2014 – Biggest Genocide In Human History

April 10, 2014 in Uncategorized

Share on Tumblr

Every 5 years the global elite has starved to death approx. 54,750,000 people for corporate profit increases made from false food and resource scarcity. Here is the math:
16,000 children starve to death every day + 14,000 adults (approx.) = 30,000 x 365 = 10,950,000 x 5 = 54,750,000

That is more people than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and George Bush combined; also consider the fact that it sure ain’t poor people who can afford their own slavery. Therefore it is safe to assume that the same global elite fund all these fascist slave regimes all over the planet, making our current elite the most spoiled, genocidal, and least responsible of them all. And it’s not like we don’t have the technology to solve these problems peacefully, except who wants peace and equality, when the promise of having billions of slaves is right in front of you?

Jeff Rothschild is a libertarian in San Francisco, atheist in LA, anarcho-capitalist in New York, communist in China, capitalist in Washington D.C, and secretly a big admirer of Hitler like Mark Zuckerberg.

This is the greatest genocide in human history, and the richest still are not satisfied, they now talk about the necessity of a third world war, where 90% of humanity needs to be executed. They fund NASA to create biased studies about how unsustainable life currently is, while blaming poor people (overpopulation) who have been sustainable for thousands of years. Obviously the current system is unsustainable, but genocide is no long term solution. They are plotting a third world war while currently killing off more people than ever in the past. When will this end??? After World War 3?

Historians beautify history with false heroics about their philanthropists (slave masters/financeers) and very few facts, but in reality, this planet is plagued (has been for thousands of years), with elitists who resolve all of humanity’s problems with blood shed and disinformation. They needed 7 billion blinded slaves to dig out all the riches, and now they don’t need them anymore. Like farmers who buy cats to kill rats, and then kill the cats when there are no more rats, to have to buy more cats when the rats come back, they keep selling us voodoo like the imperialists did to african tribesman; let us burn fake dolls of rich white people, while they kill us off with real life poverty, bullets and bombs.

In the past food scarcity happened because of too many war economies, or not enough food. Today we have plenty of war economies, and so much food, that rich people have to create false food scarcity to keep humanity enslaved. But enslavement is always followed with genocide, because rich people don’t want to pay back their slaves, at least not all of them. 54 million are killed just from starvation, not even mentioning fascist slave systems, wars, and having a global elite who feeds poor people cancer /death instead of heaven. Because you can’t sell for profit heaven, only hell! Ruining the only viable planet in the solar system for short term profits.

There are 1 planet and 3 moons in our solar system we could have been terraforming for human life since the 1990s, and our planet could already be entirely automized so that people wouldn’t need to do the slave work machines can do. This just proves that you can’t sell freedom, only slavery. Capitalism is communism for the rich, and money is national-socialism for the global elite. Call it what you will but this just proves that the only incentive money creates, is the one which makes people intellectually and physically lazy!

Pailhead - I Will Refuse

Look at the lives of the super-rich, who set the pace for global consumption. Are their yachts getting smaller? Their houses? Their artworks? Their purchase of rare woods, rare fish, rare stone? Those with the means buy ever bigger houses to store the growing stash of stuff they will not live long enough to use. By unremarked accretions, ever more of the surface of the planet is used to extract, manufacture and store things we don’t need. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that fantasies about the colonisation of space – which tell us we can export our problems instead of solving them – have resurfaced(14).

The Impossibility of Growth Demands a New Economic System
Why collapse and salvation are hard to distinguish from each other.
by George Monbiot

Let us imagine that in 3030BC the total possessions of the people of Egypt filled one cubic metre. Let us propose that these possessions grew by 4.5% a year. How big would that stash have been by the Battle of Actium in 30BC? This is the calculation performed by the investment banker Jeremy Grantham(1).The trajectory of compound growth shows that the scouring of the planet has only just begun. We simply can't go on this way.

Go on, take a guess. Ten times the size of the pyramids? All the sand in the Sahara? The Atlantic ocean? The volume of the planet? A little more? It’s 2.5 billion billion solar systems(2). It does not take you long, pondering this outcome, to reach the paradoxical position that salvation lies in collapse.

To succeed is to destroy ourselves. To fail is to destroy ourselves. That is the bind we have created. Ignore if you must climate change, biodiversity collapse, the depletion of water, soil, minerals, oil; even if all these issues were miraculously to vanish, the mathematics of compound growth make continuity impossible.

Economic growth is an artefact of the use of fossil fuels. Before large amounts of coal were extracted, every upswing in industrial production would be met with a downswing in agricultural production, as the charcoal or horse power required by industry reduced the land available for growing food. Every prior industrial revolution collapsed, as growth could not be sustained(3). But coal broke this cycle and enabled – for a few hundred years – the phenomenon we now call sustained growth.

It was neither capitalism nor communism that made possible the progress and the pathologies (total war, the unprecedented concentration of global wealth, planetary destruction) of the modern age. It was coal, followed by oil and gas. The meta-trend, the mother narrative, is carbon-fuelled expansion. Our ideologies are mere subplots. Now, as the most accessible reserves have been exhausted, we must ransack the hidden corners of the planet to sustain our impossible proposition.

