exploring dystopia - view topic - greens meet liberalism_ wwf works with world bank

8/7/2019 Exploring Dystopia - View Topic - Greens Meet Liberalism_ WWF Works With World Bank

1/16

Board index Related Thoughtcrime Corner P olitical Debate All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

Moderator: Ingsoc

Register FAQ Arcade Search Login

View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:08 pm

Greens meet Neo-Liberalism: WWF works with World Bank

Page 1 of1 [ 11 posts ]

Print view Previous topic | Next topic

Greens meet Neo-Liberalism: WWF works w ith World Bank

Author Message

Neuromancer

Greens meet Neo-Liberalism: WWF works w ith World Bank

There are several camps * that argue that the Green NGOs are "Green Investments" created for the purpose of being

income generators for transational Big Business; this Opinion piece sheds new light on this accusation. In my personal

view; the Environmental NGOs at the high peak level are controlled by Neo-Liberal anti nation-state Corporate Business.

These are heavily enmeshed with the purported Leftwing and pro-World Government United Nations which seems

incongruent (anti nation-state, market liberalism) with the ideological puritans of the IMF and World Bank, given the

"Money Men" hold the purse strings to both Neo-liberal Think-tanks, it would come as no surprise as to being the True

Masters behind the top level Environmental NGOs and promoters of its globalist ideology.

This is not an imputation of conspiracy accusation on fair minded supporters of environment at the local level and the

general public, what I am saying that at the top level there is corruption.

We're yet to see how the further the movement to comodify and monetise the saving of the environment (the "Global

Commons") when we visit the last environment domain of Water Privatisation, Conservation and trading of rights. As we

know Water is essential to human, plant and animal life.

Enter the Global Environment Facility, its backers and ideological supporters; namely the World Bank and Gorbachev of

Green Cross International as part of their commitment to saving the environment from Humanity.

The Truth of Fact will be ascertained by finely observing the procedure and m ethodologyto "save the

environment", so a monetisation and conversion into a revenue generation projects will be made out of the

environment to make it profitable and ideologically compatible w ith IMF/ World Bank Neo-liberal ideological

discourses. Of course the IMF and World Bank will work as bankers and collectors of revenue for its master agency theUnited Nations which writes up treaty after treaty with the help of its network of activists, grey eminences of oil,

foundations and NGOs such as those supporting Leftwing Parties across the planet like the present Socialist International

platform discourse.

If the worst case scenario which could be the final goal then, it means that the UN is a device to issue treaty law to

convey command and control off the nation states's natural resources to the UN so the funders and profiteers can fully

exploit the environment into a money-making machine, thus far until the full and total transfer of command and control

(CC) is not fully realised the corruption can't be overtly be exposed as such before the avenues to wind up the World

Government are exhausted.

Beware when the discourse changes to "Maximising the Protection of Earth Resources"

does it mean "Maximisation of Profits" by way of making Global Resources very expensive to human consumption and

standard of living, whichever company controls these resources will be the most powerful corporation/s in the world to rival

combined governments, it will

need armed force to defend its cartel and monopoly.

To comment further are the pandora's box of Debt-for-Nature Swaps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-for-Nature_Swap )

Quote:

[..]A commercial debt-for-nature swap involves a non-governmental organization that purchases debt titles from

commercial banks on the secondary market. The NGO transfers the debt title to the debtor country, and in exchange

the country agrees to either enact certain environmental policies or endow a government bond in the name of a

conservation organization, with the aim of funding conservation programs.

[...]

Quote:

oring Dystopia - View topic - Greens meet Neo-Liberalism: WWF w... http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberali

6 4/26/2011Create PDF files without this message by purchasing novaPDF printer (http://www.novapdf.com)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-for-Nature_Swap)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-for-Nature_Swap)http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-for-Nature_Swap)


2/16

GEF History

The Global Environment Facility was established in October 1991 as a $1 billion pilot program in the World Bank to

assist in the protection of the global environment and to promote environmental sustainable development. The GEF

would provide new and additional grants and concessional funding to cover the "incremental" or additional costs

associated with transforming a project with national benefits into one with global environmental benefits.

The United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Environment Program, and the World

Bank were the three initial partners implementing GEF projects.

In 19 94, at the Rio Earth Summit, the GEF was r estructured and moved out of the World Bank s ystem

to become a permanent, sepa rate institution.

The decision to make the GEF an independent organization enhanced the involvement of developing

countries in the decision-making process an d in implementation of the projects. Since 1994, however,

the World Bank has served as the Trustee of the GEF Trust Fund and provided adm inistrative services.

As part of the restructuring, the GEF was entrusted to become the financial mechanism for both the UN Convention

on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. In partnership with the Montreal

Protocol of the Vienna Convention on Ozone Layer Depleting Substances, the GEF started funding projects that

enable the Russian Federation and nations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to phase out their use of ozone-

destroying chemicals.

The GEF subsequently was also selected to serve as financial mechanism for two more international conventions:

The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (2001) and the United Nations Convention to Combat

Desertification (2003).

http://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgef

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Facility

Quote:

GEF funding

The GEF is also the designated financial mechanism for a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)

or conventions; as such the GEF assists countries in meeting their obligations under the conventions that they have

signed and ratified. These conventions and MEAs provide guidance to the two governing bodies of the GEF: the GEF

Council and the GEF Assembly.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)

The GEF is also associated with many global and regional MEAs that deal with international waters or transboundary

water systems.

