-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"> </A> -Cui Bono?- "Biology professor Garrett Harden (an influential Green spokesman) recently wrote: "lt is a mistake to think that we can control the greed of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience. . . . The only way we can cherish and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinguishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon." http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/canal25.html http://www.jdkoftinoff.com/canalsub.html (NWO links by subject) Maurice Strong is a man to watch! The billionaire Canadian businessman is an employee of the United Nations; an employee ofthe Rockefeller and Rothschild's trusts and projects; a director of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies; the organiser of the first World Conference on the Environment in 1992; the founder and first head ofthe U.N. Environment Program; the secretary general (and chief organizer) of the UNCED Earth Summit in Rio in June 1992, and a leading socialist, environmentalist, New World Order manipulator, occultist, and New Ager.In the mid- 1980s, Strong joined the World Commission on the Environment where he helped produce the 1987 Brundtland Report widely believed to be the "incendiary" which ignited the present "Green movement." Strong, who spearheaded the Earth Summit, has complained that "the United States is clearly the greatest risk to the world's ecological health," and wrote in an UNCED report in August 1991 that: "It is clear that current lifestyles and consump- tion 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-condi- tioning, and suburban housing are not sus- tainable. . . . A shift is necessary toward life- styles less geared to environmental damaging consumption patterns. " Strong has forcefully advocated a new economic order based on the re-distribution of the developed world's industries and wealth to the Third World. Strong is indeed an arch socialist. The Trilateral Commission recently published book, "Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing Of the WorId's Economy and the Earth's Ecology". Rockefeller wrote the foreword and Maurice Strong wrote the introduction, saying in part: "This book couldn't appear at a better time, with the preparation for the Earth Summit moving into gear . . . it will help guide decisions that will literally determine the fate of the earth.....Rio will have the political capacity to produce the basic changes needed in our inter- national economic agendas and in our institu- tions of governance." Strong has established what could be the global headquarters for the New Age movement in the San Luis Valley of Colorado at the foot of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains near Crestone, Colorado. He and his occultic wife, Hanne, call the Baca an international spiritual community which they hope will serve as a model for the way the wor1d should be if humankind is to survive - a sort of United Nations of religious beliefs. The Baca (as the center is called) is replete with monasteries; the Haidakhrndi Universal Ashram, a Vedic temple where devotees worship the Vedic mother goddess; amulet- carrying Native American shamans; a $175,000 solar- powered Hindu temple; a mustard-yellow tower called a ziggurat; a subterranean Zen Buddhist center complete with a computer and organic gardens; a house full of thousands ofcrystals; and even Shirley MacLaine and her New Age followers. In 1978, a mystic informed Hanne and Maurice Strong that "the Baca would become the center for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come." The Strongs say they see the Baca, which they call "The Valley Of the Refuge Of World truths "-"as the paradigm for the entire planet and say that the fate of the earth is at stake. Shirley MacLaine agrees - her astrologer told her to move to the Baca, and she did. She is building a New Age study center at the Baca where people can take short week-long courses on the occult! Apparently, the Kissingers, the Rockefellers, the McNamaras, the Rothschild's, and other Establishment New World Order elitists all agree as well- for they do their pilgrimage to the Baca - where politics and the occult-the New World Order and the New Age - all merge. Watch Maurice Strong and watch the Baca! Much of the above information about the Strong and the Baca comes from an interview entitled "The Wizard Of the Baca Grande," which Maurice Strong conducted with WEST magazine of Alberta, Canada May 1990. Strong concluded the interview with a thought- provoking, apocalyptic story from a novel he says he would like to write: "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*" And he's shaping up fast to become next Secretary-General of the United Nations and, IMHO, World Chief Wackyhead. Oh, and El Supremo Grand Commander, Strategist and Director of the New World Army! But, hey, he was just *joking* about all that stuff, right? The Earth Summit "The Earth Summit must establish a whole new basis for relations between rich and poor, North and South including a concerted attack on poverty as a central priority for the 21st century. This is now as imperative in terms of our environ- mental security as it is on moral and humani- tarian grounds. We owe at least this much to future generations, from whom we have bor- rowed a fragile planet called Earth. " -Maurice Strong Billed as the "mother of all summits," with up to 40,000 government officials and environmentalists from 167 countries in attendance, the June 4-14 Earth Summit was the biggest gathering of world leaders ever held. Described by Time magazine as a "New Age carnival," the summit (and related activities) was attended by the Dalai Lama of Tibet, thousands of New Agers and occultists (including John Denver and Shirley MacLaine), numerous leftist groups, and virtually every environmental group in the world - 7,892 non-governmental organizations from 167 countries. As the Wall Street Journal said: "The summit on Mother Nature was asking: 'What is needed to save the world and how much is the world willing to do to save itself? "'The Audubon Society called the Earth Summit "the most important meeting in the history of mankind", and Maurice Strong said at the opening session of