ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

by **proldic** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:34 pm

Man you are shrewd, I'll give that to your socialist-fought for free higher education system. DE and I are one in the same, and I'm working for the Hudson Institute. Next I'll bet you'll be telling me that Amory & Hunter Lovins are getting funded by the Pentagon. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Presumably you'll get around to making your point about this eventually.<hr></blockquote> I think it's very revealing that as someone who claims to be heavily involved in energy and resource politics, and so well-versed in the current literature, someone who quotes an indigenous person to supposedly back up their view, has never even heard of the Columbo Accords. So, just to pin you down here, you're admitting you've never heard of it before today? (quick, go google it)....

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:29 am

Well, I hate for you to think I leave proldic to handle my responses to ad hominems, so I thought I'd take a look at the links you provided. Given the tenor of your responses based primarily in condescension and namecalling, I was going to try to wait at least until your tenth birthday to continue this, but your links to the PO discussion board intrigued me. First off, I was happy to see that some on that board, unlike yourself, understand that Stanton article for what it is and were extremely disturbed that, if printed at all, it didn't have a much stronger disavowal at the beginning. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>What amazes me about this essay is the blatantly Fascist nature of the project it presents. What concerns me about it is the weak preamble appended to it by the ASPO editors. "Let us hope that it does not come to this..." seems to be more a tacit endorsement than the clear repudiation it deserves. From Guamanian in the second link...don't know if I can link directly to a post. <hr></blockquote> Amen to that. Maybe you can get him to explain it to you. I think the last link, though, you included by mistake. You see, there's a poll at the top..how many think a die-off is inevitable. As of tonight, it stands at 70% yes. So this would suggest, of course, that the die-off meme is alive and well among Peak Oilers...which is what I've been saying all along. Anyway, appreciate the helping hand on that one. Now, I know this may be a subtle argument for someone whose idea of rebuttal is to call someone a Nazi, but actually, one doesn't expect these folks to come out and call for out and out eugenics programs. All that political correctness that Mr. Stanton spoke of gets in the way. So I was as surprised as anyone to see the Stanton article. I assumed that they'd never let that particular "vision" of peak oil out of the bag. Now, I admit, I'm not familiar with Heinberg...and he sure looks kinder and gentler. I guess it did bother me a bit when I found the web page of his book that one of the endorsers is Virginia Abernathy, a known racist who is on the advisory board of Occidental Quarterly. Says Wikipedia: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Occidental Quarterly is a white nationalist journal that seeks to direct American conservatism in the direction of an Anglo-Saxon cultural and racialist ideology. The journal's name derives from its "devotion to discussing the ethnic, racial and cultural heritage that forms the foundation of Western Civilization [as well as] the contemporary political, social and demographic trends that affect this tradition." It is published by the Charles Martel Society (not to be confused with France's anti-Algerian Charles Martel Group). Charles Martel halted a Muslim invasion of Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732. It explicitly rejects paleoconservatism and neoconservatism in favor of an ideology of White European identity politics, and holds that the American political order of freedom and liberty is under ethnic and ideological threat. Its foreign policy positions, broadly, are anti-immigration, and isolationism, including the rejection of influence from Israel and Mexico on U.S. politics. Its current editor is Kevin Lamb. Its publisher is William Regnery II.Editorial advisory board members [1] include Virginia Abernethy, Richard Lynn, Kevin B. MacDonald, Wayne Lutton, and Brent Nelson. Jared Taylor, of the American Renaissance magazine, is a past member.[2] Sam Francis was an associate editor until his death. In response to criticism, Regnery defended the editorial board, stating: "Of the thirteen individuals on its editorial board, ten hold Ph.D.s and two others are editors of their own publications. All are respected writers in their own fields."[3]<hr></blockquote> Here's what Abernathy says of Heinberg's book, The Party's Over: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Party's Over begins with a commanding review of world history, where past and current developments including war, empire, and population growth are interpreted as functions of cheap or increasingly scarce and expensive energy. The discussion of substitutes for fast-depleting fossil fuels, and the formidable impediments to making the transition that would allow industrial civilization to continue, are important to every investor and citizen.<hr></blockquote> Now, Abernathy is well known for her views, but, you know...it's not Heinberg's fault that blurb got put on his website under the list of "endorsers". He'd never associate with that kind of thinking, now would he? Who else is a fan of Heinberg? David Pimental has a blurb there too. Wonder who he is? Well, he's the guy saying we have to get the earth down to 2 billion folks (a number that pops up a lot. He also...or at least his wife Marcia, serve with Abernathy on the Carrying Capacity Network. He also works with NPG (Negative Population Growth) Here's an excerpt from an interview that explains how these "population reduction" folks have been using the idea of resource depletion to advance a very questionable agenda. It mentions both Pimental and Abernathy. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The greening of hate Interview of Betsy Hartmann by Fred Pearce, [20 February 2003] The poor are to blame for environmental decline because they have been putting their own ecosystems under intolerable population pressure. That’s the hidden ideology of far too many environmentalists in the US who really should know better, says Betsy Hartmann, a radical feminist and academic. So much for the green on the outside, red on the inside label that’s often hung round eco-campaigners; some conservationists, she told Fred Pearce recently, are the new conservatives What do you think is going on among environmentalists? Is the right wing taking over? I first realised that the right wing was attempting to penetrate the mainstream environment movement when I sat on a panel at an environmental meeting in the University of Oregon in 1994. Beside me was a professor and environmentalist, Virginia Abernethy of Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. She seemed to me to blame immigrants for overpopulating our country and destroying our environment. Some of the audience liked her ideas but I thought they were racist. I started to investigate and found she wasn’t alone among conservationists. She was a leader of the group called the Carrying Capacity Network, which sounds like a benign environmental organisation but its main campaign is to halt what it calls mass migration to the US. They blame migrants for destroying pristine America. For instance, they blame Mexican migrants for starting fires in national forests near the border. This group has prominent environmental scientists on its advisory board. People like biologist Tom Lovejoy, the green economist Herman Daly and the ecologist David Pimental. I call this the greening of hate. It sounds like a conspiracy theory Well, it seems to me that the anti-immigration movement in the US has a strong green wing. For instance, they formed a group within the Sierra Club—a prominent nature protection organisation—trying to push it into a policy of immigration restriction and population reduction. Abernethy has spoken at conferences of the right wing Council of Conservative Citizens. And some of these people are getting funding from groups such as the Pioneer Fund, whose aims, as set out in its charter, are to fund research into genetics and study into the problems of human race betterment. Aren’t these just political games? It’s more than that. There is an academic journal called Population and Environment, published by Kluwer, which is edited by Kevin MacDonald, an evolutionary psychologist who writes about a Jewish plot to liberalise immigration policies. In 1999, MacDonald appeared in court in Britain to defend the historian and holocaust denier David Irving. The journal’s advisory editorial board includes famous environmental scientists such as Paul Ehrlich, who wrote The Population Bomb, Pimental again, and Vaclav Smil, a professor at the University of Manitoba in Canada. Sitting beside them on the board is J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor from the University of Western Ontario in Canada, who has a theory about how black people have small brains, low IQ, large sex organs and high aggression. What are environmental scholars doing getting mixed up with these kinds of people? <a href="http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/25b/027.html">www.hartford-hwp.com/arch...b/027.html</a> <hr></blockquote> So, it seems that there really is a problem with "ecofascism". And they really do seem drawn to the whole "resource depletion" thing. Hey, did you ever learn in school about the "Tragedy of the Commons"? Famous ecological dictum, no? Did you know that the guy behind that idea, Garrett Hardin, gets money from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation that openly funds eugenics research? <a href="http://www.pioneerfund.org/Grantees.html">www.pioneerfund.org/Grantees.html</a> So this is the context for all this concern. You have clear patterns of "academics" preaching that resources are being depleted and using this idea to justify immigrant bashing, and racialist ideologies. Combine that with a call for population reduction...and you see how some of us can get a little concerned. Does this mean that everyone who believes resources are stressed to breaking is a racist? Of course not...that's not the point. In fact, the article above shows how these folks sort of infiltrated the environmental movement...though to be honest, I think this strain of environmentalism has been around a long time. The point is that resource depletion/overpopulation is consistently used as a rallying cry for those wanting to remake the world in a decidedly paler hue. Neutral terms, such as "population reduction" hide the fact that it will be the rich nations dictating who gets reduced (in fact, they are doing so now). In fact, many groups, such as NPG... (funded by Warren Buffett, I believe) have this neat trick: We have to REDUCE population in these OTHER countries...but we can take care of most of our own population problems just by limiting immigration. That's the program in a nutshell, right there. Make life untenable in the nonwhite world and beef up the borders in the rich countries. If that's not eugenics...I don't know what is. Hey, here are some folks you can talk to when you get tired of having to stoop down to my intellectual level: <a href="http://www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/politics.htm">www.bnp.org.uk/peakoil/politics.htm</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/21/05 12:50 am