As such, the GEF helps fund initiatives to assist developing countries in meeting the objectives of the Conventions.

GEF funds are contributed by donor countries. In 2002, 32 donor countries pledged $3 billion to fund operations

through 2006. At the Fourth GEF Assembly in 2006, an additional $3.13 billion was committed.

...and now the article from UK Telegraph.

Quote:

WWF hopes to find $60 billion growing on trees

The carbon credits scheme would make WWF and its partners much richer, but with no lowering of overall CO2

emissions, writes Christopher Booker .

By Christopher Booker

Published: 4:53PM GMT 20 Mar 2010

If the worlds largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF formerly the World Wildlife Fund

announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size

of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to

promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the worlds environmental cconcerns, not just because itincludes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees

contain the worlds largest land-based store of CO2 so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major

contributor to global warming.

If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow

the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial

world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised.

The idea is that credits representing the CO2 locked into this particular area of jungle so remote that it is not

under any threat should be sold on the international market, allowing thousands of companies in the developed

world to buy their way out of having to restrict their carbon emissions. The net effect would simply be to make the

WWF and its partners much richer while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions.

WWF, which already earns 400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been

at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest as shown recently by the furore over a


http://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgefhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Facilityhttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Facilityhttp://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgef


3/16

much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCCs

claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific

evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat

posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging.

This curious saga goes back to 1997, when the UNs Kyoto treaty set up what is known as the Clean Development

Mechanism (CDM). This allowed businesses in the developing world that could claim to have reduced their

greenhouse gas emissions to make billions of pounds by selling their resulting carbon credits to those firms in the

developed world which, under the treaty, would be obliged to cut their emissions. In 2001 the parties to Kyoto

agreed in principle that trees in the southern hemisphere could be counted as carbon sinks for the benefit of CO2

emitting firms in the northern hemisphere. In 2002, after lengthy negotiations with WWF and other NGOs, the

Brazilian government set up its Amazon Region Protected Areas (Arpa) project, supported by nearly $80 million of

funding. Of this, $18 million was given to the WWF by the USs Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, $18 million to itsBrazilian NGO partner by the Brazilian government, plus $30 million from the World Bank.

The aim was that the NGOs, led by the WWF, should adm inister chunks of the Brazilian rainforest to

ensure either that they were left alone or managed sustainably. Added to them, as the largest area of

all, was 31,000 sq uare miles on Brazils all but inaccessible northern f rontier; half designated as the

Tumucumaque National Park, the worlds largest nature reserve, the other half to be left largely

untouched but allow ing for sustainable development. This is remote from any part of the Amazonian

forest likely to be damaged by loggers , mining or agriculture.

So far all this might have seemed admirably idealistic. Despite the international agreement that forests could be

counted as carbon sinks, there was as yet no system in place whereby the CO2 thus saved could be turned into a

saleable commodity. In 2007, however, the WWF and its allies in the World Bank launched the Global Forest Alliance,

with start-up funding of $250 million from the Bank, to work for what they called avoided deforestation. A

conference in Bali, under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which

administers the CDM, agreed to a scheme called REDD (reducing emissions for deforestation in developing

countries). Hailed as the big new idea to save the planet from runaway climate change, this set up a global fund to

save vast areas of rainforest from the deforestation which accounts for nearly a fifth of all man-made CO2

emissions.

But still there was no mechanism for turning all this saved CO2 into a money-making commodity. The WWF now,

however, found a key ally in the Woods Hole Research Center, based in Massachusetts. Not to be confused with the

nearby Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, a bona fide scientific body, this is in fact a global warming advocacy

group, headed by a board which includes fund managers responsible for billions of dollars of private investments.

In 2008, funded by $7 million from the Moore Foundation and working in partnership with the WWF on the

Tumucumaque project, Woods Hole came up with the formula required: a way of valuing all that carbon stored in

Brazils protected rainforests, so that it could be traded under the CDM. The CO2 to be saved by the Arpa

programme, it calculated, amounted to 5.1 billion tons. Based on the UNFCCCs valuation of CO2 at $12.50 per ton,

this valued the trees in Brazils protected areas at over $60 billion. Endorsed by the World Bank, this projection was

presented to the UNFCCC.But two more obstacles had still to be overcome. The first was that the scheme needed to be adopted as part of

REDD by the UNFCCCs 2009 Copenhagen conference, which was supposed to agree a new global treaty to follow

Kyoto. This would allow all that saved Brazilian CO2 to be turned into hard cash under the CDM scheme.

The other was that the US should adopt a cap and trade scheme, imposing severe curbs on the CO2 emitted by US

industry. This would boost the international carbon market, sending the price soaring as US firms flocked to buy the

credits that would allow them to continue emitting the CO2 they needed to survive.

As we know, the story hasnt turned out as planned. Amid the shambles at Copenhagen in December, all that could

be saved of the REDD proposals was an agreement in principle, with the hope of reaching detailed agreement in

Mexico later this year. Also lost in the scramble to save something from the wreckage was the small print that

guaranteed the rights of indigenous peoples in rainforests, whose way of life to the concern of groups such as

Survival International and the Forest Peoples Programme has already been severely damaged by REDD-inspired

schemes elsewhere, such as in Kenya and Papua New Guinea.

