The Malthusian Conspiracy?, The Possible Big Picture Options

[Timothy Osman]

In 1798, Thomas R. Malthus (1766-1834), a 19th century pessimist, after reading about goats on Galapagos Island, published his essay Principles of Population. The essay extended his observations of goats to humans, and maintained that populations are unprincipled and have no internal constraints toward growth. Now, in the first half of the 19th century in Europe, members of the ruling classes met subsequent to the publication of Principles of Population to discuss "the population problem." Before Malthus, populations were considered to be an asset. After Malthus, the concept of land acquisition to support "future large populations" became a motivating factor for war.

Another aspect of Malthus' theory is that is maintained that "all animated life was governed exclusively by the sexual-reproductive drive. Like Freud, Malthus reduced a complex interplay of factors to just one factor-sexual drive. Reducing any issue to just one factor is reductive determinism, which on its face has little or no scientific merit. Although the Malthusian doctrine was one of the most influential of modern times, it never had any scientific basis. The Malthusian doctrine later came to the attention of Charles Darwin, who read Malthus' essay in 1838. For Darwin, who was familiar with the viewpoint of Thomas Hobbes, "life consisted of a struggle, one against all." The Malthusian idea of existence also incorporated this Hobbesian viewpoint, and it appealed to Darwin. When applied to populations and society, it resulted in Social Darwinism.

Social Darwinism appealed to the European elite, who saw it as prima facie justification their "evolutionary superiority." The elite adapted the Malthusian principle of "management of unprincipled populations"- population control. Moreover, Darwinism achieved orthodox status among his friends in the British Royal Society, two of whom were Thomas Huxley, president of the Royal Society, and Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin. Galton founded the eugenics movement, which later expanded in the United States and subsequently in Germany.

Darwin's vision of existence as a "purposeless struggle", after 1859, quickly replaced the Judeo-Christian vision of human life as a purposeful, divinely guided moral struggle. This idea of "life as a meaningless struggle" played a decisive role in the brutalization of the Western world for the rest of the 19th and 20th centuries. Social Darwinism prompted the enlargement of colonial empires, and also conditioned a struggle for power on an unprecedented scale. The principle targets of war switched from enemy armies to populations themselves.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardt...ian_premise.htm

This is just an article which describes how we got where we are in a simple way IMO. It does explain the dog eat dog world we accept in which over Two Billion people have no access to electricity and are blamed for being a burden on the planet.
Could it be that today we have an elite who as their core belief is the Malthusian idea of humans as randy goats shagging their way to oblivion. That the control of energy resources, the only way of currently maintaining affordable food for all is central to this elites plan. It's hard not to see 911 as a means of securing the middle and central east energy producing area's, not just to exploit them but to control and diminish supply.
When I look at the origin of the other scam which is working in tandem to artificially inflate the price of energy through carbon taxes and seeing the architects are the same old suspects. Without going into a pyramid hunting rabbit hole I thought I would start with this bloke.

Maurice Strong.

THE Kyoto Protocol was the work of thousands of bureaucrats, diplomats and politicians. But no one person is more responsible for it than a Canadian named Maurice Strong.

Strong organized the UN first-world environmental summit in Stockholm in 1972 and has never stopped pressing for a world where UN resolutions would be enforced as law all over the Earth.

Strong went on to chair the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio and to become senior adviser to Kofi Annan, the UN's secretary general. Not bad for a kid from Oak Lake, Manitoba, who dropped out of school at age 14.

But Strong is different than other social butterflies who flit from one UN conference to the next. He is a powerful businessman, who has served as president of such massive energy companies as Petro-Canada and Ontario Hydro, and on the board of industrial giant Toyota.

He is a huge political donor, not just here in Canada, but to both the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. as well.

At age 29, he became president of Power Corporation, fusing his destiny to Canada's wealthiest and most influential families - including Paul Martin Sr. and Jr., now heir apparent to the prime minister.

Strong hired Paul Jr. to work for him during a vacation from university. "We controlled many companies, controlled political budgets," Strong said of his time at Power Corporation. "Politicians got to know you and you them."

Strong hired Martin into Power Corporation's executive suite. He helped guide Martin towards unimaginable personal wealth - and even predicted Martin's path to becoming prime minister. But Strong's influence reaches farther than Canada.