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:56 am

Here, in all its glory, is the only public statement offered by Campbell about the Stanton article: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>First published August 2005; article no. 576 Item 573, in which William Stanton discussed the impact of declining fossil energy supplies on population, triggered a predictably vigorous response. One or two correspondents almost took offence both at the article and its inclusion in the newsletter, while others accepted the thrust of the argument, seeing its relevance. <a href="http://www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/604">www.peakoil.ie/newsletters/604</a><hr></blockquote> I'm completely cribbing from this site: <a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/</a>

by **wintler** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:59 am

I'm not defending ALL those who cite resource depletion as an issue, i'm defending ASPO against your claim that Stanton's essay is their 'plan for population reduction'. Where do i call anyone names? I quote your hysterical labelling of ASPO, thats all.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:20 am

Thanks for that link, there wintler. Here's a little piece from one of the moderators of peakoil.com. His name is Jack and here is his profile: <a href="http://www.peakoil.com/member-viewprofile-415.html">www.peakoil.com/member-vi...e-415.html</a> Click on the link he provides. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The End of Cornucopian Idealism Are you a cornucopian? Perhaps you walk or bicycle whenever possible, wear warm clothing instead of using heating oil, and seek voluntary simplicity in every aspect of your life. You may not even own a television, an SUV, or a dishwashing machine. And yet, you may be every bit as much of a cornucopian as someone who drives a bright yellow Hummer2, keeps the thermostat at 80 in the winter and 72 in summer, and who personally keeps the mall merchants fiscally healthy. Attitude defines the cornucopian. What, then, is a cornucopian? It is a person who believes in ever-growing, ever-lasting, ever-bountiful abundance. It is a person who cannot conceive of shortage, of limitation, or of want. Cornucopian tendencies permeate society. We see food left uneaten, and only rarely saved. We see items of every description tossed into the landfill. People give possessions away or sell them at garage sales, in order that their overstuffed closets can hold a new acquisition. Reality will not excuse them from the consequences of acting as if this will never end; wrong thinking can lead to their destruction. This site, dedicated to Peak Oil and the painful limits implied thereby, would seem to be poor hunting grounds for cornucopians. The two world-views are mutually contradictory. Yet, many on this board advocate policies that would please the most extreme of the eternal growth crowd. A cornucopian refuses to grasp a fundamental truth; that there is only so much of any particular thing. The food you give to another is food you no longer have. That mouthful might be the critical resource required for your own survival. The blanket you provide to someone else may be the very item you need to avoid freezing to death. Foreign aid is merely the collective version of the cornucopian ideal. A nation that gives away resources deprives itself on behalf of others. In a world of limits, this is tantamount to societal suicide. Within our little community, many argue that nations should help each other, cooperate, and share what is available. It is an argument that ignores harsh realities. If resources exist such that two may live, dividing them among five determines that all will perish. Limitless abundance does not define our world. No, the lack of resources defines our lives. Two thirds of the Earth’s population – some four billion people – cannot be supported by existing resources. Moreover, the surplus population may be far larger – and the problem far greater. The fundamental reality is that more than two thirds of the people alive today cannot be fed, clothed, warmed, or maintained. Over the next 30 years, billions are likely to die. Our actions will decide who will be among their number. Nations must recognize their duty to their own citizens. They must gain what resources are available, by whatever means are at hand. Supplies must be defended zealously against any who would take them. The weak will perish. Those who are to survive must accept this reality; those who refuse the dictates of reality will remove themselves from the equation. We have the clear vision to recognize the likely shape of upcoming events. We must now attend to our thinking and embrace truth. For the most part, we are all part of the developed world. We have computers, electricity, running water, and adequate food. The third world cannot be saved. The best and kindest act is to let it sink beneath the seas and cease prolonging their pain. For our own survival, we must be prepared to take their resources for our own use. It is brutal. It is also the refutation of cornucopian idealism. Compassion is a luxury we cannot afford.  Abandon the mirage of limitless resources. Gather what you may, and hold it. For those resources are life itself.<hr></blockquote> Nice.

