The Malthusian Conspiracy?, The Possible Big Picture Options

[Timothy Osman]

I agree that the people living within the immediate ecosystem, Earth, are the best to "maintain the balance" between human needs and the environment. Problem is, we aren't doing it.

OK I think I know what happened here and how we got on different pages, I'm still firmly entrenched in the here and now of our world run by banks and exploited by multinational corporations whereas others are looking to the future global village of global citizens looking after the joint.
It's a steep learning curve for me so I can't really flesh out my opinion too well, so sorry if I pissed anyone off.

IMO we need to rewind from globalisation to undo the damage already done. I'm not talking about societal globalisation here which is good as this article says. The ones pushing globalisation are not doing it to create a global village but to maintain debt driven consumption and force access to resources.

Unhealthy Globalisation

The Siren who hides her true nature behind a false cloak of democracy and market freedom has laid claim to our soul and is feeding on our flesh. Her name is capitalism.
– David Korten1

If anything is to be done about a global financial system that causes the poverty amidst plenty we have described in previous chapters, it must first be understood. Why do globalisers want to break national integrity and make a single world economy? Why does Third World debt keep increasing?
There are vast libraries dealing with the topic of globalisation and the growth of debt of developing countries, yet few address these issues from the perspective of how money is created. The early goldsmiths would indeed be surprised to see today’s globalised world. Never did they imagine that interest-bearing debt would have enabled the centralisation of power to the degree where corporations can influence governments to rewrite the rule of international commerce in their favour and move towards a world with fewer and fewer currencies.
Although this chapter may read like a criticism of corporate capitalism, its actual purpose is to remind the reader that it is the money system, not the corporations themselves, that is the driving force behind the push towards greater centralisation of power. We have already seen that this money system ensures that if economies don’t grow they collapse. Corporations are therefore at the mercy of this growth imperative, and those setting the agenda are the banks.
In his book The Grip of Death, Michael Rowbotham shows that if money is created as interest-bearing debt it leads inevitably to growing wealth disparity, increasing collective debt and dependence on economic growth. This in turn leads to export warfare as countries compete to reduce indebtedness, and to the irrational growth of world trade, devastation of the environment, continuing centralisation of corporate power and the erosion of democracy.2

Defining Globalisation
There are two types of globalisation, one that is worth striving for and another that needs to be banished. The first is internationalism, the concept of the world as a global village made possible by instant communication and rapid travel, which holds the promise of shared knowledge, cultural interaction and a tolerant, cooperative, peaceful world. This sort of globalisation brings great benefits.
Corporate globalisation, on the other hand, is the worldwide spread of the philosophy of free trade, export-led development and free flow of capital. Global corporations want unlimited access to raw materials and markets, and globalisation is the process through which they obtain these privileges. Corporations and the supranational agencies therefore exert pressure on nation states to bring down their trade barriers, to deregulate and to open their countries to free capital flow. They want the world to be a borderless playground for their benefit.
Although the process of corporate globalisation actually started early in the 20th century, big business really went global after World War II, and this set the scene for a world order favouring such corporations as Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Monsanto, R. J. Reynolds, Mitsubishi and General Motors. In his book The Post-corporate World: Life After Capitalism, David Korten points out that corporate globalisation is actually the antithesis of the really free market that influential economist Adam Smith advocated, which required capital to stay within national borders, trade between countries to be balanced, and complete information to be available to all participants with no trade secrets.3 Critics of corporate globalisation have focused primarily on its destruction of regional economies and erosion of national sovereignty, and on the contribution these agencies have made to the meltdown of the world’s ecosystems.

Free Trade
A key ingredient of corporate globalisation is the doctrine of free trade. In his book Goodbye America: Globalisation, Debt and the Dollar Empire, Michael Rowbotham says that since every nation allows banks to create the bulk of their money supply parallel with debt, it is no surprise that all nations are in debt. This debt is mostly owed to the commercial banks and to the lending institutions of the world. Rowbotham goes on to state that, as at 1998: ‘The USA owes nearly $5 trillion, UK owes £400 billion, Germany’s debt exceeds 600 billion Deutschmarks, and the Third World collectively owes $2.8 trillion.’4
Debt promotes the growth of global trade, because each nation wants to reduce its indebtedness, and the way to do this is through exporting more than they import. The export warfare thus created is more than just sensible trading for mutual advantage. The past half-century has seen a growing demand for trade; in fact, world trade has increased 16 times since World War II.5 It is normal and beneficial to trade in goods, but it makes no sense for identical goods to be traded across borders, as happens with such items as furniture, clothing, cars, matches, toys, strawberries, wine, apples, cooking utensils and pencils.