Indeed, compared to Strong's American and European friends, Martin is a small star in the constellation.

Strong sits on boards with the Rockefellers and Mikhail Gorbachev and chairs private meetings of CEOs, including Bill Gates. He hobnobs with the world's royalty, too - and with dictators and despots.

He once did a business deal with arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, and wound up with a 200,000-acre ranch in Colorado - which his wife, Hanne, runs as a New Age spiritual colony.

He told Maclean's magazine in 1976 that he was "a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology." He warns that if we don't heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.

"Do we really want this? Do we want Marx to be proven right, after all?" Strong asks. He shares the views of the most radical environmentalist street protester, but instead of shouting himself hoarse at a police barricade outside a global conference, he's the secretary general inside, wielding the gavel.

Strong has always courted power - but not through any shabby election campaign. He was a Liberal candidate in the 1979 federal election, but pulled out a month before the vote.

How could a mere MP wield the kind of international control he had tasted in Stockholm? Journalist Elaine Dewar, who interviewed Strong, described why he loved the UN.

"He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda," wrote Dewar.

"He told me he had more unfettered power than a cabinet minister in Ottawa. He was right: He didn't have to run for re-election, yet he could profoundly affect lives."

Strong prefers power extracted from democracies, and kept from unenlightened voters. Most power-crazed men would stop at calling for a one world Earth Charter to replace the U.S. Constitution, or the UN Charter.

But in an interview with his own Earth Charter Commission, Strong said "the real goal of the Earth Charter is it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments. It will become a symbol of the aspirations and commitments of people everywhere." Sounds like Maurice was hanging out at his spirit ranch without his sunhat on.

There has been no one like Maurice Strong before, except perhaps in fiction - Ernst Blofeld comes to mind, 007's round-faced nemesis in You Only Live Twice. But Blofeld sought to attack the world order, to challenge it from some remote hideaway - not to co-opt it, and transform it from the inside as Strong does.

Blofeld would threaten a meeting of the UN; Strong would chair the meeting and script its agenda. Strangely, Strong once indulged his inner Blofeld, musing to a stunned reporter about a violent plot to take over the world through one of his many super-organizations.

In 1990, Strong told a reporter a fantasy scenario for the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland - where 1,000 diplomats, CEOs and politicians gather "to address global issues."

Strong, naturally, is on the board of the World Economic Forum. "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?...

In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?"

http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Mauri...g/article1.html

[Timothy Osman]

By refusing to understand the issues at the heart of climate change, or even recognise that the issues exist, you will be playing into the hands of those very 'master manipulators' that you mentioned elsewhere.

Oh! And those 'master manipulators' that you mentioned above have done a very good job have they not. By the combined promulgation of carbon taxes etc and drip feeding articles on skewed science through the media you have been suckered into believing that 'anthropogenic climate change' is a scam. But then judging by the many comments in various threads on this forum you are in good company.

These 'master manipulators' have successfully played both ends against the middle to achieve the desired result - an increasing suspicion suspicion by the population at large of any science which underpins our current understanding of the problems.

Since we can agree on the fact that we're being played here you must surely question any "science" that emanates from these master manipulators.
Take the case of Enron and it's role in establishing a Carbon trading scheme.

