March 28, 2013 (#1297)
Alan Watt "Cutting Through The Matrix" LIVE on RBN:
Poem Copyright Alan Watt March 28, 2013:
Will it Rain? All On Board Green Gravy Train:
"Science Guise as Politics Rising to Rule
With Woolly Bogus Ideas Designed to Fool,
Using Buckets of Theory Disguised as Fact,
To Run the World "Properly" is Their Act,
Using Fear, Emotion, Hyping Green Religion,
Overwhelming Reason Leads to Perdition,
The Socialist Elitists' Eternal Dream,
Changing Raison d'ętre to What May Seem
Rule by Experts for Great Enterprise,
Marching Forward as One, Conditioned by Lies"
© Alan Watt March 28, 2013
Poem & Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - March 28, 2013 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)
Hi folks. I am Alan Watt and this is Cutting Through The Matrix on the 28th of March 2013. For newcomers, as always, I advise you to use the website cuttingthroughthematrix.com and you’ll start to understand the big system you’ve been born into, a system that your parents were oblivious of too. Because we’re living through a big, big business plan, a big, big agenda. It’s been on the go for well over a hundred years now, and much, much longer in fact if you go through all the different foundations and the name changes they’ve had over the centuries. But it’s really, we’re getting guided towards this global system, and not just any old global system but one that will suit a very special elite, to ensure that their offspring go off into the future, while the rest of us who helped them, launched them – it’s like launching a rocket – will just die away like booster rockets. And it’s coupled with Darwinianism and eugenics and so on. That’s really where we’re all headed right now. That’s why so much of your tax money is going into genetic research and so on. It’s not to help you down the road. After all, they’re all complaining that there’s too many people. Why would they help you and make you strong and healthy and live to a ripe old age, if that was the case? It’s either one or the other. What do they want? They do not want a planet, even at this present population; they want to vastly reduce the population and so on. But at the same time we are the herd and the shepherds have to live off the herd, and they make sure that there’s a good profit for them, as we all go down the tubes.
So help yourself to the website; as I say you’ve got lots of information on it. You’ll find out who’s behind it, the big foundations, the big clubs that they formed, worldwide, and how they help each other out, and how they literally work our minds too. Because there’s not an item you can read anywhere from any media that doesn’t have a spin on it and a PR/marketing hand involved in it, to make sure that you get the right opinion at the end of your read.
Remember too, you are the audience that bring me to you. You can help me keep going by getting the books and discs at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. You know that I don’t bring on advertisers as guests who scare you and then sell products and so on. I just tell you the sad truth. And it is sad because... it’s so sad that you’ve been trained not to really notice it. And it’s sad too that you’ve been also trained not to even think about being involved in stopping it; that’s the big one, a very deliberate act too. So as I say, [Order and donation options listed above.]. And remember straight donations, seriously, are awfully welcome in these times of inflation, they call it quantitative easing now; it sounds better doesn’t? And we’re going into austerity as well. As I say, it would be much, much appreciated.
But as I say, most folk are oblivious of the big organizations that run the world. We’re the most studied species on the planet, always have been, for thousands of years. Knowledge is never lost. Even when empires collapse, they don’t really just collapse by themselves. The ones who run the empires get out first, and they’ve already always set up a new one to start all over again with, and they take the knowledge with them. That’s how they rule the world, by understanding this kind of knowledge. The ancient philosophers in Greece were awfully good at telling you a lot about it, and even in their own day, of what they understood about human society and how to manage vast quantities of people. It’s never changed. Only today it’s such a vast quantity of knowledge, and plus they have a massive tax base across the world, and international organizations, they can certainly put think tanks, complete think tanks on even the simplest little human problem to find out how to manipulate us and how to make things work, for the advantage of those who rule. And believe you me, you are certainly ruled. You’re taught to simply be happy, be narcissistic, you’re taught to ignore the problems of the world, or even those around you, as long as you are okay. Narcissism and hedonism was to be promoted for this particular time, and by those who helped create the present culture. They wrote about it 50, 60, 70 years ago, and it’s worked like a charm. Back with more after this.
Hi folks, I’m back Cutting Through The Matrix. I’ve talked many times about the forms of mass mind control and behaviorism and so on, because everyone is manipulated. If you go back into even the 1800s you’ll find in the US and other countries, people were coming out talking about education, education, how all societies had to be educated. But what they really meant was they had to be given a particular kind of education, and to have obedience to the State. That was always foremost in those who hold power, obedience to the State. And it’s been awfully, awfully successful. Even when you’re taken over by another dominant minority that takes over government, they still enforce the same things, obedience to the State. So it doesn’t matter who takes over. Most folk don’t even notice when they’ve even been taken over, they just go along with it.