The Growing Power of Corporations
With the mergers and acquisitions forced on them by the economic growth imperative, many corporations now have revenues larger than nation states. A 1999 study of the top 100 corporations and national governments of the world showed that 66 are corporations and only 34 are governments.6
The power of investors has also grown. In his book When Corporations Rule the World, David Korten says that in 1999 fund managers were becoming increasingly aggressive by demanding performances such as 20 per cent growth in profits per year from companies; if they failed, their boards of directors and CEOs were fired. In the name of such economic growth, corporations are consuming the earth’s natural capital of forests, fish stocks, minerals, water and atmospheric absorptive capacity.7
The centralised planning systems of global corporations influence the decision-making processes of sovereign nations and subvert natural democracy. Although elected parliaments debate national laws at length, major international agreements that override national laws are seldom even on the agenda for public discussion, despite the fact that they have profound effects on the citizens. As a result, globalisation commodifies life forms and turns democratically elected governments into servants of corporate power. The winner in corporate globalisation is transnational capital, while the losers are the environment, the poor, small farmers, small businesses, workers and democracy.

The Demands of Corporations
As they become increasingly powerful, the global corporations are demanding more of governments. In their various guises, the corporations have placed relentless pressure on nation states to abandon economic and cultural protectionism, and instead adopt rules necessary for their long-term prosperity. As David Korten says, global corporations bear no allegiance to place, can demand tax breaks and public subsidies, and can move their plants to wherever labour is cheapest and environmental and employment standards weakest.8
The shelved 1990s proposal for a Multinational Agreement on Investments (MAI) showed how blatantly corporations act in trying to usurp the power of sovereign governments and local authorities. The MAI was an attempt by the world’s richest corporations to legitimise, in binding international law, their freedoms to operate businesses globally with the least possible local or national government interference. Governments could have been sued if they had given preference to locally owned companies. The defeat of the MAI shows that corporate power can be thwarted by people power.
Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of economics at the University of Ottawa, has examined the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which was signed in April 2001, and found that it is, in fact, more than just a trade agreement. Through the agreement, water, sewage systems, roads and municipal services can be owned and operated by private companies. As a result, the FTAA has the power to destroy local economies, depress wages and impoverish millions. The agreement, entrenched in international law, annuls or invalidates national laws. As the US dollar has been imposed on Ecuador, Argentina, Panama, El Salvador and Guatemala, the FTAA is essentially an economic conquest by the US to form an empire embracing the entire continent.9

http://ccit.wji.com/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=39

http://ccit.wji.com/tiki-list_file_gallery.php?galleryId=3

[Timothy Osman]

Trouble at the top of the Pyramid

Mikhail Gorbachev, founder of Green Cross International and former leader of one of the planets most ecologically destructive empires ever as well as top tier global warming alarmist seems to be very pissed off.

Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of mounting an imperialist conspiracy against Russia that could push the world into a new Cold War.

With Dmitry Medvedev due to be inaugurated today as Russian president, the Soviet Union's last leader said that the White House's claims of peaceful intentions towards its former superpower rival could no longer be trusted.

Delivering one of his most scathing attacks on the US, Mr Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph that a US military build-up was under way to contain a resurgent Russia.

From Nato's expansion plans in the former Soviet Union to Washington's proposals for a bigger defence budget and a missile shield in central Europe, the US was deliberately quashing hopes for permanent peace with Russia, Mr Gorbachev said.
Article continues
advertisement

"We had 10 years after the Cold War to build a new world order and yet we squandered them," he said.

"The United States cannot tolerate anyone acting independently.

"Every US president has to have a war."

The 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner's denunciation of the US mirrors the most belligerently anti-Western speeches of Vladimir Putin – who is said to consult Mr Gorbachev on foreign policy matters.

Mr Putin may be switching jobs to become prime minister, but many expect him to remain the most powerful figure in Russian politics.

Mr Gorbachev hinted that the former KGB spy could still direct Russia's foreign policy, leaving President Medvedev – seen by some as more liberal than his mentor – to concentrate on internal matters.

Yet if Washington blames Mr Putin's self-aggrandising rhetoric for the worst crisis in East-West relations since the Cold War, for Mr Gorbachev the blame lies entirely with the administration of President George W Bush.

"The problem is not with Russia," he said, speaking at a friend's château outside Paris.

"Russia does not have enemies and Putin is not going to start a war against the United States or any other country for that matter.

"Yet we see the United States approving a military budget and the defence secretary pledging to strengthen conventional forces because of the possibility of a war with China or Russia.

"I sometimes have a feeling that the United States is going to wage war against the entire world."

Last year, Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, told a congressional committee that America needed to boost military spending to counter myriad threats including the "uncertain paths of China and Russia".

