Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

by **heyjt** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:20 pm

I appreciate you providing that research. Of course, there are so many issues. Mercury in fish, the agricultural soils of the world being ruined, rampant militarism,species die-out... things that are happening so much faster. Now it's arguable whether peak oil is a social control myth or if it is really happening. But the interesting scenario I read suggested it could force a "back to the land" movement. The praries would again be repopulated by people living simply and growing their own food, practicing trades within a community. Last year I heard an interview with a University of Washington scientist. He said global warming was a far better scenario than an ice age, which would again devestate the northern hemisphere and kill off half the population of earth. The problem is, they know how the warming could actually trigger the ice age. Hey, I know the PTB play on fears like peak oil and such, but we have to admit that the earth has had huge catastrophies and civilizations have come and gone. Maybe, just maybe we can avert another disaster that is of our own making- if it's not too late.

by **scollon** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:32 pm

I don't think it's credible that the two closest allies in history (US, UK) would end up being the absolute polar opposites on global warming. I think global warming is a British led plot to promote a New World Order single authority, currency, trade etc. I'm sure the greenhouse theory is correct but wildly exaggerated by those whose interests are served by it. The data on which the Kyoto protocol is based (Mann etc.) was so badly botched as to be meaningless and open to the suspicion of deliberate falsification. <a href="http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm">www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm</a> I blame sun spots and other naturally occurring phenomena for the bulk of GW. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 12/25/05 4:43 am

by **rothbardian** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 3:34 am

To "anotherdrew"-- Thanks for your input. Now, you make the comment "It isn't a literal, mathematical fact though..." but curiously, I don't see any direct statements about Mount St. Helens historic eruption (in 1980). That's what I was specifically referring to. The stats you pulled up are only referring to the routine sputtering and spluttering of volcanoes around the world annually. The Mount St. Helens eruption was a 'once-or-twice-a-century' mega volcano. I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here. I don't mean to be a squelcher but right off the top I can tell you I immediately have a few initial observations about these sources you are quoting: Several of the statements strike me as 'slippery'. With the first website...I found it odd that they were evasive and vague about volcano emission stats yet...they boldly go forward with their statistical projections (?). Wouldn't it have been better to wait until they had the time to spend a day or two researching that basic fact? After all this is supposed to be a website about...volcanoes. Are they positioning for 'plausible deniability'? If they're aware of the towering statistics regarding Mount St. Helens (which I believe they must be) then the answer is 'yes'. If they're ever cornered, it looks to me as though they want to be able to make the claim: "Oh, we were just talking about routine volcano splutterings...not historic eruptions." That's a very strong indication of intellectual dishonesty there. The other website you quote is blatantly falling back on circular reasoning. That's a REAL red flag. They make this astonishing 'circular' argument that...because many thousands of years of volcanoes have failed to damage the environment that this is therefore 'proof' that volcanoes have remained in "balance" with nature...and have deferentially kept their emissions within the bounds set by modern-day 'political correctness' elites. Wow. Since those guys weren't there over the course of millennia...what if in fact, hundreds of volcanoes have spewed air pollution far BEYOND the bounds of politically correct levels, the way Mount St. Helens so impudently did? If volcanoes over all the many millennia have been producing mega eruptions at a rate of a couple per century (and again, Mount St. Helens ALONE duplicated all the pollution of the entire modern era) then...the environment has a much more powerful renewing/restoring dynamic than all of the big fancy big-money 'think tanks', academic institutions, official bureaucrats and high-powered media outlets have led us to believe. These entities by the way, are all marching in an amazing perfect formation 'lock step' when it comes to the 'global warming' song-and-dance. Doesn't that give anyone pause...particularly here at RI?? In any case, even a handful of these mega eruptions over the last few centuries would blow the global warming theories to smithereens. In fact Mount St. Helens by itself does that. I would also note that the reference to Mount St. Helens near the end of the quote of this second website, sounds very much like double talk-- they're giving you the impression that they've fully accounted for Mount St. Helens but if you look more closely at the tricky language, they're only referring to emissions that have occurred AFTER the 1980 eruption. Pulling a slight-of-hand stunt like that is a pretty clear indication that this particular website...may be rotten to the core, I'm afraid to say. I know this is an official Canadian govt. site but does anyone think that Rockefeller/Rothschild/Illuminati money (which owns and controls huge percentages of all the academic and media institutions) carefully screeches to a halt at the US/Canada border? It is also odd when they say the eruption was "several decades ago". That is an inaccurate and disturbingly subtle stretch. It's those little things that are potentially ominous indicators that somewhere behind this, somehow and in some form or fashion...PTB/Illuminati creeps might be found. With Christmas (and a vacation) in full swing I don't know when I can get around to pulling up all my links and stats on this subject matter but I'd like to do that if this thread survives. If I take my laptop with me maybe I'll try to make more comment.

by **StarmanSkye** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 7:55 am

Rothbardian: The cited stats for CO2 viz. Mt. St. Helen's eruption MIGHT have been slightly confusing, but it was easy to find clarification reiterating the point that volcansim accounts for a tiny percentage of the carbon being pumped into the earth's atmosphere every year. Long, detailed histories of the concentrations of gasses in the earth's atmospheric have been assembled through ice-core sampling -- a basic research fact which awareness and acknowledgement of is notably absent in your comments. How else to account for your silly Q:, "Since those guys weren't there over the course of millennia...what if in fact, hundreds of volcanoes have spewed air pollution far BEYOND the bounds of politically correct levels, the way Mount St. Helens so impudently did?" Methinks you're so invested in propagating your 'Global Warming is a scam' thesis that you ignore data that contradicts it. I found the Canadian climate website to present a very clear understanding, with causes shown, for the net carbon increase noted in the earth's atmosphere -- with no slippery-slope or deceptive arguments being used. To clarify: <a href="http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html">volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/fr...n1375.html</a> How much CO2 did Mount St Helens' eruption in 1980 release into our atmosphere? Can you give me some idea of how much CO2 volcanoes add to the atmosphere generally? Kathy ------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Kathy, I don't have an exact number. At Mount St Helens the maximum measured emission rate was 2.2X10^7 kg per day. The total amount of gas released during non-eruptive periods from the beginning of July to the end of October was 9.1X10^8 kg . I do not have an estimate for the volume of CO2 released during the Plinian eruptions. As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg. Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2. Hence, volcanism produces about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from man-made sources. For more detail, see Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates. Scott Rowland, University of Hawaii Steve Mattox, University of North Dakota Source of Information: Harris, D.M., Sato, M., Casadevall, T.J., Rose, Jr., W.I., and Bornhorst, T.J., 1981, Emission rates of CO2 from plume measurements, in Lipman, P.W., and Mullineaux, D.R., (eds.), The 1980 eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1250, p. 3-15. **** Further: You cite Mt. St. Helens as if it were an atypical eruption with a major impact on global climate and for release of greenhouse gases, even acussing the sources in the first website cited as being evasive and vague, referring to 'the routine sputtering and spluttering of volcanoes around the world annually,' and not taking into account the 'once or twice a century mega volcano' event of Mt. St. Helens 1980 eruption. But Mt. St. Helens was NOT a once or twice a century volcano -- as spectacular as it was, there are eruptions of equal or greater global impact, especially with greater CO2 releases, once or twice a decade -- specifically note that El Chichon in Mexico erupted in April of 1982, and Mount Pinatubo went off in the Philippines during June, 1991. "Of these two volcanic events, Mount Pinatubo had a greater effect on the Earth's climate and ejected about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere (Figure 7y-6). Researchers believe that the Pinatubo eruption was primarily responsible for the 0.8 degree Celsius drop in global average air temperature in 1992. The global climatic effects of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo are believed to have peaked in late 1993. Satellite data confirmed the connection between the Mount Pinatubo eruption and the global temperature decrease in 1992 and 1993. The satellite data indicated that the sulfur dioxide plume from the eruption caused a several percent increase in the amount of sunlight reflected by the Earth's atmosphere back to space causing the surface of the planet to cool." <a href="http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html">www.physicalgeography.net...ls/7y.html</a> By comparison, "Explosive volcanic eruptions have been shown to have a short-term cooling effect on the atmosphere if they eject large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. This image shows the eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980 which had a local effect on climate because of ash reducing the reception of solar radiation on the Earth's surface. Mount St. Helens had very minimal global effect on the climate because the eruption occurred at an oblique angle putting little sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey. Photo by Austin Post. Same url as above.) <img src="http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/mtsthelensblast.jpg" style="border:0;"/> **** All the data I've seen so far suggests and confirms that from the early 1700s, carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million to 360 parts per million in 1990. This increase can't be accounted for by 'natural' means and normal geological processes, including volcanism, but strongly correlates with man-made activities related to farming, deforestation, and burning of fossil fuels. There MAY be a serious double-edge sword mechanism here in that a global rise in temperature will liberate additional amounts of CO2 now in-solution in the earth's oceans -- thereby greatly increasing the rate of warming beyond current forecasts. Your misstatements, ie. re: that Mt. St. Helens eruption 'duplicated' the pollution of the entire modern era -- which is simply not true and NOWHERE even close -- show you haven't rigorously investigated this topic to know the most basic facts, necessary at the very least to prevent your loss of credibility before your thesis even gets off the ground. Perhaps your point is valid -- but you're going to have to put more research and effort into it to make a compelling case for it. Personally, I think the energy would be better spent informing the slumbering American public about the duplicious, exploitive (and in many cases, criminal) policies of the PTB that deliberately created vast poverty and economic indenture and civil strife and political instability in the third world in order to exploit labour and resources, and which has had immense consequences for the issues of social justice, human rights, public health and environmental degradation. It's hardly an accident that the leading holdouts refusing to accept the evidence for global warming are apologists for American Empire. The same could be said for peak oil -- whether real or artificially created. Starman

by **rothbardian** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:48 pm

To StarmanSkye: Thanks for your input. You were asking me to specify my source about Mount St. Helens' greenhouse gases equaling all the greenhouse gases of modern history-- Dixie Lee Ray, who was the governor of neighboring Oregon at the time of the historic eruption. (By the way....using personal recollection I had made a layman's guess that there are only a couple or three eruptions of this magnitude per century. If, as you say, these occur about twice every ten years then I suppose that would strengthen my point.) Ms. Ray was a marine biologist by profession and a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. In her research (she wrote a book "Trashing the Planet") she had made her findings regarding the historic 1980 eruption. Since she was in an official position during the volcano disaster and privy to all the info that had to be coming into the governor's office during the crisis, and since she was an environment and energy expert and a national leader in this area...I would certainly not hesitate to put her statements up against any of those of your favored pro-Global Warming experts. Additionally though, since her views go against the grain and against a huge wave of popular notion in the academic and media mainstream, it caught my attention even more compellingly. By all rights this should also be the case here among RI fans, where everything is ALL ABOUT departing from the mainstream and going on a bold, independent quest for the real story behind all the lies we're told by the PTB. But alas, many of you are content to get your environment info from the retail media outlets and the fat-cat academic institutions which are on the PTB gravy train. When your info is coming to you all nicely prepackaged, professionally shrink-wrapped with glossy high profile 'name brand' labeling (CBS, NBC, New York Times, National Geographic, Sierra Club etc.)...I thought the typical RI response would be: "RUN FOR THE HILLS!" It certainly is MY motto. Any truth you find in the wholly corporate-owned media is purely an accident. Even the few pro-Global Warming quotes from academic 'mainstreamers' that a couple of you have provided so far, I have noticed over and over...hedging and skirting. There was the quote provided by "anotherdrew" about Mount St. Helens which (revealingly?) only wanted to talk about emissions AFTER the eruption. Then it had misleading sentence structuring which seemed to have an intentionally deceptive aspect to it, such that "anotherdrew" mistakenly referred to it, thinking it had covered the Mount St. Helens question. AND THEN it tried to dismiss Mount St. Helens as having been "several decades ago". Alrighty then. Particularly with that conspicuous exaggeration, they have been caught redhanded trying to 'spin' and distort. When you're spinning and distorting...you're covering something up. And when you're covering something up, what are you concealing...but the truth? And the Q&A segment you provided, StarmanSkye....whoops, there it is again-- The Hedging: "Well, I don't just now have that information in front of me..." (But he does have the 'long term' emission averages handy. Where have I heard that before?) This was an Internet Q&A, was it not? The guy can't leave his keyboard and go look up the info?? I don't follow. There was a very similar example of hedging in one of "anotherdrew"s quotes. This is 25 long years after the fact...nay, even "several decades" after the fact, according to another 'academic scholar'. Just when were they planning to pin down the info? Evasion...hedging...skirting...spinning...distorting. Am I the only one with 'warning lights' going on? I don't mean to be antagonistic but my point here is that...if there IS deception behind the 'global warming' thing, then there certainly are enough indications of that, just in these first few tiny quotes that a couple of you have provided. Several decades ago...uh, I mean a few days ago Mr. "heyjt" posed a question that I think is almost THE central question for the bulk of RI fandom: "Is Maurice Strong So Wrong?" If 'Lucifer' is Mr. Strong's lord and master as "heyjt" has indicated (I haven't researched this myself though), then how on God's green earth can this be a difficult question to answer? What if Rush Limbaugh asked the question: "Was Adolf Hitler so wrong?" You left-leaners hanging out here at RI are some good people and I have enjoyed the intellectual rigor that goes on here much of the time (a refreshing departure from some of the shallow screeching and 'sloganeering' that seems to dominate at places freerepublic.com etc.) but... I have to believe that a great many of you after reading through about a hundred of Jeff's essays (and subsequently linking around the Web) are, by all rights, finding yourself in an incredibly awkward dilemma: Garden-variety socialism has HUGE across-the-board commonality with satanic 'freak job' Luciferians...with the Illuminati...with the P-T-B. These folks want to wipe out the human race except for themselves and some sort of servant class, and they've come up with all these cynically contrived rationalizations about 'downsizing' the human race (the alleged overconsumption of energy, the alleged environmental crisis caused by this 'overconsumption', the alleged 'overpopulation') so that once they get the remaining survivors down to a manageable number, they can move in for the final kill. StarmanSkye, you did produce a fair amount of 'data' in the info you pulled off the Net, some of which I didn't quite follow(<^>?) but when there is a question of fundamental corruption, it overshadows everything. One wonders firstly about who pays the bills for their researching...and are they therefore predisposed to obtain certain 'findings'? They have these 'meter readings'....OK, who are the guys reading the meters? And what are some of their 'presuppositions'? I'm old enough to remember there was a low-level, sort of 'off the mainstream' controversy previous to the first lunar landings...because some uniformitarian geologists calculated there should be 15-20 feet of lunar dust after the alleged billions of years of accumulation. For some reason, those in charge at NASA brushed aside these concerns and the official 'meter-readers' and high priests of uniformitarianism proved to be wrong by a country mile.

by **anotherdrew** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:06 pm

Well, do we want to debate global climate change or theology? Dixie Lee Ray was Gov of washington at the time, not oregon. Do you accept that the climate is changing faster now than ever in known history? What do you suggest we do about it?

by **scollon** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:37 pm

"Do you accept that the climate is changing faster now than ever in known history? What do you suggest we do about it? " I don't know but the BBC keeps telling us that it's warmer than it has been for a thousand years. They say that because just before then it was warmer than it is now (medieaval warm period). This was not a result of American motorists as far as we know. I don't think climate scientists have any idea whether the warming is caused by human beings but are happy to take the money and work on a principle of extreme caution. I happen to think the idea is being let's say encouraged by those who wish to promote rapid globalisation. (for example the British government) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=scollon>scollon</A> at: 12/28/05 8:15 pm

by **Floyd Smoots** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>These folks want to wipe out the human race except for themselves and some sort of servant class, and they've come up with all these cynically contrived rationalizations about 'downsizing' the human race (the alleged overconsumption of energy, the alleged environmental crisis caused by this 'overconsumption', the alleged 'overpopulation') so that once they get the remaining survivors down to a manageable number, they can move in for the final kill<hr></blockquote>. Well Said, rothbardian, Well Said! scollon, I certainly hope that you are saying that you don't believe the BBC, anymore than we American R.I.ers believe ABC, CBS, NBC, or FOX (in the henhouse). <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't think climate scientists have any idea whether the warming is caused by human beings but are happy to take the money and work on a principle of extreme caution. I happen to think the idea is being let's say encouraged by those who wish to promote rapid globalisation. (for example the British government) <hr></blockquote> And, let's not forget just about any government in the so-called "Western Free World", just to be clear here, gentlefolk.

