Excerpts from Link. It’s focus was population control. It was written by Fred Dutton. The elite from the far left and far right come together on climate change to produce a brave new world order?:
The First Earth Day Proposal or PROSPECTUS FOR A NATIONAL TEACH IN ON OUR WORSENING ENVIRONMENT
Proposed Board Members
Dr. Roger Rovelle of Harvard
Head of the Sierra Club
Robert Wood of MIT
Prof. George Wald
The editor of Science magazine
Six members of the House and Senate
bipartisan Ten student editors across the country
Ten student body presidents from other colleges
Ten well-known student activists
President of the National Students Association, Charles Palmer
Full-time staff director, 7 months, Nov. 1st to June 1st at $750 a month SUbsistence pay for four full-time field coordinators Nov. 15 to May 15, $250 a month each T:’:’a-vel by Steering Committee members, especially the four coordinators Office Overhead for six months, Nov. 15 to May 15, in three rooms near Capitol Hill; includes rent, supplies, phones, insurance, etc. Cheap, Frinted Pamphlet for wide distribution explaining the project Organizing the Special Projects Discussed Later Contingency Fund–Just over 15% of Other Expenses, which is generous for such a fund Fund Raising Goal, in Phases By November 10th By January loth By ~1ar ch lOth By April lOth Possible Sources Another Another Another Total Target $10,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 5,000.00 — or more.
Foundations like Ford, Taconic, Irwin Miller; Stern, etc.
Unions like UATtl, Mine Workers, Steel Horkers, National AFL-CIO, etc.
Publications like Readers Digest, Look, Life, McCalls, National Geosraphic, etr::,
Individuals like Mary Lasker, Stewart Mott, Lawrence Rockefeller, Norton Simon, etc.
Public interest corporations like IBM, Xerox, Polaroid-Land, Kodak, etc. Trade associations with a Hashington, D. C., base, but not tied directly to individual company plunderers.
Special projects like a New York and L.A. rock concert sponsored by local groups in those areas and using Joan Baez, the Jefferson Airplane, Simo~ and Garfunkel or others that attract big audiences, especially among tl~e young and are interested in issues like conserv~tion, peace, e-cc. Those two concerts alone might net $75,000 to $100,000. (Just the Washington, D. C., headquarters budget for the Viet Nam effort is now over $200,000 . :
Today is Earth Day — the last one I’ll celebrate as President. Looking back over the past seven years, I’m hopeful that the work we’ve done will allow my daughters and all of our children to inherit a cleaner, healthier, and safer planet. But I know there is still work to do.
When Secretary of State John Kerry stands with other countries to support this agreement, we’ll advance a plan that prioritizes the health of our planet and our people. And we’ll come within striking distance of enacting the Paris Agreement years earlier than anyone expected.
This is important because the impact of climate change is real. Last summer, I visited Alaska and stood at the foot of a disappearing glacier. I saw how the rising sea is eating away at shorelines and swallowing small towns. I saw how changes in temperature mean permafrost is thawing and the tundra is burning. So we’ve got to do something about it before it’s too late.
As the world’s second-largest source of climate pollution, America has a responsibility to act. The stakes are enormous — our planet, our children, our future. That’s true not just here in America, but all over the world. No one is immune.
That’s why, when I ran for this office, I promised I’d work with anyone — across the aisle or on the other side of the planet — to combat this threat. It’s why we brought together scientists, entrepreneurs, businesses, and religious organizations to tackle this challenge together. It’s why we set the first-ever national fuel efficiency standards for trucks and set new standards for cars. It’s why we made the biggest investment in clean energy in U.S. history. It’s why we put forward a plan to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. And it’s why in Paris, we rallied countries all over the world to establish a long-term framework to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — the first time so many countries had committed to ambitious, nationally determined climate targets.
Now, we’re building on that momentum. When all is said and done, today will be the largest one-day signing event in the history of the UN.
That’s what this is all about. And that’s why today, America is leading the fight against climate change.
President Barack Obama
The idea for a national day to focus on the environment came to Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, after witnessing the ravages of the 1969 massive oil spill in Santa Barbara, California. Inspired by the student anti-war movement, he realized that if he could infuse that energy with an emerging public consciousness about air and water pollution, it would force environmental protection onto the national political agenda. Senator Nelson announced the idea for a “national teach-in on the environment” to the national media; persuaded Pete McCloskey, a conservation-minded Republican Congressman, to serve as his co-chair; and recruited Denis Hayes from Harvard as national coordinator. Hayes built a national staff of 85 to promote events across the land. April 22, falling between Spring Break and Final Exams, was selected as the date.
On April 22,1970, 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment in massive coast-to-coast rallies. Thousands of colleges and universities organized protests against the deterioration of the environment. Groups that had been fighting against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness, and the extinction of wildlife suddenly realized they shared common values.
