Anti Coercion Disclosure: Fill & Download for Free

R.F. Olsen points out the obvious about the 8–12 year claim. Yet interestingly, with the main media claiming practically every weather anomaly, hurricane, flooding or large fire as ‘unprecedented’ (true or exaggerated?), for some reason they haven’t bothered to report on Greenland’s record cold of minus 86 degrees Fahrenheit in 2020.If you are hearing about this for the first time here, what does this mean, may be a reasonable question. I don’t know what’s keeping them back, because in the über-complex topsy-turvy world of ‘Climate Change’ record cold weather, somewhere, is also indicative of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Greenland just set a new all-time Record-Low Temperature - ElectroverseNow let me add my comment, a rhetorical letter to AGW activists generally:Intro: As a self-acclaimed ‘erratic moron’ (as opposed to Yanis Varoufakis’s ‘erratic Marxist’), evidently qualifying as a member of the ‘the soon to be gone cult of old conservative white men climate deniers out there’, who has possibly *1 been successfully duped by the ‘fear mongering tactics only to be found in conservative propaganda blogs poorly drag queened as “newspapers” and fossil fuel think tank front group disinformation campaigns’, I do not share this fascination for Greta Thunberg. Even as she reminds me of myself somewhat when I was that age: serious, concerned, and wishing to change the world for the better.(*1, yet to be honest I would like to take credit for that myself. I think it has more to do with my own independent cognitive folly).And speaking of the pot proverbially calling the kettle black, with two wonderful teenage children of 14 and 16, neither am I thrilled by the AGW crowd’s I would say ‘next-level-cubed’ steroidal fearmongering tactics causing many young people to fall into deep depression. And I expect AGW activists feel much the same regret, but from the opposite viewpoint: it’s all the fault of rigid adherence to the old fossil fuel paradigm, that an empathetic heart and an open mind would seek to escape.I get all of that. I’ve been all over some grand contemporary controversies before, and often it’s the flutter of a butterfly wing in one direction or another, which makes the difference. Veering one into this or that side of the ideological aisle. Plus, I have a half-assed explanation that until just recently had me only semi-satisfied for Rex Tillerson’s famous admissions at Exxon, which puts me in a different narrative than the one AGW-ists are inside, for what I consider to be their genuine and sincere reasons.I.e. I mean that. I generally like the best of the AGW work here on Quora. One doesn’t have to agree with every conclusions not to appreciate the candor and breadth of knowledge demonstrated in anyone’s respectful-of-rationality approach. Which isn’t to say that sometimes in this crazy world all of the accredited or amateur experts could be wrong and the underdog-maverick could be right.Just look at history and discoveries generally. It’s usually the individual bucking status quo ‘truth’ that brings meaningful change. The 2008 credit crisis is a recent example. The consensus of ‘experts’ did not see it coming. At all! Considered the prospect laughable, but Peter Schiff was right. So was tiny Iceland, jailing the bankers and bailing out the people. Despite all of the protestations of the IMF and the World Bank, the world’s technocratic consensus, so to speak- who eventually had to admit they were wrong. Independence of mind is a precious thing.And I don’t want to even get started on how our various self-regulating professional associations have a stranglehold over their card-carrying members, from medicine, to physics, even to lowly architecture (which I belong to). Buck the system and one can lose one’s standing and license to operate. That is an amazingly powerful and insidious lever of control not to be underestimated, in which noble ‘mission’ can usurp interfering ‘ethics’, and explains a ‘funny’ thing or two. To put it lightly.And, in my mind, not coincidentally explains why the mavericks and nonconformists are turning out to be precisely these various derided ‘old men’ I’ve been inadvertently pigeonholed with.(Btw, I don’t know about the ‘white’ part. I’m actually an indigenous native too. A finno-ugric one with our own sacred nature sites and shamanistic drumbeaters -just a different hue than my yellow, red and brown brothers and sisters. But this rote allegation goes seamlessly with today’s unfortunate identity politics trend baggage, which I expect soon will be swept away by time, as an embarrassing academic anomaly of PC wokeness culture. People should begin self-reflecting a little more).My point: the old guys (some gals) are mostly retired. This does not necessarily mean their brains cells are no longer firing full-throttle. Rather, it means they have life experience, have personally gone through the serial ‘scientific’ scares foisted upon society, and they’re more free to express themselves honestly as they have ‘nothing left to lose’ career and salary-wise. Bravo I say! Long live Senior Power!And significantly, they are finally free from their professional overlords. Something worth noting amongst the apostatic, the iconoclasts. A claim that most younger persons cannot make, but let’s not get into all of this right now.I’m just unapologetically showing who I am- let the chips fall where they may. I’m putting my cards, and biases, on the table plain to see, because that’s the kind of self-admitted non-gameplaying, simple-minded moron*2, I am.