When you go through the history of Edward Bernays, I’ve mentioned Bernays many times, because he really was given the job, and he worked with many presidents of the US, different presidents, over his long life span, in ways of manipulating the public opinion and creating public opinion – very, very important of course. Most folk always think, because we tend to be egotistical in some way or another, that we’re in charge of our own minds. But very few folk really are. We’re indoctrinated at school to get the standardized opinion of the past, for instance. We forget too that every tyrannical regime – you can be in one without even knowing it, you just slide into it and adapt very quickly to all the new normals that you’re given. But every totalitarian regime always tells you how wonderful it is now, and they eradicate the past. They eradicate the past so you have nothing to compare the present with, and see how bad it is.
But Bernays, as I say, was a nephew of Freud, and Freud himself was another front man for a massive organization, was trying to find scientific reasons to change society, things which people would believe in, science, and science was being elevated above everything else, even reason, in those days too. Once something got a scientific title to it, then you would listen more intently than if you simply had someone’s opinion, some organization coming out. So even in religion, they started to bring in, add science to some even Christian churches, things like that. So they brought in this pseudoscience of psychiatry. It’s a fantastic history to psychiatry in itself and the things that they did to people, and patients, with the intent to cure them. Out of that too, it was coupled with the eugenics movement from the very, very beginning. And they thought they could manipulate the minds of whole societies by using psychiatry. Plus it was joined by behaviorism, eventually. The behaviorists joined it and really got in on the act as well. But you’ll find with behaviorism they can do so many experiments with society, and control groups, that they can find out what does work and what doesn’t work, to manipulate people in small settings. And if it works in a small setting it will work in a larger setting too. So they all work together for control. Control is the most important thing for dominant minorities; that’s what they’re there for. Always control.
But Bernays had contempt of the masses; I think it was his niece that said that – that eventually he hated the masses. He saw the people, especially Americans and so on, the Western cultures – which he hated for another reason, but he hated them – It was just too easy, he said, to manipulate their minds. In other words, you’ll find contempt comes the easier it is to use people; you become contemptuous of them. I’ve always given the analogy too, of some King sitting up on his throne, and there’s a few steps there, and some slave comes up and grovels, and he doesn’t look in his eyes, because you mustn’t look into a sovereign’s eyes, you see. He crawls up there and then he gets to the feet of the King, and he starts kissing, and the King just boots him down the stairs. And he gets up again and does the same thing again. Well, each time he does it the more he is despised by the King. That’s how people really are with those who suck up to them and keep getting abused. They despise you.
And whole teams of experts today work with every single government. In fact, they’re international, these experts; they work with them all now. They even do speechwriting for different presidents across the world, from the same speechwriters, to make sure they’re all on board, standardized speeches, all globalism, globalism, globalism.
So as I say, Bernays was a big master of all of this. He gave America the consumerist society basically, how to advertise and use unconscious impulses, bring them to the surface, and transfer them from the unconscious and onto physical items like cars and things like that. And it worked awfully, awfully well. But he used a lot of sex as well, things that he’d learned not just from his uncle Freud, but from other people too, long before him. Because as I say, there are people down through the ages, especially in the mercantile departments, who understand the techniques of manipulation of people to buy. Very, very important. And if you can use manipulations to make them buy, even when they can’t afford things, you can use the same manipulations for other things too, political movements and so on, or even fanatical movements like greening and all that kind of stuff.
As I say, Bernays went on, and even one of his relatives still runs a lot of the British propaganda yet for the British government; his name is Freud as well. But anyway, that’s only one character involved, but he had a massive impact. He did work, as I say, with many presidents on big things, including the post consumer society as well. So we’re manipulated from above and most folk don’t know it. And marketing came out of this whole agenda. Marketers really are trained in very high sciences of mass manipulations. Things that sound silly in advertising, if they’re discussing them amongst themselves, actually work on the general populations. It’s sad to say. Very sad to say.
But as I say, mass movements are the same kind of thing. And mass movements become fanatical. Among society you’ve got different personality types. Those who have got big chips on their shoulders, especially, will form groups. The big boys know, and Bernays said this. He said, rather than form groups, look what’s already in existence, if you want to sell things, for an example, or get a political movement going. He said, whenever you go into a new city – this is before the Internet of course naturally, and all this kind of stuff – he said, you simply look up the telephone directories and you get all the different groups in the area, church groups, everything, and you try and get in and get your point of view and what you want across to them, and they become the army that promote your ideas. So you use existing groups to start with, you see. And even though, if you get those existing groups, even if they have a particular agenda, then you can manipulate them, warp them and turn them off into a different agenda. That happens all the time.