Amidst the talk about the benefits that Kyoto Protocol is sup-posed to promote, it is perhaps forgotten especially amongst the greenies how Kyoto was born in the corridors of very big business. The name Enron has all but faded from our news pages since the company went down in flames in 2001 amidst charges of fraud, bribery, price fixing and graft. But without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.
About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise.
Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits’ of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction. Under law a tradeable system was required, which was exactly what Enron also wanted because they were already trading pollutant credits. Thence Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to “reduce” global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out.
A lawyer named Christopher Horner was hired who had worked in Senator Liebermann’s Environment Committee. Horner, employed by Enron, became director of relations with the Federal Government. That was in 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. According to Homer, on the second day at the job he was told that the Number One Objective was to obtain an international treaty that would impose cuts in CO2 emissions, but at the same time allowed trade with emission rights. Enron had the biggest natural gas production behind Russia’s Gazprom. Enron was making a lot of money trading with coal, but they had already calculated that the profits they would lose with coal would be more than compensated by the profits derived from its privileged position in other areas. With clever positioning and anticipation Enron had bought the world’s biggest wind power company, GE Wind, from General Electric. They now also owned the biggest solar power company in the world, in society with Amoco (now belonging to British Petroleum – BP). Enron then started to finance everything related to the global warming hype, including grants to scientists – but asking for results favorable to their interest – “proof” that humans were responsible for the excessive emissions of CO2 through fossil fuel burning. The fire of malaise, now lit and kindled, only required feeding.
The expressive term ‘Baptist-bootlegger’ derives from the days of prohibition. Under prohibition bootleggers and those who trans-ported and supplied illegal alcohol made fortunes. One such entrepreneur was Joseph Kennedy whose second son, John, became US President in 1961. The bootleggers had allies in the Baptists and other teetotalists, who believed that alcohol was a deadly threat to the social order, and had worked for decades to get prohibition onto the statute books. The Baptists provided the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds. In public the two groups maintained a great social distance from each other. Now Enron had positioned itself at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition. The gargantuan rents which Enron energetically sought could be realized only if the Kyoto Protocol became established as part of US and international law. Ken Lay, Enron’s CEO saw Enron as not only making billions from sales of the natural gas which was to displace coal as the preferred fuel under the Kyoto commitments, but he realised that as the main if not the only international and domestic trader in the new barter world of carbon credits, Enron could realise hitherto unimagined wealth. Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established and policed a global policy of decarbonisation under which a global tax on carbon was to be enforced.
As the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed momentum, it was necessary for Ken Lay to build up alliances with the green movement including Greenpeace. A 1998 letter, signed by Lay and a few other bigwigs asked President Clinton, in essence, to harm the reputations and credibility of scientists who argued that global warming was an overblown issue, because these individuals were standing in Enron’s way. The letter, dated Sept. 1, asked the president to shut off the public scientific debate on global warming, which continues to this date. In particular, it requested Clinton to moderate the political aspects of this discussion by appointing a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission. The purpose of this commission was clear – high-level trashing of dissident scientists. Setting up a panel to do this was simple; just look at the recent issue of Scientific American where four attack dogs were called out to chew up Bjorn Lomborg. He had the audacity to publish The Skeptic Environmentalist demonstrating that global warming is overblown. David Bellamy, the world’s foremost environmentalist also stepped out of line with his widely printed article “Global Warming? What a load of old Poppycock.” In the same way Galileo was forced to publicly utter that the moon had no effect on tides, so Bellamy under pressure backtracked on some of his claims.
Enron commissioned its own internal study of global warming science. It turned out to be largely in agreement with the same scientists that Enron was trying to shut up. After considering all of the inconsistencies in climate science, the report concluded: “The very real possibility is that the great climate alarm could be a false alarm. The anthropogenic warming could well be less than thought and favorably distributed.” One of Enron’s major consultants in that study was NASA scientist James Hansen, who started the whole global warming mess in 1988 with his bombastic congressional testimony. Recently he published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences predicting exactly the same inconsequential amount of warming in the next 50 years as the scientists that Enron wanted to gag. They were a decade ahead of NASA. True to its plan, Enron never made its own findings public, self-censoring them while it pleaded with the Bush administration for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that it could broker. That pleading continues today – the remnant-Enron still views global warming regulation as the straw that will raise it from its corporate oblivion. Some greenie campaigning in America is still directed from this source. On July 7, 2004, Kenneth Lay was indicted by a federal grand jury for his involvement in the scandal.
