To some people it is a shrill cry. Like a colicky infant, hardly bearable except by a loving mother who instinctively cares for her offspring....and this screaming baby has been adopted by a very caring Al Gore.Man-made global warming, is the relatively new and hip belief system with some powerful marketing behind it. Notwithstanding the stated reasons behind the global warming campaign (which is accompanied by admitted bias in what should be a neutral scientific inquiry of scientists from every side of the debate), could this renewed cycle of fear-mongering be by an army of scientists and bureaucratic entities interested in increasing job security? The tremendous push behind this agenda seems too large and too forceful to solely be the work of UN bureaucrats seeking job preservation. This goes beyond the silly notion that the United Nations is merely looking out for the world's best interests especially when you consider the length of time and the effort at establishing this body as a catalyst for world government since the days of Cecil Rhodes.
To begin to understand the 'why' of any serious contention, any responsible inquiry must begin with the source of the information, which often times should also include following the money. Who or what is the purveyor of the alleged science that man-made industrialization is causing a warming of the earth due to increased concentrations of carbon dioxide? We are told that it is the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Is the IPCC an objective scientific body, or a political body staffed with a large contingent of approving head-nodding scientists (yes-men)? Interestingly, the head author of the IPCC, John Christy had this to say in the recent documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle (see video below),
"I often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. I am one scientist, and there are many, who simply think that is not true."
How much digging is required to get an idea of what a hidden or alternative incentive could be for stalling or even reversing world industrial development, if it is not to save the planet from impending doom? Just a little. As previously mentioned, the existence of extremely efficient alternatives to hydrocarbon fuels technology do exist and implementation of such systems could progress naturally, (if not for its supression), without the need for an international body pretending to represent the common man to take the world back into the stone age. Surrounding the continuous drum beat of the fear-mongering, is it just me or is it becoming more obvious that moneyed interests are becoming more overt in displaying to the rest of us that those who run the show (and "our" politicans) are a small elite minority? I would argue that this has always been a reality, in varying degrees, throughout history since the beginning of civilization. Why wouldn't you think so? Probably because it has been wisely determined that power can be maintained in more practical fashion by distorting reality (i.e. sophisticated propaganda). This would include the consistent perpetuation of boogeymen and the creation of various dire scenarios. Dictatorial governments have never lasted, especially in the age of gun powder, without the approval of the governed. Besides, are not the best slaves those who believe that they are free? Are we not free to do as we are told? In light of this, I sometimes wonder what portion of the green-haired attendees of global warming protests have used a brain cell or two regarding the validity of this alleged dire emergency that is man-made global warming. I would venture to guess, judging from some of the zombie-like, wild frenzied stares of the rent-a-mobs, not many.
Incredibly, some might argue with the allegation that the United Nations was founded by and is the arm of powerful corporate and banking interests who are interested in maintaining and increasing their control of world economies. Lots of control. My tendency would be to believe this, since history and current events are showing that it has not been very difficult to manipulate the citizenry into slow acceptance of agendas that they would have no interest in seeing implemented to begin with. Since the days of Rhodes, an overriding political agenda has been the tearing down of political sovereignty and national borders. It is a patient effort which crosses human generations. Recent examples include, the establishment of the Euro currency, attempts at establishing the Free Trade of the Americas, deliberate negligence in maintaining the integrity of the US border and current talk of an American Union by the Bush Administration with Mexico and Canada without Congressional oversight (a plan to join Canada, Mexico and the United States--brought forth by a seemingly innocuous entity, the Council on Foreign Relations). Who among you would like to see world government come to pass? Maybe Zogby could get right on this one. After sifting through those poll results, perhaps we could ask who's pushing this? Who's driving this agenda? Are we paying attention? Think about it.
Now, on to the topic of population reduction and control which, judging from recent history, is an expressed concern of the United Nations [1]. Evidence of this is not very difficult to find. You can start by looking here, here, here, and here and . But population control? Why?
Evidence has been pointing to a concern of how growing populations, especially in less developed nations where there is a growing desire to achieve a western lifestyle, is perceived as a threat to certain interests for various reasons, one of which is the competition for raw materials. As discussed in the 1974 National Security Memorandum 200 , its basic thesis was population reduction measures as a key component of national security. A nice way of putting the nation ahead of third nation economic control and profit:
"The report advocates the promotion of contraception and other population reduction measures. It also raises the question of whether the U.S. should consider preferential allocation of surplus food supplies to states that are deemed constructive in use of population control measures. The report advises, 'In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.'"
I don't know about you, but among other things, this kind of makes me want to take a closer look at the real deal behind the mass slaughter in Rwanda as UN forces stood idly by.
One of those population control measures, which indeed did not have "the appearance of coercion," was the placing of sterilizing agents in tetanus vaccines administered in the Third World by the UN's World Health Organization (WHO). I also find it interesting how the start of the AIDS epidemic in Africa tended to follow WHO vaccination patterns throughout Africa (and incidentally, the Hepatitis B experimental vaccine trials in New York City's male homosexual population).
In the meantime, what other efforts could be pursued to maintain control of the developing world's industrial progress and access to pockets of natural resources while the New World Order and population control agenda works its way toward achieving its goals? By preventing industrialization and the growing independence of select nations by way of clandestine political coups orchestrated by western intelligence agencies, contrived terrorism to foment a unified public consensus which insists upon the occupation of "enemy" regions which are rich in raw materials [2], and last, but definitely not least, creating an atmosphere of a growing crisis which must be stopped especially by preventing or greatly slowing the industrialization of the Third World. Contrive emergencies calling for drastic measures. If this global warming agenda has any legs, besides continued attempts at meddling with less developed nations, it will most likely involve more than doing your part by recycling and changing a few light bulbs. All without the appearance of coercion. The goal is to make you beg for the "needed" change.
In closing, concerned and awake Americans continue to express their frustration at how, in general, Americans seem to have lost the appreciation for what was a more independent press and good investigative reporting, which today, is rarely the case. But there is little excuse for not turning off the television and taking a little time to verify information on a computer from varied sources and motivations, which is the key to formulating a less corrupted perception of reality. In general, people do not question the sources of information upon which they base even their most crucial decisions. Should we not question whether there any conflicts of interest by those disseminating important information to us which is the basis of our perception of reality outside of our immediate surroundings? For example, the national network news is swamped with big pharma ads and yet we are to believe that we're going to get the straight skinny on maintaining our health from that source? What about from your family doctor who was educated by, receives continuing education from and is dictated to by big pharma? You be the judge. In this most important issue of health, there are too few questions regarding the fact that pharmaceutical companies do their own drug testing and that there are major conflicts of interest as FDA and CDC officials routinely migrate back and forth from lucrative pharmaceutical positions to positions in these government agencies charged with maintaining public health safety and approving medications for public consumption. It is not uncommon for some of these regulatory agency officials to own stock in the very companies they are supposed to regulate! Such blind faith can kill you. Even CDC doctors admitted in their own conference minutes that they have little doubt about the nature of the current epidemic of autistic spectrum disorders which tend to manifest immediately subsequent to the MMR vaccine series in young children. What about in the financial arena? Is CNBC telling the average investor about the collapsing US dollar and the explosive bull market in precious metals (and other commodities) which has been underway since 2001? How about an example of how simply turning off Tom Brokaw and doing a little checking on a home computer could save some financial heartache? Where's Mad Money -Cramer when you need him? Doing the bidding of his sponsors of course, the very large New York financial houses who don't want you buying gold. The representative of the masters of the universe, the International Monetary Fund, is telling you point blank. Not on television, but here: "IMF to urge further depreciation in dollar" . Or how about the market manipulation by hedge funds to take the uninformed investor to the cleaners? Again, maybe turning off the tube and doing a little fact checking might help. Perhaps it will be these types of individual screw jobs which might bring a good portion of trusting Americans out of their consensus reality trance.
[1] "We must also step up efforts for family planning, which has a direct impact on maternal health. When couples can choose the number, timing and spacing of their children, they are better able to ensure there are enough resources for each family member to prosper and thrive....UNFPA supports countries in using data for policies and programmes to address the complex linkages between population dynamics, poverty and sustainable development." UNFPA Population Issues
[2] "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." The Grand Chessboard, by Zbigniew Brzezinski .
"...Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent a catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." Project for a New American Century p. 51
Excerpt from: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Not all believers are pessimists!
