Now We’re Running Out of Sand, Another False ‘Scarcity’ Meme


August 26, 2016

Sand is essential for modern construction. Almost every new office tower, road and shopping mall being built in Asia’s booming cities is made with concrete mixed with sand. And to get more sand, companies and people are pulling sand out of rivers and oceans at an unprecedented rate, say scientists. And in the deep ocean waters off the U.S., sand is being excavated to restore coastlines from Louisiana to New Jersey. Some estimate that extracting sand is a $70-billion industry. Diane and a panel of guests take a look at the increasing demand for sand, and concerns about the impact of dredging on river and ocean life worldwide.

We’ve been writing about elite scarcity memes for so long that we are always surprised when find a new one, especially a big one.

But here it is: We’re running out of sand.

Now even though we’re being told we’re running out of sand by such publications as The New York Times (see below), we’re not sure we believe it.

We were told for years about the dangers of peak oil, and it turns out there’s a lot more oil in the world than we were taught.

In fact oil is probably abiotic, made at least partially deep down in the earth as a result of geological processes.

Any time an industry can establish the rarity of its product or services, prices can be elevated. Whether it is oil, water, food … or sand, perceived scarcity is helpful.

More – from a New York Times article just posted in June, (here):

One of the 21st century’s most valuable resources [is] sand.  Believe it or not, we use more of this natural resource than any other except water and air.

Sand is the essential ingredient that makes modern life possible. And we are starting to run out.  That’s mainly because the number and size of cities is exploding, especially in the developing world.

… To build those cities, people are pulling untold amounts of sand out of the ground. Usable sand is a finite resource. Desert sand, shaped more by wind than by water, generally doesn’t work for construction. To get the sand we need, we are stripping riverbeds, floodplains and beaches.

Extracting the stuff is an estimated $70 billion industry. It runs the gamut from multinational companies’ deploying enormous dredges to villagers toting shovels and buckets. In places where onshore sources have been exhausted, sand miners are turning to the seas.  This often inflicts terrible costs on the environment.

We can see this is what we call a portmanteau meme (here). This is elite propaganda that encompasses more than one scarcity theme. In this case the lack of sand has been caused by an overabundance of people. And this in turn creates an environmental crisis as well as an industrial one.

The solution, as always, will be more government and more regulation. The sand-scarcity meme is especially attractive to elites because they are looking for international problems to resolve.

This is one reason that there has been a good deal of emphasis about shifting from a criminal approach to drugs to a health-oriented one. The UN can be involved in a health-oriented approach via a regulatory paradigm that it can support globally.

Global problems yield to global solutions and so global governance expands.

Is there really a problem with sand? Will the world run out – or will substitutes be developed as necessary. We will argue the latter. In fact, we did a quick look on the ‘Net to see what else was being discussed, and sure enough there are plenty of other possibilities being considered, from ways to grind sand more finely to adding crushed glass to expand the volume.

This is the way the Times article ends.

It once seemed as if the planet had such boundless supplies of oil, water, trees and land that we didn’t need to worry about them. But of course, we’re learning the hard way that none of those things are infinite, and the price we’ve paid so far for using them is going up fast. We’re having to conserve, reuse, find alternatives for and generally get smarter about how we use those natural resources. That’s how we need to start thinking about sand.

Conclusion: Always this sort of propaganda doesn’t provide alternatives. We are basically told we will need to “conserve.” Once we are running out of something, the end-result is always scarcity. We can never have more of something … only less. The world is involved in an inevitable pilgrimage toward austerity. And yet … People are creative and it seems to us that human action minimizes most potential catastrophes. You’re not supposed to understand that.

Read More At:

New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Human DNA

Jon Rappoport
May 17, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Consider this article in light of the accelerating push to mandate and enforce vaccination across the planet.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research. Here are key quotes that illustrate the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is not science fiction:

“By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.”

“’The sky’s the limit,’ said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.”

“The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned.”

“I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.”

Here is the punchline: “The viruses invade human cells with their DNA payloads, and the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA. If all goes well, the new genes instruct the cells to begin manufacturing powerful antibodies.”

Read that again: “the synthetic gene is incorporated into the recipient’s own DNA.” Alteration of the human genetic makeup. Permanent alteration.

