Archive for Global Warming
Un general NATO, Fabio Mini a facut declaratia anului, avertizand ca omenirea se afla intr-un razboi mondial climatic de cativa ani.
In conditiile in care cei mai multi dintre oameni se asteptau ca urmatorul razboi mondial sa aiba la baze armele conventionale, se pare ca cele mai importante guverne ale lumii au aprins deja un altfel de conflict. Acest razboi este unul nou, care are la baza armele chimice indreptate spre modificarea climei.
Generalul NATO Mini a oferit un interviu socant unei televiziuni italiene si sustine ca cel de-Al Treilea Razboi Mondial se afla in plina desfasurare si cea mai puternica arma este cea cu care se modifica clima. Din aceasta cauza lumea din ziua de astazi este lovita de furtuni puternice, cutremure majore, tsunami si alte evenimente care pot aduce moartea. Exemplul concret pe care l-a oferit Mini este tsunami-ul produs in Indonezia in 2004. S-a stiu cu mult timp inainte ca un asemenea tsunami avea sa se nasca in urma unui cutremur de intensitate mare, dar pentru a nu se crea panica in randul oamenilor informatia a fost tinuta la secret.
Conform declaratiilor generalului, cele mai mari puteri ale lumii se folosesc de aceste arme de ultima generatie cu care pot modifica clima si pot induce anumite fenomene care in trecut s-ar fi petrecut doar in mod natural. Marile puteri ale lumii santajeaza astfel tarile mai mici si in caz ca nu se supun sau nu respecta normele impuse atunci sunt atacate pe aceasta cale. Astfel, acest tip de arme este considerat in prezent mult mai periculoase decat bombele atomice pentru ca pot extermina in cel mai silentios mod orase intregi.
Pentru a nu parea deplasat, argumentele celor spuse de Mini sunt sustinute prin proiectul “Seal”, realizat de omul de stiinta din Noua Zeelanda, Thomas Leech, inca din 1946. Cercetarea a avut ca baza crearea de mici tsunamiuri in laborator. Succesul proiectului a fost recunoscut la nivel global si imediat dupa incheierea cercetarii, specialistul a fost inlaturat, iar rezultatele au fost trimise bazelor militare.
Astfel, inca din anii ’50 s-au dezvoltat primele arme climaterice. Odata cu trecerea anilor este imposibil sa nu realizam ca aceste arme au fost perfectionate pentru ca in ziua de astazi sa devina parte importanta din dorinta nebuna a unor natiuni de a controla intreaga planeta.
PLANUL E GLOBAL: Fragmentarea statelor natiune si provocarea tulburarilor sociale sau PRIN HAOS LA NOUA ORDINE MONDIALA
Intr-o foarte recenta interventie in cadrul Scolii Ford, fostul secretar de stat Henry Kissinger a comentat situatia din Siria, exprimandu-si preferinta pentru o Siria destramata si “balcanizata” care sa inlocuiasca regimul Assad (de la min. 19.30).
“Sunt trei posibile rezultate. O victorie a lui Assad. O victorie Sunni. Sau un rezultat in care diferitele nationalitati sunt de acord sa co-existe insa in regiuni mai mult sau mai putin autonome, astfel incat sa nu se oprime reciproc. Acesta este rezultatul pe care il prefer. Dar aceasta nu este o perspectiva populara”.
[…] Cum actuala “revolutie” se transforma in haos, Kissinger a comentat, mai departe, pe marginea situatiei:
“In presa americana este prezentat un conflict intre democratie si un dictator – si dictatorul isi omoara propriul popor, deci trebuie sa-l pedepsim. Dar nu asta se intampla acolo. Poate ca a inceput de la cativa democrati. Dar, in ansamblu, este vorba despre un conflict etnic si sectar.