Earth Day 1970 achieved a rare political alignment, enlisting support from Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, city slickers and farmers, tycoons and labor leaders. By the end of that year, the first Earth Day had led to the creation of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Clean Air, Clean Water, and Endangered Species Acts. “It was a gamble,” Gaylord recalled, “but it worked.”
As 1990 approached, a group of environmental leaders asked Denis Hayes to organize another big campaign. This time, Earth Day went global, mobilizing 200 million people in 141 countries and lifting environmental issues onto the world stage. Earth Day 1990 gave a huge boost to recycling efforts worldwide and helped pave the way for the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. It also prompted President Bill Clinton to award Senator Nelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom (1995)—the highest honor given to civilians in the United States—for his role as Earth Day founder.
On April 22, 2012, the 43rd Earth Day will be celebrated. On the same day, Vladimir Lenin will celebrating (posthumously, of course) his 142nd birthday, meaning he was born exactly 100 years prior to the first Earth Day. As far as I can tell, this is a coincidence. But some people aren’t so sure. Indeed, some people fear that climate change is a hoax fabricated — or at least exaggerated — by researchers in support of a subversive ploy to impose an oppressive global government.
A fundraising and awareness advertisement by Environmental Teach-In, Inc. ran in the New York Times on January 18, 1970. Critics of Earth Day debated if the environmental agenda was either too radical or not radical enough, but the idea was broad enough to encourage action no matter the point of view.
This independently-produced 16mm film documented the first Earth Day held in Philadelphia in 1970. It features counterculture figures who came to speak at Earth Day events, including Alan Watts, Allen Ginsberg, Jerry Rubin and Ed Sanders, as well as scientists and public figures such as Ralph Lapp, Paul Ehrlich, Ed Muskie, and Nobel Prize winner George Wald. In addition to these celebrities, the film also includes art performances by Leon Redbone, the cast of Hair, as well as a local dance group, Black Butterfly. It intercuts appearances by ordinary people from Philadelphia communities expressing their concerns with the environmental issues that were highlighted in the Earth Day event. The idea behind “Circuit Earth” was to draw connections between concern for the environment and spiritual impoverishment manifested by war, overpopulation, mindless consumption, and drug addiction. This “underground” documentary raised issues that are now in the mainstream, including the impact of warfare, climate change, and population growth on the environment. It focused on concerns that are as true today as they were then, such as the dependence on fossil fuels, which is at the core of the energy debate today. Circuit Earth film anticipated the need for a holistic and global approach to the environment that requires an informed citizenry as well as knowledge-based political leadership. This film underscores the global nature of technology and the environment, and the complex interaction of natural and human systems. Credits: John Hoskyns-Abrahall, Christopher Bamford, Michael Katz, Bob Feldman, and Peter Wiesner
Jason Thompson received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Law & Society from Winona State University and the International University Of Ulaanbaatar where he studied U.S.-Mongolian Foreign Relations 1860-1920. He also attended diesel and hybrid technology programs at Hennepin Technical College in Minnesota, foreign ambassadorship courses at Soonchunhyang University in the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and attained a positive leadership certificate at the University for Peace in Costa Rica. He has a Master of Arts degree from University of Nevada, Las Vegas where he focused on how climate control was visually framed in the media using content analysis, enhanced weathering techniques that create power and control atmospheric carbon dioxide percentages using olivine powder and Sonics and high-energy x-ray applications. Jason has wrote for Diesel Power and The Costa Rica News.
Abortion was not an issue during the 1960 presidential campaign. Nor was it an issue during his presidency. Kennedy did say this: “Now, on the question of limiting population: As you know, the Japanese have been doing it very vigorously, through abortion, which I think would be repugnant to all Americans.”
In 1971, in a letter to a constituent, John Kennedy’s brother, Sen. Ted Kennedy, wrote: “It is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized — the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old. … Once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire
Since JFK resisted the international spread of abortion to control LDC people he was assasinated. Also his resistance to weather modification didn’t help…
918, which was subsequently folded into the Rockefeller Foundation in 1929. A committed internationalist, he financially supported programs of the League of Nations and crucially funded the formation and ongoing expenses of the Council on Foreign Relations and its initial headquarters building in New York in 1921.
He established the Bureau of Social Hygiene in 1913, a major initiative that investigated such social issues as prostitution and venereal disease, as well as studies in police administration and support for birth control clinics and research. In 1924, at the instigation of his wife, he provided crucial funding for Margaret Sanger (who ironically had previously been an opponent of his because of his mistreatment of workers) in her work on birth control and involvement in population issues. He donated five thousand dollars to her American Birth Control League in 1924 and a second time in 1925.