Those comments caused uproar in Russia, with pro-Kremlin newspapers claiming they heralded the start of a new Cold War.

Tensions have already been heightened by a US proposal to build a missile defence shield in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter a nuclear strike by Iran.

Mr Gorbachev, however, claimed the plans were an aggressive act against Russia.

"Erecting elements of missile defence is taking the arms race to the next level," he said. "It is a very dangerous step."

Relations have further deteriorated after Nato promised eventual membership to Georgia and Ukraine, a move interpreted by Mr Gorbachev as an attempt to extend America's sphere of influence into Russia's backyard.

"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."

For a man hailed as one of the heroes of the 20th century, Mr Gorbachev, now 77, often sounded like the ageing hardliners he struggled against in the Kremlin during the 1980s.

He railed against a "military-industrial complex" that he insisted was the "real government" of the US and, quoting a Russian documentary on state television, suggested that Margaret Thatcher had supplied weapons to Chechen terrorists.

Still, while Mr Gorbachev may be delighted by the rebirth of what many see as Russian imperialism, many wonder whether he approves of the way in which Mr Putin has eroded freedom of expression to such an extent that some claim glasnost is dead.

"I do not think that glasnost is dead in Russia," he said.

"There is a phenomenon in the West to criticise Putin's domestic record. But in Russia he has mass support. His popularity ratings are 70 to 80 percent.

"Is this not democracy?"

We sure live in interesting times, with the hardliners stubbornly refusing to hand over the wheel and led by the military industrial complex of the USA the very last thing the soft power crew need is happening. The re emergence of Russian nationalism with the realization that they've been wrong to believe Uncle Sam.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...w-Cold-War.html

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: May 9 2008, 04:16 AM

[bill]

The plan is well known and well published to reduce the population of the earth

The Georgia Guidstones says 500 million people is the 'sustainable' goal to live in harmony with earth

Other sources peg the population at 1 billion

either figure means 80 to 90 percent of us useless eaters are planned to be eliminated

The plan was fleshed out pretty well in "Brave New World" written by a true elite insider.

We (meaning the western world ) cannot even say we weren't warned of the agenda-- they have blatantly thrown it in our faces for at least the last 50 years

Dwight Eisenhower explained it very carefully and accurately to us Americans in his Military -Industrial-Congressional complex speech -- we paid no attention

to be sure it is not all our fault because we have be manipulated by the ones with unlimited finanacial and military power backed by a near perfect propaganda machine.

none the less, we are responsible for our predicament

In my opinion it is possible for the world to carry on at current levels albeit with HUGE changes in the way we impact the planet

Unfortunately I do not see it happening

I have given up on even hoping for less than total catastrophic end

The 'Road Warrior' scenario

My goal is to marshall all my resources to keep my family alive through the coming storm -- I have a grandson after all -- I can do no less



An aside, George Soros was mentioned in one of the above posts.

I heard George Soros on The Diane Rheem Show yesterday talking about the current credit crisis yada yada yada

'we must reduce the impact of carbon on the environment by implementing a system of carbon credits so that we can control global warming'

Does any thinking person still believe 'Anthropogenic global warming' is not propaganda ?

[lunk]

Anthropogenic global cooling is real
and natural global cooling is real,
and possibly predictable and imminent.

Interesting, that at this point in time, that the problem-reaction-solution scene may be in play.

So they tell us all that we are causing global warming,
tax everyone for it, and we all happily go into the next ice age thinking that we solved the problem and cooled the planet down by paying tax, with a little help and guidance from the shadowy puppet masters' scripted stage play.

imo, lunk...but

I think Sanders said something like this, too.

[Timothy Osman]

Does any thinking person still believe 'Anthropogenic global warming' is not propaganda ?

Not me. The Global Warming scam is just one facet of it though and what we're up against is masters of manipulation who understand us and our behavior better than ourselves. Makes it pretty hard for me to argue against GW proponents when I know I'm probably being played too. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
The root cause of all this is greed, It's the one thing the manipulators can rely on in us and is what our society is based on.
This causes them some problems too because they have engineered for themselves a system whereby they create money out of thin air to lend to us to fill our McMansion's with Chinese sh*t we don't need. It's this perpetual debt bubble that is out of control and has led to the necessity in their minds of this Malthusian solution of artificial scarcity to price as many unwanted useless eaters into starvation as possible, to deny any real alternative energy sources to the point of making coal fired electricity an Earth killing luxury and Atomic power unsafe and if developed guarantee a visit from the USAF.
It makes you realize how strange Ron Paul was in his attack on the very heart of the beast, the only politician in the Western world with a set of nuts.