Acum este un razboi civil intre grupuri sectare. Si trebuie sa o spun ca nu am inteles asta de la inceput. Daca citesti media noastra gasesti ca spune: trebuie sa scapam de Assad. Si daca scapam de Assad, atunci formam un guvern de coalitie. E de neconceput. Sunt pentru a scapa de Assad, insa disputa intre noi si rusi pe acest subiect este ca rusii spun: voi nu doar o sa scapati de Assad, nu asta e la mijloc, ci veti distruge administratia si veti ajunge ca in Irak – unde nu mai e nimic care sa tina laolalta. Si atunci va fi un razboi civil si mai rau. Asa s-a ajuns la mizeria de acum”.
Kissinger a mai comentat si inainte despre dezirabilitatea destramarii natiunilor in fragmente mai mici, haosul emergent din aceasta situatie facilitand intrarea lor intr-o ordine globala. Aceasta este, in esenta, regula divide et impera. Aceste comentarii ale lui Kissinger consuna cu altbele, anterioare, in care avansa ideea ca tulburarile sociale si civile pot fi folosite ca mijloace de fuzionare a natiunilor (inclusiv SUA) intr-un “sistem international“.
“SUA trebuie sa faca parte dintr-un sistem international pe care l-am creat pe plan intern”, spunea Kissinger in The Harvard Crimson in 2012. Cand a fost intrebat care sunt cele mai importante probleme ale societatii americane in aceste vremuri, Kissinger a raspuns:
“Din punct de vedere international, problema este ca exista tulburari in desfasurare in orice parte a lumii, dar aceste tulburari nu au aceleasi cauze, deci SUA trebuie sa faca parte dintr-un sistem international pe care l-am creat [deja] pe plan intern”.
Conceptul de a profita de crize si tulburari ale caror cauze pot diferi de la natiune la natiune, pentru a impune o ordine internationala, este o consecinta evidenta a regulii de aur ce spune ca ordinea globala este creata din haos.
Mai departe, Kissinger ne ridica putin coltul perdelei pentru a vedea ce intentioneaza el si amicii sai bilderbergi, afirmand ca nelinistea civila – fie din motive economice, politice sau sociale – trebuie sa fie folosita pentru a integra natiunile in mult-doritul “sistem international”.
Intr-un articol din 2008 se arata ca H. Kissinger, intr-un interviu cu Charlie Rose “numeste haosul global adus de criza financiara si raspandirea terorismului ca oportunitate de a sustine noua ordine mondiala”, scria Steve Watson.
Aceasta discutie despre crize si tulburari ca mijloace specifice de a realiza o centralizare globala pot trimite catre existenta unui plan transnational – un concept sinistru ce urmeaza gandirea hegeliana dialectica clasica, anume ca: problema (fie reala, fie provocata, falsa) provoaca reactia ce, in schimb, permite celor puternici sa furnizeze solutia.
Mi se pare ca afirmatiile lui Kissinger aduc aminte de cele scrise de Alexander Wendt de la Univ. Chicago ce, in 2003, in tratatul sau intitulat De ce este inevitabil un stat mondial: teleologia si logica anarhiei, scria astfel:
“Luptele nationaliste pentru recunoastere sunt, fara indoiala, depasite, si mai multe state noi – mai multa anarhie – pot fi create. Dar, in timp ce mai multa fragmentare este, intr-un anume sens, un pas inapoi, este, totodata, o preconditie pentru a merge mai departe, de vreme ce numai cand diferenta este recunoscuta, o identitate mai larga poate fi stabila. (…) Departe de a suprima nationalismul, statul mondial va fi posibil doar daca il va imbratisa.“
Acest cuvinte pot arunca o lumina asupra cuvintelor rostite de Kissinger si prietenii sau supranationalisti, aratand, in esenta, ca sunt foarte constienti ca o simpla propunere a unui stat mondial nu va reusi – ba chiar va starni opozitie daca e propusa prea direct – si ca acelasi scop ar putea fi atins mai bine prin fragmentarea si balcanizarea statelor natiune, fie in Est, fie in Vest, pentru a integra aceste fragmente intr-un construct global, descris de regula sub termenul de noua ordine mondiala.