Just as alarming to the WWF and its allies, who were hoping to make billions from Brazilian forests, has been the

failure of the US Senate to approve the cap and trade bill championed by President Obama. Since the EU has

excluded the rainforests from its own cap and trade scheme, bringing the US into the net is vital for the WWFs

hopes of finding money growing on trees. The price of carbon on the Chicago Climate Exchange has just

plummeted to its lowest-ever level, 10 cents a ton.

The WWFs dream has been thwarted but the revelation that it could even be party to such a scheme may have

considerable influence on the way this richest of all environmental campaigning groups is viewed by the world at

large.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-


4/16

on-trees.html

Funding of WWF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wildlife_Fund#Work_with_business

* traditional conservatives argue that there is not ecological crisis as such and it is a hoax, Neo-liberals argue that's

over-regulation at national level while Libertarians argue that environmentalism is "totalitarian" by virtue of its global and

totalist scope suggested in seeking to protect the biosphere from human use and encroachment.

Last edited by Neuromancer on Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:35 am

NexusInner Party Leader

Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:12 pm

Posts: 1869Location: Airstrip North

Re: Greens meets Neo-Liberalism: WWF w orks w ith Work Bank

I found some figures the other day that make me believe the World Bank's eco-rhetoric is mostly symbolic: During the

time period 2007-2008, the World Bank increased its funding of sustainable power with 11 %. During the same period, it

increased its funding of coal power with 642 % ! (source)

_________________

"Life is a succession of here and now, here and now, unceasing concentration in the here and now. People who worry about the

future or the past don't understand that they are worrying about an illusion." -Taisen Deshimaru

WELCOME! Forum Policy BBCode Tutorial

Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:37 pm

Neuromancer


Nexus wrote:

I found some figures the other day that make me believe the World Bank's eco-rhetoric is mostly symbolic: During

the time period 2007-2008, the World Bank increased its funding of sustainable power with 11 %. During the same

period, it increased its funding of coal power with 642 % ! (source)

Worst case scenario the whole "magnus opus" is to commercialise the environment to make money from the population

(wealth transfer without actual consideration) and over-regulate human life and economic activity, but we don't know that

yet with absolute certainty.

Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:44 am



Posts: 1869

Location: Airstrip North


Neuromancer wrote:

Worst case scenario the whole "magnus opus" is to commercialise the environment to make money from the

population (wealth transfer without actual consideration) and over-regulate human life and economic activity, but we

don't know that yet with absolute certainty.

I've already asked this many times, but I guess it won't hurt to ask once more: Do you have anything substantial which

supports this theory?

_________________




Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:22 pm

Neuromancer

Re: Greens meets Neo-Liberalism: WWF w orks w ith World Bank

Quote:

I've already asked this many times, but I guess it won't hurt to ask once more:

Do you have anything substantial which supports this theory?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wildlife_Fund#Work_with_businesshttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wildlife_Fund#Work_with_business


5/16

How evidence do you need to make it substantial to turn a Theory into a Fact?

There is such a thing as a Big Question Mark Nexus, I don't wave political banners offline so I keep a stronger level of

objectivity. Considering that the domination of The Press by the Establishment, how will the stories get out other than the

Indie Media? There lies the reason for the doubt.

Indeed a Worst Case Scenario, let the evidence pile up, before it is too late and it is not too little too late to do anything

about it.

Two Scams and counting; carbon credit trading scam and the first steps towards cartelisation of global resources based on

a 1970's computer simulation on resource depletion (computer models World3 and Global Warming), then, next rip the

democratic system off from under the feet of citizens (neo-liberalism) to disable street political action thus International

Treaty Law to pass national laws and over ride future counter legislation.Next, use the taxpayers to rig the voting system at the UN with treaty-locked foreign aid, time for another go at it at the

next UN tossy Summit of NGOs, Celebrities and World Leaders.

The Establishment believes its Mushroom Policy can be effective...will it work to completion of the project? Such is the

Irony of it all.

It is gonna be EPIC.

I have already seen the Writing on the Wall.

So do what you must for that's what you're supposed to do.

Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:35 am

Neuromancer

Re: Green meets Neo-Liberalism: WWF w orks w ith Work Bank

Nexus wrote:

I found some figures the other day that make me believe the World Bank's eco-rhetoric is mostly symbolic: During

the time period 2007-2008,the World Bank increased its funding of sustainable power with 11 %.

During the same period, it increased its funding of coal power with 642 % ! (source)

Way off the chart statistic, seems there is an expectation by the Neo-liberal World Bank

as to where to place its bets with, given that the Copenhagen Treaty failed to pass.

On the other hand, to mention Goldman Sachs's investments on projects would have become financially viable. This bang

Kw/h per dollar of investment, hence the investment on conventional power generation in relation to the windmills and the

use of Forests as carbon sinks and items to trade carbon credits with companies in the First World.

The difference is whether it swells up the coffers

of the World Bank, its corporations and its activitist NGOs, thus far carbon trading market has been clamped. Therefore

there is Lip Service to liaise with WWF however for practical purposes, the money maker will be funded if a return can be

calculated with certainty by the World Bank technocrats.

