The Sublime versus Depopulation

by Rolf A. F. Witzsche 



Since the imperial Global Warming doctrine is an evident fraud, its obvious purpose appears to be to prevent society for responding to the critical necessity to create an Ice Age Renaissance (in which imperialism would have no role to exist). The Global Warming doctrine was evidently created as a lie with a purpose related to the more general imperial doctrine of global depopulation. This obvious intent becomes apparent when one considers that the Global Warming doctrine was created during the time period on the early 1970s in which the majority of the imperial depopulation policies were created, and in which it was said that "the Earth has cancer, and that cancer is man."

From an imperial standpoint,

 the Earth does indeed have cancer, a cancer that threatens the existence of every empire and imperial institution on the planet, and that cancer is indeed, man, the humanist development of mankind through scientific, technological, and cultural progress. In order to prevent this 'cancer' from destroying every empire on the planet a far-flung imperial war has been launched in the 1970s against mankind on a scale never before seen in the history of mankind. These include:

 (1) The 1971 scrapping of the Bretton Woods world-financial infrastructure to wreck the world economy. 

(2) The 1972 banning of DDT to resurrect malaria as the worlds foremost mass-killer disease. 

(3) The 1974 HMO legislation to destroy the public healthcare infrastructure. 

(4) The 1974/5 NSSM200 policy for the depopulation of Third World nations, especially Africa with the result of AIDS erupting at the end of the 1970s and early 1980s. 

(5) The 1975/7 imposition of the Global Warming dogma, designed to prevent the civilization building Ice Age Renaissance. 

(6) The post-industrial era policy that began destroying the global economy from the 1980s on through financial shocks, globalized looting, free trade slavery, debt building, and austerity shocks.

What would be the result of not creating an Ice Age Renaissance?

 A global collapse of the world's food production potential would occur. While the present potential remains underutilized. The agricultural losses due to cooling would far outweigh any yet unrealized potential. The result would be food-wars, starvation on a vast scale, with enormously increased potential for diseases erupting from the weakening and dying population. Probably no more that half a billion people might survive, if that, which would be imperially easily ruled over in a worldwide global Dark Age of feudalism. Under such primitive conditions and a low world population, a nuclear fusion power infrastructure would likely be forever unattainable. As a result, world-oil resources would become depleted, without any hope for developing replacement resources. While nuclear fission power might continue for a while it is doubtful that a small staring world in a feudal setting would be able to maintain the technology.

The more immediate result of not creating an Ice Age Renaissance, however, would be even more dramatic.

Without the Ice Age Renaissance goal as a cultural driver, society may not be able to empower itself to achieve the kind of self-development as human beings to become sublime human beings and terminate the imperial age. Without the big goal before it, society will likely continue to tie itself into knots of over 'little' issues for which no solutions can be found at the present level of society's self-perception as imperial fascist animals motivated by greed, lust, power, and insanity. On this platform nuclear war is almost a guaranteed outcome, the natural byproduct of a hierarchical imperial society desperately struggling to maintains its existence that unsupported by natural universal principles. We need something big that empowers us to reach for the sublime.

If creating an Ice Age Renaissance means creating a world without imperialism, how do we get there?

Since this goal has never been achieved in the entire history of mankind, a higher level approach is evidently required than any that has been applied so far, one that is based on the higher self-perception of mankind as human beings, the sublime perception that reflects the universal principles of our humanity and civilization, such as the Principle of Universal Love, and the Principle of the Advantage of the Other of the Second Renaissance that created the Peace of Westphalia. While these principles have been on the agenda before in a political context, as for instance in the form of General Welfare Principle that USA was founded on, these principles have historically been trashed in short order, by which whatever renaissance was created became lost. However, one area has never been touched by these renaissance principles, especially the Principle of Universal Love, and the Principle of the Advantage of the Other, is the grassroots social domain of society's private living where the Principle of Universal Love is not only rejected, but is regarded as treason under the shadow of various types of religious, imperial, or 'moral' dogmas, and emotional axiomatic responses. While a reversal of this trend involves huge challenges, a fuller acceptance of the Principle of Universal Love may yet be sufficiently 'tall' to power the re-humanizing of society that enables a renaissance, the driver for the needed Ice Age Renaissance may be sufficiently tall to empower society to seriously consider the Principle of Universal Love as an element of the sublime.

So, how do we become sublime human beings?

