ecology

Reality Change II: “Hope for the best, Prepare for the Worst.”

“Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.”

– ‘Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies’

***

“Don’t trust the banks. Most are bankrupt. Don’t put your gold and silver coins in the safe deposit box. Keep them at home and keep them secret. Don’t keep more cash in the bank than is necessary to cover about a month’s worth of bills. This is a flashing red alert. Many tens of thousands of people who have their trust in the government system (U.S. currency) are headed dead ahead into impoverishment.”

– Bob Livingston, Personal Liberty Digest


Not a pretty picture.

The above nebulous language introduced in recently amended regulations in the US code of military operations on domestic soil conveniently skipped over what these “activities” would be in order to quell civil disturbances. What it does do is give the US military carte blanche to do as they please in such a scenario which won’t exactly reassure American citizens that they are safe. Indeed, it suggests that the only “unexpected” thing here is just what the US military has planned in the face of the inevitable break down in social “order.” And when we factor in all kinds of natural disasters on the horizon you can understand why so many folks are leaving cities with high density populations and even leaving the country completely.

Not all of the disaster events in the last post will occur but since the main points on this list was first compiled in 2011, we are already seeing some of these scenarios playing out. And who knows? They may all arrive within a year… It really is a case of “Hope for the best and prepare for the worst,” as some bright spark once said …

Returning to our Machiavellian friend and insider Zbigniew Brzezinski, this man has had his finger on the pulse between pathocrat and the global public for several decades. Driven by an irrational and all-consuming hatred of Russia, Brzezinski is a master tactician and highly astute at deciphering the many possible futures currently jostling for supremacy.  If he is worried about the scope and depth of changes taking place, then you can be fairly certain he’ll telegraph his concerns to the pathocratic faithful so that contingencies can be updated.

(more…)

Official Culture Reprise VII: Moving Away From the Psychopath’s Dream (4)

“Perhaps the most important lesson of Ladakh has to do with happiness. Only after many years of peeling away layers of preconceptions did I begin to see the joy and laughter of the Ladakhis for what it really was: a genuine and unhindered appreciation of life itself. In Ladakh I have known a people who regard peace of mind and joie de vivre as their unquestioned birthright. I have seen that community and a close relationship to the land can enrich human life beyond all comparison with material wealth or technological sophistication.”

Helena Norberg-Hodge, Ancient Futures


 Ladakh_panorama

Learning from Ladakh

One example of the social consequences of Official Culture meeting pathology-free communities is from the thousand year-old Buddhist people of Ladakh situated in the desert of the Western Himalayas known as : “little Tibet.” There is no romantic gilding here, theirs is a story of survival, endurance and physical hardship set against a harsh environment. The  essence and principles of their continued existence and the coming of Western “development” places in sharp relief the kind of values necessary to create a community and to see it function and thrive. Yet, the deep spiritual resource that the Ladakhis embodied and which pervaded every facet of their lives was a lesson in ancient humility and reverence for a sacredness that we have lost – to our absolute detriment. Simplicity, yes, raw nature, indeed. But the Ladakhis appeared to have a spiritual health that was far in advance of our own. Like many indigenous cultures, it is not so hard to see why. For all our intellectual feats of daring-do, our Western populations in particular, remain desperately unhappy and dangerously lost.

So, what does that mean?  That we all give up our i-pads and urban lifestyles and go and live in yurts and commune with nature?

(more…)

Dark Green XVIII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye2 © infrakshun


To reiterate, tearing strips off the IPCC is not some exercise in criticising for its own sake but to highlight where science has been politicised and corrupted. Similarly, there is obviously a huge need to care for our environment and everything else in this precious biosphere. We cannot do this until we have climate science firmly outside activism and where ecological conservation has been innoculated against corporatism and Establishment influence.

If we go back to the Climategate 2.0 scandal, we can see that some of the emails relating to the IPCC are quite illuminating on these points. For example, Professor Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences deciding what shouldn’t go into the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4):

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out. For the IPCC, we need to know what is relevant and useful for assessing recent and future climate change.”

Commenting on another section of an IPCC report he states:

“Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge – more evidence. What is it?” [1]

Or Professor Phil Jones of East Anglia University searching for a suitable hurricane paper that dovetails into his beliefs and thus the IPCC AR4 report:

“Seems that this potential Nature paper may be worth citing, if it does say that GW is having an effect on TC [Tropical Cyclone] activity.” [2]

Each of the climate reports (CRs) are weighty, no more so than the 2007 report at 3,000 pages. No one is going to wade through all of that, least of all the sound-bite media. What is more concerning and goes straight to the heart of why science plays so little part in climate change policy, is the IPCC executive summaries which it prepares for the smaller reports that make up the CRs as a whole. Not more than 35 pages in length, this is called “Summary for Policymakers” which gives you an idea how the IPCC wants these summaries to be used, even though the depth of understanding and contextual analysis may be missing.

Scientists are tasked with drafting these documents which are then passed on to those who meticulously pore over each line so that a cleansed and white-washed copy can be presented for inspection by a clueless media and public. So, these will not be scientific documents at all. These “cleansing” meetings are not open to anyone but IPCC staff and suitably vetted observers from environmental groups or organisations. The media are not permitted entry. A core group of IPCC bureaucrats decide what goes into the reports.

A Climategate 2.0 email by Tim Carter of the Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) and Climate Change Programme, writing to IPCC authors seems to confirm this fact even within the AGW brethren:

“Regarding the phrase ‘IPCC position’? Would it be wise to check that McCarthy /Watson have the same understanding as we do.”

And the reply:

[TC] You could try, but it has been tricky getting anyone to make statements about anything. It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.” [3]

Governments and organisations like the IPCC are complicit in the cover up and manipulation of scientific facts. Scientists who contribute to the CRs are being played and used for a political agenda and the short-term greed and the MSM has cheer-led this subterfuge from the beginning. A summary document given out as a press release to the world’s media and public has been put through the politician, bureaucrat and diplomat’s PR machine, vetted to make sure that it conforms to the AGW paradigm in secret and without oversight.

Devoid of facts but replete with conjecture, the media simply parrots the information and goes back to sleep. Indeed, regarding the draft reports the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri openly stated that they are altered, stating: “we necessarily have to ensure that the underlying report conforms to the refinements.” [4]This means regardless of the validity (or not) of expert science, the authors are side-lined and what they have written is tweaked to give unanimous support to the political agenda, an agenda that has been crystallized within the IPCC for more than twenty years.

vendetta3IPCC as authoritarian climate science?

Scientists within the IPCC also have misgivings, such as Mike Hulme Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia. Commenting in a Climategate 2.0 email, he states: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in – and feel we are not really giving the right message to our audiences.” [5]

There’s an understatement to beat them all.

One of the holy grails of climate change science is computer modelling which has been responsible for much of the perceived advances in recent years. As we saw with the Club of Rome, the nature of computer modelling is fraught with assumption yet fully embraced as if the world operated on perfectly plotted principles. Evolution of any system is defined by its creative unpredictability a mathematical complexity of non-linear and often chaotic events far from equilibrium. In climate modelling a virtual world is set up that seems to be insulated from the “flies-in-the ointment” that may appear in long-term predicative analysis. The opinions of modellers then become a new science divorced from the observational inquiry. As LaFramboise asserts, the climate modelling science of opinion: “… is a recipe for tunnel-vision. It is group think waiting to happen,” and yet another example of the “group mind” steamrolling the creative sparks of objective thought which are not only needed in science but are essential to its healthy functioning so that it remains free from a political and belief-driven consensus.

No rigorous evaluation of climate modelling by independent parties has taken place. (This is presumably due to the love affair our culture is undergoing in relation to technology in general). Instead, the IPCC asks the same modellers to evaluate their own work. This is hardly scientific. Lead author roles for modellers is not the way forward, as there is little chance of them coming to the conclusion that climate modelling may be barking up the wrong tree. Since no true cold-blooded analysis of these models has taken place there is no way to know if they are even useful.

LaFramboise has also discovered that sections in the attribution chapter of the IPCC CRs are also written by climate modellers, the most crucial part of the report which decides the direction of global warming and if it is a man-made or natural cycle. Christopher Monckton and Garth W. Paltridge discovered that is wasn’t just the unreliability of climate modelling that is cause for concern but a strange coded bureaucracy that goes with it. The authors point out:

The big danger is that, with the increasing model complexity and cost, the number of truly independent climate models around the world is decreasing. This is because great slabs of the computer code of a model are often exchanged between research groups so as to avoid writing the stuff from scratch. This sort of exchange satisfies a general bureaucratic tendency to abhor what seems to be a duplication of effort. The net result must surely be a natural decrease in the spread of total feedback over the various remaining models and a consequent joy at the apparent tightening of the range of forecast temperature rise – a tightening that may have nothing at all to do with an improvement in the representation of the physics. [6]

Climate modelling does not ensure the validity of human-influenced global warming claims but rather fits neatly into circumscribed beliefs waiting in the wings. That does not mean to say that global warming is not a reality in some form, but to leave it to climate modelling to define all the parameters by which we can make informed decisions is dangerous because the solutions will lean hugely towards the overarching agenda explored previously. After all, even a minor tweak in feedback representations covering temperature rises can drastically alter a given a picture which can stretch from 1 degree celsius to infinity and beyond. That means that only thing we can be sure of is the fact that the much trumpeted “consensus” on global warming remains a myth.

Global_Climate_Model

“Climate models are systems of differential equations based on the basic laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry. To ‘run’ a model, scientists divide the planet into a 3-dimensional grid, apply the basic equations, and evaluate the results. Atmospheric models calculate winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points.” (wikipedia)

Climate modelling also fails an important test when it comes to CO2 and temperature increase. In the 2007 IPCC report it even admits that the models do not seem to show the extra heat that should be there if we are to believe the theory. But they believe that the models are still correct and somehow the data out there in the real world is at fault. [7]

And here we come to a few important points relating to climate modelling and the temperature rise hysteria that the media and most academic establishments take for granted. Firstly, and very simply: Positive feedback = the reinforcement or magnification of disturbance. Secondly, Negative feedback = disturb the balance – a counteraction occurs. Thirdly, we have the greenhouse gas theory and the doubling of CO2 which might cause some warming of one degree celsius over a century. But there is the assumption that the climate responds to minute changes resulting in amplification of these changes by hundreds of percent. Positive feedback. But negative feedback is the dominant factor in almost every process in nature yet in climate science positive feedback is assumed to the culprit. Law professor Jason Johnston found in his study that: “climate catastrophe is not an “output of climate analysis but an input.” [8] In other words, the science is based on an assumption with no mention of the positive-negative feedback dichotomy anywhere in the reports.

