Global Warming

New Post

Quotes (5)

Thomas Sowell / <cite>Dismantling America</cite>

The origin of many of the stratagems in this plan can be traced to a government-sponsored think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report From Iron Mountain. The purpose of the study was to analyze methods by which a government can perpetuate itself in power--ways to control it's citizens and prevent them from rebelling. The conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. Under world government, however, war technically would be impossible. So the main purpose of the study was to explore other methods for controlling populations and keeping them loyal to their leaders. It was concluded that a suitable substitute for war would require a new enemy which posed a frightful threat to survival. Neither the threat nor the enemy had to be real. They merely had to be believable.

Several surrogates for war were considered, but the only one holding real promise was the environmental-pollution model. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because (1) it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution-- in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, believable--and (2) predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not inform.

While the followers of the current environmental movement are preoccupied with visions of planetary doom, the leaders have an entirely different agenda. It is world government.

G. Edward Griffin / <cite>The Creature From Jekyll Island</cite>

The environmental movement was created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government.

G. Edward Griffin / <cite>The Creature From Jekyll Island</cite>

More important, however, is the question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies - or not studies at all - are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical environmental groups advocating socialist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions.

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters, It's what people can be made to believe that counts.

G. Edward Griffin / <cite>The Creature From Jekyll Island</cite>

The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. [...]

Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. [...]

An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not "credible."

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply "the price we must pay to save Mother Earth."

G. Edward Griffin / <cite>The Creature From Jekyll Island</cite>

Comments (2)

William Cooper: Vote for Relevance

Vote for Relevance

The much aligned "lame-duck" session of the 111th Congress is expected to resume pushing the retreaded climate-change myth in an attempt to draft cap-and-trade legislation, enabling redistribution of what's left of our wealth to labor unions, thereby reasserting additional control over all engaged. Once again, this re-emerges to become a political hot topic, used by progressive politicians to justify passage of even more "and for other purposes" legislation, which typifies earmarks re-directing revenues from generous taxpayers to special interest groups (ie: labor unions).

It's an established scientific fact that Earth climate-change is controlled by our sun within geological time-frames. Whenever man pretends to exalt himself as more relevant than Mother Nature, he foolishly resorts to a losing arguement that claims responsibility for enhanced CO2 levels, diverse weather patterns, global warming and climate change. Scientists have long recorded climate-change on Mars, depicted by shifting polar ice-caps, ebbing and flowing without any help from man. Could this indicate our sun may be the relevant cause of "global warming" on Mars, as well as on other planets within our solar system? If the sun is the culprit, is it reasonable to continue blaming man for poisoning earth's atmosphere with carbon dioxide? Hasn't Congress ever wondered how plant-life and humans would survive if deprived of necessary carbon dioxide-oxygen exchanges? Consider this fact: Scientific studies verify that The Kilauea Volcano annually expels more C02 than all of humanity. Should Congress, therefore, draft legislation taxing maverick volcanoes or waging war on rampaging lava?

Isn't it generally accepted that blindly repeating the same behaviors, while expecting different results, constitutes a working definition of insanity? Repeated attempts of progressive politicians to convince taxpayers to accept responsibility for climate-change, in justification of imposition of yet another tax, only convinced rational voters of a more relevant way to resolve this liberal assault on voter intelligence: As we replace many irrelevant progressive politicians in Washington DC with Congressional Conservatives on November 2, 2010, may this activity occur in rememberance of overseas active service military men and women deprived of an opportunity to vote because absentee ballots did not reach them in time, while imprisoned felons managed to enjoy making their votes count?. . . surprise, surprise!

Will results of mid-term national elections possibly infuse the legislative branch of our government with enough freshman legislators, committed to implementing a balanced federal budget, congressional term-limits, repeal of healthcare reform, a simplified income-tax system, reduction of federal employees and otherwise repairing our sick economy to forment enough responsible change to enable our children to realize the American Dream?

What else can the left use to threaten us into subservience . . . another ice age?

edisonik: It is like the Bully next Door

They are like Balloons , you Pop them Once or Twice they will leave you alone.
People have to get extremely Angry and say enough is enough, who said Violence doesn't solve anything surely it does, This Carbon Tax crap is the tip of the Iceberg, people have to get Mad and say enough is enough go shove this Legislation where the sun don't shine.

Site Statistics

Posts
48,614
Comments
31,969
Members
26,150