the Summit: "Nothing less than the fate of the planet is at stake. . . . No place on the planet can remain an island ofaffluence in a sea of misery. . . . We're either going to save Ihe world or no one will be saved. I think we're at a real point of civilizalion change. We must, from here on in, all go down the same path. . . . There may not be another chance. The Rocky Mountain News, in a May 31, 1992 article entitled "Agenda For Rio: Save the Planet Earth," posed a question: "Who is killing planet earth? Styrofoam-crush- ing, beef-eating, gasoline-guzzling, air condi- tioner-blasting Americans and their partners in the developed nations? Rain forest-razing, sewer-fouling, baby-booming peasants of the Third World? Air-poisoning, river-killing, radio- active waste-leaking, dirty coal-burning denizens of formerly communist Eastern European countries? All of us are killing planet earth! " Many environmentalist leaders touted the summit as an ecological Bretton Woods, just as world leaders crafted the post-World War 11 international financial system in New Hampshire, the leaders of the post-Cold War era would lay the foundations for the "era of sustainable development." Lester Brown, president of Worldwatch Institute, said: "I think when we look back we will see the Rio conference as the event that marked the end of an era and the start of a new one."' The Goals Of the Rio Earth Summit The June Earth Summit in Rio was notjust about the pseudo-environmental crisis; it was not just about clean air, clean water, acid rain, global warming, or endangered species: it was about massive wealth redistribution from the industrial countries (i.e., the North) to the Third World countries (i.e., the South) - from the rich to the poor countries. It was about massive global socialisn people control, and world government. It was also an unprecedented global media platform, for militant anti- American eco-propaganda with emotional diatribes about America's alleged crimes against the global environment. The summit was concerned with writing a World Constitution which will deal with ways and means of eliminating pollution; cutting down the alleged "global warming"; cutting down on the emission of carbon dioxide; stalling the rate of ozone depletion; adopting plans to prevent overpopulation, acid rain, nuclear fallout, and to promote clean water and clean air; and depriving landowners ofthe right to use their land in any manner other than that permitted by UNCED or its local or regional representative. Their broad goals include: A Massive Global Wealth Redistribution Scheme - Maurice Strong and other summit leaders are demanding a $625 billion a year (for a decade) wealth transfer from the so-called wealthy countries (epitomized by the U.S.) to the so-called poor countries-with $125 billion per year coming from America. The U.S. is being pushed to contribute $70 billion per year to this Third World Green fund (this is in addition to the $55 billion we already pour out annually to developing nations). Imposition Of a System Of Global Environmental Regulation - including onerous taxes on energy fuels, and on the populations of the United States and other industrialized nations. The developed countries should limit production and consump- tion, and cut back dramatically on the use of the automobile, electrical appliances, air conditioning, etc. The same formula for "sacrifice by the rich nations to save the planet" was summarized well some 12 years earlier by Kansas Senator James P. Pearson, who said: "Profits must be cut, comforts reduced, taxes raised, sacrifices endured. " Elimination Of Property, Hunger, and Disease In The Third World - Only if these are eliminated, the environmentalists say, will the poor Third Worlders stop polluting planet earth. Establishment Of a Global Environmental Protec- tion Agency - to duplicate the efforts of the American EPA on a worldwide basis and prosecute environmental crimes on a global basis. Population Control - is high on the Green agenda, although the issue was low-profiled at the Earth Summit. Strict population control is high on the agenda of UNCED and the Green movement. As the Greens see it, there are too many people on Mother Earth (and the 5.4 billion will double in the next 10 to 15 years); the more people there are, the more pollution there is; the more highly- developed the people are, the more resources they consume. So, one of UNCED and the Greens' chief goals is to restrict population growth by whatever means possible. Biology professor Garrett Harden (an influential Green spokesman) recently wrote: "lt is a mistake to think that we can control the greed of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience. . . . The only way we can cherish and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinguishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon." The U.N. Population fund defends the Chinese population control regime, which uses mandatory abortion and sterilization, female infanticide, and incarceration of uncooperative parents. Paul Ehrlich, another Green' population controller, in his books, "The Population Bomb" and "The Population Explosion", praises the Chinese approach but calls it inadequate. He recommends a Chinese-style population control program supervised by the U. N., and the adding of sterilants to water and food supplies. It is very significant that the Greens are very preoccupied with population growth in America. The Club of Rome would like to see the U.S. population reduced to 75 million - they don't say what will happen to the other 175 million Americans (perhaps Russian nukes or AIDS can solve that problem). In "Earth Day - The Beginning", David Brower declared: "That's the first thing to do - start controlling the population in affluent white America, where a child born to a white American will use about 50 times the resources of a child born in the black ghetto." for the first time, during the writing of this book, this writer has begun to understand the relationship between the Rockefeller-backed Planned Parenthood, the abortion and euthanasia movement on the one hand, and the Green movement on the other. Both groups want to shrink the worlds population to save Mother Earth and our scarce resonrces. Both are preoccupied with death, and opposed to life. As Deuteronomy 30:19 says, "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Folks, I urge you *all* to go out and buy a copy of this amazingly-detailed, factual and fascinating book! Read it yourself, and loan it out widely to friends. Better still, sell your T.V. set and invest the money in several dozen copies and *give* them away! Unless, that is, you look *forward* to a world of water- induced impotence, controlled reproduction, impoverishment- by-transfer, slavery, and the promise of efficient "termination" as soon as you become a "useless eater" or accidentally have an original thought. Of course, you could always get that spaceship ready and prepare to flee. But Emperor Maurice might *really* be taxing fuel by then! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- [This highly-significant speech, very revealing of Strong's world-view, was given by him at the U.N. prior to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Well worth reading!] Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation By Maurice F. Strong On a beautiful spring morning in Stockholm nearly 20 years ago, the world community embarked on an extraordinary journey of hope. It is now almost a generation later, and world leaders and people from virtually every country will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 to ensure fulfillment of that hope. In this essay, I propose to tell the story of that journey--about what it has meant to those of us who were present in Stockholm that morning, and what our experience may illustrate for future generations who will inherit this terribly fragile planet that is known as Earth. The journey began on 5 June 1972 when delegates from 113 countries and many organizations, and people from all parts of the world, gathered in the Stockholm Opera House to be welcomed to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment by their Swedish hosts. King Gustaf VI Adolf was present. So was the late Prime Minister Olof Palme. It was a historic moment--marking the first time ever that representatives of world governments had come together to consider the implications of deepening environmental degradation for the future of our planet. It had taken more than two years of intensive effort to prepare for the Stockholm Conference. There had never been such a parley on a subject--environment--that was regarded as relatively novel at the time. We had expected a lively conference, of course, but had little idea of just how lively it would prove to be. It soon became evident during the first round of plenary statements that participating governments were deeply divided on some of the most important issues. The Conference newspaper summed it up well in its headline, `Only One Hundred and Thirteen Earths.' Developing countries, led by Brazil, insisted that the primary source of their environmental problems were poverty and under-development. They asserted that environmental concerns must not be allowed to detract from their principal priority of development. As the late Prime Minister Indira Ghandhi of India put it, `Poverty is the greatest polluter.' By the final days of the Conference, however, consensus was reached on an historic Declaration and Action Plan which established the basis for a new era of international environmental cooperation. This consensus involved intense negotiations between government representatives and United Nations officials, including me. As Secretary-General of the Stockholm Conference, I felt that divisive though the issues were concerning environment and poverty, it was important that the conference should not end in a stalemate. Results of the Stockholm Conference In the event, the Conference was a success. The environment was inscribed firmly and irrevocably on the world's agenda. Coverage of the Conference in the global media was extensive, and many articles in prestigious journals --and many books--were published in the months and years following the meeting. The Stockholm Conference led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) as the global instrument for catalyzing action to implement the consensus reached at the meeting. Fittingly, UNEP adopted the Conference theme `Only One Earth' as its motto. I was honored to be appointed as UNEP's first Executive Director. In time, the Stockholm Conference produced a proliferation of new initiatives. UNEP, thanks primarily to the dynamic and enlightened leadership of its current Executive Director, Mostafa K. Tolba, led the way. Governments established environmental ministries or agencies, and enacted environmental legislation and regulations. Inter-governmental organizations incorporated `environment' in their programs. A host of new non-governmental organizations and citizen groups sprang up in all parts of the world. Business began to take environmental issues more seriously, and public awareness and concern broadened on environmental issues. Nevertheless, the global environmental crisis continued. Economic growth and wealth in industrialized countries --contrasting with burgeoning population growth and poverty in developing countries--highlighted that gross economic and social imbalances afflicting our global community. The deterioration of the global environment meant setbacks for both rich and poor. Air and water pollution problems, and the cancerous spread of urban poverty and blight made many developing-country cities the most polluted of the world's urban environments. Water contamination, impending shortages of supply and rising tides of toxic substances, have been added to degradation of the renewable resources, loss of soil, forest cover and important species of plant and animal life in these last two decades. The Brundtland Commission The recognition of the essential linkages between environment and development was a dominant theme of the Stockholm Conference of 1972. But not enough progress was made toward the actual integration of the environmental dimension into development policies and practices until the World Commission on Environment and Development, in its 1987 report, `Our Common Future', gave new impetus to this process. The commission, which was chaired by Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister, soon became