LaFramboise points out the inevitable conclusion that:

“… the only reason climate models tell us we are at risk of eco apocalypse is because the climate modellers believe our climate system behaves in a manner that is opposite to the way most natural systems behave. If the modellers had split themselves into two groups, half programming-in negative feedback and half programming-in positive feedback, the first group of models would predict nothing alarming.” [9]

Yet, when we add this to protective bureaucracy, conflict of interest in both journals, media and activist-scientists in educational institutions and further include those IPCC personnel who “systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties,” in IPCC reports, it is a clarion call for major change. [10]

And major change is the selling point at UN conferences. But rather than practical and preventative solutions emerging from such meetings, there is a lot of talk and a lot of political posturing with non-elected representatives of civil society pushing a consensus that doesn’t exist, except for those with a political agenda. What does happen is the organisation and allocation of mountains of CASH. The UN conferences in this respect are like a vast auction of clamouring NGOs and eco-activist groups seeking a top-up or first time injection for the cause, but it is the green of the dollar bill that informs the climate industry more than anything else.

dollarbillClimate Change is a multi-billion dollar industry

As we have seen, the United Nations and the UNEP are green-dipped in the New Age tank so that the various beliefs stick like parasites to the decision-making process. Not to mention the corruption and sexual abuse scandals which have dogged the UN for years. When you have a vast bureaucracy and a constant stream of money flowing into and out of the body sitting on top a system which has virtually no accountability any issue – no matter how noble – is going to be contaminated by politics, power and greed. It is about as basic a human fable as it gets. Add ponerology to the mix and you have a UN with its charters and declarations which work on paper only.

Like the perpetual rubber-stamping of the IPCC and other agencies, it is a symbiotic relationship of collusion rather than transparency. If you are not the most morally responsible individual and the rules do not apply to you by virtue of your status and you know you can get away with all kinds of back-handers and bribes, the system actively encourages you to maintain that trajectory. This is so often the nexus point for international decisions that determine the fate of nations. If there is no accountability, why should it be any different for UN bureaucrats who juggle the money flow?

***

We have barely touched the surface regarding the problems within the IPCC. What should be clear by now is that it is not a scientific body but a political one fused with the beliefs of scientist-activists. This was illustrated by a Climategate 2.0 email from Professor Heinz Wanner of the University of Bern. On reporting his National Academy of Sciences panel critique of Michael Mann to the media: “I just refused to give an exclusive interview to SPIEGEL because I will not cause damage for climate science.” [11]
In the same way, politicians and environmental activists determine the form, content and outcome of IPCC reports that have been seen as the gospel truth for decades. Political discourse from more than 100 countries determines the direction. After all, it is worth potentially billions with a lot of academic posts, consultancies and companies riding on the AGW slipstream. Sounding the global warming bells in a variety of alarmist ways feeds into multiple agendas which have nothing to do with the truth. Consequently, to speak ill of AGW is to commit the outrageous sin of attacking the religious zeal of green militancy that has had a long and dark history.

wfarmsbirdsBirds flying into a wind turbines. Symbolic of IPCC climate science?

Is there any possibility that the IPCC can promote the same “radical shift” and “New value system” within its own ranks and which it insists society should adopt? Can it clean its own house to become the body of open-minded science that is so desperately needed?

Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer believes thinks the organisation can never be fixed for the simple reason:

“… that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.” [12]

The organisation has embraced the same constructs that every co-opted movement has done in the past, whilst avoiding the opportunity to lead by example and follow the principles it continually demands from society. [13]The inherent danger of science and political ecology is what historian Anna Bramwell calls “a value-saturated creed” which acts like an open door for the movement to become fully ponerised. [14] Science is infused not with objectivity and a quest for truth but with subjective desires peculiar to a historical mind-set of authoritarianism, regardless of the root values present at its inception. This is the story of ponerology.

The legion of World State rulers in waiting would be very happy that a scientific elite is redefining human values for us. The myth that governments respond to the will of the people has never been clearer. The real choices and thus the potential solutions have been denied to us all.  As the Under-Secretary to one time UN Chief Kurt Waldheim, Brian Urquhart declared: “The worst way to make an argument is by reason and good information. You must appeal to emotions and to their fears of being made to appear ridiculous.” [15]Irony aside, so it is with the IPCC and so many other connected bodies inhabited by the same men and women willing to stoop to the lowest common denominator.

The IPCC plays an extremely important role in the disseminating information on the science of climate change. If we cannot place our trust and faith in institutions who set themselves up to discover new solutions to some of the most pressing problems of our time then it means precious resources of creative energy is being wasted and re-directed into collective gutters of non-action and short-term gain. It becomes yet another example of pathological infection striking at the heart of what we consider to be our mentors, protectors and pioneers; expert minds dedicated to improving humanities lot. That means acknowledging the danger that ecology, environmental activism and any scientific discipline exposed to ponerological influences, must come under the same scrutiny.

If a deep love of Nature and the environment can historically sit side by side with the most virulent form of fascism then it behooves us all to guard against its all too easy re-appearance.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian dictator was responsible for the deaths of 21% of his country’s people.  He was also a former geography teacher.


Notes

[1] Email #4755 and email #1922 Jonathan Overpeck http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[2] Email #0170 Phil Jones http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[3] email #3066 Tim Carter. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[4] ‘Food, Water Security threatened by Warming UN Panel says’ by Alex Morales,Bloomberg, February 16, 2011.
[5] email #0419 Mike Hulme. http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[6] p.28; The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming by Garth W. Paltridge. Published by Taylor Trade Publishing, 2010. ISBN-10: 1589795482
[7] op. cit. LaFramboise (p.69)
[8] ‘Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination’ by Jason S. Johnston, Law University of Pennsylvania Law School | “Legal scholarship has come to accept as true the various pronouncements of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientists who have been active in the movement for greenhouse gas (ghg) emission reductions to combat global warming. The only criticism that legal scholars have had of the story told by this group of activist scientists – what may be called the climate establishment – is that it is too conservative in not paying enough attention to possible catastrophic harm from potentially very high temperature increases.”
“This paper departs from such faith in the climate establishment by comparing the picture of climate science presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other global warming scientist advocates with the peer-edited scientific literature on climate change. A review of the peer-edited literature reveals a systematic tendency of the climate establishment to engage in a variety of stylized rhetorical techniques that seem to oversell what is actually known about climate change while concealing fundamental uncertainties and open questions regarding many of the key processes involved in climate change. Fundamental open questions include not only the size but the direction of feedback effects that are responsible for the bulk of the temperature increase predicted to result from atmospheric greenhouse gas increases: while climate models all presume that such feedback effects are on balance strongly positive, more and more peer-edited scientific papers seem to suggest that feedback effects may be small or even negative. The cross-examination conducted in this paper reveals many additional areas where the peer-edited literature seems to conflict with the picture painted by establishment climate science, ranging from the magnitude of 20th century surface temperature increases and their relation to past temperatures; the possibility that inherent variability in the earth’s non-linear climate system, and not increases in CO2, may explain observed late 20th century warming; the ability of climate models to actually explain past temperatures; and, finally, substantial doubt about the methodological validity of models used to make highly publicized predictions of global warming impacts such as species loss.
Insofar as establishment climate science has glossed over and minimized such fundamental questions and uncertainties in climate science, it has created widespread misimpressions that have serious consequences for optimal policy design. Such misimpressions uniformly tend to support the case for rapid and costly decarbonization of the American economy, yet they characterize the work of even the most rigorous legal scholars. A more balanced and nuanced view of the existing state of climate science supports much more gradual and easily reversible policies regarding greenhouse gas emission reduction, and also urges a redirection in public funding of climate science away from the continued subsidization of refinements of computer models and toward increased spending on the development of standardized observational datasets against which existing climate models can be tested.”
[9] op.cit La Framboise (p.70)
[10] op. cit. Johnston.
[11] Email #1104 Heinz Wanner http://www.di2.nu/foia/
[12] ‘Climategate 2.0: Bias in Scientific Research’ November 23rd, 2011 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
[13] ‘Western Lifestyle unsustainable says climate expert Rajendra Pachauri’ The Guardian, June 20, 2011.
[14] The Fading of the Greens, by Anna Bramwell, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994.(p.28)
[15] ‘The UN and Its Discontents’: An Exchange April 26, 1990 Shirley Hazzard, reply by Brian Urquhart The New Yorker March 15, 1990 issue.

Dark Green XVII: The IPCC’s All-Seeing-Eye (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

All_seeing_eye© infrakshun


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gave its full blessing to the Al Gore power-point revival as he made his merry way to a carbon trading pot of gold. However, before kneeling down at the altar of the IPCC we must have a peek behind the doors of an institution that has presided over a fiefdom of green belief.

The IPCC has been lauded for over twenty years as the guardian and protector of the planet, a scientific beacon in a dark age of industry and corporate irresponsibility. It has served as the primary reference for ecologists and environmentalists buttressing the religion of anthropocentric climate change. But does this organisation truly merit the global mantle of scientific authority it now enjoys? Or is it a pretender to the throne of open-minded science? A closer examination of the facts shows that the latter is closer to the truth, with serious consequences for climate science and environmental studies worldwide.

Maurice Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization(WMO) set up the IPCC in 1988 with a later endorsement from the United Nations General Assemblythrough Resolution 43/53. With 195 members worldwide, the intergovernmental body is currently chaired by Rajendra K. Pachauriwho steers the mission: “… to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.” The IPCC describes itself as a scientific body which “… reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.” [1] Scientists voluntarily contribute to the work of the body where an “objective” and “complete assessment of current information” takes place. In the IPCC’s view, due to its scientific and intergovernmental status, it embodies: “… a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive.” [2]

As a consequence of this so called objectivity and impartial information presented to policy makers, an international acceptance of its claims is now in place and supported by an overall “consensus” (there’s that word again…) from leading climates scientists and participating governments. Further, in recognition of its work, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was shared between the IPCC and Al Gorethe IPCC acting as the source for most of the information found in An Inconvenient Truth. This fact is enough to plant a question in any informed person’s mind about the nature of the science the IPCC advocates. So, let’s see if the self-penned, glowing descriptions of the organisation stand up to scrutiny.