(*2. btw, this is my new self-identification, out of solidarity. Combined, of course, with irony, paradox and humour. I want to own the term. Because never in my life have I seen it tossed about so joyously, recklessly, angrily. With such moral absolutism. Like witch trials. Or Orwell’s 2 minutes of righteous hate. ‘Moron’. ‘Idiot’. With ‘stop lying, denier’, probably my favourite to date. A real chuckler reserved for anyone who has the audacity to refer to any of T. Heller’s reasoning and vast array of historical information. The most sensitive nerve.‘In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), by George Orwell, the Two Minutes Hate is the daily, public period during which members of the Outer Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting the enemies of the state, specifically Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers, to openly and loudly express hatred for them’. -Wikipedia).We can debate all of the above endlessly, even some of the ‘science’. I will bring my examples of official NASA-NOAA data manipulation allegations. I will try to show how it is done and why the methodology is grossly mistaken. Not the work of sound data science. And how what poses as science is sometimes pure shameless anti-science propaganda c/o government bureaucracy funny-starting-point charts etc. And you, whoever you are, might respond with more examples I may find difficult to counter… which is great! But I actually want to get into something else.Namely, the nitty-gritty of actions that we all might possibly agree with. Is there any common ground? As, for instance, I have found as an architectural proponent of the ‘material/technology of the future’: innovative load-bearing structural wood? Local, renewable, sustainable, low carbon footprint. Already replacing CO2-intensive concrete and steel, in many applications, worldwide.So, here’s my concrete question for everybody, especially on the AGW-’alarmist’ side: how about posting and elaborating upon some links, possibly one’s own best efforts regarding the kinds of practical solutions and alternatives to the world’s fossil fuel addiction that you personally find most convincing and doable?After all, with our future- our young people- freaking out into taking anti-depressant drugs, even committing suicide, I expect there are some realistic plans of action that a clear-minded young person can put his/her hopes in. Cures, that are not worse than the disease?In other words, there’s this calamitous battle being waged for our minds, because the goal is power. It’s come down to that, hasn’t it? Power to ‘implement our necessary emergency program’. Power, because the opposition is not backing down and will not listen to reason (being the usual polarization). Especially in this kind of zero sum game, which the ‘alarmists’ claim is by its very nature outside the realm of mere compromise. And there is a logic to that.(But can we avoid the pro- or contra trap? Where might be the common ground for environmentalists of all stripes: ‘skeptic-denialist’, ‘luke-warmist’, ‘catastrophist-alarmist’? If there is none to be found, what’s the minimum program, with the best cost-benefits and the least need to instantly reorganize all of industrial civilization -or to bring it down, as Maurice Strong suggested- damn the dire consequences to the common person? If this is not being addressed the doability of the proposition is but a dream. Let’s get real. And if it is not being addressed purposely, because people will not voluntarily agree to it, and this must be administered by stealth, programming and propaganda, it will not end well. Or have we still not learned from history? From the great writers? Have we still not given up the infatuation-intoxication of revolutionary ideological domination, in which the ends justify the means)?My problem is that so much of what I’m hearing is half-baked. There are ‘green solutions’ that are suspect for their superficiality. As an architect I know it. Green schemes that are only green in colour. I.e. that in total lifecycle CO2 footprint exceed the technology’s positive output, because its production is too CO2 intensive etc. Run it on electricity, but how was that electricity produced?How much (for instance, farm) acreage will be sacrificed to