Continue Reading At:


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

New York Times Accused Of ‘Whitewashing’ Clinton’s War Record

Source: RT
May 3, 2016

It comes as no shock that the media plays a sizeable role in the public’s perception of presidential candidates, with some getting endless free of airtime and others repeatedly snubbed. But beyond how much exposure candidates get, the newspapers and TV networks also decide what we know about the candidates. The venerable New York Times, in particular, is being accused of whitewashing Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s war record in a series of articles by Russ Baker, editor-in-chief of Baker joins RT America’s Anya Parampil to explain.

Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
March 27, 2016

When I read this New York Times op-ed piece shared by Mr. H.B., I was floored, for the Times, as one of the USA’s so-called newspapers of record and of the establishment, seems to be corroborating my high octane speculation that the (out)house of Saud may indeed be “on the menu,” by which I mean that the usual behind-closed-doors-discussions are being had in the corridors of western power about what is to be done with (or to) the odious regime of Riyadh, and its well-known, though quiet, sponsorship of terrorist groups. Consider this article carefully:

A few quotations from the article should suffice to argue this point:

It is rare for an American president to skewer a friendly government publicly. But that’s what President Obama did last week in presenting a well-considered analysis of troubles in the relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Obama has long regarded Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab countries as repressive societies whose strict interpretation of Islam contributes to extremism. In a blunt and lengthy discussion with Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic, Mr. Obama included the Saudis among other “free rider” allies that ask the United States to fight their battles for them and “exploit American ‘muscle’ for their own narrow and sectarian ends.”
(Emphasis added)

The idea that Mr. Obama’s analysis is “well-considered” and that the (out)house of Saud is a “free rider” exploiting American military muscle for sectarian ends is about as close an admission of the failure of American foreign policy in the region since 9/11 as one can come, for of course, the “Bush doctrine” with its denunciation of terrorism and its promise to seek out and destroy any state sponsor of terrorism made one very significant exception with respect to the desert kingdom, rendering the whole “war on terrori” a rather hypocritical moot point.

Continue Reading At:

New York Times Editorial Board Endorses Economic Fascism – Supports Banning the $100 Bill

Screen Shot 2016-02-22 at 10.23.39 AM

Michael Krieger
February 22, 2016

I cannot overstate the significance of today’s New York Times editorial board endorsement of the elitist scheme to ban large denomination cash from public circulation. This is the latest example of the editorial board putting the interests of the establishment ahead of the citizenry, while at the same time employing a nonsensical argument to support its position which channels emotion rather than logic.

This public support for a de facto cash ban by the New York Times must not be viewed in a vacuum. It should be read in conjunction with its recent absurd endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. I highlighted that previously published piece of fiction in the post, A Detailed Look at The New York Times’ Embarrassing, Deceitful and Illogical Endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Here are a few excerpts:

Continue Reading at:

Cashless Societies – How Realistic?

December 28, 2015

In Sweden, a Cash-Free Future Nears … Parishioners text tithes to their churches. Homeless street vendors carry mobile credit-card readers. Even the Abba Museum, despite being a shrine to the 1970s pop group that wrote “Money, Money, Money,” considers cash so last-century that it does not accept bills and coins. Few places are tilting toward a cashless future as quickly as Sweden, which has become hooked on the convenience of paying by app and plastic. – New York Times

Dominant Social Theme: Remove analog money ASAP.

Free-Market Analysis: Sweden is being touted as the wave of the future as regards money, but perhaps not.

When something is profiled in The New York Times, as the “new” cashless Sweden just was, we need to consider whether the trend is subject to change or is not so powerful as we are being led to believe.

One of the problems with seeing Sweden as a pioneer is that its population is fairly cohesive. In fact, Swedes constitute a good example of the tribes we often refer to in Europe. Europe is full of tribes. The French are notoriously tribal and it strikes us that the British fought two world wars to shatter Germanic tribal unity.

Years ago, we reported regularly on what would happen when “Europe” stopped being of benefit to the tribes. Because it has been disguised by rhetoric, people often don’t understand why the tribes gave up so much including their ancient currencies to join Europe.

In fact, they were often bribed by pots of EU money that poured into the government to adjust unallowable deficits. The top elites pocketed this money and then went to work campaigning for EU unity. Once the EU agenda triumphed, those in power slipped away with the money and the larger population was stuck with an evolving authoritarian empire.

It was inevitable that the tribes, once lulled by good times and cash infusions, would begin to resent an era of “austerity” and impoverishment. What we didn’t anticipate was that the European elites had an answer: Organize a mass Islamic migration (apparently this is what’s going on) that would cause confusion within Europe’s tribal countries and focus resentment away from Brussels and the monetary system and toward “Islamification.”

Continue Reading At: