be viewed as a set of principles, aims and actions, which generally include:
  • equity and fairness, both within and between generations
  • consistency with the principles of sustainable development
  • a precautionary approach to social and environmental impacts
  • an appreciation of natural and social capital, through, for example, the internalisation of   external costs, green accounting, whole-life costing and improved governance
  • sustainable and efficient resource use, consumption and production
  • a need to fit with existing macroeconomic goals, through the creation of green jobs, poverty eradication, increased competitiveness and growth in key sectors.”

The existing macroeconomic goals, presumably being Agenda 21, here associates creation of green jobs with poverty eradication. Poverty eradication is a persistent theme of Agenda 21. While the science of infinity presents abundance, the concept of eradicating poverty seems to be a closed-system perspective that fuels kleptocracy. The Club of Rome set the pathway for addressing population with; “rather that the gradual stabilization of our population through voluntary means would contribute significantly to the Nation’s ability to solve its problems.” Voluntary means implies consent which, within constructs of corporate law you give by not responding to notice. How is it that Agenda 21 is hidden behind sustainable development and a mass of beaurocratic agreements and directives? Agenda 21 is global and behind massive vaccination programmes in so called developing countries. Following the absurd changes to rules that defined a ‘pandemic’ virus associated with the H1N1 flu scare of 2009, and subsequent attempts to mandate a potentially harmful vaccine; can a voluntary participation with this process be trusted at any level?
In 2007 the ‘UK Green New Deal Group’ link three major enemies. In their own terms; the financial crunch, the climate crunch and the coming global energy crunch.
Through a false economy founded on unsustainable debt which at the same time determines the directive of increased competitiveness and growth in key sectors, the true enemy, the people, are oppressed by austerity. The emotive response to natural disasters and environmental contamination, as witnessed in Japan and the Gulf of Mexico, keep the populace consenting to the implementation of this dysfunctional agenda through valid concern, thereby accepting the burden of its cost, and so are yoked to the poverty of debt. The energy threat of depleting oil reserves and inherent issues of energy security drives the need for solution towards the environmentally harmful practices of fracking and unconventional oil and gas extraction. It is also related to military action around the globe. At the same time there is a huge drive for infrastructure change through the implementation of the matrix of control; smart grids
.

 This is what the Environment for Europe process is directing. Does it appear that Agenda 21 serves solution? This is sustainable development, and Rio+20 is in fact the short name for the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

Monday, 8 August 2011

20-20-20 - No Vision

The UK has established a commitment to the EU's 20-20-20 targets. The 2007 targets for 2020, (known as the 20-20-20 targets), were presented as "an integrated approach to climate and energy policy that aims to combat climate change and increase the EU’s energy security while strengthening its competitiveness. They committed Europe to transforming itself into a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy" (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/package/index_en.htm). The 20-20-20 targets require a reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels, 20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources, and A 20% reduction in primary energy use compared with projected levels, to be achieved by improving energy efficiency. Fine rhetoric, but from the outset weak in its objectives. A 20%reduction of emmissions is inadequate in itself. Consumption from renewable resource denies the possibility of a non-polluting new energy source, and seeking to improve efficiency is clearly ignorant of over-unity.

The UK, as an EU leader, offered to increase the EU’s emissions reduction to 30%, on condition that other major emitting countries in the developed and developing worlds commit to do their fair share under a global climate agreement. (Or was that agreement to participate in carbon trading schemes?). United Nations negotiations on such an agreement are still ongoing. i.e. there remains no agreement.

In June 2009 the EU climate package became legally binding. This legislation was initially proposed in order to kick start the implementation of the 20-20-20 targets, but the legislation manipulates and directs the intent of the 20-20-20 targets in the four components of the core of the climate package.

EU Nations are now required by law to undertake a revision and strengthening of the Emissions Trading System (ETS), which the EU considers a "key tool for cutting emissions cost-effectively". I have no doubt that the economic climate of recent years has influenced the thrust for carbon trading as an opportunity of commerce. Carbon trading at best allows industrial concern to hide from its pollutant output. Cap and tax (fine) policies do not create adequate disinsentive in a financial climate of national defaults, excessively inflated fuel costs, and the burden of military action related to energy security. The core of the climate package goes on to define an 'Effort Sharing Decision’ governing emissions from sectors not covered by the EU ETS, such as transport, housing, agriculture and waste. The 'decision' is left to each member state to define its emmissions limitation target reflecting the nations 'relative wealth'. This legislation permits emmissions increase for poorer nation states. It seems that the legaslative focus of concern is more with protecting and maintaining industry and economy than it is with protecting the environment.

In the 2010 European Commission publication "Analysis of options to move beyond 20% greenhouse gas emission reductions and assessing the risk of carbon leakage", there is open admitance that the EU action is inadequate. While this 'communication' references the impact of financial collapse, what is most alarming is that it goes on to measure the reduction of emmissions in terms of the costs of carbon trading. Footnote 5, pg 3, of the communication states "These figures represent an additional energy cost, not a reduction of GDP. It includes additional investments needed, as well as energy savings. It does not include air quality benefits". This reflects clearly that the focus is financial and not environmental.