To the Editor:
I read with indignation the use of a quote from my brother, President John F. Kennedy, in an advertisement placed by the National Abortion Rights Action League (The Week in Review, April 22) to defend its position on unlimited rights to abortion and, at the same time, to attack the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has contracted with the Hill and Knowlton agency to mount a public education campaign defending the fetus. It is difficult to understand why anyone would seek to deprive the bishops of the same right the National Abortion Rights Action League and every other American citizen possesses.
President Kennedy issued the quoted statement to assure Americans that ”no religious body . . . would impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace.” The use of the quote in the context of the advertisement is outrageous, unfair, inaccurate and a distortion both of my brother’s remarks and of the Catholic bishops’ full acceptance of the separation of church and state. The ”central question” posed by the advertisement is, ”Who Decides for America?” The obvious answer is that we all do. This effort by the abortion rights league to raise money by attacking the bishops sets group against group, religion against religion, to the detriment of everyone.
The debate over the abortion issue should take place on higher ground. The real purpose of the statement by President Kennedy was to strike from public discourse precisely the kind of religious bigotry represented by the advertisement.
One of the bills my brother was proudest of established the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. He wanted this institute to study problems of pregnancy and early childhood development so that infants who were lost because of birth problems and lack of research on fetal life could survive. So his interest in the fetus and in children was positive and comprehensive, reflecting his moral values. Do we not understand that religious beliefs and moral values are not the same?
The right to life of a newly conceived fetus is a value held by many people who are not Catholic. This is a moral value that deserves debate, and the bishops have a right to advance this view in all of the channels of communication that are available.
I would similarly defend the rights of the abortion rights league to advance its views in these same channels. Why then do such groups object so violently when church leaders organize to communicate their values of respect for human life from its inception? This is not religious doctrine like a belief in the virgin birth, or even the sacredness of Jesus.
President Kennedy believed and practiced the value that America should offer a free marketplace for all views, even those of Catholic bishops. He would have resented his words being distorted to confuse and obscure that value. His family resents it, too.
In 1963 Kennedy was asked whether he thought the US should supply funds for international birth control studies. The President replied: “If your question is: Can we do more, should we know more about the whole reproduction cycle, and should this information be made more available to the world so that everyone can make their own judgment, I would think that it would be a matter which we could certainly support.”
Kennedy’s statement represented a significant revolution in the attitude of the American government. He affirmed 2 principles: freedom of research on population matters and freedom of every nation to use the resulting knowledge in determining its own policy. In handling the question this way, he dispelled all doubt, if any remained, about the capacity of a Catholic President to decide public issues on their merits. Catholic concern seemed now to narrow to the relatively small point–and one on which they received reassurances–that the government should not ship out contraceptives.
Source: 1000 Days, by Arthur Schlesinger, p.504 , Jan 1, 1965
I met Jim Maars at UNLV during one of his talks. I mentioned the weather element although I didn’t have all the information at the time. I still probably don’t… Climate change is an elephant in a dark room and no one is describing it right….
There was a NYT article in the 60’s that said Robert McNamara wanted to stop the military weather experiments but it went “Weather Underground”.
The following “weather modification” speech was delivered October 22, 1963 by John F. Kennedy. He was killed one month later on November 22, 1963. Under Johnson the weather warfare budget exploded culminating in Operation Popeye. UN made climate warfare illegal (ENMOD 1977) but said it was ok for peaceful purposes. The climate warfare people like Greg Bateson, Margret Mead, Harold Laski, Rockefellers, Leverhulmes, various technocrats RAND, Jay Forester among many others converged and subverted the environmental movement.https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/environmentalisms-racist-history
JFK got in trouble for his Pura Vida philosophy and going against the Malthus supporters. The idea that the poor rabble of the Earth making up about 90% of the population is going to take up all the resources and needs control is an ancient perennial belief held by the elites of the age e.g. Plato, Calvin, Spinoza, Fichte, Darwin, Wundt, and others, which contend the term “education” is meaningless because humanity is strictly limited by necessities of finite resources, climatology, biology, psychology, and theology. The real function of climate change and pedagogy is to render the common population manageable and reduced in number. Especially LDC countries mentioned in NSSM 200 and NSSM 201.
First, I would suggest the question of the conservation and development of our natural resources. In a recent speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, I proposed a worldwide program to protect land and water, forests and wildlife, to combat exhaustion and erosion, to stop the contamination of water and air by industrial as well as nuclear pollution, and to provide for the steady renewal and expansion of the natural bases of life.
Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man, by using up all his available resources, would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope and, I believe, know that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature, but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom. The truth or falsity of his prediction will depend now, with the tools we have, on our own actions, now and in the years to come.
