ConDem Welfare Reform Plan Ignores Underlying Cause of the Problem

The BNP Newsroom

The ConDem regime’s “plan” to reform the obviously broken welfare system ignores globalisation as the underlying cause of UK unemployment and even more insanely tries to “incentivise” people to work when the system pays them more not to.

Tory Work and Pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith announced the “reform” plans by claiming that unemployment is a result of the system, rather than the broader economic disaster which he and his colleagues have created.

Part of Mr Smith’s plan is to “incentivise” the unemployed to get back to work by ensuring that they will get at least 25 pence in the pound more if they start working.

However, as David Green, director of Civitas pointed out, this is “likely to be very costly without achieving its intended effects. Work should be a personal and civic obligation, not something we will only do if we are incentivised by the Government,” Dr Green said.

As long as a system remains in place whereby the unemployed can earn as much, or in some cases, even more, on welfare than they can do by working, the core problem in the system will never be addressed.

Furthermore, the real reason for unemployment lies in the destruction of the British economy and manufacturing base.

This policy has been followed consistently from the time of Margaret Thatcher right through the years of Labour rule and is still enthusiastically endorsed by today’s ConDem regime.

This belief, underlined by David Cameron’s speech this week in India telling young people in search of opportunities to “go east,” argues that Britain does not need its own manufacturing base as globalisation can provide all heavy industry needs.

All that Britain has to do, this twisted ideology says, is become a “service industry economy” where somehow British people can survive by giving each other backrubs for ever more while buying cheap consumer goods made in China.

Until Britain’s economy is restored to a sound basis where our manufacturing, mining and industries have been rescued from the ravages of globalisation, the unemployment situation will never be remedied.

On the contrary, if globalisation is left to run rampant, the end result will be total global economic collapse.

This will occur once the ‘service economies’ inevitably become bankrupt and disposable income dries up, leaving the West unable to continue buying the cheap Far Eastern consumables.

Only once the problem of globalisation and the destruction of the British economy is addressed, can much-needed real welfare reform be implemented.

It is no good punishing those who genuinely cannot get work because of the destroyed economy, and no amount of fake ConDem “incentivising” can create jobs where there are none.

However, once work opportunities which pay a decent living wage actually do exist, the welfare system must be overhauled to prevent scroungers from abusing the well-meant charity of the rest of society.

To this end, the British National Party has argued that the only true reform of the welfare system should be the implementation of a “workfare not welfare” system.

According to the BNP’s 2010 election manifesto, such as system would work as follows: “Originally, benefits were meant to be the state’s obligation to support those who genuinely were not in a position to support themselves. This guiding principle must always remain the guiding light for a just and humane system — and it is the core of the British National Party’s welfare policy.

Decades of Labour and Tory socialist state-induced welfare dependency has utterly distorted this noble ideal. Well-meaning welfare programmes have been exploited, distorted and twisted to become nothing more than a free handout to scroungers, foreign and local.

This has in turn created a welfare dependency culture which has led to in excess of six million people living in homes where no one has a job and where benefits are a way of life.

Not only does this cost the taxpayer in excess of £13 billion per year, but it also has a hugely damaging effect upon the psychology of a nation which once led the world in productivity and technological innovation and which gave birth to the Industrial Revolution. This dire situation must be reversed — urgently.

The BNP proposed to reverse these decades of disastrous Labour and Tory social engineering programmes through a sensible policy of workfare, not welfare.

The principle is simple: those who receive community support incur obligations as well. People who genuinely want to work must be provided with the opportunity to do so in return for training which will put them back into proper full-time employment.

In return for financial support and training for a new career, the benefit recipient must complete a certain number of hours of work per week. Properly implemented, this policy will undermine the benefit dependency culture and bring masses of unemployed back into the formal employment sector.

Ultimately there must be only one category of welfare recipient: those who genuinely deserve or have earned it. The scrounger entitlement mentality must be discarded. Those who can work but refuse to do so, must face the consequences of their actions.

To this extent, we shall require that those who have been out of work for over 18 months participate in local work schemes in return for their taxpayer-funded benefits.

The success of the “workfare not welfare” policy has been proven: these programmes already exist in Australia, America and even in India. Britain has to get back to work: and workfare provides the only path through which this aim will be achieved.”

