IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Suv Drivers Made To Park At The Back Of The Store, like black people on buses

Quest
post Jul 16 2008, 02:58 PM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



SUV drivers made to park at the back of the store like black people on buses

http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming...egregation.html

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Government fueled alarmism about global warming - which has not occurred in the last 10 years nor will it occur in the next 10 years - is accelerating the creation of new forms of malthusian control over our lives, with the ultimate goal of identifying those who don’t submit to the whims of the climate cult as second class citizens and enforcing a new manifestation of 1950’s style segregation.

The image at the top of this story is from an Office Depot outlet in Austin, Texas.

People who drive those evil life-giving gas, plant food spewing, SUV’s are forced to park further away from the entrance to the store as a kind of collective societal punishment for not conforming to the green agenda.

Gas guzzlers have to park around the back - sort of like black people had to sit at the rear of buses during segregation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 16 2008, 04:02 PM
Post #2



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



I don't even know how to interpret this news- it's simply bizarre- across the board.

Stranger yet, from that link:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q...texas&meta=
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 16 2008, 07:59 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



dmole, I can virtually gurantee that it's government henchmen or provaceteurs doing the SUV damage. This is NOT something a rational person would do. There have been some similar 'shootings'around the country as well. Just reported on the radio in my state this morning were 2 "shootings" in which 2 cars had thier windows shot out by an unknown "gunman" but no one was hurt. Of course these stories are plastered all over the news and will be referrenced when gun ownership is debated. Always look at how the perpetrator of an act is not apprehended and consider who benefits.

This is how it's done folks.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 16 2008, 08:01 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Jul 16 2008, 10:14 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



The "alarm-ism" about Global warming is not "government fueled" as they have fought it tooth and nail backing the oil companies all the way.

The alarm-ism is just factual reality fueled by 1000s of scientist all over the world sharing their data & research they have compiled over decades.
It is sad to see someone succumb to Reich wing propaganda and not even know it and then spew Reich wing/ oil company talking points like this.

This post has been edited by Nunyabiz: Jul 16 2008, 10:17 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 17 2008, 09:48 AM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Jul 17 2008, 03:14 AM) *
The "alarm-ism" about Global warming is not "government fueled" as they have fought it tooth and nail backing the oil companies all the way.

The alarm-ism is just factual reality fueled by 1000s of scientist all over the world sharing their data & research they have compiled over decades.
It is sad to see someone succumb to Reich wing propaganda and not even know it and then spew Reich wing/ oil company talking points like this.


Sorry Nunyabiz, I'm a "liberal", but even I can see how so-called "liberal causes" can be used AGAINST un-knowing do-gooders as a means of corraling and steering them to a particualr direction. I am TOTALLY pro-environment but can see how this issue is being used to deprive us of freedom. Case in point - where is the water-powered car? Why are the same people that stifle that type of technology pushing global warming? Why do the same people that push global warming not mention chemtrails? For that matter, what is your take on the chemtrail phenomenon?

Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth

http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-peer-revie...k-co2-myth.html

Global warming consensus takes another battering
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a “consensus” exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2’s effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.

Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.

“The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere,” states the preamble to the paper.

The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.

No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.

In a related development, the peer-reviewed Physics and Society journal has published evidence proving that the UN IPCC’s 2007 climate summary “overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%.”

According to the paper, “Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.”

The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

The paper concludes, “CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100.”
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 17 2008, 10:24 AM
Post #6





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



What Global Warming?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/what-global-warming.html

Phil Brennan
Etherzone
Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Fact: All history reveals that time after time this planet of ours has experienced periods of warming and periods of cooling. A century of slight global warming, about half a degree, ended in 1998.

Fact: In this century a global cooling has set in. In 2008 most of the northern hemisphere, except for Western Europe, is coming out of what most scientists say has been the harshest winter in decades.

Malta, Israel, China and India’s New Delhi have been subjected to record low temperatures. In Afghanistan, more than 900 people and 316,000 head of cattle died as a result of bitter cold weather according to Reuters.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon 13 top scientists including one Nobel Prize winner, pointed to the fact that while CO2 levels have continued to rise, global temperatures have fallen, dramatically contradicting the claim that CO2 levels cause global warming. They wrote that the UN Climate change Panel “must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices - Policies based on False science must be ended.”

Meteorologist Anthony Watts says that the total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough, he says, to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.

In a news conference held in Orlando, Florida John L. Casey, Director of the Space and Science Research Center, issued a landmark declaration on climate change.

“In an opinion echoed by many scientists around the world, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today declares that the world’s climate warming of the past decades has now come to an end. A new climate era has already started that is bringing predominantly colder global temperatures for many years into the future. In some years this new climate will create dangerously cold weather with significant ill-effects world wide. Global warming is over – a new cold climate has begun.”

Fact: Lack of Sunspot activity portends the onset of global cooling. The sunspot number should stand close to 100; instead it’s zero

The level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years,” said Ian Wilson, lead author of a study appearing in the June issue of PASA, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.

The result is a strong, rapid pulse of global cooling, said Wilson. “On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by 1 - 2 C.”

“A 2 C drop would be twice as large as all the warming the earth has experienced since the start of the industrial era, and would be significant enough to impact global agriculture output.”

Got it? Global warming, such as it was, is over. Done with. Kaput.

That however, had failed to dampen the enthusiasm of the global warming fear mongers. It has, instead, fueled a spate of often ludicrous claims of an impending planetary disaster due to alleged global warming. As meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman has said all the proponents of global warming can do is to lamely suggest that global warming has gone on vacation and is taking a ten-year hiatus on account of the absence of sun spots. “If this weren’t so serious it would be laughable” Coleman said.

“It is the greatest scam in history, he said. “I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global warming; it is a scam. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion (sic) of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environment whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon, they claimed to be a consensus.”

Yet the beat goes on, and gets more ludicrous with one member of Congress actually telling a bunch of kids that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina and led to the deaths of Americans in the Blackhawk Down espoused in Somalia. He forgot to mention it also causes tooth decay, body odor and underarm perspiration.

Global warming is clearly over, yet Al Gore and his acolytes keep warning us that the planet is heating up even as it continues to get colder.

One definition of insanity is the compulsion to make the same mistake over and over again all the while expecting a different and successful outcome.

If that suggests that Al Gore and his fellow global warming fantasitists are nuts, well …….

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 17 2008, 10:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 18 2008, 09:58 AM
Post #7





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Global Warming Conclusively Debunked As Gore Calls For CO2 Tax

http://www.prisonplanet.com/global-warming...or-co2-tax.html

The seven graphs that dispel alarmist claims about climate change
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 18, 2008

The world is cooling, sea levels are falling, ice is spreading, there are fewer extreme weather events, and it was hotter 1000 years ago, yet the myth of global warming is providing governments the excuse to micromanage every aspect of our lives, with Al Gore now openly calling for a carbon tax on the energy we use.

Following the end of the Sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now plummeting.

But such figures won’t deter the agenda of control freaks like Al Gore, who last night publicly called for a carbon tax to be imposed on the use of fossil fuels at a time when even middle class families are struggling to pay the bills as a result of a crippled economy, soaring oil prices and inflation.

Andrew Bolt of the Australian Sun-Herald has put together a series of graphs based on numbers from a plethora of scientific bodies to prove that the most alarmist claims about climate change are not only unproven, but in fact the complete opposite of what man-made global warming advocates proclaim is now being observed.

“That’s why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon,” writes Bolt.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”

That’s why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared “I am a sceptic”, because “we don’t really know what the actual effect on the climate is”.

And it’s why the American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”

The first graph, obtained from the Hadley Centre of Britain’s Meteorological Office, shows how temperatures dropped, leveled off, and are now displaying a clear cooling trend, since their 1998 peak which was caused by the “El Nino” weather phenomenon, which is completely natural and has nothing to do with CO2 emissions.

The figures mesh with anecdotal evidence of a cooling pattern - China recently experienced its coldest winter in 100 years while northeast America was hit by record snow levels and Britain suffered its coldest April in decades as late-blooming daffodils were pounded with hail and snow on an almost daily basis. The British summer has also left many yearning for global warming, with temperatures in June and July rarely struggling to get over 16 degrees and on one occasion even dropping as low as 9 degrees in the middle of the afternoon.

A common claim of behalf of Al Gore and the Church of Environmentalism, and one vividly portrayed in the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow, is a predicted catastrophic rise in sea levels as a result of global warming.

In actual fact, figures from the Colorado Centre For Astrodynamics Research show that global sea levels, after having risen since 2000, have been falling significantly over the last 2 years.

In addition, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, sea ice has grown rapidly in that same time frame and there is now more ice in the world than usually observed.

Another common cry from the alarmists is the contention that global warming is causing extreme weather events. Despite there having been far more violent and devastating weather events before the post World War 2 rise in CO2 levels, every flood, hurricane, tornado or cyclone is blamed on human-induced climate change.

The facts tell a different story. According to the American Meteorological Society, global warming hasn’t given us more cyclones, hurricanes, or tornados.

Furthermore, scaremongering about droughts attributed the global warming is disproved by the fact that levels of rainfall have increased.

Hysterical phony environmentalists like to imagine that the world has never been hotter, despite the fact that the planet has violently swung between extremes of temperature for eons.

New figures from the US National Council for Air and Stream Improvement debunk the IPCC’s notoriously controversial “hockey stick” graph and illustrate that the earth was a warmer place 1000 years ago. Dung such times, farmers in Greenland grew crops and even cultivated vineyards on a land mass that is now over 80% ice covered.

Despite evidence pouring in that the planet has naturally turned course and now embarked on a cooling trend, wild rhetoric, fearmongering, lecturing and bullying about the necessity for us to accept intrusions into our rights of mobility, privacy and behavior in the interests of saving the earth is at an all time high.

Global corporations and governments have joined forces to launch a united propaganda assault about how we must turn “green” while all the real environmental crises - deforestation, GM crops, chemtrails, genetic splicing, and cancer-causing cellphone tower radiation - are completely ignored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 18 2008, 10:55 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 18 2008, 07:58 AM) *
... wild rhetoric, fearmongering, lecturing and bullying about the necessity for us to accept intrusions into our rights of mobility, privacy and behavior in the interests of saving the earth is at an all time high.

Global corporations and governments have joined forces to launch a united propaganda assault about how we must turn “green” while all the real environmental crises - deforestation, G[enetically]M[anipulated?] crops, chemtrails, genetic splicing, and cancer-causing cellphone tower radiation - are completely ignored.

I just had to edit and bold Quest's post for emphasis there- those are awfully relevant and important words IMHO. While my posts here could be construed as "polarized" on this issue so far at this forum, I actually remain agnostic on the GW/CC debate [albeit admittedly hyper-critical of any "expert" in the field(s) ]

Of course Quest, Nunyabiz, [O892], and myself know where this thread should properly be moved to, but it is good to leave it here for a while in order to gain visibility. Perhaps we can find a place to "grow" a little more Earth someday... wink.gif

Please, could someone "fresh" to this controversial issue contribute a "younger" perspective if possible...

I'm truly curious where the "quiet majority" sit on this issue...

P.S. Let's add vaccination, flouridiation of water, teratogens, cancer, and corporate chemical "disposal" to the menu as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Jul 18 2008, 12:01 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,699
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



"wild rhetoric, fearmongering, lecturing and bullying about the necessity for us to accept intrusions into our rights of mobility, privacy and behavior in the interests of saving the earth is at an all time high."


While I don't believe in GW caused by co2...

I don't consider driving a large SUV is a right, there is a link between our dependency on foreign oil, and this fascist American Empire. It should be obvious that some rights such as free speech are fundamental and others are not, especially when it affects the health, safety and well being of other people on this planet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Jul 18 2008, 12:29 PM
Post #10





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,699
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



"P.S. Let's add vaccination, flouridiation of water, teratogens, cancer, and corporate chemical "disposal" to the menu as well."


The trouble is, this not a democracy, it's a plutocracy and people are naturally and rightly concerned about the motivation of the people who rule us, on the other hand, rights are not absolute, dumping chemical waste in rivers is not a right, yet you can be sure this regime will allow it if it means increased profits, while at the same time eliminating fundamental rights, isn't it what we have seen in recent years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 18 2008, 12:47 PM
Post #11


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



People talk about "rights" as if they exist independently of "responsibilities". I regard this as the most fundamental issue of our time. In conjunction with this, people talk about "the individual" (speaking of the "rights" of "individuals") as if "the individual" exists independently of all other individuals and systems on this planet. That is a fundamental epistemological error, IMO. I question whether "individuals" exist except as a concept. Show me an individual human being whose body isn't composed of and life fueled by materials from the world around him. Show me an individual human being whose head isn't full of thoughts that were implanted by the society in which he was raised. Show me an individual human being whose very existence isn't directly tied to the total environment within which he exists.

The problem is that "individuals" don't experience the direct consequence of their actions in relation to the environments upon which they depend for their existence. WE do not experience THE REAL COST of our choices in life. Every time I fill up my gas tank I try to imagine dead burnt babies flowing through the hose -- because THAT is much closer to the actual cost than the digits rapidly measuring my cash exchange for energy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Jul 18 2008, 02:07 PM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



Absolutely unbelievable, crap such as this really makes me wonder about Alex Jones (or at least his website) that is so far off base and dead wrong on this issue that it would be akin to trying to discuss reality to a Young Earth Creationist there simply is no point in it.
I have grown tired of spreading myself thin on these issues, it is very maddening to see those (fellow 9/11 truthers) that I think should know better spewing such blatantly obvious Reich wing crap though. But it would serve no purpose for me to yet again 100% debunk all this manure spewed in those prison planet articles.
Just isn't worth it.

People are going to believe what they want regardless, but one point can not be argued even with the Reich wing lunatics and those that have swallowed the propaganda and that is that the EARTH IS WARMING, to deny this means you are literally delusional.
So whether or not you have swallowed the lies of the oil companies & the Reich wing loons that carry their water is basically moot.

Fact is we have to try and do something, another fact is that we need to get off of oil for energy completely because look at what the greed for oil has gotten us so far.
Anyone here that doesn't think the false flag of 9/11 has its tap root deeply embedded into Oil is seriously mistaken.
The oil companies basically own this country lock stock & barrel and that is because we let them, we hand them 100s of Billions of $$ every year.

I know for a fact that Global Warming in its current state is partially due to human intervention as I have seen the data and it is irrefutable, don't care what the rest of you think and it wont do any good to prove you wrong either, I have already done so many times over to Quest and as you can see it makes no difference at all.

Currently my wife & I have Solar Panels on our roof that we have been building up the past several years, we aren't completely off the grid yet but close. We save about $200 a month on electric.
We also are ordering a plug in hybrid when they become available called an Aptera unless something better comes along before that. The car will be charged by the solar panels and if you travel less than 150 miles a day is free transportation, over that and on average it gets 300MPG.