So it’s a very old science, that they’ve used in politics, many, many centuries ago, the same idea. If they get an opposition force, infiltrate, give them a great fantastic ideal to fight for, that’s slightly similar to the first one that they already formed for, and you warp them off into your own agenda, and they follow you. Sad, isn’t it, that it’s so easy to do. Very sad. So as I say, they look for particular people who have got chips on their shoulder, grudges, and so on. Even the international revolutionary movement, that Albert Pike talked about it, and Mazzini talked about too – they were the heads of it at one point – eventually it transformed itself into the World Communist Society, and Lenin took over. They also knew all of these tricks. They were all trained in these tricks, of how to use mass man and different groups, and use persuasion to win them over to what you wanted to use them for. And they would be the last to find out that they were getting used. Old, old techniques.
It’s the same with the greening agenda too. Now, most folk think it’s a grassroots thing that started off. It was nothing of the kind in fact. It’s all to suit the big boys at the top, to control all of us, under the guise of saving us; that’s why it works so well. Oh, you’re all going to die, you’re all going to die, give us all your power and your freedom and everything else, and we’ll run the world in such a way that you’ll live. It’s very simple, isn’t it? And it works terribly well. Of course, it’s done through repetition, repetition, repetition, and particularly selected videos, with the right camera angles and things, that are all fake generally, to terrify the bejesus out of you, as they used to say in Ireland. And it works awfully well.
Now, people don’t know the history of the greening movement either. Tonight I’ll put up an article and it’s from the Global Warming Policy Foundation. It’s quite an interesting article because this guy tells you a lot of the history of the greening movement. As I say, it’s used really for high political purposes, not to help the planet. We already see the carbon taxes coming in, the redistribution of wealth to more bankers – it never goes to the public, it goes to the bankers at the top, because they designed it all. They have whole bunches of marketers working on manipulation of groups to get the cash off them and get them working for nothing, so that we’ll all end up paying massive carbon taxes. Remember that the world that they’ve planned is where they can give us less, of everything, at a vastly more expensive price for the same things, like electricity. So they’ll get stinking rich, even more than they are already, the big boys, and they give you a lot less in return, to save you all, you understand… to save you, yep, and future generations and so on. Total power over everything. So this article, as I say, is from Rupert Darwall and it’s quite an interesting little article. He goes through it and he says…
Rupert Darwall: The Age Of Global Warming
thegwpf.org / 28/03/13 / Rupert Darwall
Speech given by Rupert Darwall at the GWPF Book Event on 27 March 2013:
I vividly recall listening to your CPS talk some 6 years ago. Global warming was a problem identified – I’m tempted to say invented – by scientists.
But you argued, global warming policies are a matter for economists and, pre-eminently, for democratically elected politicians.
Second, using the IPCC’s own numbers, the case for drastic action rested on people in the developing world being 9.5 times better off than they are today rather than 8.5 times better off if climate change was left to its natural course (Alan: And that’s true, that’s what they came out and said.) – a patently absurd proposition to impoverish the present for the benefit of the future.
And third, the superiority of adaptation over trying to cut emissions, because with adaptation you can pocket the benefits of warmer temperatures while reducing the costs of coping with them.
I would like to suggest a slight modification to the case for adaptation which I’ll come back to at the end of my talk.
It was Georges Pompidou, the most neglected of president of the 5th Republic and perhaps the most interesting, who said:
‘There are 3 roads to ruin. Women, gambling and technicians. The most pleasant is with women. The quickest is with gambling. But the surest is with technicians.’
I wonder what he would have said if he had met a climate scientist. (A: See, that’s the fourth way. I’ll be back with more after this break.)
Hi folks, I’m back. This is Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about climate change and the rise of scientists, you see. Remember too, I’ve mentioned that Bertrand Russell and others talked about the scientific tyrannies that would come, and he was all for science taking over charge of the world, tossing religion out of the way, and the public opinion out of the way, and scientists should just rule with no inhibitions, nothing to hold them back whatsoever, and run the world properly, on behalf of the elite, you see. So this ties in with this article I’m reading here by Rupert Darwall. He says…
I wonder what he would have said if he had met a climate scientist.
For what distinguishes the age of global warming is that scientists — particularly climate scientists — had more impact on public policy and on the destiny of nations than in any other era. Karl Marx wrote that great world historic events happen twice – the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. With global warming and the role of scientists in directing the future of society, Marx’s formulation can be reversed: First the farce, then the tragedy.