Purchase a copy of the BNP’s 2010 election manifesto by clicking here.

or Join the British Resistance here https://www.bnp.org.uk/membership.html

Southampton Councils Double Standards on Dress Codes Mini NO! Hijab YES!

WOMEN wearing mini-skirts could be sent home from work, a council has warned staff. In an amazing but not unexpected type of a statement from the Marxist infiltrated councils we now have in the UK. Southampton City Council has banned its female workers from showing off their legs to avoid shocking the public.

A memo sent to 400 staff insists they dress in “appropriate” clothing including trousers, informal dresses or skirts of “reasonable” length – but “not mini-skirts”. The memo was sent to social workers, youth workers, educational welfare officers and others in children’s services.

It said: “Please try to dress smartly, in line with other professionals you come across in your work, and in a way that shows respect to children and families.” 

This just shows the double standards of these out of touch PC riddled morons who have wormed their way to positions of authority at all levels of government via the Liberal Labour and Conservative parties. On one hand they are quite willing to deny any pretty girl the chance to show of a nice pair of legs. Probably because they are over weight lesbian Marxist types , who would only be attractive to a hard up Baboon or a African wanting UK residency? 

And yet on the other hand demand that we have to put up with the offensive sight of a woman forced to wear the hijab that is a offensive 13th century form of oppression, that has no place in any half civilised country, least of all in the UK. if you like me are sick to death of these double standards , just do not sit back and just moan , do what I did join the British National Party now by clicking this secure link  https://www.bnp.org.uk/membership.html 

Obama The Moslem Why is Obama so keen to see the End of White, Christian Europe and USA

Obama The Moslem

  Author: Tim Heydon |  

Obama - A man whose politics are a  function of his psychologically damaging mixed race/ cultural /religious background.

Why is Obama so keen to see the End of White, Christian  Europe  - and USA? 

Why is the USA , and Obama in particular, so keen to push Turkey into the EU? Turkey of course would only be the first major Islamic country in ' Europe .' Once in, what real arguments would there then be to stop the inclusion of others in due course?  First would come more countries bordering the Mediterranean . Then others further afield, even eventually Iraq and Iran . Then on to Pakistan , sub-Saharan Africa and on and on until a huge 'Market State' whose sole function is economic is created, perhaps encompassing everywhere except China , India and the USA   and its economic partners in North and South America . Next stop total Oneness.
 The Roots of Obama's Psychology and Politics
No doubt the USA thinks that the disappearance of the nation states of Europe is in its own strategic and commercial interests. But there are other, highly significant motivations behind Obama's attitudes. It is the (hardly original) opinion of this writer that the world-views of people like Obama, Cameron etc are a product to a great degree of their personal psychology and circumstances. It takes a great deal to convince a person to come round to  ideologies or ways of thinking other than those to which his or her personality is naturally attracted.
David Cameron, for example, exhibits all the  condescension of the guilt-ridden overprivileged.  This manages to include misplaced, patronising pity or concern for ordinary people with an arrogant assumption of all kinds of superiority: social, intellectual, educational, moral...... Ordinary people tend to be viewed as less than fully human by those with Cameron's background. There is too in Cameron's background a dash of minority ethnicity, as well as family connections in the City. This is why he is a Tory, a Wet and a 'Progressive' economic liberal who believes Utopia lies in the freedom to make money.
So what are the circumstances of Obama? We know that he is the son of a Kenyan father who abandoned his 60's- style radical white mother. His mother then traipsed round the globe with her son in tow, living for a time in Moslem Indonsia where Obama had an Indonesian step-father and  went to a moslem school.  This must surely have produced deeply felt attitudes and psychological conflicts in the young Obama, such as feelings of rejection due to the behaviour of his natural father and a sense of confusion, alienation and rootlessness; of not really belonging anywhere, which are being worked out on the stage of USA and world politics.  For example, being only part white,  Obama is considered a black in the USA and it is in blackness that he has found some kind of anchorage, some kind of roots.  His religious roots are as ambiguous as are his racial and cultural ones. He claims that he  is a Christian. But is he? Obama was brought up as a moslem. According to Major General Curry  in the American Magazine 'Guns and Patriots', he is a Moslem. Curry writes;-

Major General Curry

If it looks like a duck, quacks like  a duck, waddles like  a duck and acts like a duck.....

