60% of Japanese Girls Are Not Dating & Are Younger Girls Looking for Older Men a Return of the Cycle?


Culture is changing and much seems to be reverting back to the way it was before Socialism. Before the 1930s, there was typically a large age differe4nce between couples. The boy had to become a man and then approach the father to ask for her hand. He would have to demonstrate that he was capable of taking care of her. After Socialism when the government replaced old family traditions, the age differential collapsed. The common complaint girls have today is that boys in their 20s are immature. In Japan, this has manifested into what is called the “celibacy syndrome” where girls are not interested even in dating no less marriage. Now about 60% of eligible girls are not interested in dating. The high unemployment among the youth, in Europe especially, also has driven younger women to now seek older men for husbands who are (1) mature and not addicted to video games, and (2) have the means to support a family.

Other studies are uncovering interesting facts about age differences. Men ‘live longer’ if they marry a younger woman. Perhaps the natural balance was the way things were before Socialism. The boy had to first become a man before he was ready for a wife. What many girls complain about boys lacking maturity is often expressed that they are raised being told they can be independent whereas boys are raised these days telling them to have fun for there is plenty of time to settle down. It may be possible that girls are being prepared for life faster than boys in addition to the biological clock.

Just maybe, Socialism has disrupted a lot more than people think. Couples used to have several children for their retirement was the family unit. When Socialism came into play, family size reduced dropping from an average of nearly 5 to 2.5. In 1790, having more than 5 children accounted for 35.8% which is now only 1% of households. Children, who once saved to take care of their parents in old age, are no longer responsible. Government social programs take care of that. In the USA, it is Social Security which replaced the family structure. Socialism may have changed a lot more than saving to take care of the parents in old age. Altering the age differential of couples may also have also profoundly changed to our social structure and girls are naturally now either not interested in marriage or are looking for older men. The future of society may be starkly different than people suspect.

Can Government Really Prevent War?


QUESTION: Martin,

So much common sense from you. But, re the almost total corruption of government, could this be the ONLY practical solution?

That is:
1. Elect Politicians directly, at random, from the general, law abiding population for a fixed term with no possibility of re-election
2. Pay them well, with jobs/careers guaranteed and severe prison time for any corrupt activity

Of course, lots of other issues, all surmountable – but these principles are sacrosanct.

Could it be any worse than the current appalling corrupt situation?

Regards
IW

PS I understand this system was tried in ancient Greece and Italy around WW1. We might be better at the logistics now?

ANSWER: No there is no other choice. Thrasymachus (c 459-400BC) put it best: all forms of government become the same as they all act in their own self-interest. We really need a bureaucracy to run, but they MUST be accountable to elected people who are by NO MEANS career politicians. The European Project and the entire theory of federalizing Europe has been to supposedly prevent war by devolving everything to a single government. If there are no career politicians, then this will do far more to reduce the threat of war than any other step we can take toward securing our future.

A single government that is still not answerable to the people will not cut it. This is precisely the design of the European Project to eliminate any democratic process because they assume the people are too stupid to understand their vision. Those who dictate the trend of Europe known as the Troika, rule without any accountability to the people. There is no democratic process that any of them have to face. This is the European Project – a single government free of any democratic check and balance all justified to prevent war.

Is Climate Change a Tool to Eliminate Democracy?


COMMENT: Your view on denying climate change is supporting the capitalist model. This shows you have no credibility.

OD

REPLY: Climate is changing and it is part of the normal cycle. You are actually correct that I support capitalism and freedom and am against authoritarianism and totalitarian systems. What you fail to understand is that climate change is an agenda to eliminate your freedom. The entire argument is to support a move toward an authoritarian state. You better wake up. This not truly about the climate, it is all about controlling society, eliminating democracy, and changing the entire economic model that changes society.


It’s a well-kept secret, but 95 per cent of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error. It’s not surprising.

We have been subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years.

In January 1970, Life magazine, based on “solid scientific evidence”, claimed that by 1985 air pollution would reduce the sunlight reaching the Earth by half. In fact, across that period sunlight fell by between 3 per cent and 5 per cent. In a 1971 speech, Paul Ehrlich said: “If I were a gambler I would take even money that ­England will not exist in the year 2000.”

Fast forward to March 2000 and David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, told The Independent, “Snowfalls are now a thing of the past.” In December 2010, the Mail Online reported, “Coldest December since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10C bringing travel chaos across Britain”.