The IPCC reports also known as “The Climate Bible” – which we will call the “CRs” – are produced every year and represent an unassailable doctrine of climate science which cannot be challenged and to do so amounts to a form of heresy. The CRs have had an enormous effect on government policy around the world and are routinely cited as the most authoritative source on Climate change. CO2 emissions as the greatest evil known to man and the reason carbon taxes exist are all down to these reports. It is a climate science lovingly fawned over by the world’s media, much of university and think-tank academia, the same people who believe unquestioningly in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. The problem is, they believe that all those reports have been toiled over by thousands of experts who are holding hands in a sacred communion of consensus across the world; they believe that the science is water-tight and anyone but a fool would think otherwise.

Rajendra Pachauri has chaired the IPCC since 2002 and in one sense, is the personification of the IPCC in much the same way that Prince Philip was for the WWF. He has fuelled the belief that the IPCC and their CRs are full to the brim with thousands of the best scientists, the finest quality expertise at the cutting edge of climate science which is all parroted ad nauseum by the world’s media. [3] Unfortunately, many scientists and their papers have been ignored. Whether it is hurricane research, tropical diseases or oceanography, unless the scientists tow the official party line of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) then they can expect a cold response indeed to submitted papers.

Pachauri has since been accused of “inappropriate” sexual behaviour by several women who worked at the IPCC and TERI a non-profit, scientific and policy research organisation which Pachauri is Director-General. According to one alleged victim as part of her testimony from 2005: “A sexual harasser 10 years back, a sexual harasser today. He did it to me and others then. He has done it to her and possibly others now … His physical advances and sexual innuendos and acts, often reduced to as ‘inappropriate behaviour’, have been common knowledge and corridor gossip.” [4]

As a result, Pachuari finally stepped down in March 2015.

This appears appropriately symbolic of the IPCC’s place in climate science.

Rajendra-Pachauri_ipccstructureRajendra Pachauri, still going strong as Chairman of the IPCC

With 40 years of experience in tropical diseases Paul Reiter thinks the papers on his specialist subject found in the CRs are full of inaccuracies and incorrect conclusions, made worse by the fact that none of the lead authors had actually penned a research paper. Much of the information in the CRs are not written by experts at all and gave testimony to that fact to the UK House of Lords. [5]

One would think that the IPCC would have been keen to recruit the best experts they could find but it appears they prefer students and the inexperienced rather than the world class scientists spoken of in the mainstream media. The UN seems quite happy that its organisation continues to promulgate lies on this point while peddling unsubstantiated and very biased beliefs instead.

Journalist Donna LaFramboise’s searing indictment of the IPCC highlighted the fact that “the world’s finest scientific minds” have been culled from a reservoir of young and inexperienced students and activists such as 25 year-old Richard Klein, a Master Degree student and Greenpeace campaigner drafted in to serve as IPCC lead author on what was eventually to be six reports, six years prior to the completion of his PhD. [6] Laurens Bouwer served as an IPCC lead author before he had completed his Masters in 2001. To compound the confusion still further, the chapter to which he was given responsibility dealt with financial services whilst his “expertise” was in climate change and water resources. [7] In 2008, Lisa Alexander was a research assistant at Monesh University, Australia and went on to earn her PhD in 2009. Yet from 2001 and 2007 she had been plucked from obscurity by the IPCC to author two reports, one as lead author and the other in a contributory role – all ten years before she had claimed her doctorate. [8] Sari Kovats hadn’t earned her PhD until 2010 yet 16 years previously before any academics papers had been written: “Kovats was one of only 21 people in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter that examined how climate change might affect human health.” Lead author twice and contributing author once, all before the completion of her PhD. [9]Nor are these exceptions to the rule. This has been normal practice for the body since the early 1990s.

So, what’s going on?

LaFramboise describes how the analyses of IPCC policies and procedures were to come under the microscope, but perhaps not in the way it would have liked. In 2010, an international science body called The Inter-Academy Council took the bold step in establishing the first committee to investigate the quality and structure of IPCC research which resulted in an extensive questionnaire on its website to which people were encouraged to respond. Over the last few years a wealth of interesting data totalling over 678 pages has accumulated for the dogged researcher to peruse.

Many recurrent gripes which surfaced amongst respondents’ answers was the lack of qualifications from lead authors; decisions being political rather than scientific and undue political correctness regarding gender and multiculturalism at the expense of science. Among these problems follows the deeper more intransigent factor of activism married with science. The IPCC tells the world it is a scientific body tasked with sifting conjecture and assumption to produce as much as is possible, scientific fact. Yet, the institution is infested with activists from top to bottom. How can this be an impartial and politically neutral body offering reputable science when beliefs are colouring the overall picture?

Environmental activist organisations cross-fertilise IPCC conclusions in the CRs and other publications citing each others papers to bolster predetermined results. Rajendra Pachauri routinely writes forewords and editorials for activist groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. As LaFramboise observes: “The IPCC’s role is similar to that of a trial judge. It examines the scientific evidence and decides whether or not human-produced carbon dioxide is guilty of triggering climate change. How much faith would you have in the impartiality of a murder trial if the judge was hearing evidence during the day and partying with the prosecution team during the evening?” [10]

A new breed of “activist scientist” is happiest hanging out in activist groups, universities and agenda-ridden institutions like the IPCC. Objectivity regarding scientific results is the first casualty. Scientific judgement is wide open to abuse from emotionally-driven views which consciously or unconsciously select the data that reinforces their beliefs. They often have access to a wide cross-section of interested parties from government to an annual influx of university students. Scientific credentials merely serve to reinforce beliefs and fit the data with a mind already made up. If it doesn’t fit, then it is made to fit through mental gymnastics and cherry-picking the data. Of course, this can work both ways. However, whereas many groups who do not follow the AGW line and do not have links to the fossil fuel agenda state their case with proven scientific data and expertise, the same cannot be said for the IPCC which sets itself up as an impartial arbiter when it is nothing of the kind. It is clearly AGW-biased, hiding behind the bogus claims of rigorous and objective research supported by “world class scientists.”

Michael Oppenheimer is one such example. A Director of Science, Tech. Environmental Policy, at Princeton University; Professor of Atmospheric Sciences Prior to the above posts and 20 years as Chief Scientist to Environmental Defence Fund (EDF). He is a lead author IPCC report 2007 and a Senior Author of the IPCC report in  2011. Remember his words when speaking on behalf of the EDF? “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Regardless whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement it is hardly the position required of a scientist let alone one who contributes regularly to the IPCC. He is an activist-scientist and thus seriously biased.

A sample of other activists working for the IPCC include:

  • Bill Hare – Greenpeace spokesperson 1992; Chief climate negotiator 2007 / Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Lead author IPCC reports 2007 Expert reviewer 2007.
  • Malte Meinhausen – Key member of Greenpeace International Climate team; Greenpeace spokesman 2002-2003; Co-author Kyoto Protocol Analysis; contributing author of IPCC reports 2007.
  • Ove Hoegh-Guldberg – Marine Biologis, Reef expert Greenpeace funded reports on coral reefs and climate change 1994-2000 WWF funded reports; Contributing author 2007; Coordinating author 2011.
  • Richard Moss – One time WWF vice-president; IPCC senior personnel.
  • Jennifer Morgan – WWF chief spokesperson; WWF Kyoto Protocol Delegation; WWF Global Climate Change Program; Climate Action Network; Director of Climate program World Resources Institute. IPCC report 2010.

The process by which CR authors are selected – for an organisation who claims to be transparent and open – is highly secretive. No one seems to know how top decisions are actually made. The Inter-Academy Council questionnaire makes interesting reading in this respect, with some of the respondents giving answers such as: “Selection of lead authors in my view is the most important decision in the IPCC process, and it is not transparent,” or: “After being [a lead author or contributing author] several times, I still have no idea how I was selected. This is unacceptable.” Another participant states: “It has always been unclear how this has been undertaken.” [11]Not a huge crime for any other low-level institution but the IPCC isn’t just anybody. It has told us that it is open, transparent and scientifically credible and wields enormous influence because of it.

ippc-un

The United Nations, UNEP, WHO and the IPPC are all closely related, as are their worldviews.

The IPCC receives nominations from governments but does not make it public the names of the nominees; it does not explain the selection criteria and when successful nominees are announced only the country of origin is mentioned, qualifications and credentials are nowhere to be seen. Based on past evidence one can see why they would want the secrecy to remain in place. Apparently, we are meant to guess that the candidates are experts and trust the IPCC’s word.

What makes matters worse is the organisation’s history of refusing to help journalists, researchers and academics in their quests to scrutinize sources, reports and data. Moreover, when problems have been raised with the report content, such as out-of-date source papers, incorrect citations or quoting from papers yet to be published, the shutters came down with a the rigidity of a spoilt child folding its arms and pouting. If you begin to rock the boat too much then you are stone-walled or threatened with expulsion. [12]

Yet, according to John Holdren, President Barack Obama’s science advisor the IPCC is: “… an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” [13]Holdren has been told some porkies. In reality, the IPCC does none of the above and has no quality control procedures at all. Or, as one IPCC respondent states on page 384 of the public questionnaire: “Quality assurance and error identification is non-existent…” [14]  Which means when the body claims it uses peer-reviewed literature we find this is also incorrect. [15]The amount of peer-reviewed sources to support the findings in the IPCC reports is very low indeed; yet, people continue to believe it is true because it operates on the same belief as Al Gore. [16]IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri: “… has a history of systematically misrepresenting the process by which his organization produces reports. His declaration that the IPCC does not settle for anything less than peer-reviewed sources is wrong. Nor is it wrong by a trivial amount. When 21 out of 44 chapters have so few peer-reviewed references they score an F, a serious disjuncture exists between the facts and the IPCC’s fiction.” [17]

Nor is peer-review a fail-safe mechanism for detecting research misconduct and malpractice. The only way to safe-guard such problems is fully independent, scientific review where an assumption of the reliability of research papers before they have even appeared in print is not seen as the norm. Peer-reviewed science is only as good as the structure upon which it sits. If that is rotten then you have nothing. If Al Gore published papers for peer-review it would matter little that his credibility is zero because his talents lie in the performance designed to create maximum emotional response. Facts are secondary.