[Timothy Osman]

The Global Crisis: Food, Water and Fuel. Three Fundamental Necessities of Life in Jeopardy

by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9191

[Sanders]

I haven't posted in this thread, because, uh, I guess I had nothing to add. But hey, this has been an awesome, interesting thread.

I will add that, on the first page Maurice Strong was explored a bit. That perked my interest - because I think it's positive to focus on the players themselves, and Strong is a major player, because I think these personalities and their individual agendas and POV's ultimately shape how they, collectively, attempt to shape our world.

This, I thought, actually about Paul Martin (and a little out of date), was interesting - and talks quite a bit about Strong.

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/martin's_ties_to_nwo.htm

[Timothy Osman]

I will add that, on the first page Maurice Strong was explored a bit. That perked my interest - because I think it's positive to focus on the players themselves, and Strong is a major player, because I think these personalities and their individual agendas and POV's ultimately shape how they, collectively, attempt to shape our world.

I agree, focusing on these individuals is a real eye opener. I have been looking into Mikael Gorbachev from the point of view of the collapse of the Soviet Empire and can't help but think that he was one of their men on the inside, no empire has ever fallen unless from within and some pretty strange sh*t went down around Gorby in his term as leader. I will elaborate later but to have him pop up as a conservation leader and global warming prophet is amazing.

[Timothy Osman]

On second thought regarding Gorby and all the goings on in the former Soviet Union probably deserves it's own thread, maybe entitled, Communism? There was no such thing in Russia.

I stumbled upon a more interesting thing while thinking about the term feedback which is thrown about by AGW "believers". It turns out this feedback thing is central to the Gian belief that our Earth mother is a living breathing organism that is pissed of with piggybacking a lot of beer swilling useless breeders through space.

The birth of a hoax

http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles.../GWHoaxBorn.pdf

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Jul 30 2008, 08:46 AM

[Omega892R09]

I stumbled upon a more interesting thing while thinking about the term feedback which is thrown about by AGW "believers".

You had better start thinking about climate change feedback mechanisms rather seriously after all you do live on a continent which is beginning to feel the effects of such.

We don't have to throw such terms about, as you so quaintly put it, the climate is already throwing the phenomena to which the term relates at you.

Your whole flippant attitude to this subject suggests that you have not grasped the concepts of and relationship between climate, weather, endangered ecosystems and the dire consequences for the food chain. Amongst that latter mentioned is the increasing impoverishment of the very soils needed for diverse and healthy vegetation - without which much life will cease to be viable. Rich, productive soils have a whole miniature ecosystem of their own and this is the very thing which cannot be restored quickly once destroyed through damaging agricultural processes including repeated monocultures and slash and burn involving pesticides and fertilizers of petrochemical origin.

I wouldn’t pin too much on anything you find coming from that rascally organisation that dares to call its journal ‘21st CENTURY Science & Technology’ for judging by the article linked to it deals more in emotion than science. Margaret Mead may well have been discredited on her anthropogenic studies but that does not mean that the others mention in that article should be suspect by association. There is much at fault with that article.

I found it interesting that the Lyndon Larouche Political Action Committee (here we see that it is about politics more than science) has an article entitled ‘New Arctic Ice Cap Story Is A Hoax’:

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/breaking_...ctic_hoax.shtml

Is that right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7532435.stm

Getting the picture now?

If not then maybe it would be worth your while to turn back to post #20 by George Hayduke in this very thread:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....showtopic=11783

for he has quoted some excellent pointers there.

Malthus may well have put his finger on one aspect of the problem and I think it is clear that the planet is now struggling in so many ways to support its current population. Let alone a large increase with increasing lifestyle expectations. I don’t class those lacking the availability of adequate shelter, clean safe water and a healthy diet as being selfish in hoping for an improvement and many would have improved lifestyles if they ate less.

Nature has shown that when a population reaches a level that is not sustainable within the bounds of the immediate environment then either there is a massive die off (this has been seen with grazing animals) and/or some individuals manage to emigrate.

I am not advocating a massive cull or anything of that nature but the problem has to be recognised, recognised as a social problem and not a political or religious one, and dealt with. Somehow.

Flippant dismissal of much scientifically supported fact will no longer do.

[Timothy Osman]

You had better start thinking about climate change feedback mechanisms rather seriously after all you do live on a continent which is beginning to feel the effects of such.

We don't have to throw such terms about, as you so quaintly put it, the climate is already throwing the phenomena to which the term relates at you.

