Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:44 pm

I dont think they have actually proved anything other than perhaps the fact that a coterie of very rich people have managed to create a multiblillion dollar industry through their various "governmental advisors" ,paid-for politicians, along with taxpayer funded quangos, committees and unelected officials who's "scientific commitee" are doing their best to perpetuate what increasingly seems to me to be a big fucking myth, to put it politely.

I wonder where the share portfolios of this extremely small coterrie of incredibly rich people are weighted?

Go figure.


Multibillion $ industry of climate change myth?

Show me the numbers, please
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:54 pm

I dont know how much people are actually currently paying daily by way of some kind of carbon tax or other, but judging by energy price hikes across the board of late, Im thinking its all getting very expensive for the poorer sections of soceity, despite the fact that they are unquestionably the lowest consumers.

So heres the deal.

Governments are raising billions in taxation. What are they spending it on, (on top of our bill for bailing out the big guys.)
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:09 pm

I dont know how much people are actually currently paying daily by way of some kind of carbon tax or other, but judging by energy price hikes across the board of late, Im thinking its all getting very expensive for the poorer sections of soceity, despite the fact that they are unquestionably the lowest consumers


You think prices are increasing due to climate change hoax?

Fossil fuels (still the planet's primary energy source) are increasingly hard to extract. Lower rates of return mean profits are squeezed and as a consequence, this (some or all of it) is passed to the end of pipe consumer.

Carbon tax? Or off shore drilling, frakking and other low EROEI fuels meaning lower bottom lines for the big fossil fuel corporations?

Here's the deal - people (in the first world) have to use less. Less energy/water intensive food, transportation and quality of living. Current growth based situation is untenable. Even if climate change is a hoax (which all the evidence and facts contradict)
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:30 pm

Rory,

Climate change is very real.

I believe its solar, you believe otherwise.

I think what is neccesary at this stage, is to allow some creative avenues for understanding how we can overcome all of this stuff.

How about thinking about the earth herself?

Are you familiar in anyway with geo-enginering, formerly known as "chem trails"?

Thats an interesting avenue of exploration. Aluminium soil samples off the charts and stuff.


So it might appear that we need to immediately start adressing any ecological problems in a truly serious manner.

Assuming we get past fukishima of course.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:15 am

Jesus (H. Christ) says yes, we do!
The reason why I think he is important to consider, is the simple fact of one of the world's most powerful men (as judged by his connections, networks and influence) , who has little time left given his very advanced age, sits down for an interview with a person whose reality tunnel is probably only shared by the likes of Kerry Cassidy. I found it truly off the scale Fortean / R.I. stuff - and my instinct is something really interesting (not quite sure what) lies inside how that happened.


I think David is no different than the rest of us in needing to protect the validity of his self-identity.

FB wrote....
You'll probably have to pretend….


Because a machine does not go around asking; ‘Hey could you please disassemble me, I’m afraid I might do some damage otherwise’.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby FourthBase » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:55 am

Fortunately, the Rockefeller dynasty is not comprised of machines. Yet. Perhaps in 2079 we'll have to confront a world where dynastic institutions have literally become machines, the quantum consciousness of a Rockefeller scion uploaded to a cybernetic organism, or the whole family condensed into proprietary AI endowed with riches and programmed to propagate those riches. Fortunately, the Rockefellers are still only humans, with brains, and ears. So, pretend (very seriously) that you are commissioned to advise the Rockefeller family as part of the newest generation's improbable mission to authentically rehabilitate the holdings and practices of Rockefeller, Inc. according to...you, and your ethics. Whaddya got?
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:14 pm

So, pretend (very seriously) that you are commissioned to advise the Rockefeller family as part of the newest generation's improbable mission to authentically rehabilitate the holdings and practices of Rockefeller, Inc. according to...you, and your ethics


I cannot pretend that because I will never be 'commissioned' by any of those sort of people. It's my choice.

One reason for this is because a person ought to do the same things they say. Given that my little ontological project is about being part of the creation of a horizontal authority distribution system, then it is appropriate to deal, at least roughly, from a stance of equality.

Still, I do want to be a sport about this and would be happy to give you my version of what I consider to be essential changes that must be made to our cultural structural framework, if we are to flourish along with the rest of nature.

And the kicker is; you know how record company's have A&R guys and baseball teams have scouts? Foundations have gleaners.

They can have and try to front run anything I put out. No charge, no thanks wanted.

Well Fuck-you very much, -not you FB; the scum above the gleaners that do nothing but monetize the efforts of the regular person while looking down their nose at them at the very same time.