Everyone knows that a few hundred votes in Florida tipped the election to George W, but few are aware that West Virginia, normally a Democrat stronghold, went for Bush because the coal industry in that state decided to back him because he would not endorse Kyoto. Without West Virginia, the vote in Florida would have made no difference.
”Enron stood to profit millions from global warming energy-trading schemes,” said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association and American Coal Coalition. The investigation into the collapse of Enron will reveal much more about the intricacies of the Baptist-bootlegger coalition which was promoting the Kyoto cause within the Republican Party and within US business circles. Coal-burning utilities would have had to pay billions for permits because they emit more CO2 than do natural gas facilities. That would have encouraged closing coal plants in favor of natural gas or other kinds of power plants, driving up prices for those alternatives. Enron, along with other key energy companies in the so-called Clean Power Group – El Paso Corp., NiSource, Trigen Energy, and Calpine – would make money both coming and going – from selling permits and then their own energy at higher prices. If the Kyoto Protocol were ratified and in full force, experts estimated that Americans would lose between $100 billion and $400 billion each year. Additionally, between 1 and 3.5 million jobs could be lost. That means that each household could lose an average of up to $6,000 each year. That is a lot to ask of Americans just so large energy companies can pocket millions from a regulatory scheme. Moreover, a cost of $400 billion annually makes Enron’s current one-time loss of $6 billion look like pocket change. Little wonder Americans and the incoming Bush administration did not want a bar of it.
In NZ the Labour government was forced to agree to the Kyoto Protocol because the Alliance Party self destructed and Labour needed the Greens for support in Confidence and Supply. The cost of that support was agreement to GE legislation and the Kyoto Protocol. Labour could see that the GE debate had no financial return, but the carbon credit trading game looked much more promising. Positive credit-trading with all our trees acting as CO2 sinks made politicians see dollar signs. But just as Enron came unstuck mired in financial ruin and scandal, so too is the Kyoto Protocol set to ruin economies and bring down governments and any players foolish enough to be taken in. Enron collapsed in a quagmire of bribery, misinformation, energy price manipulation and the use of political connections to exert pressure on energy boards. Anything connected to the Kyoto Protocol will turn out to be good money after bad, because a scheme instigated by half-truths and hype must eventually collapse under the weight of the spin of its own cover-up. The half-billion dollar debt NZ now owes could be just the beginning. In 2002 Helen Clark said “Climate change is a global problem ..the Kyoto Protocol is the international community’s response to climate change and New Zealand is playing its part”. This contrasted strongly with Enron’s own internal report expressing doubt that global warming was real. It is hard to accept that Clark does not know that the Protocol only became real through Enron. Real problems are the gullibility of satellite western economies, the dangers of being the tail of giant corporate dogs and the perceived need to appease the EU for trade deals. Global warming itself does not even get a look in. In NZ the only funding for environmental research comes to the NZ Climate Change Office for the Ministry for the Environment and is funded through the Ministry of Fisheries and the Public Good Science & Technology fund. The particular institute concerned has all the appearance of an independent research body whilst at the same time proclaiming to be spokespeople for government policies re the environment. In this way debate is suppressed in NZ, because there is no funding for alternative viewpoints, no panel for review or accountability of government-science agendae and no voice of balance in government-funded public media.
I suggest you look out the window to see if there is any catastrophe happening. While looking, check to see if any ocean is yet rising. Also look up – exactly where is this methane cloud? Please, someone,
explain how heavier-than-air car emissions can get 6-8 miles up where weather is generated? We are not all that taken in. Despite all the handwringing and increasingly desperate hysteria, where global warming is concerned there has been a failure to force this paranoid religion onto the world. Since the Rio Conference in 1992, the greens have tried using the threat of global warming to induce Protestant guilt in us all, to cap growth, to change lifestyles, to attack the car, industry and the Great Satan of America. They have lost. Only schoolchildren remain rich fodder willing to believe it is up to them now to Save The World, which hasn’t needed saving one iota during the last 4,000,000,000 years or it wouldn’t still be here. Now it is surely time to face the facts: there isn’t a snowflake-in-hell’s chance of global warming altering real life. But the failure of the greens is not just with the public. While playing the climate-change card at the G8 Summit, the final Gleneagles’ declaration shows that the leaders of the developed world have no intention of sacrificing growth and economic success for an ascetic global warming religion. To quote Michael McCarthy, the environment editor of the Independent: ‘The failed agenda that Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the World Wide Fund for Nature and others were complaining of – that the US has still not agreed to cut its carbon dioxide emissions – was the green groups’ own agenda, not the British government’s. At G8 the idea of capping greenhouse gas emissions was cleverly replaced by an emphasis on technological innovation and imaginative development. The Kyoto Protocol is effectively dead.

http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archive...gate_oct_5.html

Theres a rumor on the Internet that a Third building collapsed just like a demolition on 911 and that one of this buildings tenants was the the US Security and Exchange Commission. Apparently a large number of files regarding Enron went up with this imaginary building.
I find this story hard to believe because there's no way the US has a Security and Exchange Commission from the sh*t we've witnessed on US markets.