solar or wind parks, and how soon will that transition convert to meaningful cheap energy? I.e. I’m interested in legitimate doubts being credibly answered. Not just asserted, trust us.Like the EU’s Guy Verhofstadt in his 70 odd-page post-nationalist Federalist paper insisting the EU must become a unified superpower for Europe and european values to survive, and asserting -right near the beginning, making a big point of it- that despite having it’s own army will not become a militaristic superpower. And then I searched with a fine-toothed comb. Disappointingly, not once does he elaborate on the mechanics and jurisprudence of how such a benign entity would be achieved. Along with his European Greens co-author, Daniel ‘Dany Le Rouge’ Cohn-Bendit, they could have easily shared some variation of the anti-coercion, non-aggression principle (NAP): "we hereby certify that we do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." This was such an opportunity to finally get it right. To revolutionize. Make history. But, no such thing. Why? They forgot? Or have no such intention?So, and I find this is so often sadly typical, for all of the expertise and grandness of the message the bottom line is: just trust us. Give us the power, leave the details to us! Now, that’s precisely the kind of shite we’re routinely supposed to swallow in this easy-to-fake world, led by sometimes fraudulent leaders with their sometimes hidden agendas. Everyone needs to honestly ask: is this one of them?Well, having seen enough charlatans, and actual -initially hidden- agendas unfold before our eyes (remember, the EU at its outset was only supposed to be a customs union, never a fully federalized superstate), I don’t implicitly trust the asserters. They make me nervous. In fact, and it is unfortunate, the opposite is being constantly confirmed, best summed up by Stephen King: ‘The liar’s greatest tool is the trust of the innocent’.And like all of us here, doesn’t matter on which side you stand, I am worried about our innocent children. Mind you, I’ve had a rethought on Guy Verhofstadt. He may be right. There’s no need to become a global militaristic superpower, if the army’s actual mandate is instead to bust heads internally within the EU, whenever some renegade region, enclave or ‘pocket of resistance’ (of lamentable deplorables, luddites, anachronistic sovereignists and has-beens) decides it will not comply with central policy. But I digress with these ‘letters of warning’ from perceived history.So, is trying to realistically compete with cheap fossil fuels a fool’s errand or not? Yanis Varoufakis (whose work I admire re the EU banking technocracy’s dishonesty, lack of transparency and democracy deficit) wants to earmark 500 billion euros into the EU Green New Deal, and he’s not happy with the half-way measures being presently proposed. I know Europe is constantly searching for a new bubble to rally around, to float out of economic stagnation, but I don’t see the basis of Varoufakis’s faith in the outcome (maybe Bjørn Lomborg does?). How this will not lead to further austerity and keeping people’s homes warm?I.e. society’s complete rollover into renewables seems more an article of AGW faith than science or economics, driven as it is by mission and (possibly justified) fear. I’m sure we’re all familiar with what this will mean in only the food transportation sector if fossil fuels were suddenly to be outlawed, re possible mass starvation. Very quickly no food in the cities. Yet is anyone talking about a slow incremental transition and it’s costs? I would like to know. What about gradual societal impoverishment? If these aspects are not adequately addressed, I’m afraid all the CAGW side is doing is peddling in fear and social engineering non-disclosures, that young people will eventually see through.Also, it can be argued that the answer to CO2 emissions already exists: namely more nuclear, and I would suggest thorium salt reactors as India is considering. Case closed, say some. Yet isn’t this unacceptable to the environmentalist status quo… making me think we’re all being duped here?The only logical explanation I can come up with, also having researched the history of environmentalism via the UN and Maurice Strong, is that cheap energy to make people’s lives better and easier is actually not the goal at all, because we ignorant people will be happier and will want to procreate more.Since half of the environmental and sustainability ‘problem’ is overpopulation, we can’t have that. What we need are newer, better nihilistic ideologies to indoctrinate our youth with, so that they will be upset enough not to want to have families, and the rest is up to our imaginations… so depression and a worse life for all is good, seems to be the gist of it. Plus, it stands to reason we need less individual liberty and more authoritarian-totalitarian global governance structures to see this through. This is the logical linkage not being told that perhaps you have a good answer to?I may be a youngish 60 year old fart with a good imagination and a nose finely tuned for bullshit, having seen a thing or two in this life that the average 20–30 year old has not. Or, I may be a relic from the fossil fuel-burning past that has no place in the brave new renewables world being likewise imagined manically, or in hope… So please share the ‘master plan’ that makes most sense to you, as some of you have studied these matters intensely longer than I. Cheers, and for the kids!Oh-ohh! And I hope this is the last of it. Two brand new eureka moments, or the product of idle hands and a dehydrated feverish mind, sick at home from work, with my only responsibility being walking the dog:EUREKA 1) Most recently some even claiming 99,9999% certainty, if the AGW alarmists are so sure of their science and sincerely need so badly to save the globe and it’s species from boiling over into infinite feedback loops of catastrophic temperature rises and Arctic permafrost and sea ice methane release, eventually making the planet some kind of uninhabitable Venus, this should be the last moment to transition to nuclear energy (safer thorium salt reactors perhaps preferred) which does not produce CO2. This is not happening, nor is it the AGW focus. Well, well, well…Funny that!? So, I think something’s been ‘outed’ here. Not interested in cheap energy to make people’s lives more plentiful and happier, to lift the last of the impoverished out of hunger and squalor? Is this the last of the 1970’s (The Population Explosion/ Silent Spring) Club of Rome environmentalist mohicans, posthumously running Maurice Strong’s show!? And who can rightly refuse them, because Nature’s on their side, right? It’s starting to dawn on me that that’s a nifty cover story for the depopulation agenda. Because happier people feeling good about life, generally like to have babies.EUREKA 2) But heck, what if this too does not add up? It’s been noted that wealthier societies tend to procreate proportionally less than poorer societies, where a ticket to wealth or a reasonable retirement is having 12 children, so that even if but one is successful this child will support all the others (or at least the parents). Hence, it’s been posited that raising the world’s standard of living will solve the globe’s overpopulation problem. Surely I’m not the only one aware of this. So, what’s this? Our environmentalist buddies are not interested in 2 birds with one stone: eliminating CO2 with safer thorium reactors, nor reducing overpopulation by the reverse argument: that inexpensive energy makes for wealthier societies which procreate less? So, what’s left, according to this logic? What’s the motivation?No, no, no, no! Say it ain’t so. It can’t be precisely as warned: power and control! A coordinated campaign of governmental and media fearmongering and one-sided reporting at indeed the grandest scale for relinquishing individual liberty to centralized global governance? The goal having less to do with helping others than helping oneself. Why? Well, at the worst of it, because for intellectual narcissists and prideful winners-sore losers, it isn’t about having enough to enjoy, it’s having more than others to enjoy? Or, it’s technocratic privilege, ‘justice’ and ‘tough love’? Or, it’s a combination of all of the above, the age old human temptation and foible: power of the elite few over the many. Get all the taxation and power centralized via the con of the millennium, the ‘carbon tax’, so that ‘privilege’ is not merely guaranteed, but so is control.Äähh! I really wanted to avoid this grim conclusion, but does it still really boil down to primitive human nature (always hiding behind virtue): the urge to rule? An individual and tribal evolutionary survivalist tactic that morphed into the logic of domination, devolving into the need to harness/ enslave one’s fellow man, and finally for the rotten apples in the barrel providing the sweetest of sociopathic, maximum hands-rubbing-together pleasures? It’s called ‘farming the people’. And more successfully than any of one’s adversaries. So, we’re still unwittingly stuck in that cycle?So, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell were right, and everyone who is unaware of this is a highly useful idiot? Cunning opportunists who are aware, and have cynically enabled this agenda are traitors to humanity… fakes and frauds, not your friend? Time to straighten those bowties, boys, and keep the eyes peeled for a quick exit!? And some of them will be on the Big Oil payroll, playing both ends of the game. Others at the UN. Pays to look beyond simplicities. The truth is usually more complex. Or is it? Cheers!‘The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule’. - H.L. Mencken(Author’s post script: one non-, or is it less-dystopian alternate to Eureka 2 offered in the second of my comments below).Reply