If that is OK, I will go off and do the assignment.
Last edited by Sounder on Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby brainpanhandler » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:42 pm

Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:09 pm wrote:
I dont know how much people are actually currently paying daily by way of some kind of carbon tax or other, but judging by energy price hikes across the board of late, Im thinking its all getting very expensive for the poorer sections of soceity, despite the fact that they are unquestionably the lowest consumers


You think prices are increasing due to climate change hoax?

Fossil fuels (still the planet's primary energy source) are increasingly hard to extract. Lower rates of return mean profits are squeezed and as a consequence, this (some or all of it) is passed to the end of pipe consumer.

Carbon tax? Or off shore drilling, frakking and other low EROEI fuels meaning lower bottom lines for the big fossil fuel corporations?

Here's the deal - people (in the first world) have to use less. Less energy/water intensive food, transportation and quality of living. Current growth based situation is untenable. Even if climate change is a hoax (which all the evidence and facts contradict)


Not mention Exxon had profits of:

2005 - 36 billion
2006 - 39 billion
2007 - 40 billion
2008 - 45 billion
2009 - 19 billion (a slow year)
2010 - 30 billion
2011 - 41 billion
2012 - 44 billion
2013 - 32 billion
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5050
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby FourthBase » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:12 pm

brainpanhandler » 27 Feb 2014 19:42 wrote:
Rory » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:09 pm wrote:
I dont know how much people are actually currently paying daily by way of some kind of carbon tax or other, but judging by energy price hikes across the board of late, Im thinking its all getting very expensive for the poorer sections of soceity, despite the fact that they are unquestionably the lowest consumers


You think prices are increasing due to climate change hoax?

Fossil fuels (still the planet's primary energy source) are increasingly hard to extract. Lower rates of return mean profits are squeezed and as a consequence, this (some or all of it) is passed to the end of pipe consumer.

Carbon tax? Or off shore drilling, frakking and other low EROEI fuels meaning lower bottom lines for the big fossil fuel corporations?

Here's the deal - people (in the first world) have to use less. Less energy/water intensive food, transportation and quality of living. Current growth based situation is untenable. Even if climate change is a hoax (which all the evidence and facts contradict)


Not mention Exxon had profits of:

2005 - 36 billion
2006 - 39 billion
2007 - 40 billion
2008 - 45 billion
2009 - 19 billion (a slow year)
2010 - 30 billion
2011 - 41 billion
2012 - 44 billion
2013 - 32 billion


Now, to be fair, they do a lot of good things with that profit.
“Joy is a current of energy in your body, like chlorophyll or sunlight,
that fills you up and makes you naturally want to do your best.” - Bill Russell
User avatar
FourthBase
 
Posts: 7057
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 4:41 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Rory » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:33 pm

slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:30 pm wrote:Rory,

Climate change is very real.

I believe its solar, you believe otherwise.

I think what is neccesary at this stage, is to allow some creative avenues for understanding how we can overcome all of this stuff.

How about thinking about the earth herself?

Are you familiar in anyway with geo-enginering, formerly known as "chem trails"?

Thats an interesting avenue of exploration. Aluminium soil samples off the charts and stuff.


So it might appear that we need to immediately start adressing any ecological problems in a truly serious manner.

Assuming we get past fukishima of course.


I believe its solar, you believe otherwise.

Here's one of the fallacies that slows down critical analysis. Firstly, I don't 'believe' anything. Evidence points me in a direction. The sun does provide most of the energy in the system - not questioning this is assumed. What our good friends at the IPCC and myriad scientific researchers have established is that one: the planet is warming in proportion to CO2 concentrations independently of any solar effect, and: two, that CO2 is the only plausible and evidenced cause of this extra-solar warming. There may be another explination but 'it's the sun, stupid ain't it.

creative avenues for understanding how we can overcome all of this stuff.

Controversially, I am not one for 'creative' solutions. Typically they point in the direction of tech solution, or some other panacea bs. We know (to the best of our scientific and evidentiary ability) what the problems are and what the solution is: ramp down industrial productions, stop burning shit, chopping down trees, ripping up the topsoils, blowing up mountains, poisioning the waters, etc.. This is the ugly bit - too many people to be sustained without upward trend growth of fossil fuel use unless we compromise on quality of life, calorie intake and ego driven political intrigues.

As uncomfortable as it is for me to say it, without the non CO2 producing (EROEI equivalent) replacement for oil then hundreds or millions of people will die - the next hundred years will see bloodbaths that make Hitler's search for free land, look like an episode of Modern Family.