Sursa: Război întru Cuvânt
“A passive and ignorant citizenry will never create a sustainable world.” Andrew Gaines
Few words stir up passion and polarization like sustainability. The EPA offers up this description. “The traditional definition of sustainability calls for policies and strategies that meet society’s present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Gee, who could disagree with such touchy and feely sentiments? The answer is always in the details and when you strip away the platitudes, what remains is a coordinated plot to enslave humanity under a burden of a Carbon Tax scheme. The environment has more risk from globalist central planning than from any fossil fuel emissions. Proponents of the global warming religion demonstrate a disdain for rational thinking that challenges their doctrine of a heterodox belief.
The sustainability cult ignores any evidence that conflicts with their political agenda. The accomplished author Robert Bryce cites in Forbes, A New Study Takes The Wind Out Of Wind Energy.
“For years, it’s been an article of faith among advocates of renewables that increased use of wind energy can provide a cost-effective method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The reality: wind energy’s carbon dioxide-cutting benefits are vastly overstated.
But if wind energy doesn’t significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then critics can easily challenge the industry’s hefty subsidies, which include the federal production tax credit of $0.022 for each kilowatt-hour of electricity. That amounts to a subsidy of $6.44 per million BTU of energy produced. For comparison, in 2008, the Energy Information Administration reported that subsidies to the oil and gas sector totaled $1.9 billion per year, or about $0.03 per million BTU of energy produced. In other words, subsidies to the wind sector are more than 200 times as great as those given to the oil and gas sector on the basis of per-unit-of-energy produced.
If those fat subsidies go away, then the U.S. wind sector will be stopped dead in its tracks. And for consumers, that should be welcome news.”
After years of exposing the industrial wind fraud, most card carrying “Green” purists reject all proof that wind factories are useless and unnecessary. This perverse anti-intellectual conduct is systemic in the simplistic and emotional realm where tree huggers reside. Sincere and pragmatic environmentalists recognize that the planet can and will survive all that man can do to disrupt the eco balance. However, sustainability theorists refuse to acknowledge that the true danger is that humanity is under universal assault by the originators of all the carbon-based myths.
By ignoring the primary nature that the Global Warming hysteria, is a political attempt to deceive and control, the indoctrinated and easily influenced are led to slaughter.
The videos Global Warming Carbon Politics and Global Warming and the Carbon Tax Scam clarifies the differences between the radiant rhetoric and the ruthless reality of the planned global taxation tribute. If you believe there is a correlation between paying a carbon tax and the saving of the planet, you are too stupid to understand the ways of the world. For such eco fanatics, the question they need to answer is what stops you from giving up all electric use and revert to Rousseau’s state of nature? Sensible environmentalists recognize that Hobbes’ assumption that human nature is naturally competitive and violent, face reality with maturity and a healthy skepticism.
The problem with the stereotypes and impressions of the meaning of sustainability is the flawed supposition used by the EPA and most proponents of greening the world. Sustainability calls for policies based upon government action that is inherently unsound. Government by nature is a destructive force. It creates nothing of value. All bureaucracies fail in comparison to a true free market. In the corporatist environment that rules political strategies, the only beneficiaries of sustainable public policy are the transnational monopolies.
Conglomerate organizations make the policy that government adopts and invariably forces people into becoming compliant consumers. The individual as a customer is a facade, especially when it comes to energy usagae.
A classic article by William S. Lind, A modern-day Luddite argues that computers deaden our souls, also applies to the environmental sustainable mindset.
“The first Christian principle, and the first principle of Western civilization, is that there is and can be only one reality. If there can be multiple realities, we lose both Jerusalem and Athens. If there can be more than one reality, there can be more than one God; so falls Jerusalem and monotheism. If there can be more than one reality, what is logical in one means nothing in others, where logic itself may not hold; so falls Athens and reason. All things are indeed relative where realities proliferate.
Hell has always hated reality, for in the real world, Christ is King. Old Screwtape’s problem, for millennia, was that philosophy made a poor weapon against reality. Even Hell’s most sophisticated philosophical device, ideology, fell sure prey to reality, seldom lasting more than a couple of generations. His Wormship knew that he needed a more powerful and enduring weapon than philosophy could provide. He needed convincing but false images of the true: virtual realities.”
The virtual reality that the global warming zealots profess violates the cardinal principle of Western tradition by making the twisted creed of sustainability their god. C.S Lewis converted back to Christianity and was influenced by his colleague and friend J. R. R. Tolkien and the writings of G. K. Chesterton. His journey is a chronicle of redemption and instructive wisdom. The cohorts in the sustainability legion dismiss the first principle because their Screwtape preachers bend their Wormwood brethrens into becoming “Green” comrades.
The video of the late George Carlin tells the tale of Saving the Planet, in colorful language. Alan Watts expresses the real substance of ‘Sustainability’ means Fascism and Depopulation in the next video.
For sustainability to have a valid meaning, it must start with affirming human beings first. How can a planet of created individual mortals survive when they willingly abandon their own soul? The elites intend to condemn you and your offspring’s to subsistence level survival at best. The fictitious guilt trip they promote is illogical. Rational and prudent business practices to develop and use the abundance of fossil fuel resources are not only sensible but also necessary. Eliminating coal to fuel electric generation is a viewpoint that qualifies for psycho treatment in an asylum.
Did you ever wonder that the technology that allows for placement of satellites into earth’s orbit would be impossible without the use of fuel derived from those nasty carbon based substances? Maybe the irony is missed by the “Save the Planet” crowd because they are too busy watching the Green TV channel or polluting the cell frequencies and internet bandwidth. Their message of sustainable compromise of the present population, in order to reduce future generations from ever being born, is absurd. Without an affordable price for energy, our society cannot support a level of acceptable and sustainable prosperity.
Beware of outlandish promises of technological miracles. Burning wood for heating your home is now becoming an essential alternative. How long will it be before the sustainability lobby distorts the language to condemn wood as a non-renewable resource?
The Luddite philosophy needs to be examined in depth before it is condemned. Since this post industrial age is rapidly becoming a global gulag, the basic survival practices of the past need to become the skill set learned, once again, in order to subsist. The future standard of living is headed for a momentous collapse. The carbon tax is designed to accelerate that downward spiral process.
Fellow Americans, do you still have doubts? View this Carbon Tax summary from down under. Australians get it, why are so many of our neighbors so dense? Just maybe George Carlin had it correct . . .
It is long overdue for citizens to become as independent as possible from corporate controlled energy dominance. A safe and clean environment is important, but that goal cannot be achieved as long as the General Electric’s of the world are drafting energy policy, receiving government subsidies and charging you for the privilege of using their toxic mercury fluorescent light bulbs.
One conclusion is completely clean. The current political system is out of control and does not serve or benefit the interests of our citizens. Industrial wind and corn ethanol are creations of a mindless wishful hoax. Natural gas is more than a temporary alternative. However, the fracking drilling process only maximizes the financial interests of cousin corporatists. The Carbon Tax end game will destroy more people than the most harmful emissions from a coal plant.
Since America is now out of man space exploration, isn’t it time to direct our energies in producing CHEAP energy that is benign to the environment and allows for national independence and regional autonomy based upon local needs and resources? If you want this nation to achieve real sustainability, it is important to abandon the globalist formula of phony environmentalism and damaging renewable schemes. Do you have the courage to apply rational thinking or are you just another causality of their media sniffing glue propaganda?
Statul jupoaie şapte piei, dar zice că românii sunt leneşi şi nu vor să muncească.
Noua ideologie promovată intens de şeful statului chiar în zilele de Sărbători spune că mulţi dintre români o duc prost pentru că aşteaptă să le dea statul pe de-a moaca.