When trusts, foundations and institutions presenting themselves as scientific bodies dedicated to objective scientific analysis merge with the beliefs of green activism, however laudable, it produces a dangerous politicisation. Organising communication between professions and the media then becomes an exercise in maintaining the demands of lobbying. When substantial amounts of money are involved then science is just another tool for exploitation. Just as high quality journalism should inform activism so too science must act as the primary foundation to issues with science at their core. Without objective knowledge of the highest quality charges of passion without reason and the effects they induce cannot be countered.

LaFramboise, with an enormous network of voluntary assistance, found that 30 percent of the IPCC 2007 report was non-peer-reviewed. The sources which were included comprised of “… newspaper and magazine articles, unpublished masters and doctoral theses, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund documents and yes, press releases.” The journalist highlights several points that should make us all think twice about the proclamations of unimpeachable sources and credentials when the media, UN and governments wax lyrical about the IPCC’s standing.

LaFramboise further observes:

Climate sceptics are frequently asked why they imagine their own judgment to be more reliable than the judgment of such esteemed bodies. The answer to that question is this: No science academy noticed that one in three references in the 2007 Climate Bible is actually to grey literature. [unpublished papers] If these academies are so well-informed why did it take a group of Internet-linked volunteers to bring this to the world’s attention? Why didn’t even one of these science academies subject chairman Pachauri’s rhetoric to rudimentary fact-checking? [18]

Could it be that IPCC personnel simply don’t care enough to have a hand in changing the direction of this behemoth and are quite comfortable with the way things are?

Not content with preaching to the rest of us on impeccable standards in climate research to which we must all adhere, the IPCC’s treatment of its voluntary army of expert reviewers falls very short of fair. The 2007 report invited reviewers to offer comments which were responded to by IPCC authors. Yet, unsurprisingly, they are at liberty to ignore most, if not all of the comments that don’t fit with their “group-think.” The body freely inserts new material in reports, rejects reviewer opinions and essentially undermines the whole review process which was designed to prove the rigorous and objective nature of the CR science.

Group think rises up through the ranks of academic journals which instead of being independent and thus offering valuable critiques, appear to be chosen for reviews, citations and source material because an IPCC insider is Editor-in-Chief. As LaFramboise comments on the late founding editor of Climatic Change Stephen Schneider and Club of Rome member: “The fact that Schneider, a senior figure at the IPCC, was routinely deciding what would – and would not – make it into the same scientific literature the IPCC would later cite as evidence doesn’t appear to have caused anyone concern.” [19]

Nor is this an isolated incident. In the next post, we’ll see why.

 


Notes

[1] http://www.ipcc.ch/
[2] Ibid.(organisation)
[3] ‘The Science is absolutely first rate’ June 5 2007, The Rediff Interview with Rajendra K. Pachauri http://www.rediff.com | ‘The Rajendra Pachauri Interview’ by Amitabh Pal, The Progressive, May 2009 issue.
[4] ‘Harasser’ who lifts staff like little girls’ The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, Ananya Sengupta and G.S. Mudur, February 22 , 2015.
[5] Select Committee on Economic Affairs Written Evidence – Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institut Pasteur; Paris THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH
[6] p.8; The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. Published by Createspace, 2011.
[7] Ibid. (p.9)
[8] Ibid. (p.10)
[9] Ibid. (p.11)
[10] Ibid. (p.18)
[11] Ibid. (pp. 185, 180 and p.28) | Review of the IPCC InterAcademy Council http://www.reviewippc.interacademycouncil.net
[12] Ibid Chapter 8: “Clear as mud” See example 1: Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org p.30-35 correspondance between Susan Solomon.
[13] Ibid. (p.34)
[14] http://www.reviewippc.interacademycouncil.net
[15] Ibid. (p.43) – Richard Tol found that in the Climate Bible (CRs) 2007 “IPCC authors had ignored the findings of peer-reviewed studies and had instead cited non-peer-reviewed material to make the opposite case.”
[16] Ibid. (pp.43 -50: “The Peer Review Fairy-Tale”)
[17] Ibid. (p.48)
[18] ‘Book excerpt: Conspiracy of silence Special to Financial Post, By Donna La Framboise, Oct 22, 2011.| http://www.opinion.financialpost.com/2011/10/21/book-excerpt-conspiracy-of-silence/
[19] Ibid. (p.62)

Dark Green XVI: I’ve been Gored!

By M.K. Styllinski

“… the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”

– Al Gore


Climate_Reality_Logo-Globe

Logo of The Climate Reality Project founded by Al Gore | Source (WP:NFCC#4) (wikipedia)

With hedge funds popping up like bad sores in readiness for the carbon credit bubble it is these financial marauders who will benefit most rather than the environment or third world nations’ climate change projects. What we can be sure of is a substantial hike in the cost of living generally with special attention to electricity and manufacturing. All the while the imposition of caps is guaranteed to contribute precious little to limit carbon emissions, should the science on CO2 even be true.

The Nobel prize-winning Al Gore has been very busy playing at eco-activism and evangelising the message of AGW for many years. He has become smoothly effective as the political vanguard of environmentalism. Gore’s legendary capitalism masquerading as left-leaning liberalism is never more clearly seen when it comes to green corporatism, his favourite plaything. Gore was one of the first to implement the corporate structure of “public-private partnerships,” where the decision-making process was quietly shifted away from the people and transferred to unelected international corporations. And what we are seeing now is how effective such structural conversions can be when married to distorted environmental fears. Al Gore has excelled at being the guru of green-back sensationalism. He is a master of the slight-of-hand. However, it is difficult to say whether he is a “useful idiot,” desperately naïve (doubtful) or an opportunist of the very worst kind. Perhaps it is a mix of all three.

The Climate Reality Project founded by Gore in 2011 is another attempt to launch a frontal attack against so-called climate deniers (when all it does is cover up good science). “Join reality” “effect change”. You can also sign on to become a “Climate Reality Leader” within the Climate Reality Leadership Corp. and bludgeon everyone into becoming like Al Gore. Gore is creating an army of the faithful to do what? To reach net zero carbon emissions” which is apparently “… the key to our collective prosperity and well-being for all.”

Unfortunately, that probably isn’t the key. Not even close.

This is all about objective reality it seems…  Yet, the “The facts” page reads like a catalogue of supposition assumption where blaming nasty old fossil fuel folks for it all appears to mask barely concealed zealotry. That’s not to say that corporatism isn’t having a ripe old time stirring the propaganda pot with equal vigour. And that is also not to say greenhouse gases aren’t causing havoc and yes, we must try to reduce our pollution. But the overall campaign and impetus is that human beings are responsible for the overall climate change which are very probably the result of complex natural cycles and even vast cosmic processes. As my hamster Ernie belts around his plastic wheel the sheer power of his little cardiac footprint is not liable to produce massive climatic weather patterns.  (I don’t have a hamster but you get the analogy).

The whole idea that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused Earth’s temperatures over the past 50 years appears erroneous. BUT that doesn’t mean greenhouse gases are benign. It doesn’t mean they do not pose a problem such as ozone depletion. The real problem is how AGW science has obfuscated the subtle connections going on between a whole host of complex factors which have been reduced down to the level of Al Gore and his slide show hotly followed by the IPCC. And that does not provide a good basis upon which to inform the public.

You CANNOT change a natural cycle. And no amount of hectoring, deception and phoney science it going to alter that fact.  It amounts to an enormous hijacking of energy that could be better used in prevention against cataclysmic change that will come regardless of whether we have paid our carbon-free credits.  But by now, if you have been reading the previous posts on this blog you either think I am a deluded devil incarnate or one of the many who are seeing behind all the noise. Perhaps I am teetering between the two.

That said, let’s continue and find out a bit more about our Al and whether he’s one arctic roll short of an ice-cap.

gorepromoAl Gore (left) and promotional material for the DVD launch for An Inconvenient Truth: “the most terrifying film you will ever see.”

Gore has written over a dozen books on society, politics and environmentalism, most notably Earth in the Balance: Forging a New Common Purpose. (1992) The Assault on Reason. (2007) and An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. (2006) which accompanied a film of the same name which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. The film was directed by Davis Guggenheim, who stated that after the release of the film, “Everywhere I go with him, they treat him like a rock star.” It couldn’t have been more apropos for the likes of the Club of Rome who saw in Gore the popular appeal of their designs made manifest. The message is fear, catastrophe and guilt wrapped up in emergency environmental “education.” The science didn’t matter the message was all that counted.

Having already achieved humble martyrdom in running against the villainous Bush, he was as well placed to transfer this new found sainthood into the cause of climate change and make considerable amounts of money in the process. An Inconvenient Truth was designed to educate millions of citizens about the perils of global warming using Gore as messenger who would give an in-depth slide show presentation to a rapt audience interspersed with relevant footage. It premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, of the same year. It became a critical and box-office success, garnering two Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. It was also commercially successful earning $49 million internationally and becoming one of the highest grossing US documentary films of all time. [1]

Let’s turn our attention to two aspects of Gore’s journey, that of the science in the film and the financial aspects of Gore’s AGW platform. Firstly, the science.

In May 2007, a lawsuit was launched by a group of global warming sceptics over the UK government’s distribution of the film in UK schools. Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills heard the bid for an injunction preventing the screening of the film in English schools, on the premise that the film was imbalanced, impartial and political.