'My mother believed in "common sense" testing. She said if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck and acts like a duck; it's a duck. She believed that actions speak louder than words and that only a liar said one thing and then did the opposite.
Would President Obama pass my mother's "is he a Muslim" test? Let's see. President Obama says there is nothing more beautiful than the Muslim call to prayer in the evening. He says that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.
Obama's father and step-father were Muslims and he spent his childhood living in a Muslim country where his school enrollment records say his religion is Islam. As President of the United States he genuflects to the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia but not the Christian Queen of England . He thumbs his nose at America 's friends and bows to its enemies. In short, Obama quacks like a Muslim, waddles like a Muslim and acts like a Muslim, so is he a Muslim? My mother would say, "Yes! He's a Muslim through and through."
Growing up as a Muslim, Obama must have learned that according to the Qur'an it is acceptable to lie, deceive and live by a double standard provided in so doing one advances Islamic goals. Muslims only pretend to trust and be friends with non-Muslims; in the deepest of their Muslim hearts they have been taught that all non-Muslims are infidels.
Speaking of double standards, Saudi Arabia is building mosques all over the world and Muslims are hoping to build a 13 story mosque at "Ground Zero" in New York City . At the same time, Islam's double standard mandates that no non-Muslim churches be built in Saudi Arabia or other Islamic countries.
A good example of this double standard principle in action was Yasser Arafat. He could seemingly enter into genuine peace negotiations with the United States and Israel and, at the same time; lie about it with complete sincerity. Routinely he made all sorts of promises and pronouncements in English, and the very next day said the exact opposite to an Arabic audience -- perhaps to him it wasn't really lying, just being faithful to the teachings of the Qur'an.
Is it because President Obama is secretly a Muslim that he can so sincerely pretend, like Arafat, that his actions and policies have never put a strain on U.S. Israeli relations? "If you look at every public statement I have made it has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel ." This is like President Clinton saying that it depends on what the meaning of is is.
In 2005 the U.S. promised Israel , in writing, that in future negotiations with the Palestinians we would not insist that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. But last year the Obama Administration said that that promise would no longer be honored.
In the past, both Democrat and Republican Administrations have insisted that negotiations be based on a two-state solution, which means that for Palestinian refugees
there can be no open "right of return" to Israel

With open immigration the number of Palestinians living in Israel would quickly overwhelm the number of Jews, and soon the Jewish state would cease to exist. Candidate Obama, while running for president, made it clear that he did not support a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. But now that he's president, he has reneged on that promise.
  
Months ago Obama promised to send 1,500 National Guard troops to the Arizona border and to spend at least $500 million on border security. Gov. Brewer is still waiting for the troops and money to arrive.
In a recent Muslim-double-standard speech, President Obama bragged that the southwest American border is as safe as it has ever been. But at the same time his Administration was putting up signs warning American citizens to stay away from the Arizona border area because, "SMUGGLING AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN THIS AREA."
Is Obama a Muslim? You make the call.

British People Put Last Again as ConDems Launch New Foreign Aid Fund

British People Put Last as ConDem Regime Launches New Foreign Aid Fund

BNP Newsroom

In the same week that the ConDem regime announced plans to “overhaul” the benefits system for British people, the Department for International Development (DFID) announced a brand new foreign aid scheme designed to “boost employment” in the Third World.

According to a DFID press release, a “new fund that will benefit a range of small to large civil society organisations” will be launched this year.

Apparently the objective of this new fund is to “support poverty-fighting groups who focus on delivering the Millennium Development Goals” and “targets to improve the lives of the world’s poorest, adopted in 2001.”

The fund will give “innovation grants” and “impact grants” for projects aimed at “poverty reduction” in other countries.

These grants will, the DFID informs us, “total £40 million in the first year” alone.

At the same time, deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced in a separate statement that the DFID’s “Structural Reform Plan” will now focus on getting “more girls into primary and secondary education” in the Third world and will also concentrate on “developing new projects on property rights, investment and microfinance.”

Microfinance is economic-speak for personal loans to individuals in the Third World.

Any person who has recently attempted to apply for a loan from a British bank (most of which as allegedly taxpayer-owned) will know how hard it is to raise a personal loan.

In addition, Mr Clegg announced that the DFID would revise “strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan” which would focus on a “for more integrated post-conflict reconstruction.”