Whether or not Global Warming is partially due to human intervention is completely meaningless, the fact is that oil is going to continue to get more expensive and we are not going to have any other choice but to go Solar/Wind/Electric for energy. Can continue to blame whoever you wish, call it all a conspiracy involving what amounts to basically the entire scientific community and for what reason we would do this I have no idea, but the fact remains that the Earth is warming and oil is getting more expensive along with every single item you buy because of oil dependency. Oil has to go, time for free & clean energy to take over and if the same players make billions or trillions off of Solar/Wind etc so f*cking what, it is still better no matter how you look at it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Jul 18 2008, 03:17 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



2000 Presidential Election Update - Latest Candidate Activity.

1. The Nobel Prize Winner gave a major speech on global warning yesterday. If as a result of his leadership we are timely in dealing with this existential problem, he will probably go down in history as one of the greatest men in history.

2. The War Criminal today announced that as a result of an agreement with the Iraqi government (which they forced him into) there will be major reductions in the number of troops he is using to perpetrate his crime. Despite this, he will probably go down in history as the first indicted or unindicted presidential war criminal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 18 2008, 04:29 PM
Post #14





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (painter @ Jul 16 2008, 02:47 PM) *
People talk about "rights" as if they exist independently of "responsibilities". I regard this as the most fundamental issue of our time.

Absolutely painter. 'Responsibilities'. I feel like screaming that word whenever I hear somebody rattling on about their rights. Indeed, I often get hard looks from my other half, i.e. 'she-who-must-be-obeyed' when I have failed to contain myself.


QUOTE
Every time I fill up my gas tank I try to imagine dead burnt babies flowing through the hose...

Or your own countrymen returning home in bags or having left bits of themselves behind.

Sobering thoughts these, that nut-job Michael Reagan should be confronted with these ideas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Jul 18 2008, 04:48 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (Quest @ Jul 15 2008, 12:24 PM) *
Fact: All history reveals that time after time this planet of ours has experienced periods of warming and periods of cooling. A century of slight global warming, about half a degree, ended in 1998.

Seeing as that so called fact is demonstrably untrue, and you only have to broaden your research a little to discover why.

I'll give you a little helping hand. I recently bought a book 'The Ferocious Summer' by Meredith Hooper:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ferocious-Summer-P...a/dp/1846680085

If the theme of that book is on the button then any recent cooling in specific parts of the globe should not be used as evidence to suggest warming has stopped.

That just leaves the debate with whether increased GHGs in the atmosphere are playing a part. The science behind that is pretty solid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Jul 18 2008, 04:50 PM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Something I should have made clear is what prompted me to post the original article. I thought it quite interesting to see Home Depot which is partly owned by the Israeli government on the forefront of the "SUV's to the back of the parking lot" agenda. I don't own an SUV myself and personally, I think they are gas-guzzlers and impractical for propably 75% of the people that own them, esp[ecially the Queen Mary size vehicles. I posted the article thinking "Of all the companies to spearhead an effort like this, wether global warming exists or not, Home Depot?" While the Israeli government is slaughtering Palestinians every day they are worried about the environment? Maybe Home Depot is trying to appear "liberal"? Jesus.

This post has been edited by Quest: Jul 19 2008, 03:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 18 2008, 05:00 PM
Post #17


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Jul 18 2008, 01:29 PM) *
. . .
Or your own countrymen returning home in bags or having left bits of themselves behind.
. . .


Yes, exactly. It hasn't always been the case that oil is blood but it is the case now and our whole energetic system is dependent upon it.

What really gets me is that this was all known by those of us who cared to pay any attention over thirty years ago. When I was in my twenties I read the writings of Gregory Bateson and Stuart Brand and, at that time, there was a general agreement that building an advanced technological civilization on non-renewable energy was the height of folly. However, the controlling market interests in the oil industry couldn't be bothered with such practical concerns of what would happen at the point where consumption outstripped production supply. After all, from a market perspective, this is a good thing -- more $$ for them! All ecological aspects aside, the simple fact of the matter is that renewable energy is inherently market decentralizing -- and that is why they opposed it, bought up all the alt-energy patents and kept them off market -- all knowing full well that where this would leave us in 30 years is at the brink of global economic, political and arguably ecological disaster. But, again, for them it is a sort of 'so what?' thing. From their point of view the destruction of civilization is a "good thing" because it allows them to invest in the re-tooling of the infrastructure once they've "spent" all the money they scamed off us building a military-industrial-technological complex to "keep us safe" from "terrorists." The richest of the turds can buy up the major aquifers and hoard hundred thousand acre parcels in remote locations, build themselves underground cities if need be -- all paid for with OUR money and OUR blood!

We need to rip the head off the international oiligarchy once and for all and sh*t down its grizzly, guzzling, fascist throat!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 18 2008, 05:19 PM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (painter @ Jul 18 2008, 03:00 PM) *
Yes, exactly. It hasn't always been the case that oil is blood but it is the case now and our whole energetic system is dependent upon it.

What really gets me is that this was all known by those of us who cared to pay any attention over thirty years ago. When I was in my twenties I read the writings of Gregory Bateson and Stuart Brand and, at that time, there was a general agreement that building an advanced technological civilization on non-renewable energy was the height of folly.

It goes back considerably farther than 30 years p, but you are correct on the SONJ/Rockefeller/ExxonMobil/Shell/BP conglmerate(s?) steering the ship. Albertchampion has aptly named the money that owns said "ships."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10738860

I've got a "dook" waiting with David R's CFR name on it (if he lives that long- the evil old fu*ker!)

EDIT: Thanks to Sanders- here are many of the "captains" of those metaphorical "ships":

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=379
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Jul 19 2008, 11:19 AM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Painter made an excellent post relevant to this thread at:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10736902

QUOTE (painter @ Apr 6 2008, 12:45 PM) *
My position on all this is that what matters most to the Powers That Be (a small but powerful minority, an elite) is control of the energy market(s). Centralized energy markets are easier for them to control. If you have an advanced technological civilization whose primary source of energy is a single commodity that can be controlled by a relatively few corporations and individuals, then you in essence have a monopoly and a means of creating extraordinary wealth for those who own and manage these corporations and who through them develop and manage the distribution of this commodity.

If we take that position and posit it as the central aim of the PTB -- if we understand that the valuation of a currency, for example, is tied to the centralized control of that commodity, which the US dollar has been for quite some time -- then you understand that the centralized control of this commodity is the foundation upon which the entire US Imperialist agenda is based. Through it, so to speak, it has post-industrial civilization by the balls.

For this market monopoly to work the commodity in question has to be plentiful enough to meet the demand of an expanding global market while, at the same time, sufficiently difficult to discover, extract, refine and bring to market to warrant a sufficient price in the market place that will provide a profit on investment.

For those engaged in this market control, profit on investment is the bottom line. All other considerations such as resource depletion and/or environmental degradation of any type as a consequence of commodity development and deployment are secondary at best. Resource depletion can even be factored in as a positive over time as it increases the value of the commodity, especially if the expanding global market for energy is kept tied to this primary energy source. Alternative energy sources would be viewed as potential competitors in the energy market and, therefore, their technological patents should be acquired and kept shelved, under developed, and out of the market place.

This is my understanding of what has happened.

Now, of course, if the commodity in question is a limited global resource, at some point the expanding global demand for product is going to be greater than the ability to meet that demand. As this occurs the costs of acquiring this resource invariably increase because the value of the resource in the market has increased. So long as the resource remains under your geopolitical control, scarcity is a 'good' thing for the profit margin. However, any resource that is outside of your geopolitical control can be viewed as a potentially competitive market threat. It is therefore necessary to acquire geopolitical control of these resource areas and it is preferable if the cost of this acquisition not be borne by the monopoly directly. The Iraq war is an example of how this is done -- the corporations profits continue to increase while the cost of waging a resource war is borne by a subject population through blood and taxes and increased cost of energy product in the market. Since this is government/military in service of a corporate elite, the very definition of fascism, such market manipulation for control are cast as something they are not -- a 'war on terror', for example, in need of a "catalyzing event" to intrench public opinion.

Meanwhile, if the commodity in question is a limited global resource, even with expanded geopolitical control over resource acquisition, at some point demand will actually outstrip product supply at any price. For this reason, at this point, it might be necessary to bring off-shelf patents for alternative energy production and bring them into the market. In order to maintain energy market control, however, some method needs to be found to both fund development and implementation of these alternative energy resources while defraying costs to corporate while simultaneously keeping these alternative energy sources under energy monopoly control.

In other words, it is a market balancing act -- all regardless of environmental impact from acquisition, development, distribution and consumption of product -- where profit is the primary, if not the only, concern. Alternative energy sources are fine so long as they can be brought on-line within the energy monopoly framework, and preferably if the cost of their development can be defrayed to the subject population, aka "consumer" through direct and indirect taxation.

What I'm getting at here, folks, is that, environmental degradation is not a concern for the energy market monopoly -- any more than "national security" is a concern for them except in how it effects their profit margins. To them, "national security" means "security of profit margin" and "continued monopoly control of the energy market," and "sustained wealth creation through time."

Whether or not it contributes to global climate change, we know that the acquisition, production, refinement, distribution and consumption of hydrocarbon energy contributes to environmental degredation. This is especially underscored if we understand by "environment" not only the atmosphere of the planet, weather and its direct effect on ecosystems but include in that term the social environment, i.e., everything from the individual heath of consumers who have to breath the air containing hydrocarbon emissions to the degradation of entire societies who are both the beneficiaries and the victims of a monopoly market that taxes them through their consumption and/or employs and or destroys them in fascist wars of acquisition.

The point is that monopoly market control of energy resources is unhealthy for individuals, for societies and for ecosystems alike. Abundant, clean energy is a real possibility and has been for almost half a century and could have been developed and brought online to the point where we would not be facing either significant environmental degradation of any type much less global resource acquisition wars that threaten nuclear holocaust. That these energy sources were deliberately not developed and implemented shines a very harsh light on the monopoly capitalist system -- and it is that system, including the global banking system behind it, that must be named and tamed if we are to see our way to a future absent abject, tyrannical, fascist control.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Jul 19 2008, 12:29 PM
Post #20


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Thanks for digging that up, dMole. Hope you don't mind my editing your post to C/paste it as a quote.

The question I have is, how are we going to get from 'here' to 'there'?

First, I think, we need to understand where 'here' is and how we got here. That's what I've been trying to understand my whole life. I've looked at this question from many different angles. Consequently I understand that what I've attempted to outline above only addresses one small, albeit significant, aspect of the whole 'here' we occupy. I'm not an economist or a sociologist or historian or psychologist -- I'm just a 'dumb artist' -- so I can't be certain that my description, my 'map of here' is accurate in all the details. I don't think any one individual can understand all the details, it requires the participation of many people looking at the question from many different angles, all sharing their observations, trying to form a kind of 'consensus' view of our global, social reality. Without this general consensus, I don't know how we're ever going to agree on where 'there' is, much less what is necessary to get from 'here' to 'there'.

Being a 'dumb artist' I have a very active imagination. I can intuitively sense there is a 'there' there and that it should be humanly possible to get from 'here' to 'there' provided both are mapped with sufficient accuracy that the road map between them can be drawn.

In many respects, this question has become my focus. What we're dealing with here is much bigger than "9/11 Truth." Certainly a more accurate understanding of the events of 9/11 are necessary for our 'map of here' but even if "accountability" and "justice" prove unrealistic in our current set of social conditions, a more accurate 'map of here', paid for with our disillusionment with a fundamentally corrupt and decadent system of social control, is a step forward.

But it isn't the final step.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th July 2014 - 11:20 AM