Your whole flippant attitude to this subject suggests that you have not grasped the concepts of and relationship between climate, weather, endangered ecosystems and the dire consequences for the food chain. Amongst that latter mentioned is the increasing impoverishment of the very soils needed for diverse and healthy vegetation - without which much life will cease to be viable. Rich, productive soils have a whole miniature ecosystem of their own and this is the very thing which cannot be restored quickly once destroyed through damaging agricultural processes including repeated monocultures and slash and burn involving pesticides and fertilizers of petrochemical origin.

I wouldn’t pin too much on anything you find coming from that rascally organisation that dares to call its journal ‘21st CENTURY Science & Technology’ for judging by the article linked to it deals more in emotion than science. Margaret Mead may well have been discredited on her anthropogenic studies but that does not mean that the others mention in that article should be suspect by association. There is much at fault with that article.

No I live on a continent that is large enough to have different climates determined by temperature and humidity relative to their geographical location to either the tropics, Antarctic, Pacific, Indian and southern oceans and geographical terain.
As you can see on this chart although Brisbane is at roughly the same latitude as Oodnadatta they don't share the same climate. So all of a sudden a global climate looks pretty bloody stupid doesn't it? Almost as stupid as a global solution based on CO2 reductions.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/environ/trav...aticzones.shtml

I see you're offended by my perceived flippancy, what offends me is a fear in your posts, fear of the dreaded global warming bogey man. This fear is useless, a base emotion brought out by the master manipulators as their one and only trump card. Fear based on fraud which can't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone interested in facts.

For a second there I thought you might have come over to the darkside when comparing the Lyndon Larouche article to the BBC propaganda job but I think you were serious.

Lets compare. Larouche

But far worse than the methodological problems of the Arctic sea ice study are today's news reports of it. These represent the height of politically motivated irresponsibility. At bottom, greenhouse warming is a hoax. Its purpose is to stop industrial development, reduce population, and condemn two thirds of the world to continued poverty and misery. As the science isn't there to prove it, the theory can only be justified by fabrications of the sort circulating on wire services today.

BBC

The current warming being experienced in the Arctic means the conditions needed to rebuild the shelves simply does not exist.

"The one take-home message for me here is that these ice shelves aren't re-generating," explained Dr Derek Mueller, from Trent University, Ontario.

"There were, for some period of time, incipient ice shelves reforming in the form of sea-ice that just remained fast to the land for many decades; and those pieces of ice have broken up in the last eight years or so," he told BBC News.

"Those aborted attempts at re-growth suggest to me that the conditions are not right either to maintain or re-grow these ice shelves."

Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates.

As with the Ayles breakout in 2005, the authorities will have to track the Ward Hunt ice carefully. Its size means it could be a hazard to shipping and offshore development in the region.

The BBC report fails to even mention in their rush to alarmism why, like Australia parts of the Arctic may have climatic variations due nothing whatever to do with the end of the world and pointing the Oh my God we're all gonna die finger at an ice melt in a little understood complex system such as the arctic, Larouche correctly states they represent the height of politically motivated irresponsibility.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Jul 31 2008, 05:04 AM

[Timothy Osman]

Malthus may well have put his finger on one aspect of the problem and I think it is clear that the planet is now struggling in so many ways to support its current population. Let alone a large increase with increasing lifestyle expectations. I don’t class those lacking the availability of adequate shelter, clean safe water and a healthy diet as being selfish in hoping for an improvement and many would have improved lifestyles if they ate less.

Nature has shown that when a population reaches a level that is not sustainable within the bounds of the immediate environment then either there is a massive die off (this has been seen with grazing animals) and/or some individuals manage to emigrate.

I am not advocating a massive cull or anything of that nature but the problem has to be recognised, recognised as a social problem and not a political or religious one, and dealt with. Somehow.

Flippant dismissal of much scientifically supported fact will no longer do.

OK no more flippancy or fear. What we have here is not so much a problem of overpopulation but of overburden. In Australia overpopulation is not our problem in fact our fertility rate is below replacement without immigrants. It's the fact that we overburden our continents carrying capacity, this is our problem and requires solutions relevant to the long term future of Australians. We consume too much and export way too much all for the joy of endless indebtedness in a system of corruption owned by a few thousand rich evil white men. There is no future in that.
If you believe what I said above you'll understand why I can't for the life of me understand why we in the West seem to think we have the moral authority to deny the right to development of any other people on Earth. It is our system that pollutes not people as such.

[Omega892R09]

No I live on a continent that is large enough to have different climates determined by temperature and humidity relative to their geographical location to either the tropics, Antarctic, Pacific, Indian and southern oceans and geographical terain.

Tim, I am well aware that the continent that you live on encompasses a wide variety of climes and ecologically diverse habitats. I know people who live out there, I have had family out there since the 1940s, and others who visit often.