Bizarrely, the conflict in Afghanistan which caused all the damage which they now seek to “reconstruct” was started by the Westminster parties in the first place.

To add insult to injury, Mr Clegg also announced that more British taxpayer money would be spent to “help poor countries to take part in international climate change negotiations.”

Finally, Mr Clegg said that the ConDem regime would “honour the UK’s commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid from 2013 and enshrine this commitment in law.”

Mr Clegg’s ConDem regime has yet to announce any such “poverty alleviation” programme for British people, and instead have announced their intention to cut all departmental budgets by 25 percent — except of course, the foreign aid budget.

The British National Party is the only party which demands an end to the foreign aid swindle which sees British taxpayers going into debt in order to hand out cash to foreign aid recipients such as China, India, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa — all of whom have massive military expenditures of their own.

post script fightback and join the British resistance here https://www.bnp.org.uk/membership.html

Blasphemy Legislation Threatens Freedom of Speech, Warns Civitas

Blasphemy Is Back as 'Hate' Legislation Threatens Freedom of Speech, Warns Civitas

From the BNP Newsroom

Legislation and the politically–motivated prosecution of individuals for “religious hatred” is merely the reintroduction of ancient blasphemy laws which threaten freedom of speech, a new publication by independent think tank Civitas has warned.

In a book titled A New Inquisition: Religious Persecution in Britain Today, Jon Gower Davies, formerly the Head of Religious Studies at Newcastle University, reveals the “bizarre and oppressive nature of judicial attempts to prosecute individuals for religious hatred” and of how this “new legal concept has resulted in some singularly worrying court cases,” a Civitas press release said.

“Hate legislation removes an increasing quantity of matters traditionally dealt with in civil society to the domain of the state and the courts,” Civitas continued, adding that this was merely the old Blasphemy Law “by the backdoor.”

Civitas pointed out that the Blasphemy Law was abolished in 2008, but has re-emerged in a new and radically augmented guise.

“Today, individuals are not charged with blasphemy, but with causing 'religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress' under the Public Order Act.

“Jon Davies argues that the growth in accusations of 'hate crime' threatens freedom of speech because they destroy the possibility and practice of open, sociable and critical discussion of religion.

“Whilst the total number of racial and religious hate crimes fell from 13,201 in 2006-7 to 11,845 in 2008-9, the volume of hate legislation has rapidly expanded,” Civitas continued.

“There are now more than 35 Acts of Parliament, 52 Statutory Instruments, 13 Codes of Practice, 3 Codes of Guidance and 16 European Commission Directives which bear on 'discrimination.' And most recently, the Single Equality Act was passed by Parliament in April 2010."

Despite all this legislation, a proper legal definition of 'hatred' remains elusive. According to the new Civitas book, a government action plan states that a “(religious) hate crime is a criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a persons religion or perceived religion.”

Furthermore, Civitas points out, “hatred” is “not only presented as an offence on its own account, but can also be seen as something which aggravates ordinary public order offences. When an ordinary offence is aggravated by 'hatred' based on race, religion, gender, or age, then the sentence too is 'aggravated' (i.e. increased).”

Jon Davies argues that these 'definitions' are without substance, and inevitably result in confusion and silliness in their application.

“The attempt to define a 'hate incident' in terms of 'hostility' results in perilous imprecision: it is not possible to know when individuals have been hated — or, indeed, when they have themselves been hating — and for how long and to what depth and to what effect.

“The essence of the criminal justice system should be justice and impartiality, but turning religious hatred into a criminal offence turns police, the Crown Prosecution Service and judges into surrogate theologians — a kind of theocracy (an uncomfortable theocracy at that) by the backdoor,” the book says.

“To demonstrate the oppressive oddity of judicial attempts to regulate religious hatred, Jon Davies describes the 2009 case of Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang, owners of the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool.

“Following a discussion between the Vogelenzangs and a guest at their hotel, Mrs Erica Tazi, about the respective merits of her religion (Islam) and theirs (Christianity), Mrs Tazi made a formal complaint to the Merseyside police about what she said were offensive remarks made by the Vogelenzangs.

“They were subject to a grim and prolonged ordeal when they were accused of a religiously aggravated hate crime. For several months they were pursued by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

“The Vogelenzangs were prosecuted contrary to the evidence; when the full story came to court, it transpired that a Muslim doctor had also been eating breakfast in the hotel and found nothing objectionable about the couple's conduct. Jon Davies calls the case: '...a hackle-raising demonstration of disquieting changes in the relationship between our history, the citizen, his or her religion, his or her civil society and the state'.

“He argues that hate legislation has demolished several of the traditional defences of the citizen. For example, the 'burden of proof' is effectively reversed under section 66(5) of the Equality Act (2006), because whilst by long-established practice the Vogelenzangs should have been regarded as innocent until proven guilty: '[There was a] public presumption of culpability... the local NHS authority [which provided 80 per cent of the Bounty House income] cancelled their bookings'.

“There is evidence of at best arbitrary, at worst biased, application of the law. In a recent case a Muslim man defaced a war memorial (a Christian and national symbol) in Burton upon Trent.

“He sprayed the words 'Islam will dominate the world-Osama is on his way' and 'Kill Gordon Brown' across the plinth. He was prosecuted for criminal damage, that is for neither a racially nor a religiously aggravated offence.”

Recommended reading:  A New Inquisition: Religious Persecution in Britain Today

By Jon Gower Davies — Open societies in which we try to settle our differences without violence have been a great human achievement. However, because freedom of speech is the prevailing view in Britain, we are not as alert to the risk of its overthrow as we should be.

Jon Gower Davies, former Head of the Religious Studies Department at the University of Newcastle, examines the new legal concept of religious hatred and provides striking examples from recent legal cases to reveal the oppressive and bizarre nature of judicial attempts to regulate such things.

Hate legislation removes an increasing quantity of matters traditionally dealt with in civil society, to the domain of the state and the courts.

Furthermore, the exercise of such legislation seems to create the very atmosphere it was designed to prevent - hatred.

Jon Davies warns against developments which will make traditional public debates about religion and its critics impossible. He hopes for a British culture which validates a public seeking for religious truth and is more or less at ease with jokes and ribaldries, and he is profoundly ill at ease with censorship of them or with threats made against their authors. Jon Davies shows why the liberal majority needs to reassert the convention that the law should be used not as a weapon to suppress unpopular opinions, but rather as the protector of free speech. P/B 77 pp. £8.00 including P&P Click here to purchase online.

Protect your Freedom Join The British National Party Here 

Tonight at 8pm GMT - The VOTBR On Line Radio and the Rev West BNP

Tonight at 8pm GMT - The VOTBR and the Rev West BNP

Created: Sunday, 01 August 2010 12:38 Author: Green Arrow |  

The Reverend West on the Campaign Trail

OK, as a favour for you people who were either still in bed or in Church this morning at 10am, we are going to replay todays release of the Voice of the British Resistance show and the excellent sermon read by the Rev West.

Now by now, you know how good the VOTBR show is but how many have you have had the opportunity to listen to the Rev West?  He reminds me of the Rev Smith made famous in "The defense of Rorke's Drift" painting.

In fact so good a speaker is Rev West that even Roger Phillips delayed going to the pub, so engrossed was he in what the good reverend was saying.

So meet you all tonight in the Home of the Green Arrow - Promoting the BNP paltalk room where Bertie Burt will be hosting the evening.

The Century of the Self or Sense Culture

The Century of the Self

The Untold History of Controlling the Masses Through the Manipulation of Unconscious Desires

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized." - Edward Bernays

THE CENTURY OF THE SELF

Adam Curtis' acclaimed series examines the rise of the all-consuming self against the backdrop of the Freud dynasty.

To many in both politics and business, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power has finally moved to the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?

The Freud dynasty is at the heart of this compelling social history. Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis; Edward Bernays, who invented public relations; Anna Freud, Sigmund's devoted daughter; and present-day PR guru and Sigmund's great grandson, Matthew Freud.

Sigmund Freud's work into the bubbling and murky world of the subconscious changed the world. By introducing a technique to probe the unconscious mind, Freud provided useful tools for understanding the secret desires of the masses. Unwittingly, his work served as the precursor to a world full of political spin doctors, marketing moguls, and society's belief that the pursuit of satisfaction and happiness is man's ultimate goal.

Please Note: Viewers should be sure to read Ludwig Von Mises' 'The Anti-Capitalist Mentality' to balance the socialistic elements of this film.