By having cheap power in the Third World a number of things happen:

Transnational Corporations can move there to export cheap by exploiting labour rates with the power infrastructure for the

factories.

Gives weight to Globalists' argument about remaining competitive in a "Globalised World" thus lower wages and conditions

in the Third World and First World.

WTO can effect trade liberalisation with the resulting industrial emmigration and crush labour unions, Third Countries argue

in favour of Free Trade and Tariff Reduction following the Rural Push of Population to the new Urban Centres with a growing

mass of unemployed who can get restive.

NGOs celebrate the achievement of Millenium Development Goals in the "Global South" by transferring industrialisation and

achieve the touted "International Equality".

There is something big being missed about the reframed arguments of South Development, Globalisation, Free Trade,World Bank and UN-prescribed development.

I believe this is called the New I nternational Economic Order [1], however it has to be compared against the

International Liberal Economic Order [2]

Is it to benefit the Chinese Communist Party and its Totalitarian Capitalist System as the Great Bait to at the Table with the

Western Elites?

Stating the obvious: It is Global Central Planning.

[1] It is indicative but not cemented on Treaty Law, but why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order

How different is the Liberal International Economic Order aka Free Trade from a reframed discourse on Third World

Development? Or is it a mere sanctimonious excuse to exploit the Third World's cheap labour (unions stay illegal, they are

dismembered in the West) and kill off the First World Working and Middle Classes?

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_economic_order


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_economic_orderhttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_economic_orderhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Economic_Order


6/16

Mon Apr 05, 2010 5:03 am




Re: Greens meets Neo-Liberalism: WWF w orks w ith World Bank

Neuromancer wrote:

How evidence do you need to make it substantial to turn a Theory into a Fact?

What about something?

Neuromancer wrote:

There is such a thing as a Big Question Mark Nexus, I don't wave political banners offline so I keep a stronger

level of objectivity.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. You've tried to play this card before, and it didn't work that time either. You are not

objective. No matter what arguments and facts are presented to you, you won't even consider the possiblity that your

standpoint is wrong. Persistence can certainly be a virtue, but it can certainly also be an impediment.

Neuromancer wrote:

Considering that the domination of The Press by the Establishment, how will the stories get out other than the Indie

Media? There lies the reason for the doubt.

Agreed. However, there are indie media and there are indie media. What happened to your judiciousness?

Neuromancer wrote:

Indeed a Worst Case Scenario, let the evidence pile up, before it is too late and it is not too little too late to do

anything about it.

Unfortunately, the same argument applies to UFO invasions. I'd say your green conspiracy theories distract you from

researching more probable and dangerous conspiracies.

Neuromancer wrote:

Two Scams and counting; carbon credit trading scam and the first steps towards cartelisation of global resources

based on a 1970's computer simulation on resource depletion (computer models World3 and Global Warming), then,

next rip the democratic system off from under the feet of citizens (neo-liberalism) to disable street political action

thus International Treaty Law to pass national laws and over ride future counter legislation.

Next, use the taxpayers to rig the voting system at the UN with treaty-locked foreign aid, time for another go at it

at the next UN tossy Summit of NGOs, Celebrities and World Leaders.

The Establishment believes its Mushroom Policy can be effective...will it work to completion of the project? Such is

the Irony of it all.

It is gonna be EPIC.

I have already seen the Writing on the Wall.

So in essence, environmentalists, neo-liberals, scientists, politicians, capitalists, and UN officials have teamed up to install

an eco-totalitarian world order, possibly with the intent to exterminate mankind? That is the gist of your posts on this topic.

I need something substantial if I am to take these rantings seriously.

Neuromancer wrote:

So do what you must for that's what you're supposed to do.

So, should we form an anti-environmentalist militia and bomb the UN headquarters?

_________________




http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...


7/16


Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:59 pm

Neuromancer

Re: Greens meet Neo-Liberalism: WWF w orks w ith World Bank

Quote:

So in essence, environmentalists, neo-liberals, scientists, politicians, capitalists, and UN officials have

teamed up to install an eco-totalitarian world order,

possibly with the intent to exterminate mankind?

That is the gist of your posts on this topic.

I need something substantial if I am to take these rantings seriously.

Fair point, though a great extrapolation on intent. I perceive sensitivity about this, are you saying criticism is off-limits in

the Forum?

But more to answering your point made.

Sounds like a great set of assumptions made, despite the pronouncements made by the persons who consider humans

"viruses and plague" on the planet and thus should be eliminated and controlled much like livestock and cattle. Should I be

criticised for remarking their views?

There is an argument for foot soldiers not knowing what the generals' strategy is, right Nexus? Can you imagine a series of

streams and tributaries feeding into the Nile River System?

I think it is even simpler than that, by creating an overwhelming Body of International Law , then once the System of

Law is in place, tweak it to benefit a particular group's interest, however Environmental Ideology does not acknowledge

limits to national borders (it is Global, it's about "GAIA"), economic, legal, social and cultural limits so the Damocles

Sword remains hanging on Green Ideology. So the accusations as to Totalitarianism stand, waiting to be passed into law if

the Public Opinion consents to the latest scare and children get it taught in Primary School (ecological values of sustainable

development diatribe). The thing is how can we know unless we let the whole thing through the gates to prove the point; it

is a chicken and the egg question and observing real-life scenarios for signals.

The logic is about the Scope and Parameters for Environmentalism as argued by those Neo-Liberals and Libertarian

think-tank for different reasons (those who fund them in particular) follows the line of "Nothing Above the State, Nothing

Outside the State", and thus "Nothing Outside the Environment, Nothing Above the Environment". There is a legitimate

concern there besides central control of economic activity and growing body of "green tape" adding costs and reducing

profits from the point of view of Neo-liberalism and Libertarianism.

Quote:

Unfortunately, the same argument applies to UFO invasions. I'd say your green conspiracy theories distract you from

researching more probable and dangerous conspiracies.

We are not talking about UFO invasions and its folklore, we are talking about politics, corruption and manipulation. Very

human indeed.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous.

You've tried to play this card before, and it didn't work that time either. You are not objective.

No matter what arguments and facts are presented to you, you won't even consider the possiblity that your

standpoint is wrong.

Persistence can certainly be a virtue,

but it can certainly also be an impediment.

Reasonable perception Nexus, however my way I see that I am just putting question marks, because I am assuming not all

the cards are laid out on the table.

On the other hand I could be wrong too, but then our knowledge is imperfect about the Inner Workings of the core political

machinery, valid point Nexus?

Quote:

So, should we form an anti-environmentalist militia and bomb the UN headquarters?

You are not serious, are you? But you do need Money, Connections, Networking, and the factor Time to see it through;

most important "Attitude and Belief Change w ith Institutions to perpetuate it[1]. May be there is a rationale for

joining the Anarchist Movement given my disappointment with Status Quo Politics and its potential for corruptibility.

Despite the comment above, it has proven very lucrative for the WWF NGO...now what can those millions buy..... lots of

green real estate.

Ancillary note

[1]Antonio Gramsci, there is an effective technique ("March through the Institutions") to be used by careful technocratic

planning to get around the issue of needing an outright "Revolution" to implement a stealthy form of totalitarianism by the

Left and Right for those who enjoy Machiavelism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramsci

[2]Damocles Sword http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles_Sword


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramscihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles_Swordhttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles_Swordhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramsci


8/16

Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:23 am





Neuromancer wrote:

Fair point, though a great extrapolation on intent.

How so? I'm using your words and I haven't added anyting you haven't written.

Neuromancer wrote:

I perceive sensitivity about this, are you saying criticism is off-limits in the Forum?

You've tried this before too, and it didn't work that time either. As long as you don't violate the rules in the Forum Policy

Document, I'm never going to censor anything you post. Nota bene, you were yourself the driving force behind introducing

these particular rules in another forum. As far as I know, you have never violated any of the rules, and I've never even

considered any sanctions against you. Don't cry wolf.

However, I have the right to criticise everything you post, just like any other forum member. In this case, you haven't

presented anything substantial to support your theory, and then I obviously feel inclined to criticise your theory.

Neuromancer wrote:

But more to answering your point made.

Sounds like a great set of assumptions made, despite the pronouncements made by the persons who consider

humans "viruses and plague" on the planet and thus should be eliminated and controlled much like livestock and

cattle. Should I be criticised for remarking their views?

Criticise them as much as you want. What I criticise is that you are trying to make it sound like they are more than an

insignificant minority of loonies without presenting anything substantial to support this claim.

Neuromancer wrote:

There is an argument for foot soldiers not knowing what the generals' strategy is, right Nexus? Can you imagine a

series of streams and tributaries feeding into the Nile River System?

The million-dollar question: Who are the generals, Neuromancer?

Neuromancer wrote:

I think it is even simpler than that, by creating an overwhelming Body of International Law , then once the

System of Law is in place, tweak it to benefit a particular group's interest, however Environmental Ideology does

not acknowledge limits to national borders (it is Global, it's about "GAIA"), economic, legal, social and cultural limits

so the Damocles Sword remains hanging on Green Ideology. So the accusations as to Totalitarianism stand,

waiting to be passed into law if the Public Opinion consents to the latest scare and children get it taught in Primary

School (ecological values of sustainable development diatribe).

You know, if you go on like this, I could as well read The Australian as your posts. At least, now I know who's feeding you

these ideas.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sc ... 5700037091

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ba ... 1118746757

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/op ... 1115772269



Neuromancer wrote:

The thing is how can we know unless we let the whole thing through the gates to prove the point; it is a chicken and

the egg question and observing real-life scenarios for signals.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/schttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bahttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bahttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sc


9/16

You can start by stating a possible motive for these totalitarians in spe. Are you saying that their motive is that they want

to exterminate mankind?

Neuromancer wrote:

The logic is about the Scope and Parameters for Environmentalism as argued by those Neo-Liberals and

Libertarian think-tank for different reasons (those who fund them in particular) follows the line of "Nothing Above the

State, Nothing Outside the State", and thus "Nothing Outside the Environment, Nothing Above the Environment".

There is a legitimate concern there besides central control of economic activity and growing body of "green tape"

adding costs and reducing profits from the point of view of Neo-liberalism and Libertarianism.

Do you agree with the neo-liberal standpoint?

Neuromancer wrote:

We are not talking about UFO invasions and its folklore, we are talking about politics, corruption and manipulation.

Very human indeed.

