And so it begins…

"The shift happens as the United States backed what amounts to the single biggest transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations for any one cause -- in a sense offering compensation for decades of warming the Earth." – Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, today

The deal expected at Copenhagen, highlighted back in May when I released my book Air Con, followed up by Investigate magazine and Lord Monckton before catching fire across the internet, has now come to pass.

No, it is not yet legally binding. But it will be.

You see, throughout this torturous process in the Danish capital over the last 14 days, the people pulling the strings have clung to their central core themes: wealth transfer, world governance. Climate was actually a distant third on the priority list.

Anyone wishing to trace back the longer history need only read Air Con, or any number of UN publications buried deep in the UN website with innocuous names that give no clue to the ambitions contained within their pages.

Here's why the US$100 billion wealth transfer is the wedge that will fundamentally overhaul the political landscape of planet earth forever:

It's not the amount of money that's the issue, it is instead the infrastructure required to administer the money and oversee its collection and expenditure. By agreeing to provide a vast sum on money in "climate compensation", the globalists have automatically created the need for a vast global bureaucracy to administer the programme. How else could it possibly be done?

And which global agency is perched to implant itself as this massive governance organization? Try this one for size.

What's integral to this is what administering this money will do for the UN. Currently, it has an 'official' budget of US$4.2 billion a year. I say 'official' because in partnership with donor countries the UN administers several billion more each year through the UN Development Programme and similar entities. But let's go with $4.2 billion for now.

For US$100 billion a year, you are talking some serious prestige and power for the UN. Assuming 80% of the funding reaches its destination (probably in the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt Third World leaders), that's still 20% to pay the wages of a vastly increased UN field staff and 'peacekeeping' force to protect them as they administer the programme.

And of course, $100 billion is only a starting point. The UN and the Third World have talked of up to $1 trillion a year in climate adaptation and compensation.

Barack Obama talks about the 'mechanism' to deliver this pool of funds, that it needs to be global but it need not encroach on sovereignty too much. In principle, it won't at all – that's because sovereigns make a free will choice to sign and ratify the agreement and its conditions. They're still sovereign, but like any contract they are required to keep their promise to allow the UN agency access and control over relevant areas if required. Sovereignty in name only.

The Third World countries are suspicious because, much as they desire the cash, they know the UN will be demanding accountability for the cash, and perhaps even political reform. In this way, the UN hopes to drag the Third World up closer to the level of the First World, and it hopes to be hailed as a hero for modernizing and democratizing the planet, ready for full global government and the end of nation states.

This is, of course, is already on the UNDP agenda.

So while others label Copenhagen a "failure", I suggest you look a little more carefully. This is not really about specific emissions cuts, the bigger game is to sneak the infrastructure in. And there's every indication they are well on track to succeed on this.

Comments

[Richard Prosser]

As I and others have said before, yourself included, here and elsewhere, just watch for gun control to raise its head on the Government's agenda yet again.

They can't do this if the people are able to resist. It's the old story; an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject.

They will seek to take New Zealanders guns away from them, as they have done in Britain and Australia already.

It won't be legal, of course; the English Bill of Rights gives us the right to have arms, and it is the English Bill of Rights on which British Common law is founded. The US Constitution took its lead from the same Bill, which was in turn based in the Magna Carta.

The English Bill of Rights actually says "The People, which are Protestants, may have Arms for their Defence, suitable to their needs, and as allowed by the Law."

....so the Mickey Doolans are not specifically included, but no worries, we'll look after them. Now before the anti-gun nuts get on their high horses, what the last bit means, where it says "and as allowed by the Law", in legal terms, this means that "the Law shall allow it", not "only if the Law allows it"; in other words, the Law must allow it, and be formed in such a way that it is allowed.

As for "Suitable to their needs", well, that covers everything which their defence might require, against any enemy, the State included.

[Shane Ponting]

The gun thing is already tight....I was interested in getting a gun but if I read the application for license I need someone else to want me to have a gun as well. Thing is, the idea of buying a gun is so archaic or sinister to everyone around me they get all worried about why I "need to buy a gun" like the only reason I would have to do it is to pretend I go to Columbine High School or something....

[Richard Prosser]

In fact, at the moment, it isn't too bad; you can want one for hunting, or target shooting, or pest destruction, or because you're a farmer, or you live in a rural area, or you just want a wall full of them to look at, and polish, and stroke, and stuff.

You submit to being vetted, you sit the test, pay the money, get your certificate from the Mountain Safety Council, and you're away.

You will get a licence unless there is an existing good reason why you shouldn't have one.

If you have a partner, then the Feds will take her/him aside and ask her/him whether you're a closet psychopath or not, every time they re-assess you for your lifetime firearms licence which now only lasts 10 years, because the Government is good at reneging on contracts with the people.

If you don't have a partner, you can be as much of a nutcase as you want, apparently.

You'll need an appropriate safe for your licence type, and if you want to own handguns, you will need to join an approved Pistol Club.

Throughout most of New Zealand's history, firearms legislation has been very reasonable, because it has been administered by the Police, via the Commissioner, without the interference of stupid or globalist politicians, and because most cops are weekend firearms users who don't want the rules changed for them either.

But watch for the first step, which will be John Key or one of his equally ignorant, ill-informed, or alternatively-motivated stooges, making noises about "bringing us into line with Australia" or similar. Their first move will be agaist semi-automatics.

If your friends think the idea of gun ownership is archaic or sinister, maybe you should think about getting new friends? Perhaps I'm being harsh. Maybe you just live in a city, where smog and noise and overcrowding do funny things to people's thought processes. Come to the country. You'll feel much better for it ;-)

[Shane Ponting]

If your friends think the idea of gun ownership is archaic or sinister, maybe you should think about getting new friends? Perhaps I'm being harsh. Maybe you just live in a city, where smog and noise and overcrowding do funny things to people's thought processes. Come to the country. You'll feel much better for it ;-)

That's not harsh it's hilarious. Although I do think you might be on to it when it comes to it being a city slicker's common mindset.

Oh, and I love my 21 Megabit internet connection too much to want to leave the burbs ;)

[Richard Prosser]

21 Megabits :-(

....we get just over one meg through the radio link on the garage roof, which then beams across to the house via a second link, because there's no straight line of sight to the transmitter.

But on the plus side, the view is forever, and I guess I could build a gun emplacement up there if I wanted, to keep watch for black helicopters ;-)

[Mack]

There's a sale going on down at Ammu-nation of anti-aircraft guns Richard.

[BammBamm]

I'd be more worried about those pesky RNA synthesis machines falling into the hands to people who know what to do with them.

Mind, I might stock up with a Antanov from Norinco this summer.

[Fletch]

Ian, how is your daughter's finger?
Hope it turned out OK.

[Fletch]

ps, on internet speeds - i am stuck with dialup :(
I'm only 10km from a township, but apparently that is too far away for them and/or our exchange is too old.

[John Boy]

The devil may, as is common enough, be in the detail. I'll pinch some stuff from Dale Tooley (who died a few years ago while quite young)on the UN Covenant on Human Rights.

He said it employs the subtleties of Soviet law. Article 124 of the Soviet Constitution speaks of freedom of relgion but Article 122 of their penal code makes it a crime to teach religion to small children.

In other words everyone has freedom except as provided by law. Article 103 says cases are tried by people's assessors (juries) except as provided by law.

The UN Covenant On Human Rights has the same cop out clauses. Article 15 section 3 says "Freedom to manifest one's religion or belief's may be subject only to such limitations as prescribed by law..."

There is some sense in limits but the rights are limited at the whim of people who may not exercise that duty properly. I suspect the UN will be like that. We will see soon enough.

[Shane Ponting]

Richard, what sort of radio link is it? BCL or something else?

[Nemesis]

Australia never had 'its' guns taken away by anyone. They were handed in for compensation after a public knee jerk reaction to the massacre (36 shot to death) at Port Arthur, Tasmania. That is a big difference!

Australians now realize their mistake in handing in those weapons and are now re-buying guns in ever increasing numbers. Does this sound like a government conspiracy to deny the citizens their right to bear arms?

[Matthew]

Meanwhile back in the main program this link appeared over at Kiwiblog:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx#ixzz0aApCEqRz

[Falafulu Fisi]

Shane asked...
...what sort of radio link is it?

Perhaps Richard is talking about neutrino based system.

Such system has been proposed in the literatures, since neutrino particles can penetrate the entire earth without being attenuated due to its charge neutrality, because it doesn't have much interaction with other elementary particles. The hardest part is figuring out of how to capture them, since if they can't be captured, then they're useless for telecommunication.

If such system is possible to be built in the future, then we don't need telecommunication satellites, since the neutrino beam can be pointed directly to the ground which can travel unhindered thru the earth's interior just to emerge and received by a signal receptor at say, North America.

The following paper proposed such a neutrino-based telecommunication system.

Telecommunication by high-energy neutrino beams

I wondered if neutrino is the cause/culprit of global warming but we have missed it entirely, but at this stage, I think it is unlikely.

[Falafulu Fisi]

The correct link for neutrino based telecommunication is shown below:

Telecommunication by high-energy neutrino beams

[Richard Prosser]

The neutrino thing would be handy, but no, it's a very ordinary "Nano Station 2" installed by the nice people at Netspeed. The inside one is a Cisco Linksys, all of which will mean much more to the boffins than it does to me. All I'm interested in is the fact that it gives me broadband - slow, expensive broadband, mind you, but broadband nonetheless - where Telecom and their copper wire couldn't.

[Shane Ponting]

Tell me Richard, what does nzdsl.co.nz give you first thing in the morning?

[Richard Prosser]

1.01 down, 0.30 up, 92ms ping this morning, which is about average for us, and 2 GB for $69.95 a month. Plus $1400-ish for the radio.

[Shane Ponting]

Can you get higher speeds for more $$$? Their website talks the product up a lot more than that, and says the service can be symmetrical (which would mean at least 1 down AND 1 up).

[Richard Prosser]

Where we are I can't, their service operates at full speed in Christchurch itself, but out here in the wops we're on the slower link. Our man tells me however that when he has enough subscribers out here he'll upgrade the transmitter and we'll have 8 meg for no extra cost.