This film was produced by BBC which is Britain's government run news channel, therefor it downplays the evils of government and plays up the vices of business. The enemy is not capitalism or 'consumption' but government and its insidious propaganda. Mass produced goods enrich society because they reduce the amount of time a person has to work to satisfy one's essential needs. Government propaganda debases society because it is used as an excuse for everything from murderous wars of aggression to oppressive economy killing taxation and regulation. When a business sells you something voluntarily you will only buy it if you think the product is worth more than the price you have to pay for it. When the government propagandizes you they are merely giving you excuses to submit to their use of force which will be bearing down on you whether you like it or not. The two are very different and this film does a disservice by confusing them. That said, it's important to understand the propagandists who serve to justify the crimes of the state. Selling someone a product they don't truly need hurts no one, selling people on a war they don't need gets millions of people murdered and destroys entire societies. - Chris, InformationLiberation

"In the course of his narrative, he explains aspects of the market that have generally eluded even its defenders. For example, is it true that markets dumb down the culture, exalting trashy novels and movies over higher-brow fare? Mises points out that the tastes of the masses will always and everywhere be lower than those educated and cultivated to love higher culture. But, he says, the glory of capitalism is that it brings to every sector what it wants and needs, and more of it than any other system. So, yes, there will be more trash, but also more great work as well. It is a matter of availability: under socialism, nothing is available. Under capitalism, choice seems nearly infinite." - From the description of 'The Anti-Capitalist Mentality'


Happiness Machines
Part OnePlease Go to blog via this link to finish Article    

US Federal Fudge has slapped down key elements of Arizonas Poular anti- immigration law

A federal judge has slapped down key elements of a controversial anti- immigration law in Arizona, handing a temporary victory to the Obama administration against a rising tide of anti-immigration feeling in the US.
Judge Susan Bolton granted a preliminary injunction which prevents implementation of two main elements of the legislation: the requirement that police determine the immigration status of people they arrest or question should they suspect them of being illegal, and the part of the new law that would make it a state crime for a foreigner to be in Arizona without registration papers.
The injunction will hold, Bolton said, until the courts have considered a lawsuit against Arizona by the federal government that seeks permanently to block the new law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
The temporary and partial reprieve marks success, in the short term at least, of attempts by the Obama administration to maintain federal control of immigration policy, against efforts by states, led by Arizona, to take the matter into their own hands. Several states have expressed support for Arizona's legislation that was due to come into effect today.
But the legal ruling risks a potential white backlash as opinion polls have shown consistently high support for the law across the United States.
Showing how the Marxist Liberal Elites are out of touch with the feelings of the General Public in The USA, a sentiment that can be fully sympathised with by the people of Great Britain!

Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it is corrupt and strictly an imaginary problem

Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass'

Exclusive New Video: Calls cap-and-trade an 'horrendous scam' -- Joins other left of center scientific and activist dissenters
by Marc Morano  @ Information Liberation

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

In a hard-hitting and exclusive new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay. (Rancourt's email: claude.cde@gmail.com)

Watch Rancourt video here.

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said.

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he stated.

Environmental censorship

Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me -- they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.

Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm. (Note: Rancourt also ridicules environmental concern over acid rain and the ozone hole. See below)

“They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet -- a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks,” he said. “They are weekend activists...looking for lies to hitch onto.”

“The modern environmental move has hijacked itself by looking for an excuse to stay comfortable and stay away from actual battle. Ward Churchill has called this pacifism as pathology,” he explained. “If you are really concerned about saving world's forests or habitat destruction, then fight against habitat destruction, don't go off in tenuous thing about co2 concentration in the atmosphere. Actually address the question; otherwise you are weakening your effect as an activist.”

Gore's film makes him 'ill'

Rancourt openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

“I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence of the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all,” Rancourt said.

Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”

Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone -- as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice.

Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. The scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government. Their goal is find a conclusion...it is a political process.” [Editor's Note: Climate Depot's Executive Editor Marc Morano appeared on Dr. Denis Rancourt's Radio Show for One Hour in May 2010: Morano: The global warming narrative...was total bunko, it was a con job...a scientific scandal of the highest order']

Carbon trading is 'an horrendous scam'

Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap-and-trade.

“Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes. I have great distrust for it. It is not motivated by true concern for social justice and the environment. It can only be about powerful financiers. I see it as an horrendous scam,” Rancourt said, adding he “I completely agree” with UK environmental guru James Lovelock who called carbon trading “verging on a gigantic scam.”

But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with.

“They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals,” Rancourt said.

“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” he added. This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.

“When you do find something bad, you quickly learn and are told you better toe the line on this -- your career depends on it,” Rancourt said.

Some Key Excerpts from Denis Rancourt:

Left-wing Env. Scientist & Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt: Some Big Lies of Science – June 2010

Rancourt Excerpt: Environmental scientists naively and knowingly work hand in hand with finance-corporate shysters, mainstream media, politicians, and state and international bureaucrats to mask real problems and to create profit opportunities for select power elites...I exposed the global warming cooptation scam in an essay that Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation called 'one of the best essays on greenhouse myth-making from a left perspective.' [...]

My essay prompted David F. Noble to research the question and write The Corporate Climate Coup to expose how the media embrace followed the finance sector's realization of the unprecedented potential for revenues that going green could represent. [...] I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.”

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass.”

Rancourt Ridicules Ozone Hole Claims: 'Do you know of anyone who has been killed by the ozone hole?'

Rancourt Mocks Acid Rain Claims: As a physicist and Earth scientist turned environmental scientist, I could not find an example of a demonstrated negative impact on lakes or forests from acid rain. In my opinion, contrary to the repeated claims of the scientist authors, the research on acid rain demonstrates that acid rain could not possibly have been the problem' – I concluded it had been a fake problem. [...] Acid rain very, very similar to global warming. A Sanitized problem. What I found, researched from the 1950's on and I concluded that is had been a fake problem. The effect on lake acidity from acid rain was so subtle so difficult to measure -- virtually impossible to measure [hype about acid rain was] at a period when forests being destroyed by real things.

#

Rancourt is not alone among left-of-center scientists and activists from dissenting on man-made global warming. (Excerpts from 2009 Environment & Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sen. James Inhofe speech)

Sen. Inhofe: It is becoming increasingly clear that skepticism about man-made global warming fear is not a partisan left vs. right issue. In fact, many scientists and activists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" or "hijacked" the green movement.

In August 2009, the science of global warming was so tenuous that even activists at green festivals were expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, 'I'm not sure climate change is real,'” according to a report from the New York Green Festival.

The left-wing blog Huffington Post surprised many by featuring an article on January 3, 2009, by Harold Ambler, demanding an apology from Gore for promoting unfounded global warming fears. The Huffington Post article accused Gore of telling "the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind" because he claimed the science was settled on global warming. The Huffington Post article titled "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" adds, "It is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers," not the skeptics.

The Huffington Post article continues, "Let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day."

UK atmospheric scientist Richard Courtney, a left-of-political center socialist, is another dissenter of man-made climate fears. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears. Courtney declared in 2008 that there is "no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHG (greenhouse gases) and global temperature."

Joining Courtney are many other progressive environmentalist scientists:

Former Greenpeace member and Finnish scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a lecturer of environmental technology and a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland who has authored 200 scientific publications, is also skeptical of man-made climate doom. Ahlbeck wrote in 2008, "Contrary to common belief, there has been no or little global warming since 1995 and this is shown by two completely independent datasets. But so far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming." (LINK)

Scientist and life-long liberal Democrat rejects climate fears

Life-long liberal Democrat Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry, also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008. "As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science," Hertzberg wrote. "The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false," Hertzberg added. (LINK)

Ivy League Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the former chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, publicly announced he voted for Gore in 2000 and said he would do so again. But Giegengack does not agree with Gore's science views and states that global warming does not even qualify as one of the top ten ENVIRONMENTAL problems facing the world, let alone one of the top problems. "In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," Giegengack said in an interview in the May/June 2007 issue of the Pennsylvania Gazette. (LINK)

'Intellectual blasphemy'

Other liberal environmental scientists and activists are now joining Giegengack.

Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most topics, lambasted the alleged global-warming consensus on the political Web site CounterPunch.org, arguing that there's no evidence yet that humans are causing the rise in global temperature. After publicly speaking to reject man-made warming fears, Cockburn wrote on February 22, 2008, "I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy." Cockburn harshly critiqued the political left for embracing climate alarmism. "This turn to climate catastrophism is tied into the decline of the left, and the decline of the left's optimistic vision of altering the economic nature of things through a political program. The left has bought into environmental catastrophism because it thinks that if it can persuade the world that there is indeed a catastrophe, then somehow the emergency response will lead to positive developments in terms of social and environmental justice," Cockburn wrote. [See: A July 2007 and a March 2008 report detail how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK & LINK ]

CNN – not exactly a bastion of conservatism – had yet another of its meteorologists dissent from warming fears. Chad Myers, a meteorologist for 22 years and certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims on CNN in December. "You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant," Myers said during "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on December 18, 2008. "Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we're going to die from a lack of fresh water or we're going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure," Myers explained.

Myers joins fellow CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano, who compared Gore's film to 'fiction' in 2007, and CNN anchor Lou Dobbs who just said of global warming fear promotion on January 5, "It's almost a religion without any question."

Perhaps the biggest shock to the global warming debate was the recent conversion of renowned French geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre from being a believer in dangerous man-made warming fears to being a skeptic. Allegre, a former French Socialist Party leader and a member of both the French and U.S. Academies of Science, was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, but he now says the cause of climate change is "unknown." He ridiculed what he termed the "prophets of doom of global warming" in a September 2006 article. (LINK) Allegre has authored more than 100 scientific articles, written 11 books, and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States. He now believes the global warming hysteria is motivated by money. "The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" he explained.

'Hijacked' environmental left

Left-wing Professor David Noble of Canada's York University has joined the growing chorus of disenchanted liberal activists. Noble now believes that the movement has "hyped the global climate issue into an obsession." Noble wrote a May 8, 2007, essay entitled "The Corporate Climate Coup" which details how global warming has "hijacked" the environmental left and created a "corporate climate campaign," "divert[ing] attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement." (LINK)

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, converted from believer to a skeptic about global warming. Bellamy, a committed environmentalist, now says that shift cost him his career at the BBC. Bellamy said in 2008, "My opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it's not even science any more, it's anti-science. There's no proof, it's just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs." (LINK)

Geologist Peter Sciaky echoes this growing backlash of left-wing activists about global warming. Sciaky, who describes himself as a "liberal and a leftist" wrote on June 9, 2007, "I do not know a single geologist who believes that [global warming] is a man-made phenomenon."

Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member, has also joined the ranks of the dissenters. “It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is a hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way," Moore, the chief scientist for Greenspirit, wrote in 2006. (End Inhofe Speech Excerpt)

British Taxpayers to Bail Out Euro with £43 Billion Tax Bill

British Taxpayers Lumped with £43 billion Bill to Save the Euro

British National Party News Room

Britain’s share of the €440 billion EU European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) euro rescue fund will be of the order of £43 billion, it has emerged.

The EFSF’s rescue fund for the single-currency region is now operational after Italy's parliament approved the programme yesterday.

The plan allows EU member states to issue guarantees for any debt raised by the EFSF, which is then lent to governments having difficulty borrowing on the markets themselves.

The rescue plan was formulated after the Greek crisis threatened to collapse the entire euro-zone after that nation’s government defaulted on its national debt repayments.

The EFSF was agreed by the 27 member states of the European Union on 9 May 2010, aiming specifically at “preserving financial stability in Europe by providing financial assistance to eurozone states in difficulty,” according to its founding documents.

The EFSF will sell bonds, notes or other debt instruments on the market and use the money raised to make loans up to a maximum of €440 billion to euro area member states in need.

The bonds will be backed by guarantees given by the euro area member states on a pro rata basis, in accordance with their share in the paid-up capital of the European Central Bank.

In terms of this ratio, Britain’s contribution is likely to be in the region of £43 billion — even though this country is not even a eurozone member.

The EFSF agreement was signed after the general election and was signed by the former chancellor Alistair Darling while the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats were still in coalition negotiations.

The ConDem’s commitment to the EU, which totally negates the Tory’s election promise to “roll back” the EU’s powers, means that the agreement to pay for the EFSF will still be in force no matter what.

Meanwhile at home, British government departments have been ordered to make spending cuts of up to 25 percent.

The latest casuality will likely be some 60,000 Scots who face redundancy from the public sector as spending cuts bite.

Once again, the ruling elite has put the interests of other nations before those of Britain and the British people.