Trying to deny that many of these ecosystems, and farming lands, are coming under climate induced stress is like burying your head in the increasing amount of sand as the deserts grow in extent.

As you can see on this chart although Brisbane is at roughly the same latitude as Oodnadatta they don't share the same climate. So all of a sudden a global climate looks pretty bloody stupid doesn't it? Almost as stupid as a global solution based on CO2 reductions.

No need for that attitude.

Besides you clearly have little grasp of just how wrong you are.

I see you're offended by my perceived flippancy, what offends me is a fear in your posts, fear of the dreaded global warming bogey man. This fear is useless, a base emotion brought out by the master manipulators as their one and only trump card. Fear based on fraud which can't stand up to the scrutiny of anyone interested in facts.

Your flippancy is uncalled for and I don't see how fear is expressed in my posts. My responses are a cool, calm counter to your repeated posting and references to articles promulgated by those who are trying, for agendas known only to them but which can be inferred by their various associations, to derail any attempts at the real science behind the study of climate change being appreciated by the population at large.

The sources you cite are already well know to many who have been following the climate change debate for any length of time.

For a second there I thought you might have come over to the darkside when comparing the Lyndon Larouche article to the BBC propaganda job but I think you were serious.

What do you mean by 'over to the dark side'? You do seem to like emotive language. But yes I was serious and it seems that you take little notice of the information contained in the sites to which I link you, if, that is, you bother to look at them, or read the books I have suggested. If you fail at these easy tasks then I am afraid that it is you that is in denial.

Lets compare. Larouche

BBC

The BBC report fails to even mention in their rush to alarmism why, like Australia parts of the Arctic may have climatic variations due nothing whatever to do with the end of the world and pointing the Oh my God we're all gonna die finger at an ice melt in a little understood complex system such as the arctic, Larouche correctly states they represent the height of politically motivated irresponsibility.

The Arctic is not as little understood as you try to imply. Have you looked beyond that BBC report?

Here is a suggestion, wasn’t too hard to find:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/vanishing/

Following up on that and searching on Konrad Steffan brings to light many other relevant REAL scientific studies and findings which demonstrates that the threat to the Arctic ice cover is very real and posses a huge threat of kicking off powerful positive feedbacks as the albedo changes and as permafrost thaws releasing methane.

Try, for example, searching on Konrad Steffan AND Greenland Ice Sheet. That should give you plenty of REAL science based reports to be getting on with, amongst them these:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...60920193210.htm

http://news.mongabay.com/2007/1211-greenland.html

And if that is not enough then have a look at:

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.co...ad-steffen.html

plenty of material to get your teeth into there including the Monkton debacle straightened out.

Also there are research teams that have a growing record of similar problems of ice loss in the Antarctic, ice shelves breaking up, glacier under-layers speeding up in their descent to the ocean at the same time increased snowfall on the central massifs - this BTW is not a sign of cooling but of warming in the oceans around which puts more moisture in the air to cool and fall as snow.

I figure that I am somewhat longer in the tooth than you Tim and hence firstly I have a somewhat longer memory of climatic events, and world history and secondly I am not going to be around when more powerful climatic events kick off. I do have concerns about the futures of my children and grandchildren though, as well as the future of others throughout the globe.

Stick your head in the sand if you want to but do not expect me to do the same or to lie down and accept your arguments which from my perspective appear based on little more than rhetoric.

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.

Sure, as any scientist will aver, all the answers are not in but enough is know and understood to appreciate that there is a very real problem. Try researching climate models and their more extensive successors Integrated Assessment Models which factor in socio-economic factors on top of the already increasing use of biological and chemical process, land and ocean, data as computers become powerful enough to handle the huge volumes of data.

Edit: tpyo

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 31 2008, 10:56 AM

[Omega892R09]

If you believe what I said above you'll understand why I can't for the life of me understand why we in the West seem to think we have the moral authority to deny the right to development of any other people on Earth. It is our system that pollutes not people as such.

I am in complete and utter agreement with you on this.

The 'system' will not change unless people rebel against those who play this system for their own short term gain.

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. These 'master manipulators' are already preparing for their future and will be ready to let most of the rest of the world go-to-hell in a handbasket. For example what do you think the true purpose of this is:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=7529

Note who the financiers and interested parties are.

Need I say more?

Edit: added emphasis

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Jul 31 2008, 07:43 AM

[Timothy Osman]

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 variosu threads on this forum you are in good company.

Yeah I see your outnumbered here but I for one do value your opinion, I can't help it if I type like I talk. I promise to keep reading on this in between working to pay off the national debt. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[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.

[Omega892R09]

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.

Taking the last point first, I am well aware of this Enron imbroglio and have expressed my misgivings, if not outright distrust, of such schemes many times here.

As for questioning any science well yes that is what it is all about. Well documented, attributed and supported science is worth considering though. Note that the sources I am questioning are those known to use methods of distortion and obfuscation and it seems to me that some folk around here are only too quick to grasp at these straws because it supports their entrenched POV.

I appreciate that I also am open to accusations of having such a POV. However I am comfortable with that because my POV is based upon a broad spectrum of the topics which make up the entire discussion, and has done for some time. I was studying weather systems and their effects nearly twenty years ago in prep' for UK Met' Office employment and my keen interest in the natural world keeps me informed on what is happening to ecosystems and biodiversity - it isn't very good news here BTW.

All that rather than just the latest hotly contentious smoke screens, for that is what I make of the outpoorings from the likes of Carter, Monkton and Lomborg, I have been aware of the antics of that latter for about 8 years now. These are all a part of the same smoke and mirrors show.

And yes Steve McIntyre is on my radar but he is a special case as he is very clever and I think sincere but still barking up the wrong tree.

But then I guess we will be arguing about this till the cows come home.

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.

Getaway! Well I never! I must have missed that one! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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.

Well except for the fact that there was an EPA which sure as hell looked like it was doing the precise opposite since Bush stole the election back in 2000.

I quite well believe that there was a SEC office and much more in the WTC as a whole just as there was a financial investigation going on in the section of the Pentagon that was blown up by a bomb, sorry, hit by a hairyplane.

[Timothy Osman]

But then I guess we will be arguing about this till the cows come home.

OK lets get back to this.

Malthus may well have put his finger on one aspect of the problem and I think it is clear that the planet is now struggling in so many ways to support its current population. Let alone a large increase with increasing lifestyle expectations. I don’t class those lacking the availability of adequate shelter, clean safe water and a healthy diet as being selfish in hoping for an improvement and many would have improved lifestyles if they ate less.

Nature has shown that when a population reaches a level that is not sustainable within the bounds of the immediate environment then either there is a massive die off (this has been seen with grazing animals) and/or some individuals manage to emigrate.

I am not advocating a massive cull or anything of that nature but the problem has to be recognised, recognised as a social problem and not a political or religious one, and dealt with. Somehow.

Before you can find a cure first you have to diagnose the disease, the disease IMO is not overpopulation. Just as the Irish were held up as an example of Malthus theory by being seen as over numerous stupid lazy potato eaters in the great famine.
This was far from the truth. Could it be not that there were too many Irish potato eaters but the mere fact that they were reduced to living on a staple diet of potatoes.

In fact, the most glaring cause of the famine was not a plant disease, but England's long-running political hegemony over Ireland. The English conquered Ireland, several times, and took ownership of vast agricultural territory. Large chunks of land were given to Englishmen.

These landowners in turn hired farmers to manage their holdings. The managers then rented small plots to the local population in return for labor and cash crops. Competition for land resulted in high rents and smaller plots, thereby squeezing the Irish to subsistence and providing a large financial drain on the economy.

Land tenancy can be efficient, but the Irish had no rights to the land they worked or to any improvements they might make. Only in areas dominated by Protestants did tenant farmers have any rights over their capital improvements. With the landlords largely residing in England, there was no one to conduct systematic capital improvements.

The Irish suffered from many famines under English rule. Like a boxer with both arms tied behind his back, the Irish could only stand and absorb blow after blow. It took the "many circumstances" of English policy to create the knockout punch and ultimate answer to the Irish question.


Free-market economist J.B. Say was quick to note that the system of absentee landlords was deplorable. He accurately diagnosed this cause and grimly predicted the disastrous results that did follow. He sadly relayed the suggestion of a member of Parliament that the seas swallow up the Island of Erin for a period long enough to destroy everything on it.

The Malthusian law of population is sometimes used to explain away English guilt. Here the Irish were viewed as a promiscuous bunch that married young and had too many children. Malthus himself considered the Irish situation as hopeless. The Irish then paid for their sins via the starvation and disease that the famine wrought.

Were the Irish such a promiscuous bunch? The population of Ireland was high and the island had become densely populated after union with Great Britain in 1801. Part of this population growth can be attributed to basic economic development as population was also increasing rapidly in England and elsewhere in Europe.

In fact, the Irish population was only growing slightly faster than the English population and was starting from a much smaller base. But why was it growing faster? The answer lies in the fact that England had placed Ireland in an unusual position as the breadbasket for the Industrial Revolution.

http://mises.org/story/2978

Could it be today that those living on the brink of starvation are in this predicament not because of their numbers but because of their colonial past and the present western hegemony?