by **scollon** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:22 pm

Floyd It was British deputy prime minister John Prescott who forced through the Kyoto Protocol at the last minute. The British government and HM the queen are very enthusiastic supporters of all things global especially climate change and the environment. That's somewhat suspicious considering the very high profile of BP and Shell in the oil business and the London oil market (biggest in the world) .

by **Floyd Smoots** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:35 pm

Brother scollon, I believe, at least on this subject, that, to put it in Ol' Virginny Hillbilly-ese, we's both sniffin' the same danged ol' piece of toilet paper, meaning, of course, we seem to be on the same page here. Ain't it strange that just a very few short years ago, the American Oil Company, trading as AMOCO, was bought out, lock, stock, and barrel, by BP, also known as British Petroleum? But, of course, here in the B.S.A. (British-ruled States of America), the BP stations still advertise AMOCO gasoline (like who cares?) at their pumps. "Something Wicked This Way Comes'......Ray Bradbury, one of my favourite Brits.

by **sickofit** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:45 am

Well after reading this whole thread till now I got some questions. According to Strong, over consumption is a major problem that humanity (ie: sheep) faces, and so “humanity” is going to have to make some adjustments. So my question would be, why doesn’t he address this issue with the people that make sure humanity is nothing more that consuming sheep? He’s obviously addressing real issues but he’s doing so for the benefit of the few. Also, I find that on both the mainstream media and in these type of circles, the greenhouse issue always centers around oil and coal use and that the answer is in alternative energy or not ect… WHAT ABOUT THE FORESTS?!?!? Half of Brazil’s forests are gone, least to mention the rest of the Amazon or Africa and south East Asia. The planet is a living organism, a whole made up of smaller parts just like us, and just like it’s needs all the parts to exist properly as we’ve know it before. So let’s say just for fun that somehow tomorrow a new clean safe energy source is discovered, so the 6 billion humans on earth don’t expend any artificially made CO2, but we still continue to destroy the forests and what ever is left isn’t going to last long. So how then will the earth deal with all the CO2 emissions from the volcanoes? It’s seems to me this issue of environmentalism vs. consumerism is a Hegelian play and in the end the players win and humanity will lose.

by **Iroquois** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:55 am

Ray Bradbury is not only American (born in Waukegon, Illinois I understand) his stories are pure Americana. Collections like The October Country and The Illustrated Man are the most potent insights into the particular strangeness of rural American paranormality out there. Maybe you were thinking of the other guy who penned the "something wicked" line some time earlier.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 4:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You left-leaners hanging out here at RI are some good people and I have enjoyed the intellectual rigor that goes on here much of the time (a refreshing departure from some of the shallow screeching and 'sloganeering' that seems to dominate at places freerepublic.com etc.) but...<hr></blockquote> Here's one left leaner that has been spending pages trying to convince others that there is a long term plan of population reduction/deindustrialization in the works. I don't discount global warming, but I imagine the uses to which it will be put will have something to do with limiting the emissions of DEVELOPING countries a great deal and figuring out some way to let the western industrial nations wiggle out of any such restrictions. This same left-leaner has been arguing ad nauseum on these boards that Peak Oil scenarios...at least of the "impending collapse" type, is a similar attempt. It could be some deep conspiracy, but in either case a more prosaic explanation suggests itself: limit competition to already developed countries by disallowing industrial development and f*&^ing with the oil supply and prices. Oh, and capture areas that have large reserves of oil, to further restrict access. One finds among many imminent collapse theorists, whether among Peak Oilers or earlier, Malthusian theorists, the same general ideas. We need to drop the world population to about 2 billion or even less. This message is being promoted in all sorts of New Age circles, such as the writings of Richard Heinberg, discussed at length on this site. Many of the New Age gurus have similar messages. Since Strong is both New Age "guru" (or at least created a New Age community) AND since he works for Rockefeller and helped found the Trilateral Commission AND since Lawrence Rockefeller funds all kinds of New Agey type research into UFOs and crop circles, etc...AND...since the message of aliens to their abductees seems center on the idea of an impending, catastrophic collapse of the earth (though the source for this collapse varies), I think it is safe to say that there is a pretty sophisticated program out there to get us ready for collapse or to accustom us to the harsh measures that will be sold to us as the only hope to prevent this collapse. And while the Strong types seem to be on the side of the Globalists, this new age message of impending collapse has quite the following among the furthest right of those opposing the globalists. Various New Age gurus who will remain nameless in this thread to keep it out of the firepit, who embrace rather overly fascistic themes and source material, also preach this coming collapse. Add to that that much of fascist mythology (Thule, Atlantis, Shambala and the mythical Aryan supermen who emerged from there or created those places) also pops up in much of this new age thought and we appear to be getting a similar message from a different direction. Or maybe the direction isn't that different after all and the fascist/globalist opposition is a game of let's pretend. Or it may represent real tactical differences of factions within the ruling elite. I don't think you need an all powerful, unitary and millenia old group with unbroken succession to explain all this. But it is conspiratorial all the same. I also think it's pretty sophisticated. And I KNOW that I really don't have a complete handle on what the full nature of this propaganda effort really is all about. One theory I had is the idea of "sapping." Sappers were the guys in a medieval siege who'd dig out the foundations of castle walls till they were easy to topple over. Besides preparing us for the upcoming "austerity" measures, I think there may be efforts to undermine the very idea of rational truth or scientific investigation. While I understand science has its own biases and limits, the scientific method, generally speaking, is not really something I want to see grow completely out of fashion. And there really does seem to be an agenda of creating, if not one sole new religion, at least a strong religious perspective that embraces these anti-rationalist ideals, as well as the idea that democracy won't cut it...we need a group of enlightened elites to lead the way out of this "mess." Whether it's "Maitreya" or the space brothers, or both (Jeff has good stuff about all this <a href="http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/03/day-of-declaration.html)">rigorousintuition.blogspo...tion.html)</a> SOMEBODY wants a new religion that stresses the "inevitability" of a drastic decline in population and the need to embrace a small enlightened elite to lead the remnant home. <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/JeffWells/maitreya-logo.jpg" style="border:0;"/>

by **scollon** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:10 am

DE The whole New Age Movement is based on the idea of evolution, particularly Alice Bailey for whom evolution is basically everything. If one looks at the evolution of species in the past, particularly mass extinctions, you will understand the game these guys are playing. they want to CONSCIOUSLY control human evolution before nature does it for us. The also believe in a collective New Age (a new Heaven and a new earth) in which everyone will be a conscious participant in Divine Evolution by synthesis (like bees who each understand not only their own role but the total plan if you like). They believe there is going to be a split between those who are capable of participating and the rest. Perhaps Aids and bird flu at al are the way they mean to divide sheep from goats. As I've said before, I believe these people's pride is what marks them out as satanic. Of course God created evil as well as good and it looks like the Apocalypse might very well be of human design. Revelation doesn't say otherwise.

by **heyjt** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:47 pm

I tend to agree with Scollon about the New Age movement being about evolution, and I think there may be a cross-over to the Hancock/drugs/DNA thread here. In Hancocks article he suggests drugs and altered states may unlock secrets in our DNA, causing us to evolve. In Marylin Ferguson's "The Aquarian Conspiracy" she details how meditation and other techniques "re-wire the brain" creating new neuropaths - causing the brain to evolve. D.E. - I too am wary about PTB control plots, but I was also distrustful of computer technology. Not anymore, If anybody can beat an orwellian computer driven police state it's the hackers and psyberpunks. Likewise, I am not sure the worlds problems can be solved entirely by politics. As I've said before, look how much trouble the Meditative group Faulan Gong is causing the Chinese government. The furthest you can escape from an authoritarian government is deep into your own mind...

Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

Volcano's etc.

Global warming

anotherdrew

Re: anotherdrew

Is Lucifer so wrong?

Re: Is Lucifer so wrong? well is he?

Re: Is Lucifer so wrong? well is he?

Lucifer Is SO Wrong!!!

Re: Lucifer Is SO Wrong!!!

scollon Is So Right!!!

what about the trees?

...but Floyd Smoots Isn't

Re: ...but Floyd Smoots Isn't

Re: ...but Floyd Smoots Isn't

evolution

Who is online