On 10 October 2007, High Court Judge Mr Justice Burton did not ban the film finding that it was largely drawn from scientific fact and research even though it was also politically motivated. He ruled that An Inconvenient Truth contained “nine key scientific errors” and could only be shown in British schools with explanatory notes on the errors “to prevent political indoctrination.” The judge said that showing the film without the explanations of error would be a violation of education laws. Judge Burton also stated that errors had arisen “in the context of alarmism and exaggeration” driven by Gore’s belief in AGW. [2]

In the synopsis of the film given by Paramount studios, the distributor gives a flavour of the content of the film which the judge ruled amounted to an “apocalyptic vision.” In a breathless example of sensationalism it implored: “If the vast majority of the world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods, droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have ever experienced.” [3] The judge ruled that An Inconvenient Truth was “politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.” It was, he ruled: “a political film.” [4]

Marketed as “… the most terrifying film you will ever see,” by online trailers, with commentary claiming audiences have been “shocked everywhere,” the dramatic images of global environmental destruction bombard the viewer with terrifying storms and even a nuclear explosion. This sets the tone for a mass-dumping of fear and danger in the younger generations and creates the antithesis of reason and constructive dialogue. Politics, alarmism and “apocalyptic visions” do little to educate children, especially when Agenda 21 is overshadowing the proceedings. While they may compel a sense of urgency and activism in the cause of “saving the planet,” if it is sourced from bad science and emotional reflex then this will play straight into the politics and the social frameworks recently discussed. It will have very little effect on the real, preventative climate change issues which could be addressed given the correct guidance. Exaggeration and alarmism merely helps to create fear and insecurity in the minds of children who are already having great difficulty processing the future. Neuroses in the young anxious about climate change, is becoming increasingly common.

Climate science journalist Björn Lomborg reviewed some startling results on this issue where “… a new survey of 500 American pre-teens, … found that one in three children, aged between six and 11, feared that the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they don’t have a future because of scary global warming stories.” The same pattern exists in the UK with “half of young children aged between seven and 11 [whom] are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern.” [5]

To draw out those fears and increase the likelihood of cash injection into the climate change industry we have Gore’s slick Hollywood production which uses emotive photos of cutsie animals and advanced animations taken out of context alongside endless replays of environmental destruction to illicit guilt and alarm. For example, smoke pouring forth from chimneys and cooling towers implying extreme CO2 production when in reality CO2 is invisible and benign. The message here is not scientific solutions but emotional manipulation.

Gore has yet to modify any of his statements made in film and print, the most obvious examples being the internationally discredited hockey stick temperature graph and his clinging to CO2 global temperature increases, despite the data that showed temperatures rose 400-800 years before CO2 and drove higher CO2 levels, a fact which had been confirmed for at least two years prior to Gore’s film. [6]But this was only the beginning. The following nine errors as outlined by Judge Burton include:

ERROR 1: Sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. [Judge] agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – ‘but only after, and over, millennia’. The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”

ERROR 2: The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls ‘are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming’ but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.

ERROR 3: The documentary speaks of global warming ‘shutting down the Ocean Conveyor’ – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was ‘very unlikely’ that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.

ERROR 4: Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in CO2 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed ‘an exact fit’. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, ‘the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts’.

ERROR 5: Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.

ERROR 6: The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that ‘it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.’

ERROR 7: Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.

ERROR 8: Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from ‘swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice’ The judge said: ‘The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.’ That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – ‘but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description’.

ERROR 9: Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. [7]

Rather than just nine errors the Judge mentioned, there are so many serious errors in AIT that becomes much more of a concern about the film-makers understanding of the issues involved and certainly where Al Gore’s true perceptions lie. Former British MP Christopher Monckton and founding member of the Science and Public Policy Institute based in the UK found plenty more. All of the following have proven to be grossly exaggerated or simply false:

  • Thermohaline circulation “stopping”
  • 100 ppmv of CO2 “melting mile-thick ice”
  • Hurricane Caterina “manmade”
  • Japanese typhoons “a new record”
  • Hurricanes “getting stronger”
  • Big storm insurances losses “increasing”
  • Mumbai “flooding”
  • Severe tornadoes “more frequent”
  • The sun “heats the Arctic ocean”
  • Arctic “warming fastest”
  • Greenland ice sheet “unstable”
  • Himalayan glacial melt waters “failing”
  • Peruvian glaciers “disappearing”
  • Mountain glaciers worldwide “disappearing”
  • Sahara desert “drying”
  • West Antarctic ice sheet “unstable”
  • Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves “breaking up”
  • Larsen B Ice Shelf “broke up because of ‘global warming’”
  • Mosquitoes “climbing to higher altitudes”
  • Many tropical diseases “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • West Nile virus in the US “spread through ‘global warming’”
  • Carbon dioxide is “pollution”
  • The European heat wave of 2003 “killed 35,000”
  • Gore’s bogus pictures and film footage
  • The Thames Barrier “closing more frequently”
  • “No fact…in dispute by anybody.” [8]

In A Sceptic’s Guide to Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (2007) senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Marlo Lewis PhD, provides a meticulous analysis of the Al Gore’s book version of the film. Lewis’ Congressional Working Paper contains 324 references with extensive links to web sites for fact checking, a practice Gore would do well to emulate. Lewis’ conclusions on the book revealed:

  • Wrong statements, false statements—19;
  • Misleading statements—17;
  • Exaggerated statements—10;
  • One sided statements—25; and
  • Speculative statements—28. [9]

Environmentalists have drawn our attention to the fact that Marlo Lewis is a friend of the fossil fuel lobby and is a corporate lackey with a clear agenda. Be that as it may, the facts he provides are correct. It is unfortunate that facts have to surface from two extremes rather than a simple quest for truth.

polarbearsonice

This photo was widely used to promote the idea that polar bears were stranded due to global warming induced ice melt. In actual fact, it was faked. See HERE for more details.

As an ex-senator, businessman, journalist, lawyer and highly articulate orator and raconteur it seems bizarre that Gore has not only chosen to ignore his “errors” but continue to perpetuate them. Even worse, he has also repeatedly refused to debate publicly on the issue and will not participate in conferences, interviews or public forums with those who take the opposing view on AGW. This is bad for science and bad for open, rational discourse which is so desperately needed.[10] Not least, it is bad for Gore’s credibility as he clearly prefers hyperbole and rhetoric rather than scientific rigour. If he is correct and he has spent most of his life genuinely seeking to redress the balance for the Earth’s ecology then one would think he would have at least a basic understanding of the principals involved, given his position and responsibility. Yet, while he may have a nose for communication he doesn’t seem to have the first clue about truth – inconvenient or otherwise. Gore’s research has been drawn primarily from the IPCC, which offers even more cause for concern, as we shall see presently.

What of Gore’s financial interests in climate change and carbon credits? He is a partner in two hedge funds, Generation Investment Management (GIM) and Capricorn Investment Group LLC, set up to trade carbon credits. Remember the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain? GIM exerts substantial influence over these firms in the following way: Having expended considerable amounts of cash to test the viability of carbon credits back in 2000, CCX has some of our well known players secreted within its membership. One begins to wonder if he has cloned himself to appear in all places and in all times but sure enough, Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors and has long since been considered as an Elder-guru to Gore. Other members who had undertaken to reduce their emissions by 2010 (some did some didn’t) are Amtrak, Ford Motor Company, Dow Corning, International Paper, Motorola, DuPont, American Electric Power and an assortment of other corporations and universities. Carbon-offset projects are also underway via “participant members.” ECX also has around 80 member companies, including Shell, Barclays, BP, Fortis, Calyon, Endesa, Morgan Stanley and … Goldman Sachs.

And here’s where come full circle back to the Goldman cartel once more.

GIM was founded by both Al Gore and Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs and financial criminal CEO, Hank Paulson. We already know that Goldman Sachs virtually owns the carbon credit markets including 10 percent of CCX shares and a stake in ECX. This is due, in part, to the fact that GIM is riddled with Goldmanites: Mark Ferguson, former co-head of GSAM pan-European research; David Blood, former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) and Peter Harris, who headed GSAM international operations. Peter S. Knight, who is the designated president of GIM with strong ties to Al Gore and Bill Clinton serving under them respectively.

World Economic Forum in Davos

Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore speaks next to rapper Pharrell Williams during a panel session on the first day of the 45th Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Jan. 21, 2015. | TIME magazine. |The World Economic Forum? Really? This is straight out of the Live Aid programming manual (It’s all right, just be happy…)

In 2008, Gore’s venture capital firm loaned $75m to Silver Spring Networks, a small Californian firm wishing to develop energy-saving technology. The company’s main production efforts go into hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. And in 2009, the US Energy Department announced a $3.4 billion boost in SMART grid grants more than $560 million going to utilities under contract to Silver Spring. [11]

To say that this would provide Gore with substantial profits would be an understatement. With an estimated $70 million he received for a 20 percent stake in the 2013 sale of the Current TV network, a slice of a $500 million pie paid out by Qatari-owned al-Jazeera Satellite Network, and a steady $1.2 million a year in salary and bonuses, he stands to make millions more in the long-term. Hence the media cry: “Will Gore be our first carbon billionaire?” Gore disputes this and is happy to be “putting his money where his mouth is.” A “one off investment” and “transformation of our energy infrastructure” towards energy that is free forever” is what’s needed according to Gore. He sees no hypocrisy radiating from his  green-messiah activism and Goldman Sachs plundering.

He goes on to say somewhat defensively: “Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?” … “I am proud of it. I am proud of it.” [12]

Goldman Sachs would certainly agree.

 


Notes

[1] “Documentary 1982–present (film rankings by lifetime gross)”. Box Office Mojo.
[2] Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills”. England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions. 2007-10-10.
[3] ‘Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’ By Sally Peck, Telegraph, 11 Oct 2007.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Scared silly over climate change’ by Bjorn Lomborg, The Guardian, 15 June 2009.
[6] ‘Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming’ by Catherine Brahic and Michael Le Page. New Scientist, 16 May, 2007.
[7] op. cit. Peck.
[8] ‘35 Inconvenient Truths – The errors in Al Gore’s movie’ By Christopher Monckton, http://www.scienceandpublic policy.org PDF version: http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
[9] ‘Al Gore’s Science Fiction: A Sceptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth’ Congressional Working Paper By Marlo Lewis. 01/22/07 — Competitive Enterprise Institute || http://www.cei.org.
[10] ‘Al Gore Refuses To Dignify Debate: “It’s Not A Matter Of Theory”’ Huffington Post, April 5 2009.
[11] ‘Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire’ Telegraph, November 3, 2009.
[12] Ibid.

