Copenhagen was not about global warming but money. The cash that Hillary Clinton (pictured left) so dramatically plonked on the table, rising to $100 billion by 2020, which includes the £1.5 billion offered by Gordon Brown (money which of course he hasn't got) and which like a crazed gambler he last week upped to £6 billion (even more money he hasn't got), was merely a "sweetener" to persuade the developing countries to maintain the money-machine set in motion by Kyoto. This is the new global industry based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year, which through schemes such as the UN's Clean Development Mechanism and the EU's Emissions Trading System is making a small minority of people, including Al Gore, extremely rich. The only really concrete achievement of Copenhagen was to win agreement to the perpetuating of those Kyoto rules that have created this vast industry, which has two main beneficiaries. On one hand are that small number of people in China and India who have learnt how to work this system to their huge advantage. On the other are all those Western entrepreneurs who have piled into what has become the fastest growing commodity market in the world. The part played at Copenhagen by all the tree-huggers, abetted by the BBC and their media allies, was to keep hysteria over warming at fever pitch while the politicians haggled over the real prize, to keep the Kyoto system in place. – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: Follow the money?
Free-Market Analysis: We agree with this article, but we would like to add to it. One has to look even deeper in our opinion. If one is to properly analyze the dominant social themes that the power elite injects into civil discourse, one has to mine the meme and keep mining.
Take Peak Oil. Please. The surface messaging is that humankind is running out of energy, that fossil fuels are dirty anyway, and that humankind needs to conserve. This is the messaging of the environmental movement and it generates regulations and legislation that diminish the ability of individuals and society to make valid economic choices. On a second level, there is a more conflict-ridden messaging. Nations go to war over oil and thus the perception is reinforced that oil is the rarest of commodities, worthy of sacrificing the treasure and blood of nations that seek it.
But there is, in our opinion, a third layer here: the real reason for the dominant social theme of oil scarcity. The third layer has to do with the determination of the power elite to expand around the world, to erect a form of global government (in substance or spirit) and to rationalize the Muslim religion, which is a formidable barrier to global governance currently. Oil scarcity is a convenient ruse, lending justification to the larger, ongoing, generational effort at creating global governance.
We will not rehearse the entire strategy here. Suffice it to say that when wars are fought and Western oil companies bid for the spoils, the available intelligentsia inevitably focuses on the immediate oil money trail. (And, yes, this is why the more sophisticated levels of chattering classes have decided that Americans went to war in Iraq — for oil.) While this may be a secondary justification (it's always nice to bring resources under control) the real reason for the ongoing wars in the Middle East is most likely to gradually tame the Muslim religious ethos. In fact, this is already taking place in places like Dubai where the elite has found ways to create a Westernized version of the Muslim dictat against various forms of financial commerce.
Power elite strategies usually seem to have at least thee strategies functioning within every dominant social theme. In the case of Peak Oil, there is the initial meme that oil is scarce and must be conserved. (This provides wealth and control to those who possess oil.) Then there is the secondary meme: nations go to war over oil. (This is a good excuse to reinforce the first meme and has benefits all its own having to do with increased militarization, polarization, etc.)
Finally, there is what we consider the real reason – the oil scarcity meme is a good excuse to wage war not for oil but for control over Muslim regions of the world. It is part of the Hegelian strategy of thesis antithesis and synthesis. It is the synthesis that the power elite is most interested in, bringing countries together via authoritarian governments that make the population, no matter how vast, easier to control and rationalize. We can see this process at work, for instance, in both Russia and China, which are gradually being brought into the power elite (Anglo-American) orbit. Or at least that seems to be the plan.
You may not believe this, of course, dear reader (and no one is forcing you to), but in our opinion it must always be borne in mind that the power elite plans generationally. The objectives are grand, the strategies global and the prize apparently is global dominance. In fact, when one examines the dominant social themes in play currently, one is struck by how they attack the major elements of life. Water, food and other basic building blocks are seemingly the resources that dominant social themes target. The scarcity meme is seemingly applied, these days, to everything one needs to live. The solution to these difficulties will lay, inevitability, in the authoritarian mechanisms that the power elite itself has erected (governmental entities, certain NGOs, commissions, etc.)
This is why we can predict with some certainty that sooner or later food and water will be subject to a sustained scarcity promotion. In fact, we were shocked when the craze for bottled water swept not just Anglo-American affiliates, but Europe and thence the entire world. Everyone needs to drink bottled water now, as it is a status symbol. This is a precursor to the meme of water scarcity. (One can already see the water-scarcity books being promoted on, say, Bloomberg.) Anyway, these promotions move in stages.
Which brings us back to Copenhagen. Copenhagen (the recent global warming conference) is a dominant social theme with all the fingerprints of the power elite. First of all, in our opinion, it is untrue – there is no global warming, or even if there is it would not damage the earth as predicted. Second, despite much evidence that the meme is untrue, governance and mainstream reporting roll merrily along as if there were no controversy. Thirdly, the promotion is a huge one: breathing is dangerous.
So what is the tripartite promotion – the "back story" – to the Copenhagen conference on global warming? The primary level is that global warming is a clear and present danger and that only Draconian government solutions can save the planet. The second meme is the one enunciated in the article excerpt above – that the REAL reason for the global warming promotion is monetary and has to do with ensuring that carbon-trading continues and gets bigger. This second level is equivalent to the second level of the Peak Oil meme (nations go to war over oil) and acts as a methodology that provides conclusion to those who search for deeper meanings in these memes.
But it is the third level that the power elite does not want noticed and that is MOST INTEGRAL to the promotion. The third level is that global governance is at work. The best dominant social themes act as metaphors OF THEMSELVES. That is they are SEAMLESS promotions. This is why in some sense the Copenhagen conference was a success from a promotional standpoint no matter the outcome or inevitable finger-pointing.
For two weeks the world – the entire world – was held hostage to the spectacle of hundreds of nations gathering in one place to solve a "problem." Never mind that the problem was phony. And never mind that carbon trading promises a huge additional layer of power and wealth for those who are involved. The real reason for the Copenhagen conference was to HAVE IT – to introduce once more the idea of nations and leaders gathered together to "solve" a problem on a global scale.
There will be many who have a visceral distrust of the seeming progress being made toward globalization – that are satisfied with the apparent disarray of the conference. We, however, will not give in to the temptation to "keep score." The idea that Copenhagen was a "victory" or a "defeat" for the forces of globalism is from our perspective perhaps a slightly simplistic analysis. The Copenhagen conference simply WAS. Its very organization and presentation reinforced – and made realer – global governance.
Here at the Bell we argue that the Internet is undermining this global-governance effort (one of which we are not overly fond). But one must visualize the success or failure of these dominant themes in terms of tectonic plates. The forces are very great and the progress, or lack thereof, is often very slow. There may of course be violent incidents – earthquakes if you will – but they are only signifiers of the large, underground forces in play.