My hunch is that the most likely ultimate funder of the global warming scam was the single biggest beneficiary: China.
However, I’ve got an open mind and perhaps Saudi and Russian money were also involved. Russian: because they never really stopped the cold war and causing western economies to rot from the inside due to global warming hysteria was an ideal way to destroy us. Saudi Arabia, because paradoxically, the whole global warming fad has focussed on increasing energy prices – thus increasing profits for oil companies and countries like Saudi rather than reducing use and thereby creating a glut.
However, I think the evidence Saudi and other similar groups are funding anti-fracking protests is beyond doubt. And it is very clear that anti-fracking groups are completely gullible and being led by the nose by their commercial sponsors.
As for feminists – I’m sick and tired of the hypocrisy of feminists. I’ve noticed they are only feminists when the issue is against western men. When any other race is being sexist, even in the most extreme way – they seem to endorse the behaviour even when it occurs in their own country.
And it’s also clear to me men are the true victims as the following stats show:
- Far more men died in WWI and WWII than women. This was a sexist war and I’ve yet to here any mention of women volunteering to die in the place of men.
- Men still die earlier than women even in peacetime. As a result, by rights men should receive disproportionately more funding on healthcare, earlier retirement, etc. to compensate. In fact, we don’t really have equality of retirement let alone equitable treatment (earlier retirement) for men yet.
- Far far more young men die from suicide than women. It’s obvious that we need to address this issue by making a society in which male attributes are valued particularly for younger men.
- Far more men go to prison than women. Again this is clearly a very sexist attitude of society. And again, we need to understand how to give young men the sense of worth and place in society that means they do not commit crimes.
In other words, because men and women are not the same, what we get with feminist based “equality” is a society which is actually totally and wholly unfair to men. Because “equality” doesn’t act equally: it takes away from men what they value: jobs, career, etc. but fails to give us anything “equal” which women have in child care etc. which we value, and so women get equal access to everything they could want from family to career, but men who tend to have a narrower focus have less of what we value … and to cap it all … we still die earlier, retire later, commit more suicide, have more chance of going to jail and for all this how do women treat us? They call us sexist!
masculinity is under siege
soon the feminine may be in the same boat
soon the traditional method of human reproduction may become obsolete
the male task already has an artificial substitute
artificial womb cannot be far away
it will be the pivot point of the evolution of life on the planet
nature has traditionally done away attributes that no longer contribute to reproduction
I think these are the real reasons for the assault on traditional male identity
providing that the affluent West doesn’t loose the battle of demographics before the real techno future arrives
A friend of mine is a counsellor specialising in domestic violence cases. It is his experience that, contrary to the generally accepted views, female on male domestic violence exceeds male on female violence by a significant margin. No violence is acceptable, clearly, but we need to be able to discuss realities freely not how we are constrained by current PC views.
Re.: “My hunch is that the most likely ultimate funder of the global warming scam was the single biggest beneficiary: China.”
Canadian Maurice Strong, a major founder of the climate scare, now lives in China.
Prof. Tim Ball has an article on Strong’s role:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/23/people-starting-to-ask-about-motive-for-massive-ipcc-deception/
Over time I’ve come to realise that engineering and science are very little different in the way they use physical laws, but what makes engineers different is that they pride themselves on things that work.
So, engineers stick like limpets to the facts: to what actually happens. Engineers don’t need the nonsense of “null hypothesis” or “must be tested by experiment” – because that’s just second nature to engineering-scientists.
The problem is that academic-scientists have a tendency to be “academic” – to go off on wild geese chases and unless they have their noses rubbed in the shit they produce and asked to explain how their rubbish fits reality, they will happily ignore what really happens and create a fairytale universe to replace it.
Usually, academic-scientists get shed loads of data – and usually this keeps their ideas grounded in reality OR like the big-bang theory, there’s no real data, no real harm and they create exotic theories about what might have happened which no one can ever prove wrong, but which don’t affect anyone today.
But then we got climate – a subject where new data is available at a snail’s pace where a new trend occurs about once a decade.
So for a whole decade they act like big-bang theoreticians speculating on what the data might mean creating exotic theories …. then at the end of the decade, in comes a new result – then because it does not fit all the exotic theories – they deny it – then when they can’t deny it they call it an outlier – eventually, they dream up a new exotic theory to explain in and go back into their day dream.
And … if you’ve got enough money to promote a certain kind of dream … because they are so detached from what really happens … you can steer them and use them to push your insane politics.