This Forum is Closed
January 24, 2022, 04:04:24 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: GGF now has a permanent home:
  Home Help Search Links Staff List Login Register  

Global Carbon Currency Ponzi Scheme: A New Beginning for Technocracy

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: Global Carbon Currency Ponzi Scheme: A New Beginning for Technocracy  (Read 1898 times)
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1242

Routing out & defeating the globalist pigs

View Profile
« on: July 10, 2010, 12:38:41 pm »

Technocracy and the New World Order: Part 2
Written by Steven Yates   
Friday, 29 January 2010 08:00

carbon currency or global currency and the New World OrderThe ideas that grew into technocracy go back at least to the British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679), author of Leviathan (1651), the first modern treatise in political philosophy. Hobbes believed in the necessity of a strong central government; in the context of his time, a monarchy. At least as important for the development of technocracy, Hobbes was a materialist who believed that the same methods being developed to study the natural order under the phrase natural philosophy could be used to study human beings and their social interactions; i.e., that what would today be called an empirical science of society was possible.

Two French thinkers, Henri de Saint-Simon (1760 – 1825) and Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857), pursued this line of thought further. The latter argued that disciplines such as physics or entire civilizations go through three stages: what he called a “theological or fictitious” stage which appeals for explanations to supernatural agencies such as God, a “metaphysical or abstract” stage in which philosophers spin grand systems out of their imaginations and appeal to non-empirical absolute principles such as those of morality, and a “scientific or positive” stage in which all such schemes are set aside in favor of the methods of empirical science: observation, hypothesis, experimentation, data collection, statistical projections, and so on. Comte believed that scientific results promised a better basis on which to build civilization than either religion or the speculations of philosophers. His system was positive in the sense of being optimistic, or forward looking. Having founded sociology on this basis, he is sometimes regarded as the father of all modern social science as empirical, data-driven, and eschewing notions such as original sin (belongs in the first stage) or abstractions such as private property rights (belongs to the second).

Comte’s positivism influenced later thinkers such as Wilhelm Wundt (1845 – 1920), the founder of the ‘experimental psychology’ of the Leipzig School, and Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970), major British logician and philosopher, Fabian socialist, and promoter of the ‘scientific society’ in works such as The Impact of  Science on Society (1952) which consciously distinguishes the kind of education for those designated as elite from what will be dispensed to the masses. One should also mention Edward Bellamy (1850 – 1898), on this side of the Atlantic, who presented a technocratic utopia in his novel Looking Backward (1888), set in the year 2000. Would technocracy remain a utopian pastime, however—or become a public agenda?

In 1919, an organization called the Technical Alliance of North America formed in New York City, headed by consulting industrial engineer Howard Scott (1890 – 1970) and including economist Thorstein Veblen, physicist Richard Tolman, engineer William H. Smythe (who coined the term technocracy) and economist and banker Stuart Chase, among others. They set out to work out the nuts-and-bolts details of applying scientific and engineering achievements to the social universe, especially what they saw as the wasteful use of resources inherent in allowing Americans to make their own choices as sovereign consumers. They began a massive study of the energy and resources of the North American continent — meaning by that the territory extending from Panama to the Arctic Ocean. Their goal was a planned, systematic blueprint for bringing production and distribution under centralized control. They believed their plan, if implemented, would result in a higher standard of living across the continent along with less waste of non-renewable resources. They had planned to continue their study for four years but the group disbanded in 1921, its work unfinished.

In an interview that year, Howard Scott explained matter-of-factly, “The technicians … are the only group who know how people get things. They are not the only producers, but they are the only ones who know how production is accomplished. Bankers don't know. Politicians and diplomats don't know. If these fellows did know, they would have gotten the wheels started before this. They all want production−everybody does; but those who have been running things don't know how to run them, while those who do know how have not so far considered it their business.”

Technocracy enjoyed a period of popularity in the 1930s as a possible solution to the problems presented by the Great Depression. In 1933, Scott and an ambitious young geophysicist named M. King Hubbert (1903 – 1989) would form Technocracy, Inc. The two of them authored a major work entitled Technocracy Study Course published in 1934. This work became the bible of the movement.

Among their goals was to institute an economic system based on energy allocation instead of price. They proposed to replace money with energy credits. They saw themselves as opposed to every economic system in existence, capitalist or socialist, since each was based on a price system instead of an energy system. Each one — even socialism — involved buying and selling by individuals instead of centralized and monitored allocation of resources. The technocrats believed only the latter could eliminate poverty, for example, as well as ensure that resources are not wasted.

After World War II and the return of prosperity, interest in technocracy waned. Hubbert had earned a Ph.D. in geophysics in 1937, moved to Columbia University to teach the subject, and eventually developed the Hubbert Peak Theory, better known today as Peak Oil: the discovery of new reserves would eventually be outstripped by usage, causing massive increases in energy costs that would eventually destabilize all modern economies tied to fossil fuels.

The technocrats of the 1930s were disadvantaged by a simple fact: the technology to implement their ideas didn’t exist yet. Today, most of it does. And partly because of the popularity of Hubbert’s Peak Oil concept, partly because of the widespread promotion of ACC, and partly because the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression has turned eyes towards the drawbacks of fiat money, technocracy is making a comeback. Websites devoted to the subject exist here and in Canada, and an organization called the Network of European Technocrats formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy.”

All today’s technocrats need is a strategy to create and implement a carbon currency that can be picked up by the global elite. The idea of carbon credits was devised at the time of the Kyoto Protocols. The UK assumed the lead in establishing the first domestic economy-wide trading system. This system has grown rapidly.

Suggestions for developing a carbon currency abound in a growing literature. Patrick Wood’s study provides several examples.

For example, back in 1995 an article appeared in New Scientist entitled, “Toward a single carbon currency”; its author, Judith Hanna, proposed “to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.”

In 2004, Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” which opined, “For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies….” 

In 2006 in the UK, Environment Secretary David Miliband suggested imagining “a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used.”

In 2007, The New York Times published Hannah Fairfield’s “When Carbon Becomes Currency.” Fairfield stated, “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.” She shows how mandatory cap-and-trade policies fit into the larger picture of an economy based on control over energy usage.

In 2008, a global consultancy calling itself PointCarbon partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets and published their findings as “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the Prospects For Integrated Global Carbon Markets.” Wood notes that other elite banks have opened their doors to profits available through carbon markets: JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. In other words, this movement has dominant institutions working quietly on its behalf.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the Telegraph (UK) contended in an article revealingly entitled, "Everyone in Britain could be given a ‘carbon allowance," that, “implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emission.” Here we come full circle, with people issued a unique number they would use when purchasing anything that contributes to their carbon footprint. As with a bank account, they would be sent a statement each month with a record of their usages. “If their ‘carbon account’ hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.”
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.084 seconds with 15 queries.