Maurice Strong: Another Hidden Ruler

2006-11-04 03:16:00

Maurice StrongWhen you seriously consider the issue of peace, you come to several ugly conclusions. The reader is welcome to argue with any and all of them, especially since I won't even pretend to back them up with evidence. First of all, the reason the human race doesn't have peace is because the human race doesn't want peace. The logical second conclusion would be if you want to achieve world peace, you need to force it on people.

How's that for hilarious? With that in mind, let's take a look at some words from Maurice Strong:

"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class... involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, ownership of motor vehicles, small electric appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable... A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns."

Statements like this have caused quite an uproar among proud American patriots --- the Christian, idiot kind --- who would sooner give up their daughters to the Arabs than abandon their lifestyles. Now, although the implications of a man with Maurice Strong's power and influence saying something like this are disturbing, what makes it even more troubling is the naked fact he's right.

But how would you go about forcing change? Well, Maurice Strong, like all the other Hidden Rulers, has been pretty vocal about the blueprints. After all, it's not like has much to worry about, he's already in power and people are, by and large, very stupid animals. Observe the following riff from a 1990 interview with a Canadian magazine:

"Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead. What if a small group of these word leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about a world collapse. It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists - they're world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges, and computers, and gold supplies, a panic. Then they prevent the markets from closing. They jam the gears. They have mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davros as hostage. The markets can't close. The rich countries...?" and Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out of the window. I sat there spellbound. This is not any story-teller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.

Readers who pay attention to economics might be thinking "say, that's exactly what's been going on for the past decade"....and the scary thing is, they might be correct. Adding further fuel to an already weird fire, Maurice has a very clear deadline in mind. If you guessed 2012, you're right. (And you should probably reconsider just why you'd guess 2012.)

This the new reality of the century, with profound implications for the shape of our institutions of governance, national and international. By the year 2012, these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life.

Full Disclosure

In case the reader is curious about the biases of the BIPT staff, we are all for a one-world government, since this will be vastly easier to overthrow than 193 individual governments. We are also all for eroding the soveriegnty of the United States, since the US is clearly incapable of democracy, or even civilization, frankly.

On With the Show...

Maurice Strong againThe joke, of course, is that there is nobody we would trust to make decisions for us. Maurice Strong, no matter how benevolent his intentions, is still going to wind up swinging from a lamp-post somewhere if he's seriously contemplating measures like Paul Erlich, a colleague and friend of Strong, reccommended in his book The Population Bomb:

"The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." (pg. 135)

Also consider the words of Maurice Strong's mentor, David Rockefeller:

Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.

Also consider Ted Turner, another friend of the Rockefellers, another supporter of the United Nations, and his classic assessment of world problems:

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

Starving to Death at the Fork in the Road

She What Done It AllIt cannot be stated enough, in this modern climate of ignorance and rage, that Brainsturbator is pacifist by nescessity and by design. No matter what the "reason", violence is simply violence. Although you might feel as though you're dealing a blow for freedom by doing something like killing a cop, in reality, all you managed to do is murder somebody's dad.

The same is even more true for acts like assassinating heads of state -- it will only lead to more violence and repression. History has been very clear on that --- murdering leaders does nothing but strengthen the regimes behind them.

Although you can couch genocide with terms like "population reduction", it still amounts to millions of corpses. This is ugly turf, and a clear violation of Brainsturbator's "focus on positive futures" policy, but I would like to show the reader a glimpse of the gaping maw I stare into nearly every day, lately.

Unfortunately, calling me alarmist or paranoid doesn't address what I'm saying, it does nothing but calm your fears. The existence of a "global elite" is perfectly real, although the reader is of course welcome to deny it. And a great many of the men --- and it's all men, folks --- who make up this global elite are on record, again and again, in no uncertain terms, stating that they would like to remove a large portion of the humans currently living on Earth.

To make matters worse, the technology to do this exists --- in fact, there is an over-abundance of methods for mass murder at this point in human history. So here we have a very dangerous and disturbing nexus, a point where several threads overlap and intertwine. We have a small group of very powerful humans who have expressed the desire for "population reduction" and have the means to accomplish that goal within their possession.

This is not something anyone wants to face, and I don't blame you for writing me off, if you already have.

And oh yeah, get out and vote next Tuesday! Diebold needs you.

Read another?