It was in the 1960s (A: ...and that was the cultural revolution. It was also a revolution to take over and alter America, by a new dominant minority, by the way.) and the early 1970s that scientists first staked their claim to political power, when the West experienced its first Environmental Wave. Scientists were among the most prominent riding it. Economic growth was in conflict with nature and the environment, they argued.
In 1972, 37 eminent experts, including 5 Fellows of the Royal Society and 16 holders of science chairs at British universities predicted the termination of industrial civilization within the lifetime of people then living. A choice had to be made, the scientists said, between famine, epidemics and war on the one hand, or a succession of what the scientists called ‘thoughtful, humane and measured changes.’ (A: They want to drastically reduce the population; they’re still trumpeting that today.)
Few groups have collectively a worse predictive record than scientists when it comes to the future of society.
‘Nothing discredits modern bourgeois development so much as the fact that it has not yet succeeded in getting beyond the economic forms of the animal world.’- Friedrich Engels wrote in the 1860s.
Engels had a point, because it is not too much of a generalisation to say that the economic forms of the animal world represent the level of understanding of natural scientists when they opine on economic processes.
Fortunately, first time around, scientists’ advice was ignored. (A: And that’s true. Fortunately most folk said, oh get away.) Although in many ways the rhetoric of alarm was more extreme then than it is now (A: And at that time too, they were pushing that we were going to go into an ice age, and you’ve got to hand it all over – a man-made Ice Age by the way, just like man-made global warming.), the First Environmental Wave peaked too quickly and broke even more rapidly. In October 1973, Egyptian tanks crossed the Suez Canal. OPEC’s oil price shocks did what the scientists advocated: The economies of the West stopped growing. When growth disappeared, so too did the limits to growth debates of the early 1970s. (A: ...from the Club of Rome; that was Limits to Growth.)
Unfortunately for us, the long tail of the Second Environmental Wave, propelled by global warming, carries the active debris of militant green policies to decarbonise our economies, in effect, trying to repeal the industrial revolution with the colossal costs involved in trying to do so.
Because every discussion on global warming at some point comes back to the science, that is where I would like to start – specifically, with scientists. I have already made one observation about scientists and their reliance on what Engels called the economic forms of the animal world.
The second relates to the philosophy of science and the crucial question as to what constitutes scientific knowledge. More surprising than scientists’ lack of understanding of established economic concepts is their unfamiliarity with the epistemological bounds of their field of knowledge. In his 1962 classic, ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, Thomas Kuhn observed:
‘Though many scientists talk easily and well about the particular individual hypotheses that underlie a concrete piece of current research, they are little better than laymen at characterising the established bases of their field, its legitimate problems and methods.’
Nearly half a century later, in one of his last lectures, the climate scientist Stephen Schneider made the same point somewhat differently:
‘Very few people learn about the basic philosophy of science and how it works,’ Schneider said.
As he put it:
‘Universities were handing out PhDs in science with no Ph. in them.’ (A: ...and it’s true. See, these are social/political agendas, folks, and they just churn out these PhDs, because they are in the vanguard, you see, for change, planned change on behalf of the Masters at the top.)
A couple of years ago, the climate scientist Mike Hulme wrote an interesting book ‘Why we disagree about climate change.’ I emailed Mike to say it missed out the most fundamental disagreement – its epistemological basis.
According to Karl Popper, the 20th century’s leading philosopher of science, the essence of the scientific method is critical argument and genuine attempts to refute theories with empirical tests yielding reproducible results. Because we cannot be certain of the truth, but can know what is false, in science, the truth is approached by discarding what has been proved to be false. From this, Popper derived the criterion of falsifiability – the quality of a scientific theory is its capacity to give rise to experiments that in principle could yield empirical evidence that refutes it. Thus the more a theory precludes, the stronger a theory is.
On that basis, what hardened into the scientific orthodoxy underpinning global warming does not meet the threshold of being a scientific theory. It would be more accurate to describe it as a conjecture or speculation. Instead, global warming must depend on the preponderance of scientific opinion.
In turn, maintaining the scientific consensus had profound consequences, for it brought global warming into conflict with what Popper called the essence of the scientific method – critical argument and attempts to overthrow it — a conflict between the advocacy requirements of ‘state science’ and the epistemological demands of the real thing. (A: What he’s talking about, it’s a political agenda. Back with more after this break.)
Hi folks, I’m back Cutting Through The Matrix, talking about Robert Darwall and this article that he wrote. It’s very, very good indeed. It’s quite lengthy too; I won’t read it all. But he does go into a lot of the history of the global warming nonsense and so on, using fact, the facts of history that most of you actually won’t know. It goes into when it first became a kind of theory and so on. But it says here the reason it’s become so strong, this whole idea of global warming, he says,
The science is weak. The idea is strong. (A: ...the science is weak... the science is weak, to prove it. But see, the idea is strong. And that’s what it is, it’s a big idea. Remember what, you know, Bush Sr said? ...the big idea? ...the new world order and so on? ...coming into view? It’s a BIG idea… Ideas are the things that they’ve got to push out there, and then they’ll convince you of the idea, so you get caught up in it, just like a big movement, using emotion and so on. The idea is strong but the science is weak. I mean, it’s awfully lucrative too for the guys in it. He says…)
When we are talking about science, we are not talking about what John Tyndall found in a test tube, but predicting what happens to temperatures in response to small changes in the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The science is inherently weak because it is not capable of being falsified in the here and now. It is weak because it doesn’t appear to preclude several years of standstill in average global temperature, or even, for all I know, declines in average global temperature. Neither does it preclude it snowing in March – contrary to one of the most famous prophecies made by any climate scientist. (A: ...which was...)
‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ predicted David Viner of the University of East Anglia in March 2000. (A: That’s right, there’s going to be no more snow. Look at this year… all over the place… in March.).
Voluminous evidence is itself testament to global warming’s weakness as science. As Karl Popper argued in the 1920s, it is almost always possible to find evidence to support a proposition. Come rain or shine, drought or storm, global warming came to acquire the characteristics of phlogiston in the 18th century theory of combustion. (A: ...which was eventually thrown out as being bogus. And it goes on and on but it’s very good. It gives you some of the things that happened in the early 20th century to do with this whole big idea theory, and giving scientists more power. See, scientists want power in every single field, right down to human life itself, and remanufacturing, redesigning human life. All kinds of power. This is the scientific tyranny that Bertrand Russell talked about; he was all for it, as I said. And it goes all the way back to Thomas Malthus, because it brings in too many people, there’s too many people.)
Alarm about population growth was popularised by Thomas Malthus at the beginning of the 19th century – a century in which Britain’s population nearly quadrupled; cash wages for factory workers rose 50%; the purchasing power of money doubled; and life expectancy began its long-term increase.
Despite the failure of Malthus’s prediction that population growth would be repeatedly checked by famine, disease and war, for true believers, the idea that there are or will be too many humans is an article of faith. (A: It cannot be proven.)
In 1865, the brilliant economist William Stanley Jevons modified the Malthusian construct. Resource depletion in the form of exhaustion of cheap coal meant the prosperity of Victorian Britain could not last. (A: That was another thing too, running out of resources. See, all this stuff he’s talking about is combined in the present global warming movement.)
Jevons made the mistake that every one of his depletionist successors makes. He had not factored in the impact of new technologies and new discoveries. Jevons convinced himself that the steam engine was the farthest mankind could progress. Electrical power was a delusion and petroleum was merely the liquid essence of coal – and an expensive one at that.
Keynes wrote that Jevons’s conclusions were influenced by a psychological trait which many shared but was unusually strong in him, of a certain hoarding instinct and readiness to be alarmed by the idea of exhaustion of resources.
By contrast, Marx and Engels utterly rejected the notion of capitalist economies being constrained by a fixed resource endowment and static technology.
‘We start from the premise that the same forces which have created modern bourgeois society … will also suffice … to raise the productive powers of each individual so much he can produce enough for the consumption of two, three, four, five or six individuals’,
Then there is the entry of nature into politics. In Britain, its entrance occurred between the two world wars. (A: World war one and world war two.) And what a strange entrance it was. There were the distributists (A: That’s what they called them, distributists...), prominent among them GK Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc, who believed every family should have three acres and a cow. Then there were these folk…
the Kindred of the Kibbo Kift.
Those of you familiar with the ancient Kentish language (A: ...in England.) will know what Kibbo Kift means. For the rest, it means – allegedly – proof of great strength. Note the North American Indian totem poles, the authentic Anglo-Saxon hoody and the interesting footwear …
… they had not progressed to wearing sandals. (A: ...then.)
In the 1930s, the Kibbo Kift started championing economic salvation in the form of Major Douglas’s cranky A+B theorem….
and morphed into the Green Shirt movement. (A: Did you know there was a Green Shirt movement in Britain and Europe?) They went on marches through London calling for the stringing up of bankers and the payment of the national dividend.
It is amazing how little has changed since the 1930s.
The Green Shirts were opposed by Oswald Moseley’s Black Shirts. There were clashes and scuffles between them, leading Parliament to pass the Public Order Act of 1937 which banned uniformed marches. Proto-environmentalism also existed among the Black Shirts and the pre-war circle of Nazi sympathisers. Moseley’s agriculture adviser, who penned this pamphlet for the British Union of Fascists …
… after the Second World War edited the Soil Association’s journal (A: ...called, guess what...) ‘Mother Earth.’ (A: Did you know that?)
The sudden emergence of environmentalism as a political movement in the post-war world can be dated with precision – to 1962 (A: That’s when the big revolutions in America and elsewhere were happening. They called it the ‘youth movement’ and ‘sexual liberation’ and all that kind of stuff.) and publication of Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’. In reality, ‘Silent Spring’ is a work of fiction – and all the more powerful for that. (A: Fiction is more powerful than dry stuff, you see.) The political impact of environmentalism following ‘Silent Spring’ was immense. I would go so far as to say that ‘Silent Spring’ is the most consequential book of the post-war era. Just ten years separate ‘Silent Spring’ from the first major UN conference on the environment at Stockholm in 1972.
So here is the moment to introduce perhaps the most influential person you have never heard of. (A: And it said Barbara Ward...)
I had not heard of Barbara Ward until I started researching the book. Other than the Queen, Barbara Ward must have been the best connected woman of the 20th century. Friends with Hebert Morrison and Ernest Bevin, she escorted a young American Naval officer – John F. Kennedy during the 1945 general election. Lyndon Johnson said hers were the only books he ever read. Harold Wilson (A: ... who was the Prime Minister of Britain.) and Ted Heath (A: ...Prime Minister.) were both fervent admirers. She was friends with the first generation of African leaders and with Indira Gandhi. And she helped write Papal encyclicals. Ward believed in planning and she believed in world government. If you are in to all that sort of thing, you would love her.
If you are not, you might be surprised at just how much she has shaped the world in which we live.
To avert a threatened Third World boycott of the Stockholm conference, Barbara Ward – sipping Dom Perignon with the conference organiser Maurice Strong (A: ...who was another pal.) - devised a political formula to insulate the Third World’s development aspirations from First World environmentalism. The essence of what they came up with is that economic growth is double-edged.
In the case of rich countries, growth harms the environment.
In the case of developing nations, growth improves the environment.
After Stockholm, Barbara Ward fleshed out an alliance of convenience between environmentalism and the Third World, which today the world knows as sustainable development. In return for participating in, but not being bound by, international environmental initiatives, the Third World would receive copious flows of development aid. (A: That’s your redistribution of wealth that you’re going through.) Whilst professing a wish – it was not put more strongly than that – to avoid the developed world’s pattern of industrialisation, each country retained its sovereign right to determine for itself the trade-off between development and the environment. In the 1970s and 1980s, this agenda was crystallised in the New International Economic Order. (A: That’s the official title of it at the United Nations.)
It was further developed in the Brandt Report of 1981 and the Brundtland Report of 1987. An early and persistent critic of Ward’s approach down to the present day was and, I am glad to say, is David Henderson. Writing on the Brandt report, Henderson criticised the report’s view that poor countries couldn’t grow without massive flows of aid from North to South. Evidence to the contrary was treated as an ‘unfact’ by the Brandt commission. The belief that economic problems had determinate solutions embodied a definite magical element in which, Henderson wrote,
‘Events are treated as though they could be made predictable and manipulable by formulae or spells.’
The final idea is the pre-eminent role of science – that science should be mobilized to save the planet – science as global therapeutics. It was pithily expressed by the first political leader of undoubted world stature to embrace global warming,
‘The problems science has created, science can in fact solve.’
That was in a 1989 BBC television interview entitled ‘The Greening of Mrs Thatcher.’ (A: ...the Prime Minister.)
During the age of global warming, this had a number of undesirable consequences. Despite their abysmal predictive record and their predisposition to unwarranted pessimism about the future of humanity, it gave scientists an enormously enhanced political role. Because climate science became the leading branch of global therapeutics, it made climate science too big to fail. And in becoming a tool of political advocacy, the nature of climate science became antithetical to science itself.
‘What is called objectivity consists solely in the critical approach,’ Popper wrote.
Because criticism risked undermining the consensus needed to save the planet, evidence was withheld and criticism delegitimized as serving the interests of malign fossil fuel corporations. It also blinded scientists and governments alike to the inescapable logic of global warming. A tonne of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere has the same physical impact irrespective of who put it there. Absent a global agreement covering the world’s largest economies, even if the scientists are right, decarbonising the British economy is entirely pointless. Given all the history, the biggest surprise about the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference is that anyone was remotely surprised at the outcome.
When global warming first entered international politics in 1988, it was into a pre-existing set of Third World demands and conditions, the most important being that their economic development should not be constrained by environmental obligations. Belief that the Third World would agree to limit their use of fossil fuels ignores the history of the developing world’s strictly conditional involvement with First World environmentalism going back to the 1972 Stockholm conference. There was never a chance.
The leaders of the developing world understood better than Western politicians what the French economist Frederic Bastiat found in the 19th century. Bastiat asked: Why is it famine in Europe had become a thing of the past?
The answer: The means of existence rise far above the means of subsistence. When years of scarcity come, we can give up some enjoyments before encroaching up the necessities of life.
So to my final thought:
The best defence against capricious nature and the best global warming policy is: Economic growth – and do not do anything that stops us and the developing world from growing.
And that’s it summed up there. Folk don’t know too, that Maggie Thatcher ran, to get into politics, on this whole new theory of global warming and so on. And again, it was used as a tactic by her to get more folk behind her to vote. So it’s all bogus, folks. It’s all bogus. And it goes back, this history of it, this mass movement, this emotional crazy movement goes back a long ways, and it’s tied in with eugenics, and Malthusianism, and much, much more. But I’ll put this link up tonight for those who want to read it. A very good article.
Now, Canada has just said they’re going to leave the UN Drought Agreement. Again, see, we’re paying money through all these fake, fake, fake things they keep playing up, and we’re getting bled to the bone, as you well know. Inflation is going up, yada-yada-ya, and we’re getting bled to the bone. It says…
bbc.co.uk / 28 March 2013
Canada is leaving a drought treaty, becoming the only UN member to do so, Canadian media report.
The cabinet issued the order last week, but did not announce the move, ahead of a convention in Germany next month.
The decision seems to have surprised the UN, which apparently only became aware of it when informed during a phone call by the Canadian Press.
Canada ratified the treaty to fight global drought in 1995, along with 154 countries and the European Union.
The cabinet order "authorises the minister of foreign affairs to take the actions necessary to withdraw, on behalf of Canada, from the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, in those countries experiencing severe drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa".
Canada's withdrawal comes ahead of a major convention in Bonn, Germany, "to carry out the first ever comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of desertification, land degradation and drought", the UN Environment Programme said.
(A: It said there was....) 'Little benefit' (A: ...in the whole program. And that’s very, very true.)
Understand, all this cash and all these programs go to a lot of these big NGOs that just walk around with picnics and so on, strolling over, you know, mountains and all that, taking photographs and taking up little samples of sand here and there, etc., and just writing rubbish, which they get paid an awful lot for. This is the world they live in. It’s just incredible. People are living the life of Riley on your tax bucks and there’s thousands of organizations doing this... nonsense.
Now, a warning too, to people in the States and elsewhere because the ministry of not just agriculture and forestry, all the different ministries are involved in this, but there’s…
Poisonous M44 Sodium Cyanide Traps - youtube.com
...getting put into forests and places. Don’t let your children or dogs go near them. I’ll put a link up tonight to show you the outcome of some people who were walking their dogs, and these cyanide things spring up in their dogs’ faces. It gets into their mouths, it activates and they die of cyanide poisoning. Nasty stuff. One woman was affected with it too; she tried to save her dog. And there’s no warnings, nothing. Poisonous M44 Sodium Cyanide Traps. I’ll put that up tonight. It’s just incredible, folks.
Now, most folk don’t know there was a biosecurity act passed. Biosecurity… on behalf of, guess who? Big Pharma... who also give you all your vaccinations. See, it’s to legitimize their use of vaccinations, and more and more vaccinations. And it’s big money for them because they’re in cahoots with government, who order all this stuff in advance now, for things that will never happen, from stuff that’s never been tested. Now they’re really branching out. Again, you give an idea to bureaucrats and new agencies and they go crazy; they expand into all different areas. I was talking about the worms last night; earthworms are now a danger, a menace to the planet. [Alan chuckles.] ...you know, global warming. Now of course birds, wild birds are part of it too, pet birds and poultry, avian influenza and so on. They’re talking about influenza, and all birds could be affected. So now birds, all wild birds, and even bird pets, are on the biosecurity list, folks, as they’re killing off millions of them, to save the farmers’ seeds, supposedly. I’ll put this link up too.