by **wintler** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 4:26 am

a. whats that got to do with ASPO and your claim about them? b. we by wasting our hours tap tapping at keyboards are doing exactly that, ignoring the plight of those less fortunate and 'letting them sink beneath the waves'. You condemn Jack just for describing what you yourself enact.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:22 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> a. whats that got to do with ASPO and your claim about them?<hr></blockquote> You were wanting Peak Oil sites that advocate eugenics . Just trying to be helpful. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> ignoring the plight of those less fortunate<hr></blockquote> Yep...their "plight" is just bad luck. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> 'letting them sink beneath the waves'. You condemn Jack just for describing what you yourself enact.<hr></blockquote> You are so bizarre. Jack has explicitly called for this...I condemn it...and you say I'm calling for it. I think you are suffering from "peak intelligence". Jack said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>The third world cannot be saved. The best and kindest act is to let it sink beneath the seas and cease prolonging their pain.<hr></blockquote> See...and pay attention...I'm AGAINST that. He's FOR that. If I had time, I'd try to diagram those concepts for you. So we have THE ASPO newsletter with an article putting out a very scary vision of genocide. We have the founder of ASPO not only refusing to condemn this article, either during the issue it appeared or subsequently when even his own members were upset by it, but actually saying: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>others accepted the thrust of the argument, seeing its relevance. <hr></blockquote> I argued that the entire Peak Oil ideology promotes two old ideas: 1. that a "die-off" is inevitable and 2. that we should, in whatever ways, reduce population and that this simply reeks of eugenics. I showed that this idea of a die-off is not new, even though oil was not always the resource in question. And showed some very clear and frightening connections between people like Heinberg and overtly rightwing eugenics supporters. I picked Heinberg because he's a peak oiler that you seem to believe has some merit. You took pity on me and tried to help my argument that most peak oilers posit a coming die-off by linking to a peakoil.com site that showed 70% of respondents in one online poll expected exactly that. Sure, an unscientific poll, but since you linked to it, I figured you must agree with that percentage. I then checked out one of the moderators of this site you linked to and found an attitude that I think is prevalent among peak oilers, though not always so openly expressed: "let the third world sink beneath the waves". He's a moderator, mind, so he has some role in shaping the discussion on that site. I find it particularly interesting that you listed peakoil.com as one of the sites <blockquote>Quote:<hr>dismissing smears like that (population reduction) and outing agent provocateurs claiming that for years<hr></blockquote> when one of their very own moderators is putting forward EXACTLY that idea. I don't have to make the claim that all followers of Peak Oil are espousing this position. In fact, some of the peakoil.com posters explicitly condemned the Stanton article as fascist, something you would not do. It is significant, however, that Campbell himself, despite the obvious PR nightmare that such an article in his newsletter would cause, STILL says the idea is relevant and that some accept it. And the "some" who accept it, are presumably ASPO members. You, on the other hand, have shown that your primary tactic in disagreeing with people is to call them nazis. That is interesting, because that's EXACTLY the kind of thing done by one popularizer of Peak Oil we haven't even GOTTEN to, Mike Ruppert (also a population reduction fan), constantly attacking verbally those who disagree with him and threatening lawsuits. I'm not saying you are Ruppert, though, because Ruppert is a much better writer. Still, there is some kind of pathology at work here that equates "dissent" with "attack" and you and Ruppert should both spend a little time in anger management classes.

by **jpastoor** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:19 pm

Reading a little here and there from PO articles, I've not come across any notion of revoking corporate charters as a fix. If 'PO' is going to throw a kink in the way things are working, maybe the removal of the structures and institutions that got us here is a better solution then the fascist crap and plans some people are suggestion. How is stating population reduction an answer when that shit is currently going on now (creating scarcity of resources / war)? How many assets and resources do the corporations own? Is there any discussions of stripping corporations of their assets and distributing them back to communities? Maybe the efficient distribution of products and resources is the problem and not the world population as some people imply.

by **jpastoor** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:25 pm

Oh yeah, Thanks to everyone who has been vigilant to the population reduction suggestions and bringing it to our attention. Corporations are non-human, right?

by **human** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:47 pm

consider me religiously optimistic.... nice to see yall peeping game!! one human?

by **proldic** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:35 pm

Ooh ooa Only when a lion is already Zion bound Herb will take him there Natty dey ya ina ranking victorious crown Bias if you think I care Mek them gwan fight The Rasta man levity down As parallel to delinquent youth Ah you push the hot blood them Fe check my sound He see I scratching in the same fight for truth Iration gangster lean pressure cooker College loan shark pay back government moneymaker Couple that with taxes and utilities forever Slave work force The whole world satta ina ya Jah Jah Yes I bun fire knowledge gone higher Earth cycle now a rasta Earth cycle now a rasta Any talent a youth may have You stay there demean as nothing If it don’t have the old plantation tags He is the son of an ill begotten You rather send your youth away Unprepared and defenseless To a waiting den of ravening wolves and financial duress Iration gangster lean pressure cooker College loan shark pay back government moneymaker Couple that with taxes and utilities forever Slave work force The whole world satta ina ya Jah Jah Yes I bun fire knowledge gone higher Earth cycle now a rasta Earth cycle now a rasta And as the ignorance fails to cease College still a perpetuate them folly Adapt and compete with high immorality To meet their standards of likewise depravity Consciousness in the student exploration Culminate ina corporate show horse Strength couldn’t match their bravado Just because of the money brainwash Iration gangster lean pressure cooker College loan shark pay back government moneymaker Couple that with taxes and utilities forever Slave work force The whole world satta ina ya Jah Jah Yes I bun fire knowledge gone higher Earth cycle now a rasta Earth cycle now a rasta Only when a lion is already Zion bound Herb will take him there Natty dey ya ina ranking victorious crown Bias if you think I care Iration gangster lean pressure cooker College loan shark pay back government moneymaker Couple that with taxes and utilities forever Slave work force The whole world satta ina ya Jah Jah Yes I bun fire knowledge gone higher Earth cycle now a rasta Oh oo hey hey

by **Dreams End** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:59 pm

I think, Jpastoor, that it would be worth a longer look into how corporations somehow got made into "people". I don't know a whole lot about it. I've heard that the original court case that allegedly set this precedent was actually quoted in error, but either way, it does seem that "corporate people" have more rights than "human people." Yes, if we had a decent government...we would nationalize oil as many countries have done and cut out the speculators and see where we stand. Chavez is doing this with poorer Caribbean countries. They sell directly because they found speculators were buying oil from Venezuela and selling it back to these countries at twice the price. Once we've gotten rid of all the artificially inflated prices, we could move from there and see where we stand. Interestingly, I'm reading that one of the reasons the big oil companies are having some trouble developing new fields is simply because many of the prime spots are in countries that have nationalized oil industries that won't let the big oil companies in. So in Iraq, for example, it makes sense that you get rid of Hussein and open up the oil fields to these big companies. If they had really cared about building the country back up again, the would have allowed Iraq to keep the oil nationalized so that all profits go back into the country's infrastructure.