The earth can be an abundant mother to all of the people that will be born in the coming years if we learn to use her with skill and wisdom, to heal her wounds, replenish her vitality, and utilize her potentialities. And the necessity is now urgent and worldwide, for few nations embarked on the adventure of development have the resources to sustain an ever-growing population and a rising standard of living. The United Nations has designated this the Decade of Development. We all stand committed to make this agreeable hope a reality. This seems to me the greatest challenge to science in our times, to use the world’s resources, to expand life and hope for the world’s inhabitants.
While these are essentially applied problems, they require guidance and support from basic science. I solicit your help, and I particularly solicit your help in meeting a problem of universal concern–the supply of food to the multiplying mouths of a multiplying world. Abundance depends now on the application of sound biological analysis to the problems of agriculture. If all the knowledge that we now have were systematically applied to all the countries of the world, the world could greatly improve its performance in the low-yield areas, but this would not be enough, and the long-term answer to inadequate food production, which brings misery with it, must lie in new research and new experimentation, and the successful use of new knowledge will require close cooperation with other nations.
Already a beginning has been made. I think of the work in other countries, of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, and the creation by the OAS of the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences in Costa Rica. I look forward eventually to the establishment of a series of international agricultural research institutes on a regional basis throughout the developing world. I can imagine nothing more unwise than to hoard our knowledge and not disseminate it and develop the means of disseminating it throughout the globe.
Second, I would call your attention to a related problem; that is, the understanding and use of the resources of the sea. I recently sent to Congress a plan for a national attack on the oceans of the world, calling for the expenditure of more than $2 billion over the next 10 years. This plan is the culmination of 3 years’ effort by the Inter-Agency Committee on Oceanography, and it results from recommendations made by the National Academy.
Our goal is to investigate the world ocean, its boundaries, its properties, its processes. To a surprising extent, the sea has remained a mystery–10,000 fleets still sweep over it in vain. We know less of the oceans at our feet, where we came from, than we do of the sky above our heads. It is time to change this, to use to the full our powerful new instruments of oceanic exploration, to drive back the frontiers of the unknown in the waters which encircle our globe.
I can imagine no field among all those which are so exciting today than this great effort which our country and others will carry on in the years to come. We need this knowledge for its own sake. We want to know what is under the sea, and we need it to consider its bearings on our security, and on the world’s social and economic needs. It has been estimated, for example, that the yield of food from the seas could be increased five or ten times through better knowledge of marine biology, and some day we will seed and weed and harvest the ocean. Here, again, the job can best be done by the nations of the world working together in international institutions.
As all men breathe the same air, so a storm along Cape Cod may well begin off the shores of Japan. The world ocean is also indivisible, and events in one part of the great sea have astonishing effects in remote places. International scientific cooperation is indispensable if human knowledge of the ocean is to keep pace with human needs.
Third, there is the atmosphere itself, the atmosphere in which we live and breathe and which makes life on this planet possible. Scientists have studied the atmosphere for many decades, but its problems continue to defy us.
The reasons for our limited progress are obvious. Weather cannot be easily reproduced and observed in the laboratory. It must, therefore, be studied in all of its violence wherever it has its way. Here, as in oceanography, new scientific tools have become available. With modern computers, rockets, and satellites, the time is ripe to harness a variety of disciplines for a concerted attack. And even more than oceanography, the atmospheric sciences require worldwide observation and, hence, international cooperation.
Some of our most successful international efforts have involved the study of the atmosphere. We all know that the World Meteorological Organization has been effective in this field. It is now developing a worldwide weather system to which nations the world over can make their contributions. Such cooperative undertakings can challenge the world’s best efforts for decades to come.
Fourth, I would mention a problem which I know has greatly concerned many of you. That is our responsibility to control the effects of our own scientific experiments. For as science investigates the natural environment, it also modifies it, and that modification may have incalculable consequences for evil as well as for good.
In the past, the problem of conservation has been mainly the problem of human waste of natural resources, of their destruction. But science has the power for the first time in history now to undertake experiments with premeditation which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale. The problem is difficult, because it is hard to know in advance whether the cumulative effects of a particular experiment will help or harm mankind. In the case of nuclear testing, the world is satisfied that radioactive contamination involves unnecessary risks, and we are all heartened that more than 100 nations have joined to outlaw testing in environments where the effects most directly threaten mankind.
In other fields we may be less sure. We must, for example, balance the gains of weather modification against the hazards of protracted drought or storm.
The Government has the clear responsibility to weigh the importance of large-scale experiments to the advance of knowledge or to national security against the possibility of adverse and destructive effects. The scientific community must assist the Government in arriving at rational judgments and interpreting these issues to the public. To deal with this problem, we have worked out formal procedures within the Government to assure expert review before potentially risky experiments are undertaken. And we will make every effort to publish the data needed to permit open examination and discussion of proposed experiments by the scientific community before they are authorized.
Jason Thompson received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Law & Society from Winona State University where he studied U.S.-Mongolian Foreign Relations 1860-1920. He also attended programs at Hennepin Technical College in Minnesota, Soonchunhyang University in the Republic of Korea and at the University for Peace in Costa Rica. He has a Master of Arts degree from University of Nevada, Las Vegas where he focused on climate control and high-energy x-ray applications. Jason has wrote for Diesel Power and The Costa Rica News. Contact him at Niflheim.firstname.lastname@example.org
There are many sources of climate change’s origins. They converged to form a unified force.
The text of the shamefully unscientific AAAS resolution, which closely follows Mead’s 1975 prescription, reads in part: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
—-Margret Mead https://larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’
Conference: Where the
Global Warming Hoax Was Born
by Marjorie Mazel Hecht
Price writes; there is much that could and should be done, but the deck is stacked. Universities and students are starved for cash. As a result, many schools–especially those further down the prestige ladder–want to attract PRISP participants, Department of Homeland Security grants, and the like. A remotely definitive history of what any of this means—a history that elucidates not just the droplets but the clouds—will not be writeable for decades. Let’s hope David Price is still around to write it. https://www.thenation.com/article/bad-intelligence/
3. Frankfurt School
4. Thomas Malthus
5. NSSM 200
7. Geosciences after World War II
7.5 George Bush And Margret Thatcher
8 Al GORE and MEDEA scientists
In Cold War Anthropology, David H. Price offers a provocative account of the profound influence that the American security state has had on the field of anthropology since the Second World War. Using a wealth of information unearthed in CIA, FBI, and military records, he maps out the intricate connections between academia and the intelligence community and the strategic use of anthropological research to further the goals of the American military complex. The rise of area studies programs, funded both openly and covertly by government agencies, encouraged anthropologists to produce work that had intellectual value within the field while also shaping global counterinsurgency and development programs that furthered America’s Cold War objectives. Ultimately, the moral issues raised by these activities prompted the American Anthropological Association to establish its first ethics code. Price concludes by comparing Cold War-era anthropology to the anthropological expertise deployed by the military in the post-9/11 era.
About The Author(s)
David H. Price is Professor of Anthropology at Saint Martin’s University. He is the author of Threatening Anthropology: McCarthyism and the FBI’s Surveillance of Activist Anthropologists and Anthropological Intelligence: The Deployment and Neglect of American Anthropology in the Second World War, both also published by Duke University Press, and Weaponizing Anthropology: Social Science in Service of the Militarized State.
The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.
What something is called is infinitely more important than what it is.
climate change is not climate change; it is at once much more and something very different” (Beck, 2015, p. 79).
Having likened the prospect of benign government intervention in social behaviour to the task of reversing an articulated lorry through a labyrinth, he concludes: “We social scientists would do well to hold back our eagerness to control that world which we so imperfectly understand. The fact of our imperfect understanding should not be allowed to feed our anxiety and so increase the need to control. Rather our studies could be inspired by a more ancient, but today less honoured, motive: a curiosity about the world of which we are part. The rewards of such work are not power but beauty.”
William Appleman Williams
Excerpted from the August 2, 1980 Issue
There is no way to understand the nature of our predicament except by confronting our history as an empire. That is the only way to comprehend the Iranian demand that we acknowledge our long-term interference in their affairs, the widespread anger about our acquiescence in the progression of Israel’s settlements on the West Bank, the Russian charge that we apply one standard to them and another to ourselves and the deep resentment of us among the peoples of the poor countries. The only way we can come to terms with those matters is to look our imperial history in the eye without blinking, flinching or walking away into the wonderland of Woodrow Wilson’s saving the world for democracy.
Let us start with a definition of empire: the use and abuse, and the ignoring, of other people for one’s own welfare and convenience. America was born and bred of empire. That does not mean that we are unique; indeed, just the opposite. We are different only because we acquired the empire at a very low cost, because the rewards have been enormous and because until now we have masked our imperial truth with the rhetoric of freedom.
Make no mistake about it: the imperial way of life produced the promised rewards. It generated great economic wealth and effectively limited social discontent. But we must also report the costs. I do not for a moment dismiss the people killed and the property stolen, but I would suggest that the greatest price was paid in the coin of our sensitivity about what we were doing and how that was understood by other peoples. We were already assuming that our right to security transcended the traditional right to defend what we had and had become the right to perfect security in any imaginable future contingency. We began to define security as the natural right to empire.
Americans became so habituated to empire as the price of freedom that they demanded ever more freedom and ever more empire. Andrew Jackson was at once a prime mover and the symbol of that new enthusiasm for the imperial way of life. More freedom at home and more expansion elsewhere. People like the Cherokees were clearly backward—and so a threat to the American Way. Move them out and force them to adapt. And all the while other Americans, the merchants, the shippers, the sealers, the whalers and the Navy, were busy defining the sea itself as another frontier to be penetrated, controlled and exploited.