We’ve had our own busted predictions. Perhaps the most preposterous was climate alarmist Tim Flannery’s 2005 observation: “If the computer records are right, these drought conditions will become permanent in eastern Australia.” Subsequent rainfall and severe flooding have shown the records or his analysis are wrong. We’ve swallowed dud prediction after dud prediction. What’s more, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which we were instructed was the gold standard on global warming, has been exposed repeatedly for ­mis­rep­resentation and shoddy methods.

Weather bureaus appear to have “homogenised” data to suit narratives. NASA’s claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record was revised, after challenge, to only 38 per cent probability. Extreme weather events, once blamed on global warming, no longer are, as their frequency and intensity decline.

Why then, with such little evidence, does the UN insist the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year on futile climate change policies? Perhaps Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change has the answer?

In Brussels last February she said, “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, the real agenda is concentrated political authority. Global warming is the hook.

Figueres is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model. This is not about facts or logic. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.” She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”. Of course. In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers. As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says: “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up. After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded. They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House. They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

They will continue to present the climate change movement as an independent, spontaneous consensus of concerned scientists, politicians and citizens who believe human activity is “extremely likely” to be the dominant cause of global warming. (“Extremely likely” is a scientific term?)

And they will keep mobilising public opinion using fear and appeals to morality. UN support will be assured through promised wealth redistribution from the West, even though its anti-growth policy prescriptions will needlessly prolong poverty, hunger, sickness and illiteracy for the world’s poorest.

Figueres said at a climate ­summit in Melbourne recently that she was “truly counting on Australia’s leadership” to ensure most coal stayed in the ground.

Hopefully, like India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Tony Abbott isn’t listening. India knows the importance of cheap energy and is set to overtake China as the world’s leading importer of coal. Even Germany is about to commission the most coal-fired power stations in 20 years.

There is a real chance Figueres and those who share her centralised power ambitions will succeed. As the UN’s December climate change conference in Paris approaches, Australia will be pressed to sign even more futile job-destroying climate change treaties.

Resisting will be politically difficult. But resist we should. We are already paying an unnecessary social and economic price for empty gestures. Enough is enough

The Blizzard of 1899


A lot of people are claiming that the extreme cold is part of Global Warming and human-induced climate change. Well, all we need do is look to the Blizzard of 1899. That is the record cold where it snowed also all the way into the capital of Florida, Tallahassee. It was snowing also in Tallahassee this season.

February 1899 was the coldest winter on record all the way up to 2017. All of these claims are just nonsense that this extreme cold is created by Global Warming or climat6e change caused by humans. We have been there and done that before prior to the invention of automobiles and massive expansion of the Industrial Revolution. Let’s see if we break the record come February. It is even 72 degrees in Abu Dhabi.

Greenhouses Gases Are a Product of Civilization for Thousands of Years


QUESTION: Do you believe we are going into an ice age?

ANSWER: No. At best we return to a mini-ice age. There are those who argue that a decline in solar activity, which they cannot deny, will not be enough to offset the human created Global Warming. There are so many things wrong with the Global Warming theories it is even hard to figure out where to begin. Long before the Industrial Revolution, the assumption was that our planet’s atmosphere was still untainted by human-made pollutants for it was somehow pristine. That assumption is dead wrong, but nobody wants to challenge it because if there were periods of human air pollution before, then perhaps their theory that this will destroy the planet and we will all burn to a crisp, as Christine Legard said, is nonsense.

All one has to do is read the contemporary accounts from ancient Rome. The residents of ancient Rome suffered from pollution that was primarily caused by burning wood to cook and stay warm rather than fossil fuels. There was a great smoke cloud they wrote about called gravioris caeli (“heavy heaven”). Others referred to it as infamis aer (“infamous air”). Complaints about this infamis aer and its effects can be found in classical writings. “No sooner had I left behind the oppressive atmosphere of the city [Rome] and that reek of smoking cookers which pour out, along with clouds of ashes, all the poisonous fumes they’ve accumulated in their interiors whenever they’re started up, than I noticed the change in my condition,” wrote in 61AD Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BC – 65AD) the philosopher, statesman, and adviser to Emperor Nero who ordered him to commit suicide.

Moreover, there were lawsuits over air pollution in ancient Rome. The Roman courts heard civil claims over smoke pollution. The Roman jurist Titus Aristo, who was also a member of the council of Emperor Trajan. He was an author of annotations to the works of some jurists of the Augustan period, declared that a cheese shop could not discharge smoke into the buildings above it. Pollution had become so bad that the East Empire in Constantinople even enacted the first known Clean Air Act. In 535AD, then Emperor Justinian proclaimed the importance of clean air as a birthright. “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind—the air, running water, the sea.”