known widely as the Brundtland Commission. The Commission's report documented in compelling terms the case for sustainable development--the full integration of environment and development--as the only sound and viable means of ensuring both our environment and development future. It made clear the transition to sustainable development is equally imperative for developing as for more industrialized countries. It recognized that the vastly different conditions under which they must make this transition impose special handicaps on the poor and place special responsibilities on the rich. The 1992 Earth Summit The United Nations General Assembly responding to the report of the Brundtland Commission, decided in December 1989 to hold a new conference, this time on environment and development, on the 20th Anniversary of the Stockholm Conference, in June 1992. It accepted the invitation of Brazil to host the Conference, and President Fernando Collor de Mello decided that it would be held in Rio de Janeiro. In December 1990, the General Assembly decided that countries would be represented at the Conference by their Heads of State or Government. And the people of the planet who constitute the base on which this Summit depends will be there too--represented by the broad range of non-governmental organizations and citizen groups that will be participating. The expectation is that the presence of leaders and everyday people will generate the kind of political will required to take bold decisions concerning mankind's future. The recommendations of the Brundtland Commission provide the primary basis for the agenda of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. I hope that the 1992 Conference will produce a new political commitment to a global war on poverty as a central priority of the world community in the remainder of the 1990s and into the 21st Century. The United Nations General Assembly decided to establish a Preparatory Committee to oversee efforts for the 1992 Earth Summit. The Committee has become widely known as PrepCom. The goals of the Earth Summit have been articulated in General Assembly Resolution 44/228, and the task before the Preparatory Committee is to recommend the options and the actions to reach these goals. Ambassador Tommy Koh of Singapore was elected chairman of the Committee at its organizational meeting in New York in March 1990. Ambassador Koh has enjoyed a long and distinguished career as a lawyer and a diplomat. The Earth Summit in Rio will be about environment and development. But there is a primary emphasis on development and economic change. For it is through the development process that we have an impact on the environment. And it is only through fundamental changes in our economic behavior, in lifestyles and in management of the development process, that we can effect the positive synthesis between the environment and development that will produce a way of life that is sustainable both in economic and environmental terms. The development model which has produced the lifestyles that we in the industrialized world and the privileged minority in developing countries, enjoy is simply not sustainable. The 1992 Conference will focus largely on the changes we must make in our economic behavior to ensure global environmental security. The industrialized countries must clearly take a lead in this transition. It is they who have developed and benefitted from the traditional development model which has produced our present dilemma. And they are the only ones with the means and the power to change it. But, of course, most of the world's population lives in developing countries--and their full partnership in effecting the needed transition will be essential. The transition to sustainability requires much more effective use of resources and accountability of the environmental as well as the economic impacts of such use. This must depend primarily on the provision of the necessary incentives to change rather than over-reliance on regulatory measures. Operation of market forces can and must be a powerful ally in providing the incentives to change. It is, after all, fully consistent with market economy principles that every economic transaction and product must absorb the full costs to which it gives rise, including environmental costs. The system of incentives and penalties through which governments create the conditions that motivate our economic life must be re-examined and reoriented to provide the necessary incentives for the transition to sustainability in both our industrial life and individual behavior. A New Revolution What is called for is nothing less than a new `eco- industrial' revolution, one that will not only preserve and extend the benefits created by the industrial revolution of yesteryear, but create a whole new generation of economic opportunity and redress the gross imbalances between rich and poor. The substantial reductions effected recently in the material and energy content of industrial production, particularly in Western Europe and Japan, illustrate the degree to which environmental measures can be compatible with economic vitality. Japan, for example, uses only about half as much energy per unit of industrial production as the United States. This gives it a competitive advantage averaging some 5 percent in the US market. And such environmentally related industries as waste management and pollution control are now among the leading growth industries. These changes within industrialized economies must be accompanied by concrete measures to ensure an increased net flow of resources to developing countries; and to make available to them on an affordable basis the environmentally sound technologies they will require to incorporate the environmental dimension into their own development policies and practices. Renewed Role of the United Nations The imperatives of global environmental cooperation will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations. Its current inadequacies, its lack of the capacity and means in many cases to do its job, are largely a function of the severe constraints imposed on both its mandates and its budgets by Member States. Yet the world needs the United Nations today more than ever. If it did not exist, it would have to be invented. And the same difficulties that make governments reluctant to accord to the United Nations the powers and resources required to do its work would make it difficult to re-create. That is not to say that the United Nations can or should do it all. Indeed, in virtually all cases the principal actors are national governments and other inter-governmental organizations and the private sector. But the United Nations' role is unique and indispensable in providing the global framework, context and forums required to enable the other actors to contribute effectively and cooperatively to addressing common global concerns. Strengthening the role the United Nations can play on behalf of its members will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives. The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. There is no need for a renunciation or wholesale retreat from this principle. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security. Interdependence and Globalization The increasingly integrated and interdependent nature of the human systems we have established through the functioning of the world's economy and global communications also transcends national boundaries. It is an interesting paradox that the globalization and universalization we are now experiencing in so many aspects of our life is accompanied by the resurgence of parochialism and ethnic and religious nationalism. This is creating strong and growing pressures for separatism in federal and multi- ethnic states. The processes of democratization which are re-shaping the political life of so many nations today are producing a new emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities. This is particularly manifest in respect of environmental issues ranging from consumer preferences and demands for cleaner and safer products to resistance to mega-development projects. Environment and development issues are moving to the grass roots in a growing number of countries. There is a proliferation of new citizen groups and voluntary organizations which are becoming important agents of action as well as sources of political pressure. They are insisting on greater participation in the decisions which affect them and for more effective accountability of the decisions and actions by governments. Expectations about the Rio Summit The strong and vigorous interest which the non- governmental community is showing in the 1992 Conference and in preparations for it, is an encouraging sign that `people power' will be an important factor in the success of the Conference. The Rio Conference offers a unique opportunity to provide the basis for the major shift required to put us on the pathway to a more secure and sustainable future. At the core of this shift there will have to be fundamental changes in our economic life--a more careful and more caring use of the earth's resources and greater cooperation and equity in sharing the benefits as well as the risks of our technological civilization. Of particular importance is the need to integrate the ecological dimension into education and economics. But accelerated development will be necessary, too. Developing countries cannot deal effectively with their fragile eco-systems and burgeoning urban problems without higher incomes derived from efficient use of technologies. Poverty, as we know, breeds environmental disaster. Population is another critical element in the environment- development equation. The relationship between population dynamics and the ecosystems on which the survival and the well-being of people depend, is decisive in achieving sustainable development. Demographic factors such as rates and distribution of population growth will be key to the transition to sustainability. This issue, of course, is bound up with the issue of poverty. Each country must determine the relationship between the growth and distribution of its own population, its environment and resource base, and the level and quality of life that its development policies and programs are designed to produce for its people. But overall reduction in population growth and early achievement of population stability are imperative. Realistic or Overly Ambitious? The results we seek in Rio are clearly ambitious; some may say even unrealistic, given the current economic difficulties of developing countries, the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern and Central Europe--and the preoccupation of the OECD countries with their own economic concerns. With the Earth Summit already on the horizon, is it really feasible to develop the political will required to agree on the fundamental changes that are needed? Surely if our diagnosis is correct, such changes are imperative and we must believe they are possible! There is basis for hope in our won history which demonstrates that dramatic changes in direction are possible when necessity and new realities compel them. The world community new faces together greater risks to our common security through our impacts on the environment than from traditional military conflicts with one another. We must now forge a new `Earth Ethic' which will inspire all peoples and nations to join in a new global partnership of North, South, East and West. This partnership would ensure the integrity of the Earth as a secure, equitable and hospitable home for today's inhabitants and tomorrrow's generations. Rio 1992 will build on the foundations established in Stockholm in 1972. The people of our planet, especially the young and the generations which follow them, will hold us accountable for what we do or fail to do in Rio. Earth is the only home we have; its fate is literally in our hands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Hmmm...that stuff about "nations no longer having sovereignty", "overall population reduction", and "a stronger role for the U.N." makes me, shall we say, "nervous". And if "global warming" is a burgeoning "threat", why wouldn't Maurice be doing everything in his power to persuade his good friend and partner Paul Desmarais, and his ASIA POWER CORP., *not* to finance or encourage the "development" of all of those soft- coal, highly-polluting, "greenhouse gas"-producing power stations in *China*? <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