There is a fine irony in the way that the great war for American freedom led on to ever more empire. And it is fitting that Lincoln provides us with an insight into the dynamics of that process. He knew, by December 1862, that the gamble on a quick victory had been lost. He had to have money and men in large quantities. He therefore appealed to the imperial tradition. Speaking to the agricultural majority, he wasted no euphemisms. He told them that they had to stay the course because it was not enough to have access to the world via New York and San Francisco. It was also necessary to control New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico.
The significance of Lincoln’s appeal to Western farmers to fight on for imperial objectives upsets historians of every political persuasion. Radicals resist the notion that ordinary folk support imperialism. Conservatives cannot easily come to terms with the reality that empire is related to liberty as they define it. And liberals long to resolve the dilemma by defining empire as global freedom and welfare. There is no inherent or logical connection between being a domestic reformer and an anti-imperialist.
History never provides programmatic answers. But the best thing that can be said for our American empire is that we produced some very good questions. Now is the time to begin answering those questions.
Can you even imagine America as not an empire? I think often about the relationship between those two words—imagination and empire—and wonder if they are incompatible. The truth is that I think they are incompatible. Do you want to imagine a new America or do you want to preserve the empire? Now, as surely we all know, preserving the empire is an exercise in futility. We will sizzle or suffocate. So let us get on with imagining a new America.
William Appleman Williams (1921–1990) published his first articles in The Nation in 1956 and continued contributing until 1985.
Anyone who holds a true opinion without understanding is like a blind man on the right road.
Nobel laureate Richard Smalley: “Energy is the single most important problem facing humanity today.”
My name is Jason Thompson and I’m a clean energy inventor and advocate/journalist/historian/science enthusiast who once got fired from my dream job for wanting to writing green articles critical of the car and oil and rare earth mineral companies.
Although I wanted more and stricter environmental policies since it increased R&D budgets and gave me more things to write about. I thought it was weird that so much momentum was pushing the idea that CO2 was certainly the main driver of the climate while so many factors and unknowns abound. I got a feel for this back in 2001 when I took Dynamic Earth and Minnesota Rocks and Waters in undergraduate school at Winona State University. My main area of study was Law & Society specifically colonialism and US-Mongolian Foreign Relations.
I noticed many of the former colonial powers and interests were behind climate alarmism. I felt something was funny regarding the science of climate change and did more research at UNLV. This was after I was asked to leave my job because I was writing too many green articles and ones that were critical of the car companies and there antiquated technologies.
I’ve taken a few undergraduate and one graduate course which covered climate change. My thesis was on enhanced weathering using olivine rock to regulate CO2 levels and create energy using Sonics and cavitation.
Climate change science is not at a point where we should use it to change energy policy drastically. This is what Roger Revelle one of the fathers of climate change concluded towards the end of his life. Climate models are not very good because they don’t model convection, aerosols, the oceans, or clouds with accuracy according to the New York Times in 1991. Finding the signal in the noise is impossible ask Nate Silver. Why are so many retired Ph.Ds climate change skeptics?
The below video goes more in depth regarding the history of climate change. Even if global warming wasn’t developed by the CIA to control India (and it was admittedly see screenshot of Price’s work below) just as they project it it would not be ethical to block development of impoverished. Climate models were developed by the military. Once used to define and modify battle conditions now the models are used to make war against a new enemy, the climate itself.
Andrew Ross mentions this last challenge, “No one needs to doubt the urgency of the greenhouse problem to recognize that any Western suggestion of standards for the development of other countries is also a reinforcement of the long history of colonial underdevelopment of the non -European world” (Ross, 1991, p. 213
Indecent Atmosphere: The Eugenics Roots Of Metabunk’s Contrail Con
Imposing Wilderness: Struggles Over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa
By Roderick P. Neumann
Carbon colonialism and the new land grab: Plantation forestry in Uganda and its livelihood impacts
This article said,
Private sector investment has become increasingly central to development in the global south, and in recent years these interventions have taken a ‘green’ turn. This is demonstrated via investment in economic activities associated with environmental claims, including plantation forestry and carbon trading initiatives.
It also said,
Many of these green initiatives represent market-based responses to climate change that rely upon the implementation of mitigation strategies in the global south to offset industrial and polluting activities in the global north. In this paper we explore the activities of Green Resources, the largest plantation forestry operator on the African continent.
We thought this was interesting,
Through an examination of the activities of Green Resources in Uganda, this paper argues that while private sector international investment in plantation forestry for carbon offsetting is widely supported as responding to the nation’s environmental crisis, it is part of a carbon colonialism and neoliberal land grab.
It went in to say,
There are profound adverse local livelihood outcomes that arise on the basis of this carbon colonialism. After discussing these themes in turn, this paper concludes that the commodification and fetishing of carbon via global carbon markets disconnects northern-based carbon credit consumers from adverse local livelihood impacts for those living in, and adjacent to, forestry plantations. These impacts point to the limits of north–south market-based green development interventions as solutions to climate change.
Here is a book about it:
The Surveillance Imperative
Geosciences during the Cold War and Beyond
Authors: Turchetti, S., Roberts, P.
“Surveillance is a key notion for understanding power and control in the modern world, but it has been curiously neglected by historians of science and technology. Using the overarching concept of the “surveillance imperative,” this collection of essays offers a new window on the evolution of the environmental sciences during and after the Cold War.”
A CIA website and a peer reviewed paper:
THE BIRTH OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
Arthur B. Darling1There was more than economy in mind as Director of the Budget Harold Smith corresponded with General Wm. J. Donovan in August 1945 about liquidating the Office of Strategic Services. On the same day Smith advised the General that agencies with no peacetime activities had to go, Donovan expounded once more in a letter to him the principles which should govern a centralized U.S. foreign intelligence system. Donovan believed those principles were already at work in the OSS. But since it was to be abandoned, another agency should be set up immediately to take over its valuable assets and aid the nation in “the organization and maintenance of the peace.”
The newly unveiled atomic bomb naturally dominated the thinking of the time, and some argued that it made the need for a permanent system of national intelligence peremptory. Gregory Bateson, for example, writing to Donovan from OSS headquarters in the India-Burma theater, forecast that the bomb would shift the balance of warlike and peaceful methods of international pressure. It would be powerless, he said, against subversive practices, guerrilla tactics, social and economic manipulation, diplomatic forces, and propaganda either black or white. The nations would therefore resort to those indirect methods of warfare. The importance of the kind of work the Foreign Economic Administration, the Office of War Information, and the Office of Strategic Services had been doing would thus be infinitely greater than it had ever been. The country could not rely upon the Army and Navy alone for defense. There should be a third agency to combine the functions and employ the weapons of clandestine operations, economic controls, and psychological pressures in the new warfare. But Bateson thought, and he would not be alone, that this third agency should be under the Department of State.
Gregory Bateson and the OSS: World War II and Bateson’s Assesment of Applied Anthropology
by David H. Price
Is it important a former OSS agent wrote a paper on how to keep colonial order in India after ww2 and then inspired a psychedelic environmental movement that effectively controls India’s development a few decades later?
The above links describe it.
Allen Ginsberg made Circuit Earth on 1st Earth Day along with Erlich. The movie was inspired by Bateson or so it said at beginning. It warned of ice age caused by humans. Bateson gave LSD to Ginsberg and programmed him at Stanford in 1959. I wonder what was said I contacted Stanford records that has Ginsberg papers. LSD was then distributed to population via universities. Along with the fragile earth program.
Global Business Network connects Bateson to climate change plus Circuit Earth Movie…
Mead was Bateson’s wife and wrote book about climate change with NIH. Atmosphere Endangered Endangering
The movie Circuit Earth is a lynchpin connecting Greg Bateson with new environmental movement. Or a coincidence…
Bateson specialized in black propaganda. This means making fake messages that look like they came from official enemy position. The exaggerated messages are designed to disrupt enemy. We are the enemy.
Presentation and Discussion on the Science of Climate Change Oliver Hemmers, Ph.D., Vice President of Operations, Infinity Capital Management
Jason Thompson added a public comment regarding carbon colonialism and the creation of the CIA.
Back in the campaign, Duterte said the country’s economy might still need new coal-fired power plants.
He also called the developed nations “hypocritical” for asking developing nations like the Philippines to slash carbon emissions.
Addressing the nation, Duterte softens position on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but insists industrialization comes first
I wonder what made him change his mind?
Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has stated he will not abide by the Paris Agreement, an international climate change pact, calling the deal “stupid” and “absurd,” and accusing developed countries of “imposing” on less wealthy states after having committed their own share of environmental atrocities.
One of the leading promoters of eugenics in the more recent period was Sir Crispin Tickell. Sir Tickell was the President of the Royal Geographical Society and a leading government official and adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In the 1980’s Sir Tickell created the British Government funded “climate change “ movement to implement mass murder based on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Sir Crispin Tickell’s great-grand-father was Thomas Huxley.
Mankind is a disease…
Merchants of Despair traces the pedigree of this ideology and exposes its deadly consequences in startling and horrifying detail. The book names the chief prophets and promoters of antihumanism over the last two centuries, from Thomas Malthus through Paul Ehrlich and Al Gore. It exposes the worst crimes perpetrated by the antihumanist movement, including eugenics campaigns in the United States and genocidal anti-development and population-control programs around the world.
