Findings & Forecasts 01/23/2013

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrDigg thisBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

Green Eco­nomics

I have been writing for sev­eral years now that the global elite are plan­ning to imple­ment a Technocracy-oriented eco­nomic system that will turn our existing cap­i­tal­istic eco­nomic system upside-down. Why? Because it will be based on ENERGY instead of MONEY.

The Trojan horse that is enabling Tech­noc­racy is “Green Energy.” You already know that green is on the lips of just about every politi­cian in the world. Obama kick-started the con­ver­sion of America’s energy grid into a “Smart Grid” that will con­trol energy con­sump­tion down to the appli­ance level in your home and busi­ness. Public money is reck­lessly thrown down a rabbit hole into green com­pa­nies like Solyndra. Europe is obsessed with green and sus­tain­able development.

In his second inau­gu­ra­tion speech, Obama stated,

“We will respond to the threat of cli­mate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our chil­dren and future gen­er­a­tions.  Some may still deny the over­whelming judg­ment of sci­ence, but none can avoid the dev­as­tating impact of raging fires, and crip­pling drought, and more pow­erful storms.  The path towards sus­tain­able energy sources will be long and some­times dif­fi­cult.  But America cannot resist this tran­si­tion; we must lead it.”

At the annual World Eco­nomic Forum summit meeting cur­rently taking place in Davos, Switzer­land, the first major head­line to be pro­duced is: Davos call for $14 tril­lion ‘greening’ of global economy. This is an amount larger than the entire global economy. The orga­ni­za­tion behind the pro­nounce­ment is the Green Growth Action Alliance. Who are they and who belongs to it?

The Green Growth Action Alliance was com­mis­sioned at last year’s Davos meeting, and is headed by former Mex­ican pres­i­dent Felipe Calderon. Alliance global banking mem­bers include: Bank of America Mer­rill Lynch, Bar­clays Cap­ital, Deutsche Bank Group, Euro­pean Bank for Recon­struc­tion and Devel­op­ment, Euro­pean Invest­ment Bank, Grupo Financiero Banorte, HSBC, Inter-American Devel­op­ment Bank, Morgan Stanley, World Bank Group. Other industry mem­bers include: Accen­ture, Alcatel-Lucent, Applied Mate­rials, Envi­ron­mental Defense Fund, GE Energy, Infosys, McK­insey & Com­pany, Sam­sung Elec­tronics Com­pany, Siemens, World Trade Organization.

This is a “who’s who” list of global giants. They, among other global movers and shakers, are col­lec­tively screaming for the world to turn “green”, all of it pred­i­cated on the unproven theory called Global Warming.

Given that the sci­ence behind global warming is rid­dled with fraud­u­lent data and pre­de­ter­mined “studies” skewed by grants from these same orga­ni­za­tions, what is the real agenda behind all this hoopla?

Tech­noc­racy.

The doc­trine of Tech­noc­racy was first for­mal­ized in the 1930’s by M. King Hub­bard at Columbia Uni­ver­sity, who later pro­posed the “Peak Oil Theory”, or Hubbard’s Peak. It sought to bal­ance con­sump­tion with pro­duc­tion based on an energy for­mula instead of supply-and-demand eco­nomics. Money would be dis­carded for energy credits. Society would be run by enlight­ened and unelected sci­en­tists and engi­neers (gov­er­nance), replacing rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ments. There would be no pri­vate prop­erty or ability to accu­mu­late wealth. People would be herded, man­aged and directed like cattle in a feed lot.

Hub­bard, et al, believed that tech­nology had caused an organic change in society, which could only then be run by the tech­no­log­ical experts. They viewed politi­cians as igno­rant and even dan­gerous, unable to under­stand the tech­nology they were sup­posed to manage.

This elite thinking has per­sisted, not only in halls of acad­emia, but in the indus­trial world where tech­nology and man­agerism already reigns. At the core of this elitist phi­los­ophy is Sci­en­tism, and I offer the fol­lowing definition.

Sci­en­tism: An exten­sion of Pos­i­tivism based on a mix­ture of pseudo-science and empir­ical sci­ence that states that sci­ence alone, with its self-selected priest­hood of engi­neers and sci­en­tists, is the only source of truth about the nature of man, the phys­ical world and uni­versal reality. By def­i­n­i­tion it rejects the exis­tence of God and all notions of divine truth as is found in the Bible.

A caveat is nec­es­sary. All sci­en­tists are not accused of Sci­en­tism. There are plenty (if not a majority) of sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who accept the notion of divine and/or absolute truth out­side of sci­ence. Unfor­tu­nately, these are looked upon as heretics by adher­ents to Sci­en­tism, and are largely ignored. For instance, 31,000 sci­en­tists signed a peti­tion that rejects the pseudo-science of global warming, but this has not deterred the Al Gores’ of the world, including Obama, from mar­keting global warming as if it were a sci­en­tific fact!

If Tech­noc­racy is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the eco­nomic system, then its Siamese twin is Tran­shu­manism, which is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the con­di­tion of man in order to achieve char­ac­ter­is­tics of immor­tality, omni­science and omnipres­ence, among others, and to pro­duce a God-like race of post-humans.

Because of the vocal rise of Tran­shu­manism, you now rou­tinely hear calls that immor­tality for humans is just around the corner, as is the case with Ray Kurzweil. Per­haps you missed the Time Mag­a­zine cover from Feb­ruary 21, 2011 issue pic­tured at the left.

Do you think this is all benev­o­lent and benign? Think again. The reli­gious evil that runs below the sur­face of any­thing con­nected to Sci­en­tism is of the greatest mag­ni­tude. It’s a dan­gerous phi­los­ophy for mankind in gen­eral, and espe­cially to Bible-believing Chris­tians in par­tic­ular, because its adher­ents see them­selves as gods, far above mere mor­tals of the une­d­u­cated classes.

For instance, a leading tran­shuman, cloning researcher and nuclear physi­cist, Dr. Richard Seed, stated point­edly in an inter­view for a doc­u­men­tary: “We are going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off. You don’t have to con­tribute, you don’t have to par­tic­i­pate. But if you’re going to inter­fere with ME becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble; we’ll have war­fare. The only way to pre­vent me is to kill me. And you kill me, I’ll kill you.” [Dr. Richard Seed, Nuclear physi­cist and cloning researcher. Tech­no­ca­lyps, Part II — Preparing for the Sin­gu­larity]. Yes, he said that; If you don’t believe it, go listen to the entire doc­u­men­tary. [https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/technocalyps-pt.-2-preparing/id490742472]

Where is this leading? Sci­en­tism, Tech­noc­racy and Tran­shu­manism are headed straight into a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship: That is, the utopian con­cept of sci­en­tific man­agerism whereby all facets of polit­ical, social and eco­nomic life are man­aged solely by the sci­en­tific method and dic­tates of sci­ence. If unchecked, it will put mankind back into the dark ages of a feudal society where a few own every­thing and have all the priv­i­leges while the rest own nothing and have zero privileges.

Fur­ther­more, all of this is coming at us like an express train. Is any­body else paying atten­tion? Appar­ently not, for I am still the only one harping on this week after week and month after month.

You are wel­come to share this article with anyone who might want to see beyond the cha­rade of modern global pol­i­tics and sci­en­tific psycho-babble.

[DAP isPaidUser=“Y” hasAccessTo=“3,4,5,6,8,10″ errMsgTemplate=“LONG”]

Market

The key DJIA trend line that con­nects Grand Super­cycle Wave I (1937) and its Wave III in the late 1960’s is at 13,870 on Thursday, and rises at a rate of 4 points per day. Today’s close at 13,779 is just one point shy of hit­ting this line for the sev­enth time since late 2010. This should pro­vide a very strong resis­tance to addi­tional advance, although a sharp spike of 1 – 2 per­cent above the line would appear to be in the making.

As index values rose today, more shares were down than up, and more volume was on the down­side than upside.

The VIX is at levels not since since before the crash in 2007, and opti­mism is almost at record highs. Since this entire rally started in March, 2009, volume has con­sis­tently dropped, pointing to a cor­rec­tion, not the start of a new bull market. In fact, these are the signs of a major top, which I still think we are facing.

Even though there are reports of public money coming back into stocks, the mea­sures of volume do not sup­port them. If small-investor funds are indeed entering the market, then smart investors are selling their stocks to them.

The new recovery high in the DJIA requires a rela­beling of the wave count, with the cur­rent high being Inter­me­diate Wave 2, and the con­clu­sion of a double zig-zag that began in March 2009. The inter­me­diate non-confirmation between the DJIA and the Trans­porta­tion index is now can­celled, but the longer-term non-confirmation still stands.

Thus, do not trust the head­lines that are heralding a new bull market. Now is the time to be dumping stocks and putting the pro­ceeds into short-term Trea­sury bills for safe-keeping.

The dollar is still too con­fused to apply mean­ingful Elliott Wave labels, but I think the bias is still up, not down. When stocks get hit hard, the dollar should see addi­tional upside movement.

Gold and silver are still cor­recting, with silver being the stronger per­former at present. Both metals appear to be at the end of their moves, and should expe­ri­ence some sort of sell-off within a few days. If silver drops below $30.85, the odds are that a top is in.

[/DAP]

 

 

, , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to Findings & Forecasts 01/23/2013

  1. Ed Parise January 24, 2013 at 6:55 am #

    This idea is the mega-horror show of the ages. Thank God, if you’re per­mitted, that it’s a grandiose illu­sion we seem to live in; that He can know nothing about. My friend, Edgar Allen Poe, had it right: “All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream”. The dream is appearing more scary all the time.

  2. Walter77777 January 24, 2013 at 7:30 am #

    Faith is actu­ally the danger while Doubt is far less dan­gerous. In the name of reli­gious Faith good Chris­tians burned witches at the stake, killed untold num­bers of non-Christians
    on their way to Jerusalem during the cru­sades, and did other ter­rible evils in the cer­tainty that they were doing the Will of The All-Powerful. Good Chris­tians invaded much of he world during he days of colo­nialism trying to con­vert Mus­lims who had little desire to con­vert and set­ting the stage for today’s Muslim anger which man­i­fests in such ter­rible vio­lence. Good Jews per­se­cuted Bene­dict Spinoza, expelled huge num­bers of Jews from their com­mu­ni­ties for refusing to believe as their brethren believed. In the name of their Faith Mus­lims reacting to the cen­turies of colo­nialism have com­mitted dreadful acts of violence.

    Atheism is also a Faith, a cer­tainty that there is no Supreme Being, and, since this makes athe­ists regard reli­gious Faith as a great evil it resulted in per­se­cu­tion of the reli­gious by Com­mies and other atheist groups.

    Doubt is dif­ferent. No one does any­thing ter­rible because they doubt the exis­tence of a Supreme Being. Doubt results in ques­tioning and this helps to increase knowledge.

    W.

  3. Dale January 24, 2013 at 9:21 am #

    One tiny cor­rec­tion. I believe that the global economy is about 60 Tril­lion while US GDP is about 14 – 16 Tril­lion, so I think the amount is about the same size as our entire economy. Either way it is ridiculous.

    The problem is that they will make a demand like that and then people (politi­cians) will feel oblig­ated to com­pro­mise and at least meet the demand part way. So instead of com­mit­ting 14 Tril­lion we will commit hun­dreds of bil­lions. It is an amount that we cannot afford, but the left will whine that it is less than a tenth of what is really needed. They will use the fact that hun­dreds of bil­lions pro­duced no results as “evi­dence” that they need much, much more. Because no results will ever be forth­coming, they will be a per­ma­nent drum­beat and drag on our economy.

    They will achieve two basic aims with this strategy: The elite will tap into the majority of funds pro­vided, so they will per­son­ally ben­efit, and the economies of any con­tributing coun­tries will be hob­bled, leading to an eco­nomic crisis large enough to require an “inter­na­tional” solu­tion. A world economy will be formed which will allow even more con­trol by the elites, require more global coop­er­a­tion and pave the way for the enslave­ment of the masses of the Earth.

  4. Ruth Harris January 24, 2013 at 4:57 pm #

    This much sited peti­tion is itself a won­derful example of sci­en­tism. An exam­i­na­tion of the peti­tion found that the only require­ment for signers was that they have a Bach­elor of Sci­ence degree in any field. They did not have to be familiar at any level with cli­mate sci­ence per se.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158

    This reminds me some­what of my son’s protes­ta­tion when he went to work at Twitter. He was told that his title was data sci­en­tist, and he loves to show his busi­ness card with that title. What he told the guy in per­sonnel was, “I used to work at NASA. I worked with a lot of sci­en­tists there. I know what a sci­en­tist is. I am not a sci­en­tist.” Still, he has been declared a sci­en­tist, is listed in the employee direc­tory as a sci­en­tist, and as such he could prob­ably have signed the peti­tion. He is a whiz bang code writer, but he knows nothing about cli­mate science.

  5. Patrick Wood January 24, 2013 at 8:12 pm #

    The point of the survey was to ask people who were able to think crit­i­cally and who have some kind of science-related degree. There are tons of people touting global warming to do not have degrees in atmos­pheric science.

    Remember that most of the so-called aca­d­emic (pro) global warming studies have been funded by major par­tic­i­pants such as the Carnegie Foun­da­tion and Rock­e­feller Brothers Fund. They were expected to pro­duce the results that they pro­duced. This is cor­rup­tion, not science.

  6. Ruth Harris January 25, 2013 at 1:31 am #

    And the cli­mate sci­ence skep­tics have largely been funded by the hydro­carbon energy industry. Finding an unbi­ased study is prob­ably difficult.

  7. Carl Teichrib February 21, 2013 at 4:30 pm #

    Actu­ally, the funding of cli­mate skep­tics by hydro­carbon cor­po­ra­tions is minus­cule to the funding these same com­pa­nies spend to combat “cli­mate change.”

    How much has Exxon given to cli­mate skep­tics? In 2009 it was reported to be about $16 mil­lion. Green­peace reported the Koch Brothers funded cli­mate skep­tics to the amount $67 mil­lion since 1997.

    All of the above seems like a lot of money, but Exxon funded the Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity Global Cli­mate and Energy Project to the tune $100 mil­lion. And the Amer­ican Petro­leum Insti­tute reports that the industry on a whole had invested $58 BILLION, from 2000 to 2008, on global warming research, carbon cap­ture, and other cli­mate change-related projects; often working hand-in-glove with major uni­ver­sity cli­mate programs.

    And it’s not just U.S. com­pa­nies. BP com­mitted $500 mil­lion for an academic-based bio­science project ded­i­cated to com­bating cli­mate change. Saudi Aramco is pouring hun­dreds of mil­lions into carbon cap­ture and other global warming projects. Big money is being spent by Petro-Canada and other for­eign oil com­pa­nies on global warming-related programs.

    And Exxon has favored a carbon tax pro­posal. The Western States Petro­leum Asso­ci­a­tion sup­ports cap-and-trade, as does Chevron.

    All that said, the funding of cli­mate skep­tics by big oil is laugh­able com­pared to the money they’re spending on global warming programs.

    But why would petro­leum cor­po­ra­tions be so heavily invested in cli­mate change projects and pro­grams? Now that’s the question.

  8. aria school of music November 21, 2013 at 10:46 am #

    I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own blog and
    was won­dering what all is required to get set up? I’m assuming having
    a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not
    very internet savvy so I’m not 100% pos­i­tive. Any
    rec­om­men­da­tions or advice would be greatly appre­ci­ated.
    Many thanks

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Grüne Weltordnung: Die Eliten und ihre globale Wissenschafts-Diktatur - January 25, 2013

    […] Patrick Woods, The August Fore­cast, 23.01.2013 […]

  2. Green Economics - Agenda 21 News - February 7, 2013

    […] Eco­nomics Posted on Feb­ruary 6, 2013 Written by Patrick Wood I have been writing for sev­eral years now that the global elite are plan­ning to […]

Powered by Patriot's Web