[Timothy Osman]

Zbigniew Brzezinski

It might be a good time to have a closer look at this psychopath.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY4R6lbD8s

Here's a link to his book, Between Two Ages. From which the video quotes.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3898864/Zbigniew...etween-Two-Ages

His son Ian is hard at work on the Chessboard.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0604.../brzezinski.htm

Obama backs missile defense too

The deal would further divide European countries into what Barack Obama’s foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski calls openly, US "vassals" and those pursuing more independent policies.

Any illusions that a Democratic Obama Presidency would mean a rollback of such provocative NATO and US military moves of recent years should be dismissed as dangerous wishful thinking. Obama’s foreign policy team in addition to father Zbigniew Brzezinski, includes Brzezinski’s son, Ian Brzezinski, current US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Affairs. Ian Brzezinski is a devout backer of US missile defense policy, as well as Kosovo independence and NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=9836

[George Hayduke]

An enlightened democracy requires an enlightened population and without the latter the former fails. To illustrate this, I'll use the spaceship metaphor, as taken from Korten's "When Corporations Rule the World." On a space ship, how important is it that every resource is accounted for and used properly? It is imperative, crucial for the survival of the crew. If for example one astronaut gets greedy and eats several days provisions in one night and then hides the fact, what will be the fate of the crew? Cannibalism? I would argue that Earth is a space ship, with a fragile life support system and a limited amount of resources. To ensure the survival of the crew requires either the crew being eductated to the point where they all have the mindset of an astronaut on a space ship or an iron-fisted dictator being put in charge to by any means necessary enforce rules designed to keep the life support systems operational.

Really this is the option we're facing, I think. Jerod Diamond argues as much in his book Collapse, How Societies Choose ... To Survive. We will either evolve and live for a higher purpose than rote, animalistic, consumer accumulation -- a hangover from the last wipeout scenario -- or we will perish en masse.

Where does the malthusian conspiracy tie in here? Simple, TPTB know what will eventually happen, what the prophecies foretell about our future if all things remain the same. Knowing what the future holds, what our destiny is, they act not to change that destiny (because it cannot be changed) to to prod it along so that the shape it takes will benefit them. You see this all the time. Are we living through Revelations? Or are TPTB orchestrating world events so that they take on the appearance of Revelations to marginalize those that might seek to head off such a terrible series of events? I say the effect, the end, is the same. I say that TPTB realized the universal imperatives illustrated by Revelations and realizing that this time and what it brings cannot be aborted they are actively moving events along the trajectory so that when those events occur they are neither surprised nor harmed. If you had that sort of power and if you know that destiny was fixed, unalterable, would you do otherwise than to create events that ensure that when that destiny manifests it takes a form that benefits you?

Usually when I discuss this with folks who are either new to or cold to deep history I bring up the story of rabbit island. Surely you've heard it. Captain Cook or one other such dude, it matters not the name, during his travels, once dumped goods and livestock on a remote, lush, tropical island. He planned to return later to collect his wares. Among the livestock were a couple of rabbits.

When he returned, the island was no more. Ney, it was a barren rock, devoid of life, a windswept bolder rising from the waters. Atop the rock were only rabbit skeletons.

Get the point? Left alone, the rabbits will consume and procreate until there is nothing left to consume, then they will consume each other until the very last is dead.

Mankind has now entered the time where he will be forced to decide to be something higher than an animal. Of course TPTB have been running the human Animal Farm to their benefit for thousands of years now and they don't want the human animal to evolve. They want to keep the farm going. To keep the farm going, they'll have to eliminate many of the human animals and then probably genetically modify the remaining so they don't "wake up," which is what the galactic alignment, cosmogenesis, a la 12.21.12 is all about.

Ultimately my point is twofold. Is there a conspiracy by TPTB to wipeout the masses? Yes. Would the masses wipe themselves out anyway w/o the conspiracy? Yes. Can you blame TPTB for trying to shape the world to their benefit? No. Will their action in the conspiracy ultimately awaken mankind to the true nature of their machinations and thus inadvertantly force upon mankind the paradigm shift that will cause him to "awaken," "evolve," and thus overthrow TPTB and institute in their place a New World Order, a one-world enlightened democracy of by and for the brotherhood of man? I hope so. That would be nice.

Force breeds opposition. Let TPTB force their plan upon us and in doing such they will inspire the opposition that will ensure their total defeat. By seeking to establish a dystopia TPTB risk inspiring the common man to establish for himself a utopia. That's how the Tao works.

Meanwhile I would advise you continue your preps. It's going to be a turbulant ride!

This post has been edited by George Hayduke: Aug 18 2008, 03:41 PM