Further evidence that refutes the Global Warming crowd is the discovery of bubbles trapped in Greenland’s ice which revealed that humans began emitting greenhouse gases at least 2,000 years ago. Célia Sapart of Utrecht University in the Netherlands led a team of scientists from Europe and the United States in a study that charted the chemi­cal signature of methane gas in ice samples spanning 2,100 years. The methane gas naturally occurs in the atmosphere but it is considered a greenhouse gas emitted landfills, large-scale cattle ranching, natural gas pipeline leaks and land-clearing fires.

Célia Sapart employed a 1,600-foot-long ice core sample extracted from Greenland’s 1.5-mile-thick ice sheet representing 115,000 years of history. The team chemically analyzed the methane in microscopic air bubbles trapped in each ice layer. They sought to prove global warming is a modern consequence of human activity. They assumed that they would be able to prove that the warmer climate since the 1700s was caused by an increase in methane gas levels.

The found that indeed methane concentrations went up. What they proved was the fact that the rise in methane gas did not correlate with warm periods. What they ended up proving was the simple fact that the theory of greenhouse methane gas was NOT the cause and that the rise in temperature must have been caused by something else. The focused then change and the “something else” was still attributed to human activity, of course, but it was then said to have been due to metallurgy and large-scale agriculture starting around 100 BC.

Indeed, the ancient Romans did keep domesticated livestock and their passing of gas in methane gas, a byproduct of digestion and in China the rice fields include a methane-producing bacteria. So methane gas is a natural part of the planet and the assumption that we should all commit suicide to save the planet is really just nuts. So the team turned to blacksmiths who produced methane gas when they burned wood to produce metal tools or weapons. They noted in the ice core samples that as civilizations collapsed following the fall of the Roman Empire, then there was a moderate decline in methane gas emissions.They concluded that between 100 BC and AD 1600, methane emissions rose by nearly 31 million tons per year. They argue that the United States alone generates some 36 million tons of methane per year.

Célia Sapart had to admit that such emissions of methane gas were by no means enough to alter the climate. The conclusion was still that humans were altering the atmosphere on a global scale in ancient times as well. The study has proved that the assumption that it has only been only of a modern invention that human activity has produced methane gas and the world was pristine before 1800 is just a fantasy. Ice Ages and warming periods have existed well before human civilization where they began to burn wood to stay warm. All they were able to accomplish was prove that greenhouse gases have been produced for thousands of years. If anything, this study shows that the end is not necessarily near based upon greenhouse gas.

Just How Fast Can Things Freeze?


When the weather goes against Global Warming, they flip it into volatility and claim cold is now the byproduct of Global Warming. Al Gore’s environmental group, Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann wrote, “the unusual weather we’re seeing this winter is in no way evidence against climate change,” it’s “an example of precisely the sort of extreme winter weather we expect because of climate change.”

They offer no evidence that human have caused climate change, just constant opinion. Only they can possibly be right and dismiss any evidence that points to such rapid declines pre-1850. The frozen woolly mammoths discovered in Russia completely frozen and intact with plants still in their stomachs have long made many ponder just how fast the planet can freeze.

When woolly mammoths began to be discovered intact and frozen in Siberia back in 1772, this changed science forever. The sudden bitter cold took place long before humans were around driving cars. As always, such evidence is always ignored. This is the real inconvenient truth they cannot explain so it is best just to pretend it does not exist.

Some people have written in asking will Toronto or Chicago suddenly emerge under a sheet of ice without notice? The evidence from Siberia suggests that yes it can happen in the blink of an eye. However, there is no recorded history which we could put into the computer to answer that question in a precise manner.

This is the known record so far. This is very approximate and it is plotted in terms of millions of years. We really cannot make an accurate forecast that Chicago or Toronto would suddenly find itself under a sheet of ice in days, weeks, months, or years. What is certain overall is the trend. We are headed toward a bitterly cold period ahead. Does that mean we will see glaciers down into Spain or Texas? That may very well be the case, but we are also looking at a time frame measured in millions of years, which is not relevant to our immediate lifespan.

Taking this data and assuming 450 million years ago was a good date target, there is a 72-million-year cycle the computer has determined from this data set. Therefore, it would appear that we are headed toward the biggest glacial period in the history of the planet. However, we are probably looking at that in about 30 million years. Nevertheless, it will get colder in our lifespan and this initial bout with getting colder should be moving into 2028. You will still need heating pads and warm clothes if the power grids hold up.

