Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 85 Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject:
I recently saw some of Alex Jones' shows. It looks like he's itching for a street brawl with what he sees as the most powerful and dangerous men in the world. In one video clip he actually recounts how four guys threatened him to "back off," then roughed him up and broke his nose, and still he "viciously attacked them." I guess he thinks God's on his side, but he strikes me as an idiot. And his commentary is the stuff of conservative talk radio--inflammatory and persuasive only to those already persuaded. That's not to say he's wrong, though. Unfortunately I think his theories are mostly correct, from what I've seen.
Jones is only one voice among many exposing the hidden goals of the global elite, and the more I read the more I am convinced population culling is on the agenda. The Malthusian perspective, that exponential population growth, if left unchecked, will stop or crash at the limits of the resource base amid great turmoil and suffering, has been important if not central to the global elite's plans since at least the Club of Rome's 1972 publication, "The Limits of Growth." They say they are "not Malthusian," in that "[The Club of Rome] has not simply identified population as the problem but the consumption patterns" (reference), but central to their position is to warn that "We cannot say with certainty how much longer mankind can postpone initiating deliberate control of its growth before it will have lost the chance for control" (reference). This noble and necessary goal (according to a Malthusian perspective) is unfortunately co-opted by the interests of ruling elite: The Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the "Group of 300," very likely the "Bilderbergers," and other such groups that have so many members and ideologies in common. David McGowan lists some of afiliations members of the Club of Rome has with these organizations (reference):
Quote:
David Rockefeller: Bilderberger, cofounder of the Trilateral Commission, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, scion of the world's most prominent oil dynasty, and all-around bad guy.
John J. McCloy: Former advisor to the Mussolini regime who had the honor of sitting in Adolf Hitler's private box at the Berlin Olympic games; later served as High Commissioner of Germany, during which time he signed an order freeing the majority of the Nazi war criminals that had been convicted at Nuremberg; still later, served on the infamous Warren Committee.
Averell Harriman: Skull and Bonesman and high-level political operative through several presidential administrations; together with members of the Dulles family and the Bush/Walker family, established various business entities engaged in providing funding to Nazi Germany, even after the United States had entered the war.
Katherine Graham: Longtime publisher of the Washington Post and longtime CIA asset who once famously said, while speaking at the CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters: "We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."
Take for example the views of the Trilateral Commission in the Global 2000 Report to the President as reported here.
Quote:
On July 24, 1980, the U.S. State Department unveiled the Global 2000 Report to the President. It had been in preparation by the White House Council on environmental Quality and the State Department, employing scores of government personnel and hundreds of outside consultants since the early days of the Carter administration -- an administration dominated by elite members of David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission. The report was a long-winded proposal that "population control" -- a euphemism for killing people -- be made the cornerstone of the policies of all U.S. presidents from that time forward.
Pervading the report and several companion documents were lurid predictions: crises in water resources, severe energy shortages, shortfalls in strategically vital raw materials -- all blamed on "population growth".
The report argued that without countervailing action, by the year 2000 there will be 2 to 4 billion people too many. Therefore, the report said, it is required that government implicitly direct all policies domestic and foreign toward the elimination of 2 to 4 billion people by the year 2000.
Have the elite forgotten about population control since then, since world population has apparently grown unimpeded? I doubt it. I was recently surprised to learn that the environmental movement is funded largely by foundations such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations (reference) and the W. Alton Jones Foundation, Bullitt Foundation, and Turner Foundation. (reference) (In 1954 the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, among others, were found by Norman Dodd of the Congressional Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations to be consciously subverting the Constitution of the United states in favor of socialism and a "New World Order.")
If the environmental movement, now heavily concerned with issues of population and carrying capacity, is playing into the hands of the elite, I wonder about the Peak Oil movement. I don't doubt that Peak Oil is real, but as for the timing we are somewhat at the mercy of the experts in the know. As David McGowan points out, much of the data available to Matthew Simmons (CFR member), Jean Laherrere, and Colin Campbell is not available to us, and I don't entirely trust that ASPO is giving us the right numbers, especially considering ASPO's funding and afiliations. It may be possible for them to send us misleading information about when the Peak will occur, their motive being to have enough energy to institute their glorious New World Order. Once their opponents are removed, fascism is a low-energy solution for keeping order: "Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it" (reference). By accepting the necessity of a Malthusian die-off we are more willing to let our leaders kill on our behalf, and let them find a more just way of reducing population that will apply to everyone. And this does not generally mean prophylactics, as they knew in 1972 that, for example, "if Mexico's birth rate gradually declined from its present value to an exact replacement value by the year 2000, the country's population would continue to grow until the year 2060" (reference).
Here's Michael Ruppert's statement on the solution to Peak Oil (reference).
Quote:
I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles – to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity.
Now, doesn't that sound just like the Club of Rome?
Now, I say that Peak Oil is real, and yet I oppose our leaders working toward the "most ethical program of population reduction." How can this be? Won't the situation continue to worsen until there are no choices left but to cull the useless eaters, or let famine and disease take us indiscriminately? If you are a Malthusian, which is to say you do not believe technology and innovation will continue to save us, a serious commitment to peace and population control among the leaders of all nations is the best solution, the one that will cause the least suffering. I oppose such a program not because I oppose killing other humans against their will (though I do), or because I act on my short-term self interest (we all do), or because those who would lead us to a New World Order are rotten to the core (Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, Galen Ross, and Stanley Monteith can attest to hidden evil and their Luciferian allegiences), or even simply that it will not work (it actually may appear to work for a time.) Even as a Malthusian I oppose a program of population culling because there is a better alternative: salvation by God at the end of the age.
I am a Christian, and it is not my purpose to speak on my religious beliefs here. Just consider that the masses will also see this as a solution superior to population culling. I know many already bemoan that the religious don't care about saving the planet, but the full power of this idea will come when the crisis is at the door. If the New World Order can co-opt the notion of God saving the world, just as they are already preparing to co-opt the "most ethical program of population reduction," their battle will already be won in the hearts and minds of the people.
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:08 pm Post subject: Nature Bats Last
this is nothing about the new world order junk. it's called overshoot and how nature deals with such things.
with the power oil gave us we masivly overshot the maximum amount of humans this planet can support.
now as bad as the fact that people will die, and alot of them to. there is nothing we can do about it, the
world simply cannont support 6 and a half billion people.
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 85 Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject:
TrueKaiser, I was making a case (or perhaps merely alluding that a case can be made) for a global elite who are posturing themselves to take advantage of overshoot and collapse. If you disagree that there is a movement toward a New World Order, that's your perogative. I'm just putting some flesh to what I see the crisis looking like, a scenario with powerful people in charge rather than leaderless anarchy. People will be trying to do something about it, whether they can ultimately succeed or not.
TrueKaiser, I was making a case (or perhaps merely alluding that a case can be made) for a global elite who are posturing themselves to take advantage of overshoot and collapse. If you disagree that there is a movement toward a New World Order, that's your perogative. I'm just putting some flesh to what I see the crisis looking like, a scenario with powerful people in charge rather than leaderless anarchy. People will be trying to do something about it, whether they can ultimately succeed or not.
yes people will take advantage of peak oil, though it will not be anything on the scale you foolishly sujest without any solid evidence.
the nwo junk like the more wacko 9-11 theorys have no place on this site because they only degrade the actual message about a scientific fact.
... What shocked me was the attitudes that most of the members of that forum took when I chose to argue a side that was not necessarily the popular one on the forum: you are wrong you left wing, liberal girly-man! They were all neo-cons or right wingers or republicans or whatever other name you would like to apply that may not be the most diplomatic.
I always wondered about the political persuasion of the internet-based UFO crowd. I take it that you do not necessarily believe in that kind of stuff. Did you frequent the board to provide a skeptical view or did you just use it for the sheer entertainment value?
