Category: World Watch
Oct 21, 2010
James Cameron is still hiding and refusing to debate Global warming.
But that doesn’t stop him from wanting to tell the rest of us what to do.
And he is not afraid to spend money to tell the rest of us we have to live with less.
Cameron has just given $1m to help defeat California’s Prop23 which will overturn the Global Warming Bill. If Cameron succeeds and Prop 23 is defeated energy bills will go up – prices will increase and yet more jobs will flee the state.
Cameron has already told us that we are “going to have to live with less” but it seems that living for less is just for us and not for him.
Nothing has or will change in James Cameron’s lifestyle.
August 16, 2010 Former interim U.N. ambassador and leading neocon John Bolton went on Fox News on Friday and sounded the alarm bells over Russia’s pending delivery of nuclear fuel to Iran’s Bushehr reactor.
August 2, 2010 PP
In the article titled “The Energy Innovation imperative: Addressing Oil Dependence, Climate Change, and Other 21st Century Energy Challenges“, Holdren admits (among other things) that notions such as “notably improving health care, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities for women” are, although “attractive in their own right”, only measures by which reduced population growth can be achieved. In regards to population-issues Holden writes (page 15):
“Lower is better for many reasons. If world population were 8 billion in 2100 rather than the midrange UN forecast of about 10 billion, holding down the carbon emissions from the energy to make everybody prosperous would be that much easier. Fortunately, reduced population growth can be achieved by measures that are attractive in their own right (notably improving health care, reproductive rights, and educational opportunities for women).”
Holdren makes it very clear he isn’t satisfied by the UN-target of 10 billion by the year 2100 (he would prefer cutting that number by 2 billion), he admits that improving health, reproductive rights and educational opportunities for women are means to that end.
What is interesting as well, the same year Holdren published that essay, there was a man by the name of John Cleland, professor of medical demography of the London school of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He admitted to- and rejected- the fact that the scientific and political communities use coded language when speaking of population control.
Speaking in front of representatives of the UN Population fund, the International Planned Parenthood Foundation, European Commission, World Bank and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Cleland stated (page 33):
“No more shrouding our statements in code. Because code just confuses people.(…) It does this cause no service at all to continue to shroud family planning in the obfuscating phrase “sexual and reproductive health”. People don’t really know what it means. If we mean family planning or contraception, we must say it. If we are worried about population growth, we must say it. We must use proper, straightforward language. I am fed up with the political correctness that daren’t say the name population stabilization, hardly dares to mention family planning or contraception out of fear that somebody is going to get offended. It is pathetic!”
It gets scareir:
In the mid-seventies, the current White House science czar had no problem using straightforward language, no problem at all, when he argued for a wide range of measures to cut population size to an “acceptable” level. In the much-debated textbook Ecoscience, Holdren was not hindered by political correctness when he proposed a number of gruesome measures to lower worldwide fertility-levels:
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
It’s becoming clear that the aim of reducing the world’s population was still firmly on John P. Holdren’s mind in 2006, just as it was in 1977 when he co-authored Ecoscience. What has changed is the language he chooses to use.
He’s still on Britain‘s least-wanted list.
Talk radio host Michael Savage has waged a vigorous fight against the British government, hoping to have his name removed from a list of 16 “undesirables” banned from the country on May 5, 2009, by then British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.
The list included Islamist terrorists, neo-Nazis and Russian gang members — and Mr. Savage says he’s still on the new version, despite his efforts to persuade British officials that his inclusion is unwarranted and unfair.
All governments are essentially amoral,” he told The Washington Times on Monday. “I had hopes but did not expect this ‘new’ UK government to restore sanity to Britain. They are still pandering to the Muslim masses. To continue to martyr me by including me on a list of known murderers and terrorists is bad enough but for the U.S. and Western media which considers itself ‘progressive’ to continue to ignore this outrage against freedom of speech is indicative that the media and governments are one and the same. This includes so-called conservatives. Has freedom of the press become greed-om of the press?” he concluded.
The British government described Mr. Savage as a “controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behavior by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.”
His book “Banned in Britain: Beating the Liberal Blacklist,” published in late 2009, presents the case that his name was included on the roster of public enemies in order to “balance” the list — which was primarily composed of Muslims.
The talk radio host is also irked by the fact that Britain has issued an eight-page guide to officials that recommends they not use such words as “Islamist,” “jihadi” and “fundamentalist,” and avoid making “explicit” links between Muslims and terrorism.
Prison Planet.com reports:
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The fact that Barack Obama is nothing more than a corporate sock puppet, has once again been emphasized with the revelation that corporate media mogul and Bilderberg luminary Mortimer Zuckerman wrote one of Obama’s political speeches.
“Well I voted for Obama, I helped write one of his speeches,” Zuckerman told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto yesterday.
Asked which speech he helped write, Zuckerman responded, “I’d rather not go into that.”
Zuckerman is listed as the 147th wealthiest American. He is the owner and publisher of the New York Daily News and is also the current editor-in-chief of U.S. News & World Report.
Zuckerman is a regular attendee of the annual Bilderberg Group meetings and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. As we reported at the time, Barack Obama was likely anointed by the Bilderbergers in favor of Hillary Clinton when the two secretly attended the globalist confab in northern Virginia in June 2008.
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
CNN host Rick Sanchez let slip a telling admission in response to the deadly bombings in Uganda during his show yesterday, the fact that such attacks are “helpful” for the military-industrial complex agenda to take over and occupy third world countries under AFRICOM, the United States African Command.
Speaking with a former CIA agent, Sanchez stated, “You know what’s interesting about this, in a strange way the event is helpful to the cause of those of us who know how sadistic these fundamental radical Islamic terrorists are and if it helps get the message out there that these are not the good guys then so be it”.
Sanchez is brazenly admitting that deadly terror attacks like the bombings in Uganda only aid the military-industrial complex agenda to take over and occupy third world countries. Given the fact that such attacks help the geopolitical agenda of the powers that control the United States, who has the strongest motivation to carry out the attacks?
We heard similar rhetoric back in 2008 when shocking excerpts of confidential recordings released under the Freedom of Information Act featured former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.
The tapes were released as part of the investigation into the Pentagon’s “message force multipliers” program in which top military analysts were hired to propagandize for the Iraq war in the corporate media.
In the audio recording, Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the military-industrial complex agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack.
Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the “behavior pattern” of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror.
DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you’re not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there until it [a terror attack] happens.
RUMSFELD: That’s what I was just going to say. This President’s pretty much a victim of success. We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it’s a shame we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats…the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less…the less…