Here is another good reference:
British Genocide, From Thatcher to Gore
by Anton Chaitkin
Prometheus explained his battle with the Olympian gods— known in history as the imperial ruling families, who wished the mass of men to live in darkness, or to be slaughtered and conquered by a “superior” race:
As soon as he had seated himself on his father’s throne, Zeus assigned to the deities their several privileges and apportioned unto them their proper powers. But of wretched mortals he took no heed, but desired to bring the whole race to nothingness and to create another, a new one, in its stead. Against this purpose none dared make stand save I myself—I only had the courage; I saved mortals. . . . I gave them fire.
—Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound —Sir Crispin Tickell, advisor to Margaret Thatcher
This article said:
The global warming hoax was presented to the world in the 1970s, immediately following the end of a 30-year global cold spell. It was sold as a pretext for savage, genocidal poli- cies that had long been promoted by the core British impe- rial leaders.
This article then said:
A decade later, these leaders guided United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to adopt the scam as the theme of her government. She crusaded for it in summit con- ferences, wearing down the resistance in America and else- where. Then-Sen. Al Gore, a lifelong American asset of the British imperial financiers’ apparatus, worked in tandem with London, badgering the U.S. government to accept this policy, to destroy industrial society and prevent the world’s poor peoples from ever gaining scientific and political power.
Mankind is a disease.
Why Big Oil Conquered the World
1950 and ’51`, John Foster Dulles, then chairman of the Rockefeller Foundation (later to be appointed Secretary of State by Eisenhower), led John D. Rockefeller III on a series of world tours, “focussing on the need to stop the expansion of the non-white populations”. In 1952, Frederick Osborn (1889-1981) nephew of Henry Fairfield Osborn Sr. (see above), an officer of the American Eugenics Society/SSSB for more than 30 years, helped John D. Rockefeller III establish the Population Council in 1952, served as the council’s first administrator and was on its board of trustees for many years.
In 1958, Eisenhower appointed Draper (see above) as head of a committee to study the proper course for military aid to other countries. Draper changed the focus of the committee and recommended that the US goverment react to the threat of the population explosion by formulating plans to depopulate the poorer countries, as the growth of the world’s non-white population should be regarded as dangerous to the national security of the United States! Eisenhower had the sense to reject this.
In the1960’s Draper founded the Population Crisis Committee and the Draper fund, and joined with the Rockerfeller and Du Pont families to promote eugenics as population control…
While serving in Congress – and with Draper as his ‘population expert’ – George H.W. Bush chaired the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population and invited Professors William Shockley and Arthur Jensen to explain to the committee how allegedly runaway birth-rates for African-Americans were down-breeding the American population. On August 5 1969, Bush summed up the testimony his black-inferiority advocates had given to the Task Force before Congress.
Here is the link from military population control and climate change. Same thing different name.
This book broadens and deepens understanding of a wide range of population-climate change linkages. Incorporating population dynamics into research, policymaking and advocacy around climate change is critical for understanding the trajectory of global greenhouse gas emissions, for developing and implementing adaptation plans and thus for global and national efforts to curtail this threat.
Substantial resources are being dedicated to research and policy efforts to mitigate climate change and support adaptation to the current and future impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet the lack of consideration of population dynamics hampers the development of stronger, more effective solutions to the challenges climate change poses. The papers in this volume provide a substantive and methodological guide to the current state of knowledge on issues such as population growth and size and emissions; population vulnerability and adaptation linked to health, gender disparities and children; migration and urbanization; and the data and analytical needs for the next stages of policy-relevant research.
PAI’s climate-change initiative examines and assesses the relationships among population, gender and climate change. The goals of the initiative are to strengthen the understanding of the influence of population on greenhouse gas emissions; demonstrate how demographic variables relate to climate-change vulnerability, and expand the concept of climate change resilience by highlighting gender, fertility, and reproductive-health dimensions. PAI partners with climate-focused organizations, including the Joint Global Change Research Institute and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Environmental Histories of the Cold War
edited by J. R. McNeill, Corinna R. Unger, German Historical Institute (Washington, D.C.)
Jason Thompson received his Bachelor of Arts degree in Law & Society from Winona State University where he studied U.S.-Mongolian Foreign Relations 1860-1920. He also attended programs at Hennepin Technical College in Minnesota, Soonchunhyang University in the Republic of Korea and at the University for Peace in Costa Rica. He has a Master of Arts degree from University of Nevada, Las Vegas where he focused on climate control and high-energy x-ray applications. Jason has wrote for Diesel Power and The Costa Rica News. Contact him at email@example.com