Dar cine, de pe urma cui trăieşte, cetăţenii de pe urma statului sau invers? Peste patru milioane de români sunt salariaţi şi plătesc taxe şi impozite care se situează printre cele mai mari din Europa. Lor li se adaugă actorii economici la fel de împovăraţi. Mai sunt un milion şi jumătate de persoane care muncesc la negru. Credeţi că nu le-ar conveni acestor oameni să lucreze legal? Numai că nu depinde de ei. Taxarea prea mare a forţei de muncă este una dintre cauzele majore ale acestui fenomen. Şi ar mai fi aproape un milion de şomeri, victime ale dispariţiei locurilor de muncă. Cine e de vină? Nu cumva statul care supraimpozitează munca şi nu a găsit soluţii pentru a crea slujbe? Statul jupoaie şapte piei, dar când e vorba de a livra servicii propriilor cetăţeni care îl alimentează cu bani, zice că românii sunt leneşi şi nu vor să muncească. De leneşi ce sunt, aproape trei milioane de oameni au emigrat acolo unde au găsit locuri de muncă. Lor li se adaugă zeci de mii de tineri care pleacă să studieze în străinătate, marea lor majoritate integrându-se cu succes în mediile intelectuale ale ţărilor de adopţie. Puţinii care s-au întors în ţară din idealism au fost daţi afară din instituţiile statului pe motiv de restructurare. În realitate trebuia protejată clientela politică, pe cât de incompetentă, pe atât de veroasă în deturnarea banului public.
Aşa s-a ajuns ca în România atât de săracă să se cheltuiască pe un kilometru de şosea mai mult decât oriunde în lumea civilizată. Acelaşi stat care se vaită că n-are bani este incapabil să cheltuiască miliardele alocate de Uniunea Europeană, fie că nu ştie cum să o facă, fie că aceşti bani sunt mai greu de furat şi în cazul acesta nu merită efortul.
Şi atunci, tot cetăţenii sunt de vină? Poate că da. Pentru că administratorii statului, cei care exercită puterea politică şi iau decizii, sunt absolut convinşi că nu dau socoteală în faţa societăţii. Pentru că oamenii se lasă cumpăraţi cu un kil de făină şi două găleţi de plastic cu sigla partidului. Pentru că nu mai cred în nimeni şi preferă să se aleagă cu ceva concret, decât să spere că alţii sunt mai buni. Pentru că ştiu că sunt minţiţi, dar asta nu contează.
Să mai calculăm o dată. Salariaţi, patru milioane şi jumătate. Un milion şi jumătate muncesc la negru. Fac şase milioane. Şomerii înregistraţi sunt peste şase sute de mii; să zicem că număraul total, adăugându-i pe cei ieşiţi din plată, se apropie de un milion. Deci, şapte. Afară – două milioane şi jumătate, poate trei, fac aproape zece milioane. Mai sunt cinci milioane şi jumătate de pensionari, restul copii. Asta e România. Avem un stat care nu ne merită.
autor: Ion M. IonitA sursa: adevarul.ro
Bilderberg. Whether you believe it’s part of a sinister conspiracy which will lead inexorably to one world government or whether you think it’s just an innocent high-level talking shop, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: it knows which way the wind is blowing. (Hat tips: Will/NoIdea/Ozboy)
At its June meeting in Sitges, Spain (unreported and held in camera, as is Bilderberg’s way), some of the world’s most powerful CEOs rubbed shoulders with notable academics and leading politicians. They included: the chairman of Fiat, the Irish Attorney General Paul Gallagher, the US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Dick Perle, the Queen of the Netherlands, the editor of the Economist…. Definitely not Z-list, in other words.
Which is what makes one particular item on the group’s discussion agenda so tremendously significant. See if you can spot the one I mean:
The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.
Yep, that’s right. Global Cooling.
Which means one of two things.
Either it was a printing error.
Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors.
Let me explain briefly why this is a bombshell waiting to explode.
Almost every government in the Western world from the USA to Britain to all the other EU states to Australia and New Zealand is currently committed to a policy of “decarbonisation.” This in turn is justified to (increasingly sceptical) electorates on the grounds that man-made CO2 is a prime driver of dangerous global warming and must therefore be reduced drastically, at no matter what social, economic and environmental cost. In the Eighties and Nineties, the global elite had a nice run of hot weather to support their (scientifically dubious) claims. But now they don’t. Winters are getting colder. Fuel bills are rising (in the name of combating climate change, natch). The wheels are starting to come off the AGW bandwagon. Ordinary people, resisting two decades of concerted brainwashing, are starting to notice.
All this, of course, spells big trouble for the global power elite. As well as leading to food shortages (as, for example, it becomes harder to grow wheat in northerly latitudes; adding, of course, to such already-present disasters as biofuels and the rejection of GM), global cooling is going to find electorates increasingly angry that they have been sold a pup.
Our fuel bills have risen inexorably; our countryside, our views and our property values have been ravaged by hideous wind farms; our holidays have been made more expensive; our cost of living has been driven up by green taxes; our freedoms have been curtailed in any number of pettily irritating ways from what kind of light bulbs we are permitted to use to how we dispose of our rubbish. And to what end? If man-made global warming was really happening and really a problem we might possibly have carried on putting up with all these constraints on our liberty and assaults on our income. But if it turns out to have been a myth……
Well then, all bets are off.
The next few years are going to be very interesting. Watch the global power elite squirming to reposition itself as it slowly distances itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming (”Who? Us? No. We never thought of it as more than a quaint theory…”), and tries to find new ways of justifying green taxation and control. (Ocean acidification; biodiversity; et al). You’ll notice sly shifts in policy spin. In Britain, for example, Chris “Chicken Little” Huhne’s suicidal “dash for wind” will be re-invented as a vital step towards “energy security.” There will be less talk of “combatting climate change” and more talk of “mitigation”. You’ll hear enviro-Nazis like Obama’s Science Czar John Holdren avoid reference to “global warming” like the plague, preferring the more reliably vague phrase “global climate disruption.”
And you know what the worst thing is? If we allow them to, they’re going to get away with it.
Our duty as free citizens over the next few years is to make sure that they don’t.
Al Gore, George Soros, Bill Gates, Carol Browner, John Holdren, Barack Obama, David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Tim Yeo, Michael Mann, Ted Turner, Robert Redford, Phil Jones, Chris Huhne, John Howard (yes really, he was supposed to be a conservative, but he was the man who kicked off Australia’s ETS), Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Yvo de Boer, Rajendra Pachauri….The list of the guilty goes on and on. Each in his own way – and whether through ignorance, naivety idealism or cynicism, it really doesn’t matter for the result has been the same – has done his bit to push the greatest con-trick in the history of science, forcing on global consumers the biggest bill in the history taxation, using “global warming” as an excuse to extend the reach of government further than it has ever gone before.
It is time we put a stop to this. In the US, the Tea Party movement is showing us the way. We need to punish these dodgy politicians at the ballot box. We need to ensure that those scientists guilty of malfeasance are, at the very least thrown out of the jobs which we taxpayers have been funding these last decades. We need to ensure that corporatist profiteers are no longer able to benefit from the distortion and corruption of the markets which result from green regulation.
We need a “Global Warming” Nuremberg.
As Paul Joseph Watson reports today, the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is moving forward is undergoing a transformation. The focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to “reduce fertility.”
Where the mantra used to be “to combat global warming, we need a one world government”, now it sounds something along the lines of “when we wish to eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers, by the way.” Any pretext will do. The same argument can of course be applied to every possible calamity “that flesh is heir to”- as Shakespeare wrote.
Following this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to other pretexts under which global population control can be sold. Want to reduce victims of drunk driving? Reduce human numbers. Looking to cure cancer? Reduce the birthrate so less people will die as a result of it. The scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.
Under the guidance of Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé’s Pejman Rohani and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology of infectious diseases. They write that the “poverty trap may (…) be broken by improving health conditions of the population.”
The question that arises, of course, is how to improve “health conditions”. In another study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:
““(…) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases.”
Earlier that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty; Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.
“We find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution would make Malthus proud”, Bonds writes.
“(…) the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”
“This model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow of susceptibles for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious diseases at the same time.”
If you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease, problem solved:
“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”
Disease and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mas-scale fertility reduction. This is the religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.
A UN blueprint for putting the organization back at the forefront of global governance alarmingly reveals the agenda to re-brand global warming as “overpopulation” as a means of dismantling the middle classes while using “global redistribution of wealth” and increased immigration to reinvigorate the pursuit of a one world government.
