|
Das Imperium americanum schlagt zuruck
Von Gott berufen, "die Welt zum Frieden zu fuhren.": George W. Bush
spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,236448,00.html
Der Spiegel posted this picture of Bush on Feb 19, 2003. In an article which was titled
"Das Imperium americanum schlagt zuruck", the text underneath the picture read, "Called upon by God, 'to lead
the world to freedom': George W. Bush". Der Spiegel is right on the money again with this one. Click image to view the
interesting article. (Sorry about the umlauts.)
The most
dangerous men in the world.
Would you like to know how President Bush really thinks? It's not very difficult to
find out. Just ask Pat Robertson. Who is Pat Robertson? Pat Robertson is the man who delivered the block of 40 million
christian voters for George Bush in the 2000 election. Brother Pat put Bush in the Whitehouse. Do these two men think
alike? There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two.
It's no secret how Pat thinks. He told everybody exactly what he has in mind for the
future of the world on the ABC Nightline program with Ted Koppel in November of 2002. He says the world must be
cleansed. Ted asked if it would bother him if half the world population were eliminated in the cleansing. Pat says,
"Nope." Half the world population is 3 billion humans. And Pat is very serious about it. If nothing substantive is done
and humanity simply continues on its present course of overpopulation and dependance upon fossil fuel, Pat's Perfect
World will have become a self-fulfilled reality.
Feb 18, 2003. Masa wrote:
"What an interesting view. Resource nationalism is coming
out again. So much for the globalization illusion. The World War III will start between US-G8 hegemony and
resource nationalism of developing nations. It's really dangerous. Resource is limited. If so,we should not populate
any more? Can we find an energy or developmental alternative? The human evolution is limited? This century is the most
developed stage? What about Iraq? Can it be more explained? By Masa" 
Oil Peak? What Oil Peak?
energycrisis.org/de/lecture.html
Also a link to a video of the lecture.
rz.tu-clausthal.de/realvideo/event/peak-oil.ram
As Masa noted, World War lll will start between US- G8 hegemony and resource
nationalism of developing countries. For the G8 objectives to be realized, all they have to do is continue on the present
course. The WWlll won't be like the last two world wars in that the developing countries will do most of the fighting
amongst themselves. This will happen after the G8 cause a cut off of the oil/energy flow. That is why control of oil is
important for Bush and the G8. They must control the oil flow so that it can be cut off at the right time to cause mass
world wide starvation of vastly overpopulated human numbers. No oil, no energy, no agriculture, no food. Wars will
erupt spontaneously all over the globe. Pat Robertson, the Pope and Bush will be very happy. They will conveniently
cleanse the world of most non-white, non-judeochristian humans. Angry Islamics will be used to attack oil supplies to
start the ball rolling. That way Bush/G8 will not be seen as the ones responsible. Biblical prophesy will have been
conveniently self-fulfilled. The whole thing is well planned far in advance. Like a chess game.
See also:
Military Solution to an Economic Crisis
rupe-india.org/34/military.html
Masa wrote:
"The human evolution is limited? This century is the most developed
stage?"
There will be life after WWlll. There will be religion. It will be judeochristian. Of course there are
other alternatives. Other scenarios are conceivable but, any other alternative will not support a perpetuation of the
world elite aristocracy. Christianity is the most useful tool of the world elite aristocracy. Its legitimacy and
believability must be protected and maintained by the aristocracy. As for Iraq, that is a forgone conclusion. 
Here are some comments by Alan Bloom in his book, The Closing of the American Mind, which was
written when the American mind was significantly more open than it is today.
"The use of Weberian language and the
interpretation of the world it brings have caught on like wildfire. I have read about the Japanese Protestant ethic,
the Jewish Protestant ethic. The manifest absurdity of such locutions appears to have struck some, so now "work ethic"
is gradually replacing "Protestant ethic," but this is merely an adjustment and barely disguises the point of view that
still remains beneath it. Those interested in the free market do not seem to recognize, when they use this language,
that they are admitting that their "rational" system needs a moral supplement in order to work, and that this morality
is not rational, as they understand reason.
Delay of gratification may make sense for the system as a whole, but is
it unarguably good for the individual? Is increase of wealth self-evidently superior to poverty for a Christian? If the
work ethic is just one choice among many equally valid choices, then the free market system itself is also just one
choice among many. So proponents of the free market should not be surprised when they see that what was once generally
agreed upon no longer compels belief. One has to go back to Locke and Adam Smith in a serious way, not just for a set
of quotes, to find arguments for the rational moral basis of liberal society. This they no longer do; and because they
have lost the habit of reading serious philosophical books, they probably could not do so. When the liberal, or what
came to be called the utilitarian, teaching became dominant, as is the case with most victorious causes, good arguments
became less necessary; and the original good arguments, which were difficult, were replaced by plausible
simplifications - or by nothing. The history of liberal thought since Locke and Smith has been one of almost unbroken
decline in philosophic substance. When the liberal economic thought or way of life was manifestly threatened, its
proponents, in order to defend it, took whatever came to hand. A religion must it seems, be invented for the sole
purpose of defending capitalism, whereas the earliest philosophers associated with it thought that religion must, at
least, be weakened in order to establish it. And religion, contrary to containing capitalism's propensities, as
Tocqueville thought it should do, is now intended to encourage them." Maybe a collapse of civilization won't be all that bad...
Jul 8, 2003 Subject: Lawrence's Despair
"Civilizations have collapsed before and risen again so there is a
precedent for our times. (snip) But, we will do better than just agriculture and wood fuel. We will
not be able to support 6 billion people but that may not be a bad
thing. I believe that 1 billion people can create a technological
society that rivals the one we have today and be fairly sustainable.
I am not saying that all 1 billion people will live well, I would
expect that there would be a large number of workers who would
support a small elite. I will even be so bold as to say that this
future civilization would be able to travel back into space and if
that is done, then power can again be nearly unlimited."
Gregson Vaux,
Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Carnegie Mellon University
groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/38464 |