On Friday, a few days after scientists announced that the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet is now inevitable(4), the Ecuadorean government decided that oil drilling would go ahead in the heart of the Yasuni national park(5). It had made an offer to other governments: if they gave it half the value of the oil in that part of the park, it would leave the stuff in the ground. You could see this as blackmail or you could see it as fair trade. Ecuador is poor, its oil deposits are rich: why, the government argued, should it leave them untouched without compensation when everyone else is drilling down to the inner circle of hell? It asked for $3.6bn and received $13m. The result is that Petroamazonas, a company with a colourful record of destruction and spills(6), will now enter one of the most biodiverse places on the planet, in which a hectare of rainforest is said to contain more species than exist in the entire continent of North America(7).

The UK oil company Soco is now hoping to penetrate Africa’s oldest national park, Virunga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo(8); one of the last strongholds of the mountain gorilla and the okapi, of chimpanzees and forest elephants. In Britain, where a possible 4.4 billion barrels of shale oil has just been identified in the south-east(9), the government fantasises about turning the leafy suburbs into a new Niger delta. To this end it’s changing the trespass laws to enable drilling without consent and offering lavish bribes to local people(10,11). These new reserves solve nothing. They do not end our hunger for resources; they exacerbate it.

The trajectory of compound growth shows that the scouring of the planet has only just begun. As the volume of the global economy expands, everywhere that contains something concentrated, unusual, precious will be sought out and exploited, its resources extracted and dispersed, the world’s diverse and differentiated marvels reduced to the same grey stubble.

Some people try to solve the impossible equation with the myth of dematerialisation: the claim that as processes become more efficient and gadgets are miniaturised, we use, in aggregate, fewer materials. There is no sign that this is happening. Iron ore production has risen 180% in ten years(12). The trade body Forest Industries tell us that “global paper consumption is at a record high level and it will continue to grow.”(13) If, in the digital age, we won’t reduce even our consumption of paper, what hope is there for other commodities?

Look at the lives of the super-rich, who set the pace for global consumption. Are their yachts getting smaller? Their houses? Their artworks? Their purchase of rare woods, rare fish, rare stone? Those with the means buy ever bigger houses to store the growing stash of stuff they will not live long enough to use. By unremarked accretions, ever more of the surface of the planet is used to extract, manufacture and store things we don’t need. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that fantasies about the colonisation of space – which tell us we can export our problems instead of solving them – have resurfaced(14).

As the philosopher Michael Rowan points out, the inevitabilities of compound growth mean that if last year’s predicted global growth rate for 2014 (3.1%) is sustained, even if we were miraculously to reduce the consumption of raw materials by 90% we delay the inevitable by just 75 years(15). Efficiency solves nothing while growth continues.

The inescapable failure of a society built upon growth and its destruction of the Earth’s living systems are the overwhelming facts of our existence. As a result they are mentioned almost nowhere. They are the 21st Century’s great taboo, the subjects guaranteed to alienate your friends and neighbours. We live as if trapped inside a Sunday supplement: obsessed with fame, fashion and the three dreary staples of middle class conversation: recipes, renovations and resorts. Anything but the topic that demands our attention.

Statements of the bleeding obvious, the outcomes of basic arithmetic, are treated as exotic and unpardonable distractions, while the impossible proposition by which we live is regarded as so sane and normal and unremarkable that it isn’t worthy of mention. That’s how you measure the depth of this problem: by our inability even to discuss it.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7853

2. Grantham expressed this volume as 1057 cubic metres. In his paper We Need To Talk About Growth, Michael Rowan translated this as 2.5 billion billion solar systems. (http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/). This source gives the volume of the solar system (if it is treated as a sphere) at 39,629,013,196,241.7 cubic kilometres, which is roughly 40 x 1021 cubic metres. Multiplied by 2.5 billion billion, this gives 1041 cubic metres. So, unless I’ve got the wrong figure for the volume of the solar system or screwed my units up, which is eminently possible, Michael Rowan’s translation looks like an underestimate. I’ll stick with his figure though, as I don’t have much confidence in my own. Any improvements, comments or corrections via the contact form gratefully received.

3. EA Wrigley, 2010. Energy and the English Industrial Revolution. Cambridge University Press.

4. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/12/western-antarctic-ice...

5. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/ecuador-amazon-yasuni...

6. http://www.entornointeligente.com/articulo/2559574/ECUADOR-Gobierno-conc...

7. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/16/ecuador-approves-yasuni-ama...

8. http://www.wwf.org.uk/how_you_can_help/virunga/

9. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/fracking-report-billi...

10. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/10598473/Fracking-could...

11. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/23/fracking-report-billi...

12. Philippe Sibaud, 2012. Opening Pandora’s Box: The New Wave of Land Grabbing by the Extractive Industries and the Devastating Impact on Earth. The Gaia Foundation. http://www.gaiafoundation.org/opening-pandoras-box

13. http://www.forestindustries.fi/industry/paper_cardboard_converted/paper_...