The third core legislation of the climate package creates "Binding national targets for renewable energy which collectively will lift the average renewable share across the EU to 20% by 2020". It is considered that "The targets will contribute to decreasing the EU’s dependence on imported energy and to reducing greenhouse gas emissions." While it is of course commendable to develop conventional renewable technologies, the reality of energy demand and supply renders current renewables as a drop in the ocean to energy usage.


While a lot of noise and gloss speaks of emmissions reduction it remains a fact that energy consumption continues to increase. In the UK, as the north sea gas supply is fast depleting there is an ever increasing demand of dependence on imported energy.


In the global scenario, in order to maintain adequate oil extraction into the future at flow rates that will satisfy estimated demand growth, new oil fields must be found, developed and commissioned at a rate that is untenable. As with economic bail-outs, this projection is simply unsustainable. The same blindness applies to the availability and price of coal. Until 2008, China, the world’s largest coal miner and consumer, burning around 3 billion tons per year (42% of world demand), was a net exporter of coal. In 2010, for the first time in history, it imported 130 million tons of coal from the global ship-borne market.

The Fourth Core legislation of the EU climate package is a legal framework to promote the development and safe use of carbon capture and storage (CCS). This legislation is literaly hiding the problem. That R&D funding will go into a "family of technologies that capture the carbon dioxide emitted by industrial processes and store it in underground geological formations where it cannot contribute to global warming" is simply stupid. This is a very sad reflection of the incapacity of bureaucratic authorities to deal with the  extinction level event of industrial pollutants. It is also indicative of the irresponsible steering of resources: "Revised EU guidelines on state aid for environmental protection, issued at the same time as the legislative package was proposed, enable governments to provide financial support for CCS pilot plants".  And that is law.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) state as one of it's aims, to "Support global collaboration on energy technology to secure future energy supplies and mitigate their environmental impact, including through improved energy efficiency and development and deployment of low-carbon technologies." The IEA claims on its website to be "The authoritative source of energy analysis and projections".

The 'World Energy Outlook 2010' (WEO) report by the IEA, states that "The energy world faces unprecedented uncertainty". Yet, the impotency of world leadership is reflected in the Copenhagen Accord which is hopelessly inadequate in addressing the reality of polluting energy sourcing and its consequences. This ineffective accord is only proposing funding mitigation and adaptation strategies. Mitigation is not accomplished when the IEA aim is 'low-carbon' while ignoring 'no-carbon' technologies. Mitigation only reduces the symptom of the problem while non-polluting energy sources offer solution. Adaptation amounts to monitoring the process of degradation and desperate actions of management response that can no more than hope for extinction prevention.

The US Global Change Research Association, in its 'National Climate Assessment' states "Because changes in the climate system will continue into the future regardless of emissions mitigation, strategies for protecting climate-sensitive ecosystems through management will be increasingly important", while the 'National Climate Adaptation Summit' of May 2010 had little more focus than pushing for investment in the development of monitoring and modelling technologies. These 'authoratative' reports do not address the catastrophic issues at hand. There is no responsible accountability for the devastation industrialised trade and military security has caused, only the feeble effort to maintain business as usual while attempting to appear to be actingattempting to appear to be acting with environmental integrity.


The World Enery Outlook 2010 (WEO) goes on to state "the speed of the energy transformation that would need to occur after 2020 is such as to raise serious misgivings about the practical achievability of cutting emmissions sufficiently...", but then has no substance to address the shortcomings. The primary strategy proposed being removing subsidies from a failing coal/oil industry. Policy action will not solve the problem particularly in a political environment where a governments pledge is as untrustworthy as an election manifesto statement. The outlook drawn by modelling methods is based upon a data assumption that pledges will be honoured, while actaul data related to Kyoto indicates that pledges are not acted upon. Despite this, the projected forecasts perceive that "Fossil fuels - oil, coal and natural gas - remain the dominant energy sources in 2035". Indicating that there simply isn't the foresight to even see non-polluting and non-depleting new energy sourcing.

Instead of addressing the causal root of the problem, the IEA passes blame to countries not aligned with the globalist 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)' for predicted increase in use of (wrongly named) fossil fuels; "In the New Policies Scenario, global demand for each fuel source increases, with fossil fuels accounting over one-half of the increase in total primary energy demand." The viability of 'renewables' in contributing to energy supply is dubious. While it is a good thing that hydro, wind and solar power will be developed to increase supply, they remain incpable of meeting demand to affect the required change. Demand will continue to increase pushing a stressed commercial environment towards bio-mass, geothermal and gas/unconventional oil production. It appears that this is the focus of intent of the OECD, whos stated mission is economic and not environmental. While this becomes the drive of so called 'green economy' in a 'big society', it is recognised in the WEO that the required financial support to deploy bio-mass "typically raises the cost to the economy as a whole". It then continues by justifying the investment in biomass as a profitable energy potential; "But the benefits can be significant too, including reduced imports of oil and reduced CO2 emissions - if biomass is used and the fossil energy used in processing the biomass is not excessive". Again, this is evidently not solution.

There is an abundance of evidence of the viability of new energy sourcing technologies that are non-polluting, from zero point or energy sourced from the vacuum, electro-magnetics and electro-gravitics to cold fusion technologies and more. Many innovations are approaching readiness for application, yet this entire arena of technological advance is ignored by the authorities that hold the purse strings of R&D and make fine statements of environmental policy propaganda.

Friday, 22 July 2011

UK - Ready for Energy Solution?

The UK desperately needs a new energy strategy and could seize the opportunity of being the spearhead to a new attitude and approach to energy sourcing and security. Legislation, (Climate Change Act 2008), confines an energy approach focussed on pollutant emissions and limits foresight and technological development by keeping attention fixed on current means of energy generation. The UK has no objective measure of its assetts. Expanded into the geo-politacal arena, the issues of energy sourcing and security are at the root of all troublespots in the world. While the vision of a 'low carbon' infrastructure maintains a profit focus on cap and trade, or carbon taxing policies, development is equally confined to the profit opportunities of bio-mass and token gesture towards hydro, wind, and solar energy . There is a complete disregard of the agricultural impact of bio-mass and blind ignorance of technological advance into clean, non-polluting energy sourcing, proven by inspired inventors.

After the hegemony of the oil industry following two world wars the UK no longer commands as much influence in energy strategy. If U.K. Energy Secretary Chris Huhne had the foresight of a realisitic energy future and were to seize the opportunity of new energy potentials, the UK could again lead the world into a new era of innovation and prosperity that would change the face of the world for the better in much the same way as industrial imperialism has changed the world for the worse. With a £200 billion vision of a low carbon infrastructure, a public debt of £1 trillion, a massive trade deficit, and foresight blinkered within current modalities the future is bleak as combustibles and nuclear energy generation are harmful in all respects. The UK's energy and economic policy relies on assumptions that are completely unrealistic and public communications offer a thin veneer of will to change.

With nuclear disaster in Japan and the absurd situation of energy security creating more insecurity in the world then ever before, alongside the desperate development of 'fracking' for gas and 'unconventional oil', and the development of bio-mass furnaces as the only major solutions to alternate energy generation (which is also identified as profitable), it seems that those responsible as energy authorities have hopelessly lost the plot to the peril of all life on this planet. Can we not grown up from the experience of two world wars, the cold war and the  warm war of these days? The closed minds of puppet governments stifled by the directives of EU policy and the flexing of the International Energy Agency are impenetrable to the news that infinite energy is freely available to us and new science has shown that it is accessible and useable. New Energy Is Solution.

Wednesday, 6 July 2011

5th World Assemblage

Since July of 2007 I have been engaged in direct action to enhance the probability of actualising change for the better in the human collective. Change has come. Now, the service commited to 'life positive' development will continue, while a shift of focus and approach is required.

The reality we inhabit is far more than our day to day navigation of experience generally allows. The true nature of our humaness is encompassed in the stretch of our imagination into the beauty of existence that could be experienced in this life. The commitment to a 'return to the garden' for all people remains the foundation of engagement.


"It is those kings, those rulers, in whose rule peace reigned that were considered the most successful in history, and prosperity followed."

"These are not impossible dreams, these are realities that can be had. If we can make such a mess out of this Earth, if we have that much power, then certainly we have enough power to bring peace on this Earth."
Prem Rawat address to the European Parliament, Brussels – June 29, 2010.

The confrontation and exposure of that which is dysfunctional in human governance and behaviour will continue, but not to make wrong, condemn or punish, but rather to hold in clarity the recognition of choice. To eliminate or defeat is to deny inclusion. Therefore the approach is to influence, as the opportunity is equal to all people. The requirement is to understand our humaness, not to define what human 'should be' through antiquated and erroneous belief structures, nor through the manipulations of correctness, but through the honest and open hearted expression of all aspects of our true nature, our emotions shared, our minds open, our bodies holding the magick of existence, the passion of spirit firing the determination to enhance beauty and our sexuality embraced as catalyst of transformation.

It is in this spirit that I give myself to the task. All will gain and the future generations benefit.

Thursday, 30 June 2011

End the Insanity

A radical change of attitude and behaviour towards energy sourcing and security is required NOW.


After 100 years (+) of suppression to a power and profit driven energy strategy our species finds itself facing the disaster of a permanent  war economy. That nuclear energy be furthered as a clean energy source to resolve the environmentally catastrophic oil industry is simply insane.


New energy, (zero-point energy, or energy from the vacuum), is viable and scientifically proven. While trillions of dollars perpetuate a war industry, funding of R&D into valid alternatives remain insubstantial. Delivery of new energy technology is a viable catalyst to transform our collective from scarcity consciousness and warring over resource to abundance awareness and well being for all people.

The current crisis is critical. To not act now is leaving it too late.