Dark Green X: UN Agenda 21 and SMART Growth

By M.K. Styllinski

economist_566Promotional advertising for Smart Housing Conferences


Eco-fascism has blended with the usual collectivist and corporatist ethos to produce UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (SD). Such an exercise in mass manipulation under cover of altruistic and benevolent enterprise is nothing new. The population at large cannot be trusted and must be managed; individual rights must be laid waste for a New Communitarianism as determined by the pathocratic Establishment rather than grassroots, normal people – a blatant hijacking of a pragmatic philosophy. By taking advantage of the “humans as virus” meme and laying on the guilt, fear and culpability of both the affluent and the poor alike, the  burgeoning sub-class and the pounding of the middle class will be standardised. The selling point is a wholesale redistribution of wealth so that ostensibly, poorer people will have more capital thus economic disparity will be alleviated. This is not about uncovering a socialist plot or adhering to a tribal belief of right-wing values. This is about the subversion of the best qualities within the left and right belief system and using such beliefs and principles to bolster globalism and the imposition of the World State.

Pushing the idea of social justice is a large part of Agenda 21 and is understandably appealing to those sincerely wishing to help their neighbourhood and global initiatives. It is however, a ruse. Conservation and ecological awareness is crucial but not at the cost of our civil liberties and the erosion of our basic humanity.

This is very important to understand, which is why I stress it over and over: if you are overly-identified with a belief and thus a tribe, then your perceptions will already be skewed and resistant to seeing the signs of emotional manipulation. This is an omni-directional deception which uses ANY belief to oil the wheels of its progress. Get out of the mind-set that left, right or centrist views have the answer. Psychopaths are predatory opportunists and are happily free from such belief constraints and they use that mental freedom mercilessly.

Governments are taking control of all land use in order to exclude private property owners from having any say in the future. If you want to be off-grid or truly independent, the coming SMART infrastructure will make it purposely difficult – if not impossible – to opt out. Independence and freedom of mind is a threat to the emerging eco-technocratic World State. Remember Food as a Weapon? Well, this naturally extends to land use and urban redevelopment. Gradualism is the only suitable method to affect change of this kind since they know that most people wouldn’t wash it otherwise. However, things are  being stepped up.

100_4127

© infrakshun

People will be herded into concentrated zones of urban “human habitation” (in UN-speak) while rural communities who choose to live outside such a system will be progressively isolated and cut off from earning a living. Self sufficiency of the kind that will offer complete independence from the SD-SMART grid will be prohibited, simply due to the state of infrastructure technology. Don’t have an i-phone to swipe your bar-code and obtain food?  Don’t have your palm-chip? Then how can we check your health/licence/carbon credit quota and therefore allow you to buy your food/gas?

The 1960s and early 1970s saw a huge expansion of global awareness which was comprehensively co-opted by psychopathic leaders and their intelligence apparatus. The flowering of human consciousness which led to human potential movements were co-opted quite early on. When you are able to plan and preempt such cycles of creative expansion you then set about ways of “de-fanging” it, so that the threat of human emancipation does not threaten the minority psychopath’s hold on power at the top. (See David McGowan’s book on Laurel Canyon for but one description of this process and re-read ‘The Light Bringer’).

The Club of Rome, Limits to Growth and a clustered emergence of green organisations (most of whom were genuine with great successes early on) were later taken over and subtly and slowly moved away from their founding principles. UN policies on ecological imperatives also mostly date back to the early 1970s. it was not until the Rio de Janerio Earth Summit in 1992 that green consciousness started to take hold in our minds.

In order to make sure this trajectory was maintained and to take advantage of the environmental inspiration to save the planet, Agenda 21’s power was codified by the American Planning Association and their legislative document: Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change. (It was not codified in the same way as European legislation which is binding by law, but through a process of complete camouflage and obfuscation). Finally completed in 2002, taking almost ten years to produce the final version, this blueprint for radical change is jam-packed full of ordinances, regulations and statutes that would have made Napoleon balk. What is more, all these rules are to be incorporated into the general town and city planning of every city in America. Consequently, every federal department that governs land use has this particular “bible” somewhere in the office and whose “requirements” are being  implemented, whether at the local or state level. Similarly, the education system has the same simplified version of Growing Smart on its curricula taking up a big part in outcome based education and Common Core, hence the now familiar buzzword of “SMART growth” on everyone’s lips.

Typical SMART style designing of public buildings in US.

The International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was created in Germany solely in order to implement Agenda 21. It takes its role very seriously by ensuring that this “guidebook” becomes doctrine alongside Agenda 21, with the cost paid by the US tax payer. With over 1000 cities and counties claiming membership, it seems this is having an effect but not for the beneficial reasons many green advocates would imagine. Its purpose is to dilute and invalidate boundaries and national restrictions so that global governance can enter unimpeded. This is where SMART societies and Agenda 21 come together in all their chilling exactitude.

The planning revolution across the United States in the 1990s and 2000s saw a glut of apartments sprouting up miraculously in the middle of towns and cities. Thanks to the Growing Smart blueprint, vast tracts of cities and great chunks of towns were re-zoned to ‘mixed use’ in order to conform to the new regulations. In combination with government funding, the Redevelopment Agency in partnership with private businesses/corporations are driving a transformation of the urban environment toward an expensive, eco-standardised design which often has retail space at the bottom with residential floors above. I’m sure you can recall seeing these new streamlined and soulless designs all over the United States and European cities. These blocks have a high density of people so that the retail can be justified. Usually, these end up bankrupt, resulting in a swath of empty condos or apartments. But that’s part of the policy. The designs all look the same because they all have the same marketing behind it, from national workshops, seminars and training programs, federal, national redevelopment associations – they are all feeding from the same bag of ideological oats and funded by the public from property taxes.

On top of austerity measures in Europe and massive economic debt in the US, the money that should be going toward the upkeep and betterment of basic infrastructure is going into the banks’ coffers to prop up a failing economic system and ear-marked for the Redevelopment Agency under the euphemism of “urban renewal.” (European equivalents come under local development agencies and councils funded by the European Regional Development Fund). And here’s the kicker: with this brand of redevelopment cities and councils have the right to take private property by what’s called “eminent domain” and sell it on to a private developer – effectively out-sourcing the overall strategy to developers who build “cheap” housing, adhering to strict Agenda 21/Smart Growth designs – all under mixed use. Privacy and originality is literally thrown out of the window. Want a little garden? Forget it. Community gardening? Dream on. There are countless newspaper reports of homes and community gardens being levelled and destroyed due to an infringement of these obscure regulations.

With such redevelopment regulations comes a plethora of other land use restrictions all of which are gradually limiting the possibility of eating locally produced food and the cultivation of local markets. This also applies to farmers in both rural America and Europe. Already beholden to corporations, they are now having to take further pressures from unyielding rules that restrict water and land use, all enforced by hefty fines. The Wildlands Network ensures intense restriction on the one hand for independent farmers while on the other, corporations have a free rein to pollute and utilise land while paying a paltry fine if caught. Agricultural Land Trusts not only define the borders of farmers’ land use but impose generational regulations which make it inevitable that independent farming and the ability to actually feed ourselves without agribusiness and corporate food chains quite impossible. The 4C’s and 3E’s working in concert. No more independent, organic produce passed down the family line because the farmer’s property has been sold is a Faustian reality.

Copenhagensmartbuildings1

Copenhagen, Denmark. Designed by the Bjarke Ingels Group, with nearly 500 apartments and incorporates a commercial district

A key part of this urban process is to declare it a “blighted” area as a justification for funnelling your taxes in redevelopment schemes. This vampiric extraction of crucial funds from communities, towns and cities is directly contributing and creating real impoverishment, where local services are cut, hospitals closed, roads left in disrepair, schools unsupported and social services in general suffering. Meantime, as discontent and an alienation continue to fester, law enforcement is militarised and departments merged in order to counter this social distress. Our urban environment is intimately connected to this state of affairs and it is under attack. Yet, the marketing and countless neighbourhood meetings and facilitation of such schemes continually claim that this is “renewal” when it is quite the reverse; it is social engineering in order to streamline cities into the UN Agenda 21, SD/SMART cities of the future. One criterion used to initiate a blighted area is that there are too many local businesses – I kid you not.

Ironically, the wheels of this eco-fascism are continually oiled by environmental community groups and NGOs who are still under the illusion that this is all for the betterment of their cities and nature in general. It is not about making a better world. It is about re-designing cities and towns – even demolishing whole areas liberally labelled “blighted” – in accordance with a sustainable, SMART model. This has been easier and easier to do since the 2008 manipulated economic depression where so many homes were lost to the sub-prime housing crisis and where anyone at all could ask for an exorbitant loan. There is massive ideological and financial incentive in creating poverty and rebuilding it along the rigid lines of Agenda 21 and Smart Growth regulations. It is a highly ambitious plan employing a systems theory view of implementation across a wide range of societal domains, all of which, by necessity, must be integrated into this sustainable model for it to succeed, and succeeding it is, at least in the short-term. And the reason this brand of redevelopment is gaining ground is primarily due to the ignorance of the hijacking of genuine green sentiment and the distracting rise in technology that can seemingly solve all our problems. These are fertile grounds for the use of social engineering techniques so beloved of the Establishment. The ICLEI continues to step up SD and Climate change brainwashing, wrapping up the ecotopian packaging so that regulation ensures a greater dependence on the State.

And this is what it’s about: as populations become more dependent, more disenfranchised, laden with an impossible debt burden increasing numbers of the population will be forced into high density cities and towns, plugged in, by default, to the SMART grid and SMART systems networked over every domain from supermarket foods to healthcare. But a manipulated financial meltdown and social unrest must come first to truly break the spirit and conform. (Among other related factors, this is what ISIL in the Middle East and the Ukraine crisis is all about). The true “Social Equity” will demand that everyone will be in the same dependent boat, except those who are the technocratic managers and eco-enthusiasts who will preside over the motherboard of game theory management.

As we saw previously, the four pillars of Agenda 21 are Economy, Ecology and Social Equity – the Three E’s. As before, they merge easily into the cartel capitalism and cultural Marxism of what I call the 4C’s – Commercialisation, Consolidation and Centralisation, leading ultimately to overall Control. Recall the quotation to be found at the start of this post. Private property, business and industry can all be sequestered, bought up or removed entirely under eminent domain, conservation easement and land use restriction all justified under Social Equity whereas in fact, the poorest and most vulnerable will suffer through a form of lego-land ghettoization.

Porta_Nuova_Isola

Porta Nuova Isola, Milan | photo: © Arup Bustler.net

The next questions to pose are these: How do they get this legislation through at the local level? How does it get so far?

As mentioned in the previous post, establishing “common consensus” where it matters is where social engineering and psychological techniques come into their own. To dilute suspicion that all is not what it appears to be, the use of jargon, buzzwords sound bites and interminable vagueness is essential. New Age principles and pseudo-science floated atop neuro-linguistic programming to trigger feel good emotions rather than cold blooded critical analysis of what is actually being presented, is key. After all, many community members and representatives of the neighbourhood attend meetings are naturally attuned to a positive outcome and looking to confirm their beliefs that anything seemingly “Green” is inherently “progressive” and a natural way to go for their respective neighbourhoods. (In a less psychopathically compromised society, this would be true of course).

It is the nature of Agenda 21 to actively engage with NGOs and community groups as possible offering the illusions of citizen involvement. However, due to the massive increase in associated boards, regional agencies, commissions, trusts, programs and non-profit organisations the result is a melee of information with no one at seems tracking the true source. Exhaustion and confusion results with a sense that communities are becoming more psychologically isolated. Instead of real answers disorientation and interminable vagaries and platitudes constantly circle around the subject. This is purposely encouraged by paid lobbyists, fake neighbourhood groups and their ever-present “facilitators” who make sure the consensus stays on course without revealing who pays his fees. All these various regulated meetings are marketed as “spontaneous” or “grassroots” while being carefully engineered.

A process of vetting takes place when community leaders attend such meetings and paid shills scattered in the audience to shout down dissenters and encourage group-think. Similarly, formal sounding commissions and boards are created with those that have proved themselves either power-hungry, militant and clueless or what a piece of the green gravy train and are thus reliable “team players.” These same people are then able to enter the existing political infrastructure designed to weed out persons with ability and conscience in favour of those with the needed pathology. Real town and city citizens don’t stand a chance against such a monolithic propaganda outfit. It is testament to the fact that you never hear about Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development on any mainstream media whether conservative or left-liberal. There is an unspoken blackout on the subject which explains just how important this SD/SMART blueprint for change truly is.

issaquah-highlands-towering-wall-clearcut-rr1Smart Modernism © Tom Lane of smartgrowthusa.wordpress.com

A collaborative consensus is merely a form of manipulation outside of democratic principles which are fast becoming quaint in the Eurozone and downtown USA. The consensus does not allow for dissent. Indeed, green protest itself has become subsumed into corporate green-washing and NGO lackeys whilst the very framework for ecological change has been compromised. SD and Smart Growth is already deeply embedded in our societies to the point where it is difficult to know who is working for who, where the lines between government, NGOs and corporations begin and end. The answer is, they don’t. Which is why the desperate state of our societies under the yoke of this spider’s web is making inroads into every way of life, tragically enabled by a lack of awareness from those who often genuinely have the best interests of the planet and others at heart.

Group think and group consciousness programming develops a “consensus” that is founded on manipulation rather than truth. As a result, in meetings and in media reports, such programming encourages isolation of individuals who feel something is amiss and the easier facilitation of authoritarian followers to rise to the top. This applies from the local to more governmental meetings. Consensus building and visioning techniques, although benign in the right setting, have been twisted in service to Agenda 21. The Delphi Method/technique is certainly the psychological manipulator of choice in the context of SMART growth presentations and Agenda 21 streamlining. We can also see it being used to great effect in Common Purpose meetings as well as Common Core open education meetings in the US.

Rosa Koire is the executive director of The Post Sustainability Institute and a forensic commercial real estate appraiser specialising in eminent domain valuation. Her 2011 book: Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Developmentwritten with Barry N. Nathan has been the source for some of the material in this post and represents a rare insight into the nature of eco-intelpro. Koire believes this is a key component in the “rapid change” focus of Agenda 21 and SMART growth philosophy which routinely dupes communities into formally accepting pre-decided implementations. The appearance of groups having a say is just for show.

dreamstime_m_50283733

© Rawpixelimages | Dreamstime.com – Business Conference Meeting Seminar Team Concept Photo

Delphi was developed by the RAND corporation as a cold war mind control technique. Its objective was to channel group thinking and emotional desire towards the prepared point of view already developed by facilitators and in such a way that the invited group believed it was their idea. Public meetings appear to be the favoured forum to achieve their goals. Trained facilitators present a range of choices to a group, presenting a rich format for discussion.What the audience do not realise is that these “choices” have all been weighted in favour of the facilitators and their prepared outcome – the only one they want to see adopted. The audience is immersed in a form of entrainment with tried and tested techniques such as “visioning” used to create the correct emotional atmosphere ultimately conducive not to the participants but the conveners.

Delphi is used widely in school board meetings, training groups neighbourhood association meetings and every place where the end goal is to placate community concerns and contour thinking toward Agenda 21 objectives – without them ever knowing. Whether in Europe or America, there is an intentional camouflage of names and labels seemingly different but singing the exact same SD tune. There are so many different names for the same thing that it is very easy to be duped. Consequently, SMART growth and SMART initiatives in business, project management and civil society are awash with Delphi techniques. You can see an example HERE

With substantial financing given to local government from federal agencies and the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) the meetings are cynically billed as an opportunity for the citizens of their town or city to: get involved! Re-design your city! Become part of our shared, green future! A redevelopment project or regional transportation plan is usually the precursor to more radical change which inevitably involves housing and/or land use restrictions. They are often Trojan Horses for larger development goals.

Rosa Koire is unequivocal about the Delphi Technique and it’s common use to subvert meetings.

She states:

“The key thing to know about this is that of course you have no input. Only comments and observations that support the pre-approved plan will be supported. All others will be written on a big pad of paper and discarded later. The illusion of public buy-in is all that is needed. The organizers can later point to the fact they held a public meeting, a certain number of residents attended, a public comment was taken, and the community approved the plan. The facilitator is often a private consultant who has been professionally trained in running and managing a meeting. This consultant has been hired by your city to fulfill the requirement that the project has been seen and supported by its citizens —- it’s YOUR plan. If the project is a controversial one the city may have put out the call for non-profit groups, neighborhood associations, and city employees to send members to seed the audience and outnumber potential opponents. This is war. On those few occasions when the majority of the attendees object to the planned outcome, the facilitator will close the meeting and reschedule it for another time and place. You are experiencing the new consensus.”

dreamstime_m_35304795

© Heavyrobbie | Dreamstime.com

As ever, Communitarianism infused with Establishment precepts is the underlying framework by which inverted totalitarianism is floated. Individual rights are a threat to group consciousness, and the emerging “global community” – a one world ethos.  It encompasses the Hegelian dialectic and its updated version of a) a problem is created b) an emotional reaction is engendered c) the prepared “solution” is delivered amid the chaos. The solution becomes the “new normal” – corporatocracy meets pathocracy all painted in green chilac.

Koire stresses that EVERYONE is affected by UN Agenda 21 and SD programming but it hides behind this SMART green jargon. “Insidious” is an apt word because it is so difficult to see unless you have built your knowledge base and taken steps to become aware.  Behind the Green Mask is an excellent primer for understanding how green hijacking works. Though there is much more to absorb in book, as well as strategies to counteract these subversions, it might be helpful at this stage to quote Korie’s brief synopsis of Agenda 21 and SD process and what it means for the average person on the ground:

  • Step by step: UN Agenda 21 sets the stage for high density development in cities.

  • Redevelopment agencies subsidize development for Smart Growth. Only some favoured builders are in on the money train.

  • Banks were urged in the Clinton administration to loosen their loan criteria and let the money flow.

  • Developers built more and more commerical and residential buildings, glutting the market.

  • The economic collapse was engineered to cover the migration of business and production out of the US.

  • The stock market crash was engineered to suck wealth out of the middle class and destabilize their retirement.

  • The TARP bail-out was pay-back for the banks and consolidated their power by allowing them to take over smaller banks.

  • The crashed economy is a staged event and encourages agitation for more social programs, along with the vilification of property ownership. Those who own private property are ‘greedy.’

  • As people lose their homes to foreclosure and their steady employment vanishes, they will be more willing to live in government subsidized apartments in the center of cities. Neighbourhood cohesiveness will be a thing of the past. There will be less people to object to loss of private property rights. proposals to stop the federal mortgage interest tax deduction will be more easily accepted thus threatening private home ownership. The press obligingly writes about the miseries of home ownership and extols the virtues of living in a condo (maintenance free!) or apartment (move when you want!) next to the train tracks.

  • Instead of ‘social equity’ we’re seeing a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich, as foreclosed property gets snapped up at deep discounts by those with cash.

  • High unemployment and government assistance contributes to overall government indebtedness and continues the spiral of reducing our standard of living.

  • Private car ownership will become unaffordable through high gasoline prices, high parking costs in city centers,  and vehicle miles traveled taxes, and wages can be lowered to reflect the ‘savings.’

  • The redfields to greenfields conversions in the suburbs allow cities to demolish buildings and close off services to those areas. Redevelopment dollars, your property tax dollars, will be used for these projects.

  • Rural roads will not be paved, making rural property less valuable, banks will foreclose and local government will buy for pennies on the dollar. Less and less land will be available for agriculture, for production, for small scale living. Government-owned land will be managed by or given to non-profit land trusts in public private partnerships.

  • Lands will be closed off to public use. Rural areas closed. Suburban areas closed. Forest areas closed. Rural roads closed. Logging roads closed. Camping areas closed. State park areas closed.

  • Restrictions on travel. Personal identification required at all times. Health records. School records. Communication records. Email, Facebook, Global positioning mapping, virtual reality, —all serve to narrow your world.

  • Community oriented policing, Fusion centers, expanded domestic surveillance powers for the FBI, redefining torture, continuous war for peace, eternal war on terror, regular renewal of the USA Patriot Act.