And also, “USDA Admits Exterminating Birds, Crops, and Bees”, and I’ll put that one up tonight too; it’s quite interesting indeed. And I’ll put up ones tonight too from the Department of Agriculture, that I put up before, a whole list of stuff. They give you, actually, annual lists of all the millions of birds they’re killing off, all the songbirds and everything. It’s happening in Britain too, but most of the public, even the politicians, don’t know it’s being done, on behalf of saving the big Agri-food business’s boys, the big corporate boys, because they’re losing about a seed here and there, so they’re actually poisoning the birds. All those birds dropping out of the sky… they’re all eating this stuff, this poison they’re putting out for them. That’s why they’re dropping out of the sky, across the world. They’re all at it. Back with more after this break.
When the sky rains starlings - niagara-gazette.com / March 12, 2013 / Bob Confer
National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC)
Dead birds in Sweden killed by 'external blows' - cnn.com / CNN Wires Staff / January 5, 2011
Final 100 ruddy ducks in the UK facing extermination - guardian.co.uk / 8 March 2012 / John Vidal
Defra to remove problem monk parakeets from wild - bbc.co.uk/ 24 April 2011
Alan: Hi folks. We’re Cutting Through The Matrix and I’ll go to Tom from Wisconsin if he’s still there. Are you there Tom?
Tom: Yeah, I’m here Alan. Hey, I’m actually in the kitchen with my girlfriend here at the moment, and I just wanted to share that with everybody, that I’m actually somewhat normal. But I basically wanted to ask you two questions real quick and then make just a quick comment. Do you personally believe that the controllers of this planet, do you believe that they will eventually try to create a merger between their intellect and the computer system, the machine? And do you also believe, or know, that there will eventually be a rise of the machines akin to Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, and then also Terminator 4: Salvation? And then I also just wanted to quickly comment that, you know, my boss at work, he’s obsessed with golf. But he really enjoys seeing made-up bumper stickers about Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama being the two people on the ticket for the presidential nomination, the presidential run in 2016. And it’s like, is that kind of ridiculousness and entertainment culture that will be the destruction of our society?
Alan: Politics is entertainment. The people they put out there are front people. They’re just front people, they’re puppets. And the people behind them… Actually, the speechwriter is more important than the president, because he’s been trained in the universal group that runs society. He knows the international agenda and he writes the speeches accordingly; the guy in front just parrots it off and reads it off a dummy board. So anybody can get put in front of you, it doesn’t really matter.
But as far as the interfacing of computers and humans, they’ve been doing that in Sweden. Sweden was one of the first countries to try that; they used prisoners in the 1970s onwards. They actually put live wires straight into computers from the brains of prisoners. The idea was that down the road they could not just manipulate people remotely. You had Joseph Delgado for instance, look at the experiments that he has done for the FBI and the CIA and so on; you get a lot of stuff on Joseph Delgado. But also, the elite eventually want to use, they call it ‘unloading engrams’ into computer systems; there’s articles out there right now on that, that they could live forever, technically. If they can unload all the engrams in their brain into a computer system, technically they could live forever within that system. Much like the Lawnmower Man idea, that movie, Lawnmower Man. So they’ve been heavily working at that. Plus Arthur C Clarke in his books 2001 and 2010... His last one was 3001 and in that system the ultra elite who ran everything – all the masses were killed and died off, all the useless eaters; they didn’t need them anymore. And it was just an elite that lived a life of Riley, basically, a very happy life. They had a chip interfaced with a crown you put on your head, once per day, and the computer would check you out to see if you had any nefarious plans in trying to get dominance over the rest. So the computer then would be the arbitrator of who is the most powerful and it would keep everybody else in check, to stop the psychopaths at the top killing each other, because they would be the only ones that were left then basically.
So they’re definitely working on that. I don’t see why not, that one day they couldn’t do it, if not already. I don’t see why not… if we let them do it, that is. But mind you they’ll do it to us too, and it won’t be to free our minds, it will be to enslave us completely… completely. They’ve already said there’ll be no such thing, for the masses, as individualism. You’ll be like a herd of people with whispers going through your head back and forth toward central computers. In other words, the Borg. But thanks for calling.
From Hamish and myself from Ontario, Canada, it’s good night and may your God or your Gods GO with you.
Topics of show covered in following links:
Rupert Darwall---The Age of Global Warming
Canada Leaves UN Drought Agreement
Poisonous M44 Sodium Cyanide Traps
Birds Classed as Terrorists Under Biosecurity Act
USDA Admits to Exterminating Birds, Crops and Bees
When the sky rains starlings
USDA Lethal Control of Blackbirds to Manage Damage to Sunflower
Gov. PDF on Gov. Quotas of Bird Species Killed
& More on Above
USDA Wildlife Damage Management (Culling)
& More on Above
Dead birds in Sweden killed by 'external blows'
Ruddy Duck Ordered to be Exterminated--UK
Monk Parakeet Ordered to be Exterminated--UK