Carbon tax billions to help poor nations … Billions of dollars raised by Australia's carbon tax will end up overseas, helping poor countries battle climate change. Prime Minister Julia Gillard's (left) new tax will be used to allow Australia to meet its share of a $100 billion-a-year United Nations fund to transfer wealth from rich countries to help undeveloped nations adapt to global warming. The Gillard Government is party to a UN agreement, which Climate Change Minister Greg Combet entered into in December at a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, under which about 10 per cent of carbon taxes in developed nations will go into a Green Climate Fund. Even when Ms. Gillard was denying there would be a carbon tax last August, her government had committed to spend $599 million on climate change handouts over the current three-year Budget period, mainly in the Pacific and South-East Asia. About $470 million has already been allocated. – The West Australian

Dominant Social Theme: Time to be responsible, for the children.

Free-Market Analysis: Australia is apparently going to be the first or one of the first countries to put a tax on "carbon." The idea that carbon dioxide, an essential building block of life, has been subject to powerful demonization by the Anglo-American power elite is testimony to the power of the Anglosphere's use of dominant social themes, the fear-based promotions that push Western middle classes to give up power and wealth to internationalist institutions. Global warming (now climate change) is a perfect example of such a meme in action.

It apparently doesn't matter that global warming has been debunked to the point where the powers-that-be had to change the very nomenclature; like so many power-elite promotions, its veracity has little to do with its implementation. We've questioned how well such memes will work in the era of the Internet because alternative information is so easily available. But what we have discovered simply by observation is that the elite is committed to these programs regardless.

Of course, we would argue this is a sign of weakness not strength. With so many elite themes under attack, the operational methodology seems to be to ignore the debunking and simply use the power of government (regulatory democracy) to generate the desired result. But observing this, we ask why then does the elite go to the trouble of creating dominant social themes at all? The answer is because it is not feasible to move society in a given direction without creating a rationale that includes either fear or greed as the goad, usually fear.

In the 20th century, these dominant social themes were almost unquestioned, but in the 21st century many of them have come undone. That the elite continues to utilize them and build its new world order based on their implementation shows that there is obviously no feasible alternative to these methodologies. Rather than grapple with the Internet and its debunking, the elite is ignoring its effects.

There is an argument to be made that the elite has of late been most proactive when it comes to the Internet. If one accepts that Julian Assange is an elite factotum, then the brilliance of his positioning becomes evident. Almost every major socio-political story in the world today is tailored to Assange's leaks of classified (mostly American) diplomatic cables. Thus the elite through WikiLeaks is able to control the outward dialogue in a credible way. Assange has been positioned as the ultimate rebel to buttress his believability but by choosing what to release (assuming the cables even exist) the elite can control the mainstream dialogue.

Couple WikiLeaks with the spate of color revolutions that have taken place and one sees finally how the elite has begun to respond to the challenges of the Internet. They have chosen to co-opt it, using its massive power to create change that benefits their objectives – ever-closer world governance. However, it is important to point out that co-opting the power of the Internet is not the same as combating its debunking ramifications. The main problem remains for the Anglosphere: Over the past decade the Internet has thoroughly exposed the various gambits that the elite uses to realize its goals. This is the dilemma that must be solved; to date it hasn't been.

The stated intention of the Australian government to pass a carbon tax is just one more example of how the elite has failed to deal with its fundamental dilemma. The announcement has created a great deal of controversy in Australia, with the opposition vowing to oppose the tax and repeal it if it is passed. The controversy merely illustrates how difficult it is to implement dominant social themes without a "buy in."

One could make the same argument about the current color revolutions. While it is clear that these revolutions in large part have been formented by the West, which has "trained" the youth of many countries regarding the strategy of effective protest, it is a good deal more difficult to control the aftermath of regime change. People who are not aware they're being manipulated are far more apt to accede to manipulations than those who are. Many in the Middle East, especially the intelligentsia, are well aware of current manipulations. Western elites may find the ramifications of these color revolutions to be more troublesome than the initial results.

As we have pointed out, the elite doesn't seem to have any answers to the problem that the Internet poses. The response thus far is just to ignore the massive, mounting debunking that is occurring on millions of electronic pages available to anyone who wishes read them. It is of course possible to jam through legislation that moves the world in the preferred direction, but ultimately this is a somewhat questionable course of action.

People need to be "led;" they need to willingly accept the themes being inculcated. In our view, this is increasingly problematic, and we believe this particular dilemma will only grow worse over time. The fundamental conflict of the 21st century is the debunking-aspect of the Internet versus the continued efficacy of power elite promotions. How one determines the resolution of this conflict (decides on its results) has personal, familial and investment ramifications.