The biggest problem with this cold is the fact that the environmentalists have stopped coal-generated power and they are not so fond of nuclear. Solar panels work if not covered in snow and wind turbine will freeze in place. That leaves wood and coal burning stoves. This winter in New England, found power companies struggling to provide power to meet the demands. Ironically, people like Al Gore and Michael Mann may end up responsible for killing more people than any war. Yes you can die from too much heat, but you can also die from too much cold

Iran Economic Decline = Rise in Protests


COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong; The economy is in a poor state at best because the government just does not know how to manage the state and this proxy war with Saudi Arabia is draining everything here in Iran. What is your view on the economy going forward?

REPLY: The lifting of economic sanctions under the 2015 nuclear deal with the USA did not result in any improvement in the Iranian economy. Iran’s economy has simply remained stagnant at best for we are in an overall economic contraction now into 2020. Inflation is running above 10% in Iran while many basic food items like eggs are up over 40%. Still, some 3 million people remain unemployed. The economic conditions since the Islamic Revolution have simply left about 35% of Iranians living below the official poverty line.

The protests in Iran are being instigated by economics as they are in Europe. The young Iranians, in general, are growing increasingly frustrated by corruption in government combined with economic mismanagement. Protests and instability are likely to continue over the next few years because of the government, like most others, is simply interested in retaining power – not reform.

British Prosecutors Charging Hate Crimes for just saying “All right Geezer.”


The British government is also going completely nuts with criminal charges for nonsense. British prosecutors charged a woman for calling a man a “pussy”. Then there is the case of a businessman who was charged with a hate crime for saying to a transgender man presenting himself as a woman  – “all right geezer.” He alleged he simply said that to him/her when they passed in the street. Vernon Mussington was found guilty but appealed and finally had his conviction overturned.

When the governments collapse, we simply MUST take away the power to prosecute from government completely. Part of the cycle that signals the decline and fall is in motion, is none other than the abuse of the power to prosecute. Edward Gibbon wrote in the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire:

“[A] distinction of every kind soon became criminal. The possession of wealth stimulated the diligence of the informers; rigid virtue implied a tacit censure of the irregularities of Commodus; important services implied a dangerous superiority of merit; and the friendship of the father always insured the aversion of the son. Suspicion was equivalent to proof; trial to condemnation. The execution of a considerable senator was attended with the death of all who might lament or revenge his fate; and when Commodus had once tasted human blood, he became incapable of pity or remorse

(Book 1, Chapter 4).

Underwater Volcanoes Contribute to Warming Deep Water


 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I read you Maya Report and found it fascinating how volcanic eruptions in the ocean are polarized to where the North Pole is at that time. Now we have people trying to claim that the heat from global warming is being hidden stored deep in the oceans. It seems once more these people ignore the fact that there are underwater volcanoes erupting more so now than before. Is that a true statement?

HEJ

ANSWER: Oh yes, that is correct. There have been attempts to measure the heat generated from underwater volcanic eruptions. They attempted that off the East Pacific Rise, which is a point in the ocean floor where continents move apart. This is where magma contained in the Earth’s core to rise to the surface and spew from underwater volcanoes. This data was part of what was supplied to me to run through our model to determine the cyclical nature of how the poles flip. The volcanic activity underwater is rising and no doubt has an impact on the temperature. There have been attempts to linked volcanism to tiny shifts in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, as well, that occur every 100,000 years. These shifts may trigger ice ages and warm periods, both of which affect global sea levels. That, in turn, would increase or suppress volcanic activity it is believed.

Nevertheless, the Global Warming crowd claims the oceans are getting warmer down deep and that must be from mankind. Once more, they take the results and fit it to a predetermined conclusion.

Dormant/Extinct Volcano Erupts for First Time in Recorded History


Another dormant volcano has suddenly awakened erupting in a rather spectacular fashion, spewing lava for the first time in known history, It sent an ash cloud 2.1 kilometers into the sky. This ancient volcano on Kadovar Island, which is northeast of Papua New Guinea, has been dormant throughout hu8man history until January 5th, 2018.  It began to erupt at around noon, local time. The volcanic island is about 24 kilometers from the northern coast of mainland Papua New Guinea. Our model is also showing that there will be a rise in volcanic activity as we move into 2024. We previously warned: “If we see a series of volcanic eruptions in the VEI 6 category or greater within 2018, expect to see a very sharp turn down in temperature and Global Cooling will take on rapid change going into 2024.” It is truly fascinating how this correlates to the change in the energy output of the sun