14. https://www.globalonenessproject.org/library/articles/space-race-over

15. Michael Rowan, 2014. We Need To Talk About Growth (And we need to do the sums as well.) http://persuademe.com.au/need-talk-growth-need-sums-well/
© 2014 George Monbiot
George Monbiot

George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper. Visit his website at www.monbiot.com

Link to where I originally read the work

Pain and the Bigger Picture

An 8-Foot-Tall Woman Is Destroying The Entire Music Industry

 0:44 Amanda describes how she became eight feet tall.
2:08 She talks about getting harassed and yelled.
3:12 She describes what her band did after shows.
6:35 She talks about couch surfing vs. crowd surfing.
7:31 Amanda and her label fight over money.
7:48 A man gives her something that rocks her entire world.
9:05 They experience the most successful musical experiment in history.
10:30 Some Internet trolls try to take Amanda down a peg.
10:53 Amanda describes a semi-NSFW moment where she stripped naked.
11:32 She talks about what musicians used to be and what they're becoming again.
13:09 People have been obsessed with the wrong question.

Space Jam 1996 - Gambia Castle, Awkland, New Zealand. 2009

The old days, second to last show I did at gambia. The title, including the '1996' had nothing to do with nothing or everything,  I was expressing my contempt for the process in which I could preconceive my work being used. Fodder for other peoples insecurities. Especially as here is the evidence, played out here in this 'review' of the work. The guy (who I have met, and is a nice person, just in my opinion has no manners online) has a teacher complex well invaded in the dictator fashion, insists that pseudonyms are dirty and certainly beneath him, go to hell this list of artists. So he deletes mine and others traceable contributions. A lot like Art NZ would like to continue to treat me. That's ok. I'll let my work speak for me. At the end of the day, I need them not.

I don't blame him for not finding much to write about, or writing about what he did. It was to be accused of some inane technicality,  of not producing any info about my work, when at this show was the launch of a 30,000 word essay on my work, in my book 'the new avant-garde'. That he clearly had an agenda and stuck to it is ok, but I'd rather that I hear that agenda openly debated rather than pretended that it didn't exist or that I was simply a sponge to soak up his negative blame worthy opponent vomit.

I don't usually engage writers to publicise their opinions of my work. I am sensitive to the short cutting that this does in terms of asserting value, the quotes, the name dropping. It's to easy. I enjoy the connections myself, enjoy if others see them and use them to create their own connections, but they are or are not there. Writing can destroy this exciting chance to discover.  All because the artist is a fat head who wants his desert.
 

Tao Wells: Space Jam 1996
A drawing and painting sale selected by Nick Austin
Gambia Castle
14 November - 28 November 2009

November is an interesting part of the art year calendar, with many of the main tertiary art institutions around the country briefly presenting public displays of their students’ work. Most of what is shown is invariably inconsequential, work made cloning their teachers or pages of international art mags, or a hybrid. Those few with any substance will become apparent in 3 - 4 years after their paper chase, when they develop strategies of survival, shake the teachers out of their hair, and find their own voices.

In Gambia Castle Tao Well’s show suggests the opposite process, as if his best work is the very early stuff, even before he went to university. Such a premise might be accurate - might even be obviously so if his practice in general is conspicuously unremarkable to start with.

So how can we be persuaded either way? No meritable quality, in my view, is apparent from just looking at the exhibition and unfortunately Nick Austin, the selector of the exhibited work, has no essay advocating its merits. Although he is not listed as curator (only ‘selector’), he is known as an eloquent verbaliser of ideas, one who is exceptionally articulate. A wasted opportunity.

Instead we have Dick Whyte (of Wayfarer Gallery) writing a little introductory text to the show. It is nicely written and in three sections.

The first starts with: Tao Wells is a terrible artist. But he is a good person. This writer is impressively candid it seems, although perhaps too generous about the artist’s personality. Whyte then distinguishes between moral behaviour (externally imposed codes, as with legal or religious injunctions) and ethical (internal and from reflection).

In the second paragraph he puts forward a second definition of ethics in which “we must become adept at talking with ourselves. We are always two, rather than one.” He wants to lead the discussion to the possibility in the third section that Tao Wells is both a terrible artist and a terrific artist. However I can't get that far. For a start I have problems with his use of the word must.

Amongst his many attacks on the notion of prescriptive moral rightness and attempts to systematically provide criteria for it, the British philosopher Bernard Williams claimed that ethical conviction about what one ought to do is not actually a kind of decision (not from a group or from the individual concerned): Ethical conviction, like any other form of being convinced, must have some aspect of passivity to it, must in a sense come to you. (Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy, p.169). However this conviction ends up being mixed in with reflection, discussion and theorising to form the individual’s ethical norms.

In other words, one might as well stick with the ‘one mind’ idea that Tao Wells is simply just a terrible artist, especially as there is no articulated evidence here by his Gambia colleagues (or Wellington dealer, Whyte) to counter that, let alone claim he is a ‘terrific artist’ as well or instead. If they are convinced there are arguments for the latter, it might be a good idea for them to elucidate them.