By M.K. Styllinski
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”
– H.L. Mencken
The centralisation of power in the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire is the objective. It always was. And as long as psychopaths remain at the helm of the decision-making process in our societies across the globe, securing resources and depopulating the mass of ordinary people will remain a key resolution of the 0.001 %. The Global Pathocrats want it all and they really believe that the husbandry of their quaint human-chattel is the only destiny available, as it was in past empire civilisations of antiquity, so shall it be again. It is in this context that the history of environmentalism becomes an evolution of eco-Fascism.
For the ponerisation of core values and the rise of mass pathology to be implanted you need a cogent form of high level, well-funded propaganda that must gain sufficient momentum and popularity to succeed. It must also have many factions appropriating it for their beliefs. It must be normalised to the extent that it can be in plain sight and held aloft as principles to which we must all aspire.
This brings us to global warming and climate change.
One of the biggest scams of the century is the global warming hoax. True or false?
With that statement alone I’ve immediately placed myself in a category that is either:
- a right-wing Obama-hater
- American patriot and gun-toting conspiracy theorist
- Corporate agent for the oil, coal and nuclear power industry
- Liberal-leftie who’s lost his way in a heartless world of disinformation.
- All the above. (Anything is possible).
It’s very easy to become lost in the friction created between all these warring beliefs and where an objective rendering of the facts becomes almost impossible. And this is where we find ourselves. Most people know that there seems to be something odd happening to our weather systems and most people believe that some sort of climate change is afoot, the most likely culprit being human influenced (anthropocentric) global warming.
However, alternative reasons for climate change are not only being marginalised or ignored but actively covered up. Instead of good science and open rigorous public discussion, we have a global warming industry with an army of thought police monitoring its academic and media brethren as a dictator would his people. When anyone questions the gospel of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) they are immediately seen as a heretic and working for the other side. Labels of “climate deniers” with the obvious associations to holocaust deniers have been attached to those brave enough to question the science of AGW.
Lauded institutions such as the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) remain the source of much of the global warming theory and its place in academia and MSM as the theory, despite the facts which show that academic corruption is common place. This is not surprising since global warming – care of the Club of Rome – is a useful adjunct to the whole UN Agenda 21/SMART growth ideology.
The majority of ecologists and environmentalists agree with the Establishment in their support for AGW whereas others support the evidence for a natural cycle of climate change. Then you have various shades of grey between both camps which neither tend to appreciate. It’s either black or white – evil heretic in the pay of corporatism or or angelic Percevals forging a scientific path to climate science glory. As is ever the case, when you find yourself going against the Establishment line (money, power and faulty science) and find consistent scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus, you are setting yourself up to be that heretic, an especially harrowing experience in science circles where you could lose your job and your reputation. This is the reality today if you are an advocate of the natural cycle despite the hard data available.
When science merges with activism of any hue it ceases to become objective and instead allows belief to subtly or crudely alter experimentation and research. Climate change and carbon credits are in the same boat as UN Agenda 21. It is a huge industry with the fossil fuel and oil lobby playing the part of evil oppressor of the greener-than-green AGW crowd. It’s a tried and tested formula. Real science doesn’t get a look in, before it’s corporatised and politicised. As a result, corruption and greed further erode science, the toxicity of which has entered both education and academia without most people really being aware of its presence, thus playing a part in its propagation. If you side with the consensus however, and suppress your misgivings whilst signing on to the AGW gravy-train, you can rest easy and continue to preach the gospel, safe in the knowledge that your pay cheque is safe and your students won’t hate you for being a closet corporatist.
Digging for the truth on this subject is a quagmire of impenetrable cross-conceptualisations, moneyed interests, poor science and aggressive beliefs straining at their leashes, gagging to take a chunk out of your open-mind. The problem is, if you talk to the AGW advocate he will list all kinds of evidence supporting his theory. He will talk of “consensus” and what “most people believe”. He will passionately poo-poo other theories and generally tear strips off their so called “science” leaving without any doubt that others are on the wrong track and sadly deluded.
CO2, green-house gases, sea-levels rising, humans as detritus – How could it be wrong? The data is there in black and white! Look around the world – what do you see? Look at the melting ice-caps, rain-forest destruction and desertification! Are you crazy??
So, not wishing to be on the wrong side of the “consensus” so much touted by the media and the increasingly vociferous AGW-Greenpeace-activists, our belief begins to grow, displacing our open mind. We decide to avoid the natural cycle guy sitting forlornly on his own in the climate change canteen because we already know and AGW fits perfectly with our imagined assumptions about wicked humans and a return to Eden. The problem then becomes one of selective omission in our minds. We have chosen to hear one view from one climate camp and we don’t have the time, energy or inclination to find out what’s going on in the other camp. So, this is already falling way short of an informed decision. Perhaps he’s an agent of the fossil fuel lobby to obfuscate and muddy the waters? Besides, it’s comfortable. You like it. This is part of your worldview of scientist and activist. This is your identity.
Even if you’ve heard the dominant media-led AGW arguments and the opposite view – that there is no climate change (it’s all a hoax) – and you have heard the global cooling advocates …but you haven’t heard from all the other experts bringing other positions to the table. What about those who don’t believe in in human-influenced climate change but don’t jump aboard the global cooling train either? What about those who think the sun is the primary culprit or that cosmological influences need to be taken into account? Perhaps we have assimilated two dominant views in the media, with the Establishment busy enforcing the conflict so that the general public are never exposed to first rate science and their discoveries. Since science today is extremely corrupt and is inhabited by persons with truly enormous egos, the need for multidisciplinary research outside of the lure of money, power has never been more urgent.
Why should climate change science be immune to ponerisation when so much money is involved?
Once you know this, you begin to see and sense very obvious indications right from the start; so, obvious that it becomes garish and crude in its manifestations. Divide and rule works both ways. The right-wing corporatist /fossil fuel lobby against the left-leaning AGW, scientist-activists fighting for Mother Earth. Neither have it right and that’s the general idea. Belief is a powerful lubricate in the never-ending circus of emotionally driven conclusions, whether scientist or layman.
Taking into account ALL the data from all domains in society and given what we know about an Official Culture of psychopathy my reasoning falls towards climate change as a natural cycle of warming and cooling with both meteorological, oceanic, geo-physical and cosmological elements all playing a part. Human influence can be attributed to ozone depletion, greenhouse gases and the obvious tangible physical destruction on the ground – but that is all.
It seems there is no longer sufficient exploration of theoretical constructs and rigorous observation but a lot of simulation and software as the driver of research. The politicisation of science has arrived with a vengeance and nowhere is the problem more acute than in the field of climate change. Think-tanks, foundations, trusts, and bureaucratic institutions like the United Nations and the IPCC have become political conduits provided with never-ending grant programs and support which is very far from scientific objectivity but big on ideology and greed.
Already riding high on the propaganda wave of UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, various lobbying groups – within universities especially – are fostering more deception rather than true understanding and informed debate. A top down approach to science in higher learning is similarly shackled by a competition for government funds that inevitably dilutes quality. When money becomes the deciding factor it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that this is a slippery road for all. Reputations and careers are at stake depending on which side of the climate divide you stand. The challenge of experimenting with new theories and experiencing truly free debate at the multidisciplinary level is more difficult than ever.
When authoritarian principles begin to infiltrate scientific inquiry then science becomes just another tool for social control. Reasoned debate becomes point scoring whilst objective research slides evermore to results which are subjective, impartial and distorted. Since fear is always useful to those engaged in mass subterfuge, global warming sensationalism offers a powerful conduit for furthering Agenda 21. It matters little that there may be some truth to an approaching environmental cataclysm for instance, but it is the manner in which such information is processed and how data can be used to railroad science into supporting issues which fall outside scientific inquiry that should be given attention.
Enter once again, our nondescript Canadian entrepreneur-New-age-eco-guru come bureaucrat: Mr. Maurice Strong. It was this man who was given the task of persuading movers and shakers that global warming was the primary tool for social engineering leaders and the public alike in “saving the planet.” Who cares if the science was missing? Limits to Growth computer modelling and its legacy would take up the slack. It was to be another coup d’état for Strong in the long-term when it was floated at the UN Swiss conference of 1971 and a later re-injection of passion at the UN sponsored Kyoto Conference in 1992. A gradual tidal wave of funding crashed on the shores of climate research and the IPCC emerged in 1988 to act as a pinnacle of academic resource on climate change science. AGW now had a benefactor and protector which would grow considerable teeth in the subsequent years.
To understand how the global warming hysteria is hindering true scientific understanding of our ecological future we must take a brief look at its origins.