We become that by becoming human. Our humanity is not anchored in the imperial domain where we play the role of a fascist animal. Out humanity is anchored in the domain of science where we begin to discover our humanity and its principles and our power as human beings to create ever newer worlds with new resources for living. We become sublime when we discover ourselves as human beings, rather than underlings. We live the Principle of universal Love, because it is an element of our humanity. Indeed, we have seen a lot of that in action.

The real worldwide opposition to the global warming doctrine began in a big way not until 1992. On April 14, 1992, the first major objections were put on the table in a conference of fifty well-known scientists in the German university town of Heidelberg. This start of a mounting opposition became the seed-kernel of the historic Heidelberg Appeal that was eventually signed by over 4000 scientists and intellectuals from 69 countries, including 63 Nobel Laureates. The appeal was launched in opposition to the doctrine that was to be put forward at the ecological conference at Rio de Janeiro in June of 1992.

The same happened again before the 1997 Kyoto conference convened, at which the draconian fossil fuel reduction targets were imposed. Since the Hidelberg appeal had been overruled, the Leipzig Declaration was launched on Nov. 9-10, 1995, in opposition to the unscientific global warming doctrine. Hundred-and-ten climate specialists from around the world signed the Leipzig Declaration (by Feb. 1997). The declaration stood in opposition to the unscientific predictions and demands that were made the centerpiece of the Dec. 1997 Kyoto conference on global warming. Since the Leipzig Declaration was promptly kept off the Kyoto agenda, the scientific community launched another opposition project to the global warming doctrine in May 1998, the Oregon Petition Project that was signed by 17,000 scientists from around the world, most of them with advanced degrees. The signatories urged the US government, and other governments, to reject the global warming response agreement that was written into the Kyoto Protocol, as there exists no evidence to support the doctrine.

Another fact that is quietly hidden behind the shiny front of the supposed worldwide consensus in accepting the Kyoto Protocol, is the fact that such a consensus doesn't exist. As of December 15, 2004, seven years after the Protocol was signed, only 32 countries out of 210 have adopted the accord, which amounts to an 85% rejection of it. And why should one wonder about that? Dr Andrei Illarionov, the chief economic adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, informed a Melbourne radio audience (Dec. 9, 2004) that the overwhelming opinion among Russian scientists is that global warming is nonsense, but Russia had caved in to EU lobbying to sign the Kyoto Treaty, knowing that it wouldn't need to be ratified for six years, which is outside the current political cycle. "It is very clear," he said, "that the Kyoto Protocol is a death treaty," explaining that the Kyoto Protocol means reducing population and living standards. He compared it to a "death sentence" or "death camp." He said that the Russian Academy of Sciences published its conclusion on Kyoto last May, confirming the protocol does not have any scientific ground whatsoever. 
(Sources: The Age, The Australian, ABC Radio, PM, Reporter, Mark Colvin, 9 Dec. 2004) 

One of America's most outspoken long time opponents of the Global Warming doctrine was Dr. Ellsaesser, an atmospheric scientist who retired from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory after 23 years of atmospheric and climate research, who also spent 20 years as an Air Weather Officer for the U.S. Air Force. He recognized in 1980 that the climate models incorrectly represented certain atmospheric processes. Since then, more than 30 organizations and an increasing number of scientists have begun to speak out against the false global warming predictions and the draconian demands that are build around them, such as the worldwide reduction in the use of fossil fuels in the order of 60% to 80%. Dr. Ellsaesser pointed out in a 1999 article that the global warming that is being observed is the natural result of the Earth coming out of the Little Ice Age between 1450 and 1850 for which the warming trend began several hundred years ago and may continue for a while since we are still half way below the Medieval Climatic Optimum of the period 950-1250 AD, prior the Little Ice Age.

Dr. Ellsaesser points out that astrophysical cycles, rather than man-made effects cause these huge changes in climatic conditions that the Global Warming dogma is concerned with, and he points out that these global climatic changes began long before any man-made greenhouse gases were added to the natural environment. He also suggests that no evidence exists that the astrophysical cycles that have produced Ice Ages every 100,000 years over the last 700,000 years will suddenly stop for our convenience.
(See The New Federalist newspaper - Washington DC, page 9, Feb. 1, 1999, and, 21th Century Science and Technology magazine - Washington DC, Nov. 1997 special report, The Coming Ice Age.)




Return to Home Page


Published by
Cygni Communications Ltd.
North Vancouver, B.C.

(c) Copyright 2004
Cygni Communications Ltd.
All rights reserved