That's not very leftist, or 'green' of me? You want pie in the sky then you're conversing in the wrong place.

I think geoenginering is meh - going to poison a lot of people and do fuck all to fix anything but isn't a pressing issue in the grand scheme of things (though I'm aware that it freaks some conspiracy folk the fuck out)

Fukishima? A holy terror of a situation but it will be hundreds of years before we start to see the worst effects - radiation is a slow, slow burner. Is going to fuck up your great, great, great grandkid's (and all subsequent generations) shit.

You want creative analysis? Did you ever watch that British TV show 'Utopia'? (Autually, 'Cabin in theWoods', also)

What if the evil overlord, grand unified conspiracy cabal monsters are the ones in the right - what if mass/selective culling of the human herd is the only thing that can save the species. You can't understand anything unless you can view it from all sides. There are no winning choices for all affected - this isn't a puzzle where you solve it to everyone's satisfaction
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Rory » Fri Feb 28, 2014 2:23 pm

Not mention Exxon had profits of:

2005 - 36 billion
2006 - 39 billion
2007 - 40 billion
2008 - 45 billion
2009 - 19 billion (a slow year)
2010 - 30 billion
2011 - 41 billion
2012 - 44 billion
2013 - 32 billion


Indeed - this is the thing that puzzles the fuck out of me when people point solemnly at carbon tax as evidence of climate change hoax.

They credit these nefarious, all powerful shadowy elites as having the reach and wherewithal to pull strings across the globe and they create climate change hoax carbon taxes as a way of swindling the steeple???

Exxon is one of the 'big five' oil firms. Their combined profits dwarf the meagre sums collected through green taxes. Are these all powerful rulers so stupid that they collect pennies while the vast fortunes of big oil revenues go unnoticed?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:22 pm

As a starting point Rory, I have exactly the same attitude toward ‘creative’ thinking that you express. Every ‘creative’ solution, the meta or mega ones I mean here, that I have ever seen have been disguised ways to prop up our dominant narrative.

You say, we know what the problem is, I say well no, but we do agree that there is a problem. So we got that going anyway.

In regard to solutions, While I totally agree that these things MUST be done, the must indicates that these things are imperatives rather than being solutions.

As for the solutions; there is good reason that they don’t just drop out of the sky. Solutions do not only indict the non-thinking masses, they especially expose the bad mental habits of the thinking class.

I will work on a bit about essential changes that must be made to our cultural structural framework for the imperatives that you speak of to become a possibility.

Rory, if you please, if a person presents any given assertion or argument, please by all means, have at them. However I would like it greatly if you would not make up an argument simply to have something to knock down. Surely more substantial targets abound.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Rory » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:27 pm

Rory, if you please, if a person presents any given assertion or argument, please by all means, have at them. However I would like it greatly if you would not make up an argument simply to have something to knock down. Surely more substantial targets abound.


What are you referring to?
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Sounder » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:32 pm

Indeed - this is the thing that puzzles the fuck out of me when people point solemnly at carbon tax as evidence of climate change hoax.


Setting it up



They credit these nefarious, all powerful shadowy elites as having the reach and wherewithal to pull strings across the globe and they create climate change hoax carbon taxes as a way of swindling the steeple???

Exxon is one of the 'big five' oil firms. Their combined profits dwarf the meagre sums collected through green taxes. Are these all powerful rulers so stupid that they collect pennies while the vast fortunes of big oil revenues go unnoticed?


Knocking it down

Your argument while no doubt true in some cases, is pulled out of the blue because nobody asserted that here. While it might be off topic, a response about said subject would be fine, IF somebody brought that argument up in this thread. But the case is otherwise so please take the strawman to another thread.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4016
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rockefeller consensus- the good, the bad and the ugly

Postby Rory » Fri Feb 28, 2014 8:45 pm

slimmouse » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:35 pm wrote:I dont think they have actually proved anything other than perhaps the fact that a coterie of very rich people have managed to create a multiblillion dollar industry through their various "governmental advisors" ,paid-for politicians, along with taxpayer funded quangos, committees and unelected officials who's "scientific commitee" are doing their best to perpetuate what increasingly seems to me to be a big fucking myth, to put it politely.

I wonder where the share portfolios of this extremely small coterrie of incredibly rich people are weighted?

Go figure.


@sounder
Strawman you say? IF somebody brought that argument up in this thread, you said?

If it belongs in another thread, then kindly direct the person that posited this very argument to another thread and I will meet them there, Mr 'I don't read my own thread before casting aspersions and getting all self appointed mod and ordering people around' :thumbsup
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests