Using green as an excuse to create the NWO

There’s a pattern in human affairs:

The cruelest manipulators hold out the prettiest symbols and visions, promising those if you just put them into power.

Like dogs rushing toward offal, the crowd eats it up and surges forward, then finds themselves in chains. “How did that happen? They didn’t say this was going to happen!” they say, and then happily go about their miserable lives because they never expected change anyway, nor would welcome it because it would challenge them.

A philosopher might say, “Verily, the appearance of things and their social symbols do not constitute a thing-in-itself, but instead the token of another mind’s processing of appearance.” But no one can understand that complexity anymore.

So it will happen again. Here’s one candidate. While I will always encourage green thinking and environmentalism of the oldest sort, Conservationism, I am suspicious of the motivations of the Crowd that has taken over the left, and suspect they will wreck the environment while using it as a symbol of their own righteousness and need for Power and Control.

A United Nations document on “climate change” that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.

Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations “information note” on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an “effective framework” for dealing with global warming.

FOX

I’m not blown away by our news media. They cheer one side or the other, but serve the same lobbyists and oligarchs. However, this is interesting enough to report for discussion.

One Comment

  1. KPl. says:

    Decide what you can live with in terms of physical wealth and privilege as a function of power consumption and pollution. Decide how many of you can live -at that level- and then breed down accordingly.
    We don’t need other people to tell us how we make our lives worthwhile. We need our own consciences to view the demand side of the stick and ask how many of us have to go to get there.
    I would rather put a stupid person in a condo, give them a 10,000 dollar a year Macdonalds fund and a 5,000 dollar a year (electronic) entertainment budget. Then try to make him a ‘useful part of society’ where his sum skillset comes down to flipping burgers for the other 7-of-10 ‘enablers’ that turn the cogs themselves, irrespective of the advancement of society itself.
    Once you accept that make-work is _engineered pollution_, shutting our borders and instituting mandatory birth control that puts us back in the 60-100 million range by 2100 becomes easily envisionable as the A#1 improvement that this nation can undertake UNILATERALLY towards the greenhouse issue.
    Beyond this, what it comes down to is infrastructure. The winds that blow every day of the year in the two Dakotas could, /by themselves/, supply this nation’s 3,900TWH requirements. Double that to account for replacement of oil and coal fired power generation with offshore wind and tidal generators and you can also look at an all-electric (automated) replacement for busses and private cars with ZERO economic impingence on families unable to pay for things like insurance, registration and other such nonsense.
    But if you are not willing to pay for the approximately 3 trillion dollars in new power distribution systems such an effort would take, you still need to work out some way to not further tax the existing grid. Preferrably by requiring all new-build houses generate at least 50% of their power use by solar or wind driven means and that that power be put into a /local/ community conditioning and storage system that amounts to converting four-lot housing areas into miniturbodynes able to do on-demand routing. Add to this a leveraged ‘new roof’ program, equivalent to what the Insurance Industry already does to put at least 25% power generation onto older homes and you still do -something- towards solving our nation’s power situation. This in turn can be advertised as both a more redundantly isolated (to major outtages, at home or overseas) and ultimately _economically viable_ solution to those who are also tired of paying 300 dollar a month utility bills in winter and want something to offset the 150-200 dollar a month water bills that they pay in summer.
    All without making promises we cannot and should not be forced to keep ‘for the world’s benefit’. Ahead of our own.
    Thinking Global is how you give the wrong people power. Acting local is how you reempower States Rights by putting tax dollars and regulation into the hands of those who want to improve OUR LIVES.
    In this, thinking green has nothing to do with acting upon some phantom menace of an NWO conspiracy. It’s just a good way to make ourselves less vulnerable to the kinds of external (oil through the roof again) and internal (unrestricted growth) conditions that make us all _poorer_ by doing nothing at all.

    KPl.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.570 seconds