I just can't get into that because (1) too easy a target (2) they won't change their minds anyways and (3) irony and satire are lost on the gullible. Same thing happens with the creationist and intelligent design debates.
OTOH, a significant fraction of the people on this P.O. board are as sharp as tacks and the political leanings on average are either left of center or hard to gauge.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13177 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Won't the situation continue to worsen until there are no choices left but to cull the useless eaters
It always amazes me what a low opinion of their fellow man many Christians have. Oh well, it's not surprising.
Who do you characterise as "useless eaters?" Or is that not your term but rather one you imagine the "elite" to be using?
Your idea that the "environmental movement" is being co-opted by the "elite" and is therefore somehow no longer legitimate exhibits a strange brand of (il)logic.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13177 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:50 pm Post subject:
Considering the world economy is based entirely on continuing growth and growing populations, who would it benefit in the short term to "depopulate" the world?
(I know it will benefit humans in the long run to have a lower population, but since when did anyone seriously worry about the future of humanity?)
Joined: Aug 25, 2004 Posts: 85 Location: West Coast, USA
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:09 am Post subject:
Ludi wrote:
It always amazes me what a low opinion of their fellow man many Christians have. Oh well, it's not surprising.
I had to read this several times to overcome my surprise and gauge your meaning. I have made it clear that I do not advocate killing "useless eaters," a term I imagine the "elite" to be using. Perhaps you think that by suggesting some elite might engage in an agressive population control I have a low opinion of my fellow man, but this would only directly affect my opinion of those elite. My opinion is more along the lines of "absolute power corrupts absolutely." And I must stress that these are my own ideas; as influenced as I may be by my Christianity I do not pretend to represent Christians in general, and I'm sure there are many who would not agree.
Incidentally, as a consequence of my confidence in the pillars of Christianity, I believe that all mankind is corrupt, and true goodness comes only from God. Like I said, it's not my purpose to speak on my beliefs here, but if this is what you were disparaging let it stand unashamed.
Also, my original reasoning is that if a crash is inevitable, the best possible solution for most non-religious is probably something like what Mike Ruppert suggested, whereas the best possible solution for many religious folk may be something quite different. I merely wanted to show the potential friction between those two camps, and I guess I suceeded with the friction part.
Ludi wrote:
Your idea that the "environmental movement" is being co-opted by the "elite" and is therefore somehow no longer legitimate exhibits a strange brand of (il)logic.
I did not say the environmental movement is no longer legitimate. On the contrary, it is working in harmony with the humanists' best possible solution to population crash. I only said, in essence, "follow the money." You never know what relationships you'll find.
Ludi wrote:
Considering the world economy is based entirely on continuing growth and growing populations, who would it benefit in the short term to "depopulate" the world
Well, for starters, whoever is pulling the strings will likely make certain they don't die. It is not necessary that the economy be growing in order to sustain and benefit a ruling elite, as by their own admission this is possible through fascist dictatorship (referenced in first post). Honestly I'm not sure what they plan to do or how they plan to rule, but I doubt it's such a big secret. Just read Zbigniew Brezinski or the WTO website and make some inferences based upon what we know they know about resources and population.
Concerning conspiracies, either they objectively exist or they do not. Just because conspiracies theories are often difficult to prove does not mean they are unfalsifiable, though the establishment media loves to disparage the term by implying they are all unfalsifiable. But let's not get hung up on areas that are difficult to prove when persuasive evidence abounds, for example the testimony of Norman Dodd on the plans of the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations to become the beneficiaries of socialism in the U.S. Either he's telling the truth, a liar, or speaking on matters irrelevant either way (and I suppose there are a few other more subtle options here.) Either enviromental groups are largely funded by these same foundations and related interests or they are not. Many also say Peak Oil is a "crackpot" theory, but we know better, don't we?
I just can't get into that because (1) too easy a target (2) they won't change their minds anyways and (3) irony and satire are lost on the gullible.
That is a classic example of "the pot calling the kettle black".
You just described why many people are likely to skip www.peakoil.com. _________________ Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