by **wintler** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 3:04 am

Revoking the personification of corporations would an excellent step, as is not buying their products, which is much more acheivable. Revoking the charter of corporations to trade is explicitly enabled, i've heard, in many US states constitutions. Here in Aus. we have never-used corporations powers under section 51 of our constitution, the Greens are the only party i've been able to get to admit that such power even exists. The tools are there.. The Rimini Protocol, an ASPO-supported initiative, would have similar partial effect for oil & gas reserves by taking the rate of their exploitation out of profit-seeking hands. -- Dreams end: "...have shown that your primary tactic in disagreeing with people is to call them nazis" I never called anyone a nazi, i only quoted your use of the label back to you. Please stop lying. Some peakoilers believe dieoff is inevitable, and some of those have views that pampered all-rights-no-responsibility first worlders find shocking (but ). Does that prove ASPO has a "nazi eugenics plan"? No. (p.s. C.Campbell isn't the head of ASPO, and Jack doesn't advocate plans for pop.reduction - keep trying tho, some of your mud is obviously sticking). Some on this board think Likudniks are terrorists, does that prove we're all antisemites? No. Sloppy logic and hysterical name calling cuts both ways DE, you dumb down debate at all our peril.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:16 am

Here in the US, corporations, as I mentioned, are actually considered persons. Is that the way it is in Australia? Bizarre idea. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>p.s. C.Campbell isn't the head of ASPO<hr></blockquote> My mistake. I always see his name associated with ASPO. He is listed on the site as compiling the newsletter. I don't see any mention of who is on the board or who the leaders are. But I'm glad you got yourself a relatively meaningless point there. Be interesting to know who they are, if it's not Campbell so feel free to post that information. <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Jack doesn't advocate plans for pop.reduction <hr></blockquote> I think we have a problem of definitions here. Jack wants to let the third world sink beneath the waves because there is "no saving them." That is exactly what I mean by population reduction. I suppose you thought that I meant lining people up and putting them in death camps. No. Despite Stanton's article, I don't think it will be as "active" as that. I'll try to spell it out again. By repeating that a die-off is inevitable, it allows the "first world" to, by neglect (and much worse, but behind the scenes) to allow the "third world" to "sink beneath the waves" with minimal outcry. Because we will believe a die-off is inevitable, little will be done in the "west" to prevent otherwise preventable death and suffering. In fact, this is happening already and a certain amount of racism and first world arrogance allows us to see the pictures of starving Africans as "sad" but not as having anything to do with us. I'll give an example. In Rwanda, not only did the west not do anything to prevent the genocide of up to one million people (primarily "Tutsis") there were rumors that the plane crash which killed the Hutu president of Rwanda and was blamed on Tutsi's was actually engineered by Western intel agencies (I don't know if that's true, but it's the kind of thing I'd expect.) This triggered the genocide that followed. And this is without going into the colonial history of that country...indeed, of that continent. Already, first world arrogance and racism and the idea that Africa simply isn't "salvageable" allows such atrocities with only the minimum of reaction in the west. Multiply that by all the colonial and post-colonial games our countries play in Africa, the dictators we've supported, the AIDS epidemic (maybe AIDS isn't engineered but the blocking of cheaper drugs to Africa certainly has been). Go see "The Constant Gardner" and for a fictionalized but realistic example. I see these things as population reduction, and I expect them to accelerate and I expect the die-off people to justify it based on dwindling resources, rather than the engineered genocide that it is. So Jack is EXACTLY on point and the fact that he is a moderater of peakoil.com and that 70 percent in that poll expect a die off proves this point as well. Maybe you don't encounter the varieties of racism I see in the US. Sure, there's the active, KKK variety, but usually it's more subtle with a high level of "plausible deniability"...in fact a great majority of howlingly glaring racist statements in this country are preceded by the phrase, "I'm not a racist but..." So when NATO will intervene (not that they should have) in all white Bosnia where the mass murder was greatly exaggerated but will sit by and watch Rwanda (not saying NATO intervention is my favorite way to go here) and the UN is basically blocked from significant action by US and Britain, you see a fine example of "population reduction" which we should begin calling by it's real name: genocide. I'll give you another example, Hurricane Katrina. Hey, it was an act of nature, right? Nothing we could do about it. Thankfully, the horrible underbelly of the beast was exposed a bit on that one. Similarly -- hey, desertification is a natural process or, at best, one exacerbated by obsolete agricultural methods and deforestation by ignorant natives. So, starvation in Africa is sad, but there's just nothing we can do about it. There's just not enough food. As I mentioned, I was surprised by Stanton's article because of how blunt it was. I don't really expect people to come out and say these things, just as I don't expect President Bush to come out and trace the suffering in Rwanda to hundreds of years of brutal colonial rule and subsequent neocolonial gamesmanship and neoliberalism economic policies. This is already happening. Already, people point to Africa and see it as an example of "resource depletion". With Peak Oil in the mix, it will be quite clear....sadly, there will simply be nothing we can do as those ignorant natives, who continue to breed without having the good sense to invest in the stock market and amass a little capital, simply cannot survive. As I've said, this idea is an old one that precedes Peak Oil and goes back to predictions of Peak Food, etc....all the way back to Malthus. As I told you, the "neat trick" about much of the American negative population growth crowd, is that...sure, we have to reduce our population too and some occasional hand fluttering at how the US uses 25% of the world's resources, but you know...the real way to do this is to stop immigration...because those immigrants come here and adopt the US lifestyle and start using up resources they normally wouldn't. Add that to the fact that the US population growth rate is actually fairly low if you subtract immigration (legal and illegal) the US won't have to really do that much "reducing" and we can be content to watch the poorest of our country (mostly, but not totally, nonwhite) perish due to destruction of infrastructure, health care, welfare and economic opportunities. I mean, we won't ACTUALLY be CONTENT...we'll be sad. But there will be nothing we can do about... So, allow the rest of the world to go to hell and make sure to beef up your borders so they can't come here and bother us, and you have a nice plan for the New World Fascist Order. Where are the calls to abolish these multinational corporations? Where are the calls to nationalize any and all industries that are vital to the wellbeing of humans so that they cannot be priced out of reach? Why can Venezueala's Chavez make oil available to Caribbean countries directly, reducing the price they pay by more than half simply by eliminating the role of speculators and middlemen while ASPO tut-tuts about inevitable rises in oil prices? Where is the call for Western nations (particularly the US) to IMMEDIATELY reduce military spending by huge amounts and put that money into sustainability practices? I would think with a couple of hundred billion or so a year we could go pretty far towards some solutions even if Peak Oil IS real. You see my point...as long as Peak Oil and other shortages are considered "natural" phenomena (with a little nod or two to wasteful practices which accelerate the process a bit) then any sorts of revolutionary ideas to take these resources out of the hands of these ruthless, predatory, genocidal assholes are rendered pointless. And THAT to me is exactly the point. Jack isn't calling for "population reduction"? Jack knows EXACTLY what he's calling for. Why can't YOU see it? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/22/05 8:18 am

by **wintler** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:40 pm

The fact of resource depletion is MORE reason to ensure wise use of resources, not less! As i've already argued, the news of no jam tomorrow will radicalise those who don't have enough (the vast majority), its only the corpulent West that will sit on its arse, secure behind its borders. Why do you ignore the majority world? "Where are the calls to abolish these multinational corporations?" Err, ever hear of the antiglobalisation movement? The anti WTO/WB/WEF demos & street battles in Seattle, Prague, Milan, Washington, Melbourne, etc etc? Global Exchange? the Third World Network? the Green Parties? Friends of the Earth? The italian social centre networks? This years G8 protests in Scotland? Demo's in Sydney against Forbes 500 meet only a few weeks ago? Many hippies, punks and anarchists have been calling for exactly that for decades, just because you've never bothered to get involved doesn't mean they don't exist.

ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

Ya got me

Me too

Campbell's reaction to Stanton

..

peakoil.org moderator manifesto

..

Re: ..

Re: ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

Re: Kill The Corporations

peak oil = eugenics!

.

corporations are people too

..

Re: ..

..

Who is online