United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and 60 of his top lieutenants met this past Labor Day at a secluded Austrian Alpine retreat in a bid to get the global warming agenda back on track after the dismal failure of Copenhagen.
The planning paper that was handed out to delegates at the conference was subsequently leaked to Fox News, and outlines a strategy of exalting “global redistribution of wealth” as the basis of the climate change agenda.
As was uncovered during the Copenhagen summit, the program of “global redistribution of wealth” largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries through carbon taxes and then using that money to bankroll the construction of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries.
Under the terms of this proposal, poorer countries will not simply be handed the money pillaged from richer nations, instead they will be forced to accept “green loans” in the name of combating climate change, a policy that would land the already financially devastated third world with even more debt, payable to globalist institutions such as the IMF.
The new position paper couches the UN’s agenda behind convoluted semantics and happy-clappy globalist rhetoric, but the mission to use the fraudulent science of climate change, which the UN’s own IPCC has been caught manipulating time and time again, to completely eviscerate the middle class, is laid bare.
The aim is to “limit and redirect the aspirations for a better life of rising middle classes around the world,” in other words to reduce the standard of living for the middle classes in Western Europe and America.
As the opening session paper puts it: “The real challenge comes from the exponential growth of the global consumerist society driven by ever higher aspirations of the upper and middle layers in rich countries as well as the expanding demand of emerging middle-class in developing countries. Our true ambition should be therefore creating incentives for the profound transformation of attitudes and consumption styles.”
This is globalist talk for dismantling the middle classes by looting them with carbon taxes and consumption levies in the name of alleviating poverty in poorer areas of the world and stopping climate change. However, as we have already explained, this is merely a ruse. The money will not be “redistributed” to the poor, it will be swallowed up by the same globalist institutions running the scam.
The leaked document also discusses how the UN can exploit mass immigration to push for more global governance regulatory control, in focusing on, “How to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework.”
The paper makes it clear that the UN is about to adopt a new public relations ploy in pushing the phony and discredited global warming mantra, by re-branding it as the threat of overpopulation. The world’s population is set to hit 9 billion by 2050, and the strategy outlines the need to make that figure the key emphasis in an effort to browbeat people into accepting that an overcrowded planet causes environmental devastation.
“The U.N. leaders intend to keep trying to change that, especially when it comes to the climate agenda. “The next 40 years will prove pivotal,” one paper argues, while laying out the basis of a renewed U.N. climate campaign, the “50-50-50 Challenge,” states the Fox News report, adding that the goal for the UN is to reduce CO2 emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
However, the UN’s own figures clearly indicate that population is set to stabilize in 2020 and then drop dramatically after 2050 and indeed that underpopulation is going to be the real long term issue. As the Economist reported, “Fertility is falling and families are shrinking in places— such as Brazil, Indonesia, and even parts of India—that people think of as teeming with children. As our briefing shows, the fertility rate of half the world is now 2.1 or less—the magic number that is consistent with a stable population and is usually called “the replacement rate of fertility”. Sometime between 2020 and 2050 the world’s fertility rate will fall below the global replacement rate.”
To achieve their goal, the UN will have to oversee “nothing less than a fundamental transformation of the global economy,” states the report. In other words, economic growth will wither and be replaced by a “green economy” and a “post-industrial revolution.” Spain’s fundamental transformation of its economy over to a “green economy” has devastated the country, with unemployment hitting a crippling 20 per cent.
The blueprint makes it clear that the UN intends to reassert its role as the instigator and leader of a one world government, and will set about to achieve this by bypassing nation states and thwarting national sovereignty.
“The U.N. should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organizations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives,” states the paper.
“Is the global governance structure, still dominated by national sovereignty, capable of responding with the coherence and speed needed?” it asks. “Or do we need to push the ‘reset’ button and rethink global governance to meet the 50-50-50 Challenge?”
The planning document also makes it clear that the UN intends to drastically expand its role as the world’s policeman, by “building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force — a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed.”
The paper also outlines an intention to push new economic regulatory powers to enable the organization to introduce global financial regulation.
Paul Joseph Watson