You are not just talking about politics, corruption, and manipulation. You are also talking about green totalitarianism,

fundamentalist neo-paganism, co-operation between political enemies, globally coordinated conspiracies, and so on. If you

don't want this to be dismissed as a bad James Bond plot, you better produce something substantial.

Neuromancer wrote:

Reasonable perception Nexus, however my way I see that I am just putting question marks, because I am assuming

not all the cards are laid out on the table.

Your question marks look suspiciously much like exclamation marks.

Neuromancer wrote:

On the other hand I could be wrong too, but then our knowledge is imperfect about the Inner Workings of the core

political machinery, valid point Nexus?

You can be right and I can be wrong too. Completely groundless speculation won't lead anywhere close to an answer,

though.

Neuromancer wrote:

You are not serious, are you?

No.

Neuromancer wrote:

But you do need Money, Connections, Networking, and the factor Time to see it through; most important

"A ttitude and Belief Change w ith Institutions to perpetuate it[1].

First, maybe you should focus on finding a real enemy. Don Quixote has my sympathy, but not my support.

Neuromancer wrote:

May be there is a rationale for joining the Anarchist Movement given my disappointment with Status Quo Politics and

its potential for corruptibility.

I sympathise with your feeling, but I don't agree with your notion. As Nietzsche put it: "Battle not with monsters, lest ye

become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

Neuromancer wrote:




10/16

Despite the comment above, it has proven very lucrative for the WWF NGO...now what can those millions buy.....

lots of green real estate.

The world consumes 30 billion barrels (4.8 km) of oil per year. When this is written, a barrel of crude oil is worth $85.88.

If you multiply these figures with each other, you get $2576.4 billion. Add other fossil fuel industries and the automative

industries, and you get a BIG fucking sum.

Neuromancer wrote:

[1]Antonio Gramsci, there is an effective technique ("March through the Institutions") to be used by carefultechnocratic planning to get around the issue of needing an outright "Revolution" to implement a stealthy form of

totalitarianism by the Left and Right for those who enjoy Machiavelism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramsci

Well, this at least shows that you are reading other neo-liberal sources than The Australian. I've never understood this

bizarre line of reasoning. Why would American liberals turn to an Italian communist for inspiration? Gramsci was clearly

against capitalism and for a stateless society.

_________________




Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:48 am

Neuromancer


Quote:


..and what else.

Quote:

You can start by stating a possible motive for these totalitarians in spe.

Are you saying that their motive is that they want to exterminate mankind?

It is a possible avenue among the extreme wings of this Global Movement, but then dead people are terrible customerswho don't pay mortgages, pay bloody taxes, buy iPods, go to school, have children et cetera. In other words one can't

exploit dead people and those who seek power oh well have no slaves to order about, much less exploit and have Power of

Life and Death over them.

Quote:

Do you agree with the neo-liberal standpoint?

No, they have a different agenda to achieve.

Quote:

You are not just talking about politics, corruption, and manipulation.

You are also talking aboutgreen totalitarianism,

fundamentalist neo-paganism,

co-operation between p olitical enemies,

globally coordinated conspiracies, and so on.

If you don't want this to be dismissed as a bad James Bond plot, you better produce something substantial.

Or in other words Machiavellian Politics to keep it simple, we get to unravel and piece the puzzle together, it is about

building new institutions of power takes time and resources and the framing of many discourses to persuade people.

Quote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramscihttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramsci


11/16

Your question marks look suspiciously much like exclamation marks.

Oh dear, this means "?=!", should I drop the question marks altogether then from my posts.

Quote:

The million-dollar question: Who are the generals, Neuromancer?

We will find out in time, some how and some way they will reveal themselves unless they are into the "Grey Eminence

Business", staying in the background makes it less of a target for detractors and critics.

Quote:

I sympathise with your feeling, but I don't agree with your notion.

As Nietzsche put it: "Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss

gazes also into you."

There is a thing about Power; The Right People don't want it. So it's bound to be contested.

But then it could be an argument for passivity against tyranny and tyrants.

Quote:

First, maybe you should focus on finding a real enemy.

Don Quixote has my sympathy, but not my support.

Indeed but I am not asking for your support, I am asking for heavy and harsh criticism.

Quote:

You can be right and I can be wrong too.

Completely groundless speculation won't lead anywhere close to an answer, though.

Granted fair and commonsensical point.

Quote:

You know, if you go on like this, I could as well read The Australian as your posts. At least, now I know who's

feeding you these ideas.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sc ... 5700037091http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ba ... 1118746757




Does this mean they are either incorrect or bad? Any way thanks for the links, reading the SMH I already know their

position though, I could write it myself, and that's your capitalist press owned by capitalists, etc. My expectations are why

is the Capitalist Press divided into these two neat camps?

I'd expect them to hold the News Ltd Editorial View, that'd be commonsensical assumption.

There is another factor missing from the puzzle to justify the Bias between the Newspaper Chains, I will find out eventually.

Any way so much for diversity of opinion and tolerance makes great rhetoric fodder for cynics to shoot down in flames.

Now how about attacking The Australian's purported Neo-Lib Views, but doesn't tell me about those views being right or

wrong.

Would a dissenting scientist criticising Green Policies (published in the "right wing press") become an instant Neo-Lib and

The Australian-reading pundit and thus "wrong" by default.

I think your criticism boils down to what I can and can't read and whether it has been "deemed suitable reference material"

(uncritical of mainstream and current politics except if deemed criticising Neo-Libs), Mainstream Press Claims then

notwithstanding, so that leaves us with an even narrower menu of choices and this considered to be used as background

material to write comment and criticism on posts and movie reviews.

Quote:


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/schttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bahttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://www.novapdf.com/http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ophttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/bahttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sc


12/16

The world consumes 30 billion barrels (4.8 km) of oil per year.

When this is written, a barrel of crude oil is worth $85.88. If you multiply these figures with each other, you get

$2576.4 billion.

Add other fossil fuel industries and the automative industries,

and you get a [b]BI G fucking sum[/b].

Indeed, but is consumption "bad" per se, we could be wasting it or leaving it idle on the ground unmolested by human

intrusion on other hand. Or even better under the control of two Oil and Price Cartels. In relation to the first post, Carbon

Trading turned up like a very lucrative business.

I used to have bicycle but it would take 5+ hours to travel to the City for work in the morning and evening commute.Stupid government keeps bleating "sustainability" this and that, but has not built an integrated public transport system in

the 15 years of government. So who's full of it? Plenty of tossers in bikes in the City, but they can afford to pay the rents

and buy the apartments there and that means they are wealthier than me, the government builds tracks for them as well.

Does this mean I don't have a valid point in local politics criticising Green, Conservative and traditional Left Wing Views? So

much for criticism of my readership preference Nexus, I could criticise your readership preference just the same. Would it

be fair?

Quote:

Well, this at least shows that you are reading other neo-liberal sources* than The Australian.

I've never understood this bizarre line of reasoning.

Why would American liberals turn to an Italian communist for inspiration?

Gramsci was clearly against capitalism and for a stateless society**.

*I am getting the sensation I am being patronised here.

I think you are referring to the Frankfurt School's Theodor Adorno but to topic any way on Gramsci, stateless or otherwise,

The Technique can work for tyrannies of the Left and Right in order to make its grip on power far firmer -pragmatic politics,

right Nexus? Now how diverse is the Political and Opinion Ecosystem in Sweden, I am getting the gist that either Neo-Lib or

Greens having a catfight with each other. Too easy to hurl the label neo-lib as an insult but it doesn't tell the guts as part of

the counter argument.

**On " American Liberals"; we have to examine the policies and the political rhetoric to get a proper view, now how

committed are the Political Believers to their cause? US Liberals like US Republicans are an Umbrella Political Movement.

The Christian Right had its "Wedge" Intelligent Design to insert Creationism by stealth into public schools. A practical

application.

It is a race to conquer the Government Institutions in order to achieve Hegemony to achieve the Tyranny.

I think we are in the middle of a Cultural War (KulturKampf), which one will win our minds, hearts and pockets? Perhaps it

is a gross rip off in the end any way like the rest of the scams dressed pretty up to trick the buyers.

Thu Apr 08, 2010 9:53 am



Posts: 1869

Location: Airstrip North


Neuromancer wrote:

Quote:


..and what else.

Well, what can I say. Your words and your theories. If not even you find them credible, maybe they aren't so good...

Neuromancer wrote:

It is a possible avenue among the extreme wings of this Global Movement, but then dead people are terrible

customers who don't pay mortgages, pay bloody taxes, buy iPods, go to school, have children et cetera. In other

words one can't exploit dead people and those who seek power oh well have no slaves to order about, much less

exploit and have Power of Life and Death over them.

You still have to state a motive.

Neuromancer wrote:




13/16

Or in other words Machiavellian Politics to keep it simple, we get to unravel and piece the puzzle together, it is about

building new institutions of power takes time and resources and the framing of many discourses to persuade people.

To speak in Machiavellian terms, who is Il Principe in this alleged conspiracy?

Neuromancer wrote:

We will find out in time, some how and some way they will reveal themselves unless they are into the "Grey

Eminence Business", staying in the background makes it less of a target for detractors and critics.

How convenient. If this was a murder case, you wouldn't have a murder suspect or a motive, or even be capable of

showing that a murder has been committed at all; possibly you would have been able to present a potential murder

weapon.

Neuromancer wrote:

There is a thing about Power; The Right People don't want it. So it's bound to be contested.

Most true. Well put.

Neuromancer wrote:

But then it could be an argument for passivity against tyranny and tyrants.

I think history has shown us, especially Russian history, that political avantgardism may have terrible consequences.

Neuromancer wrote:

Indeed but I am not asking for your support, I am asking for heavy and harsh criticism.

Then I'll oblige as far as my modest intelligence and knowledge allow me.

Neuromancer wrote:

Does this mean they are either incorrect or bad?

It means that you aren't thinking independently, and as I consider your independent thinking to be your main strength, I

think it's a pity.

Neuromancer wrote:

Any way thanks for the links, reading the SMH I already know their position though, I could write it myself, and

that's your capitalist press owned by capitalists, etc. My expectations are why is the Capitalist Press divided into

these two neat camps?

I'd expect them to hold the News Ltd Editorial View, that'd be commonsensical assumption.

There is another factor missing from the puzzle to justify the Bias between the Newspaper Chains, I will find out

eventually.

It's the same old thing: They represent competing business interests.