It would have no real effect, but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Trump’s successor requires him to go through a standard review to maintain his security clearance. That would be almost certain to result in the clearance being removed, since Trump’s entire life is a series of red flags that in normal circumstances would completely preclude the issuance of a security clearance.From a page giving standards for a DOD clearance, Trump would have potential problems with all of the following:Involvement in activities which unlawfully advocate or practice the prevention of others from exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state.Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries could also create vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.Failing to report, where required, associations with foreign nationals;Unauthorized association with a suspected or known collaborator or employee of a foreign intelligence service;Conduct which may make the individual vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure by a foreign government;Indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, coercion or pressure;A substantial financial interest in a country, or in any foreign owned or operated business that could make the individual vulnerable to foreign influence.When an individual acts in such a way as to indicate a preference for a foreign country over the United States.Sexual behavior that… subject[s] the individual to coercion, exploitation, or duress, or reflects lack of judgment or discretion.Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency.Association with persons involved in criminal activity.A history of not meeting financial obligations;Deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing deceptive loan statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust;Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;A pattern of high-risk, irresponsible, aggressive, anti-social or emotionally unstable behavior;Information that suggests that the individual's current behavior indicates a defect in his or her judgment or reliability.Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged;Unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

If your student is only twelve years old they cannot in any circumstances give consent to a marriage, or a sexual relationship. This is a very serious child protection matter. In the UK a teacher should go to the designated person who has responsibility for child protection. Usually the Headteacher or a deputy. The teacher must make sure that the designated person makes a referral to the local Social Services Child protection team. You must do this today!Make a written record of the conversations you have had with the child about the 'marriage'. Record when and what she has said. Try to remember the questions that you asked that prompted the disclosure. Be as factual as possible. Sign and date the document. If the designated person does not make a child protection referral then you must do it directly. If you believe the parent is going that day to remove the child and to take them out of the country that day then you should ring the Police immediately.There is a big difference between an arranged marriage and a forced marriage. Many cultures have arranged marriages however if coercion is used to force one or both of the parties into it then it is a forced marriage. Coercion does not just mean violence but can mean other threats as well. Is your student being coerced? Does one or both of the persons in the marriage have learning difficulties or other issues that make them vulnerable and unable to give informed consent? If so, that is also a forced marriage. Arranged marriages can never take place when one or both of the parties is a child. This is not even a forced marriage but child abuse. Please do act today.Recently both the UK government and UK police have taken the problem of forced marriages far more seriously and there are civil as well as criminal options that a potential victim might follow. Many victims don't want their parents criminalised so a civil option can be an advantage. In the UK the legislation on it has been reinforced and updated in "The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014" which makes it a criminal offence to force someone to marry this includes:Taking someone overseas to force them to marry (whether or not the forced marriage takes place)Marrying someone who lacks the mental capacity to consent to the marriage (whether they’re pressured to or not)Breaching a Forced Marriage Protection Order is also a criminal offenceThe civil remedy of obtaining a Forced Marriage Protection Order through the family courts will continue to exist alongside the new criminal offence, so victims can choose how they wish to be assisted.ContactsTelephone: +44 (0) 20 7008 0151Email: [email protected] for outreach work: [email protected]: Forced Marriage pageTwitter: @FMUnit