Neuromancer wrote:

Any way so much for diversity of opinion and tolerance makes great rhetoric fodder for cynics to shoot down in

flames.

I'm not sure I follow.




14/16

Neuromancer wrote:

Now how about attacking The Australian's purported Neo-Lib Views, but doesn't tell me about those views being

right or wrong.

Would a dissenting scientist criticising Green Policies (published in the "right wing press") become an instant Neo-Lib

and The Australian-reading pundit and thus "wrong" by default.

You've tried this before too. We have already discussed this at length in other threads and I've presented my criticism of

specific articles on this very topic.

Neuromancer wrote:

I think your criticism boils down to what I can and can't read and whether it has been "deemed suitable reference

material" (uncritical of mainstream and current politics except if deemed criticising Neo-Libs), Mainstream Press

Claims then notwithstanding, so that leaves us with an even narrower menu of choices and this considered to be

used as background material to write comment and criticism on posts and movie reviews.

Then you think wrong. My criticism boils down to that I'm always sceptical against people who only repeat other people's

opinions.

Neuromancer wrote:

Indeed, but is consumption "bad" per se, we could be wasting it or leaving it idle on the ground unmolested by

human intrusion on other hand. Or even better under the control of two Oil and Price Cartels. In relation to the first

post, Carbon Trading turned up like a very lucrative business.

That's not my point. My point is that you are talking of the eco-industries' revenues, when they aren't even close to 1 % of

even the oil industry's, let alone all the other fossil fuel industries and the automative industries combined. It's not a very

convincing case.

Neuromancer wrote:

I used to have bicycle but it would take 5+ hours to travel to the City for work in the morning and evening

commute. Stupid government keeps bleating "sustainability" this and that, but has not built an integrated public

transport system in the 15 years of government. So who's full of it? Plenty of tossers in bikes in the City, but they

can afford to pay the rents and buy the apartments there and that means they are wealthier than me, the

government builds tracks for them as well.

I couldn't agree more. It's the same shit over here. Our beloved representative politicians raise the price on petrol, but

don't lower the price on public transportation and don't expand its services. I would prefer going by bus than by car to my

work, but the communications aren't good enough. Idiotic.

Neuromancer wrote:

Does this mean I don't have a valid point in local politics criticising Green, Conservative and traditional Left Wing

Views? So much for criticism of my readership preference Nexus, I could criticise your readership preference just the

same. Would it be fair?

Go ahead. You are free to criticise all my readership preferences, because it's of course difficult for me to be completely

objective about them.

Neuromancer wrote:

*I am getting the sensation I am being patronised here.

That's probably a correct perception.

Neuromancer wrote:

I think you are referring to the Frankfurt School's Theodor Adorno but to topic any way on Gramsci, stateless or

otherwise, The Technique can work for tyrannies of the Left and Right in order to make its grip on power far firmer

-pragmatic politics, right Nexus?




15/16

Board index Related Thoughtcrime Corner P olitical Debate All times are UTC + 1 hour [ DST ]

This is interesting. If a movement tries to break the current liberal/conservative hegemony, it must by default be

tyrannical? Your radical rhetoric suddenly rings hollow.

Neuromancer wrote:

Now how diverse is the Political and Opinion Ecosystem in Sweden, I am getting the gist that either Neo-Lib or

Greens having a catfight with each other.

It's complex. I'm actually writing on a rather extensive article on neo-liberalism in Sweden. It will take some time to

complete, though.

Neuromancer wrote:

Too easy to hurl the label neo-lib as an insult but it doesn't tell the guts as part of the counter argument.

Well, I don't think I've used the term neo-liberal in a derogatory meaning in this thread. I've basically only point out that

you are very receptive to and possibly also very uncritical of the conent on neo-liberal web sites.

Neuromancer wrote:

**On " American Liberals"; we have to examine the policies and the political rhetoric to get a proper view, now how

committed are the Political Believers to their cause? US Liberals like US Republicans are an Umbrella PoliticalMovement. The Christian Right had its "Wedge" Intelligent Design to insert Creationism by stealth into public

schools. A practical application.

It is a race to conquer the Government Institutions in order to achieve Hegemony to achieve the Tyranny.

There is already a hegemony. There are more thing which unite liberals and conservatives in the USA than things which

separate them.

Neuromancer wrote:

I think we are in the middle of a Cultural War (KulturKampf), which one will win our minds, hearts and pockets?

Perhaps it is a gross rip off in the end any way like the rest of the scams dressed pretty up to trick the buyers.

Yes, I also think we're in the middle of a Cultural War. For the time being, the Rebellion doesn't stand a chance against the

Empire, but this might change faster than we think.

_________________




Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:02 am

Display posts from previous: All posts Sort by Post time Ascending Go

ShareThis

Page 1 of1 [ 11 posts ]

Who is onl ine

Users brows ing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new t opics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forum

You cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for: Go Jump to: Thoughtcrime Corner Political Debate Go




16/16

Donate Now

Hosted by FreeForums.org |Create a free forum| Powered by phpBB

A Member of the Crowdgather Forum Community

About FreeForums | Legal / TOS | Privacy | Terms of Use | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org

Report Violation

http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...http://exploringdystopia.freeforums.org/greens-meet-neo-liberalism-wwf...

exploring dystopia - view topic - greens meet liberalism_ wwf works with world bank

Documents