  • Picking winners and losers is the official blood sport of the Agenda of the 21st Century.

Welcome to Smart Growth, UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, ready-made and waiting at a local neighbourhood and council meeting near you.

Communitarianism under SMART society and SMART technology will conform to Chinese and Stalinist Russian models – a SMART gulag of assigned leisure, total dependence and de-natured existence. With surveillance and biometric recognition and likely SMART chips under the skin, the “simulacra and simulation” will be complete. If you suddenly have an overwhelming urge to wrinkle your nose and scoff having got this far, I would politely assure you this is happening under your very nose – probably in your own town. Although progress is being made, don’t worry if this is all news to you. UN Agenda 21 has a pedigree camouflage. Let’s face it, there are some truly inspirational people who work under its auspices and passionately believe in the whole kit and caboodle. Blind belief is a powerful thing, as is the will to follow others’ lead. It is a rare thing indeed to find an ecologist or environmentalist who can see the wood for the trees.

In the next post we will look at the Establishment’s take on Climate change.


See also:

Singapore Is Taking the ‘Smart City’ to a Whole New Level
Six Issues that are Agenda 21
U.N. Policy Paper Outlines 7 Building Blocks for ‘Heavy-Handed’ World Government

Dark Green IX: UN Agenda 21 and US Land Grab

By M.K. Styllinski

“One of the big lies about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is that it ‘builds strong communities’. It does. But not in the way you would expect. It is managed democracy and manufactured consensus.”

– Rosa Koire, Executive Director, Post-Sustainability Institute


If we are to live our lives supporting and deriving benefit from Nature’s bounty, sustainable development must be an essential part of human destiny. However, in the hands of our leaders the concept of sustainability in its present incarnation may be very far from what many environmental activists believe it to be.

One of the many initiatives to come out of the Rio conference in 1992 was a 300 page document called Agenda 21 which the UN defines as: “… a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and major groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” Out of the summit came a National Strategy for a Sustainable America which led to the announcement in July 1993 by US President Bill Clinton of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to implement a “national Strategy” for sustainable development. By 2010, this had advanced to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s mission of advancing the principles and goals of sustainable development through partnerships, collaboration, and outreach. [1]

The 1992 Earth summit’s Rio Declaration on Environment and Development set out 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world. The PCSD also had a set of “We Believe Statements” outlining 16 principles which paraphrase the Rio Declaration. Both these sets of principles are incorporated into Agenda 21 (“21” refers to the 21st Century).

The Agenda 21 document comprises of 40 chapters grouped into 4 sections:

  • Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions
  • Combating poverty in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
  • Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development
  • Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
  • Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups
  • The roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
  • Section IV: Means of Implementation Science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms. [2]

In the above, we find the complement to the Earth Charter, where the opposite poles of political beliefs come together to create maximum noise ratios and thus obscure any rational discourse on the issue. A “divide and rule” friction is set up between so called “lefties” and “right-wing whackos” for which Agenda 21 is the devil incarnate or a practical framework for a sustainable future. Is Agenda 21 an innocent “soft law” platform for change? Or are the “radical right, conspiracy theorists” correct and this is an an attempt to impose a vast template for technocratic global governance via Agenda 21?

treeeee © infrakshun

The UN Commission on Global Governance established in 1992 with full support from then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali published a report in 1995 called “Our Global Neighbourhood.” Sustainable development (SD) and environmental protection are seen as integral step to the long-term security of that vision. As the report confirms: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” And further: “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” [3]

The problem that many have with this process as it is being developed in both EU and the United States is that it removes the public from the decision-making process, by default. If elected officials are by-passed by non-elected officials who have been tasked with an agenda, however well-intentioned, it means that democracy and civil liberty is side-lined in favour of a consensus that may have no relation at all to the values, culture and self-determination of the country involved. Regionalism and the communitarianism are fine ideas – even welcome theories for socio-economic development. However, the devil is in the details. The overriding importance for members of the UN and Establishment circles is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the absolute control of the domestic population with the means to see that come about. When you get these people whole-heartedly supporting such potentially massive changes you can be absolutely sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater good but the interests of the “lesser evil.”

Areas which are prompting most concern involve policy making procedures defined by collaborative consensus building a conflict resolution label appropriated by SD and SMART redevelopment and is inaugurating drastic changes in the way public policy is created in the United States. This consensus process as defined in Agenda 21 and the “We Believe” Statements of the PCSD serves to circumnavigate elected officials and place power in the hands of unelected officials who then determine Agenda 21 policy. This gives a free reign to a multitude of SMART redevelopment programs, where government and the corporate sector merge in ethically compromised, ideologically questionable ways.

With the United States having already had much of its constitution eviscerated by both the Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden Administrations, the legitimate concern here for this one-time Republic and for the nations of Europe is that governments are exercising entirely undemocratic powers through seemingly benign programs. They do this because such passion can be usefully diverted to agendas which piggy-back the initial intent from public and officials, which is sincere. The Agenda 21 platform certainly has collectivist principles to its policy changes which immediately causes the political right to raise its hackles at the merest hint of such a thing. Since the US has an appalling record on global resource use and environmental safeguards in general, the kinds of changes which are being demanded under Agenda 21 will mean that there will be a forced redistribution of wealth and the confiscation of private property under the guise of “protecting the environment.” Therefore, the “social equity” in such a context, is a collectivist dream.

The concept of sustainable development does require a system of governance that is even more centralised under an integrated package of social equity, environmental protection and economic activity. (And we haven’t even looked at carbon tax yet). The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development (SD) into the policy process of every agency in the US federal government. In partnership with the same environmental organisations who drafted Agenda 21, federal government agency grants are allowing SD programs to be seeded into the infrastructure of American life. So, while the UN cannot impel communities to adopt Agenda 21 policies its influence and beliefs are outsourced to hundreds of environmental groups and NGOs – the latter often paid quangos for government meddling – who carry out its operations so that Agenda 21 dove-tails seamlessly into future SMART growth infrastructure.

As a prelude to the Agenda 21 framework and The Convention on Bio-Diversity which has yet to be ratified, the Ecosystem Management Policy spear-headed by the UNEP is up and running in many US states. This means that where federal management of ecosystems exists it would inevitably expand federal control of the use of privately owned land and increased restrictions on the use of public lands for economic purposes. Since ecosystems do not have a defining boundary, private lands would be included in an expanded regulatory framework with the imposition of restrictions and guidelines mandated by law. The scope for the abuse of power would be limitless.

In Agenda 21’s vision for America, the protection of the ecosystem and sustainable development would take precedence over economic activity and private property rights. If the authority for implementing ecosystem management eventually meshed with Agenda 21 and continues to lie with the federal government, the vested interests of stakeholder input and authoritarian environmental activists, a massive transfer of power from the individual to the state is the only possible outcome.

The political and social equality pushed in Agenda 21 does not necessarily equate with a free society.

The repeated statement that a “transformation of society” is required includes an irreversible change in the process through which decisions affecting citizens are made. Extensive land use planning delivering SD to local communities dispenses with these democratic processes, or as commentator Henry Lamb correctly observes: “The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process … the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.” [4]

The lure of partnership-privatisation, be it water or forestry management and the wider issues involved, are often eclipsed by the approach of financial dividends. Everyone is always keen to make a buck and nothing is more seductive when one’s conscience is perceived to be clean while doing it. Bailing out bankers is a euphemism for maintaining an exploitative system. Such bailouts can operate under corporate lawyers and foundation executives offering financial assistance while making sure that they can gain much more for their money in return. Local officials and rural communities are seldom aware of what they are being “sold” and wouldn’t know a biodiversity clause or an Agenda 21 stipulation if it was deftly flashed in front of them on an i-pad screen. But it would sure look benevolently green.

One of the most surprising and little known facts related to SD and the present land grabs which are now taking place in the USA are the Executive Orders No.11490 and No.11647 enacted by President Richard Nixon on February, 10, 1972. The United States was divided into 10 Regional Councils, each federally controlled by bureaucrats for the improvement of coordination of activities between different levels of government. These 10 federal regions were to be given powers over everything pertaining to regionalism. Within those regional divisions, this included conservation, land use, water and all other natural resources within the United States. Fairly momentous and dramatic contributions to the US yet very few people know about it thanks to a compliant media and a corrupt Congress.

fedregional Standard Federal Regions

A bureaucratic binding has now arrived in the form of four federally chartered regional commissions: the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), signed into effect by President Kennedy in 1963 and amended numerous times up until the present; The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) signed into effect by President Ronald Reagan (1988) and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) signed into effect in 1994 and the Denali Commission (DC) signed into effect in 1998 – both by President Clinton, the latter being the only commission targeting a single state (Alaska).

Each commission is responsible for a variety of legislative operations and procedures implementing a long term economic plan:

  • ARC: On top of a mandate to improve “regional infrastructure, reducing regional isolation; water and wastewater management resources; natural resources development; and human resources development, including housing, education, job skills, and health care” the Truman Administration expanded this to “… promot[e] economic development in the region; and establishing a framework for joint federal and state efforts in developing basic facilities essential to promoting coordinated regional responses to the region’s problems.”
  • DRA: “The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1989.9 Title II of that act, known as the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, authorized the creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission (LMDDC […] the Commission’s legislative mandate was to identify the economic needs and priorities of the Lower Mississippi Delta region, and to develop a 10-year economic development plan for the region.
  • NGPRA: “… directed it to study and make recommendations for improving the economic development prospects of residents of rural Northern Great Plains communities. The Commission was charged with developing a 10-year rural economic development plan for Northern Great Plains (NGP) with the assistance of interested citizens, public officials, groups, agencies, businesses, and other entities. […] “The act charged the NGPRDC with developing a 10-year plan that would address economic development, technology, transportation, telecommunications, employment, education, health care, housing, and other needs and priorities of the five-state region. The act encouraged the NGPRDC to develop the plan in collaboration with Native American tribes, federal agencies, non-profit and specific issue areas: value-added agriculture, international trade, business development, telecommunications, transportation infrastructure, health care, and civic and social capacity.”
  • DC: “… the Commission’s mission included providing job training and other economic development assistance to distressed rural areas in the state. The act also charged the Commission with providing for rural power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure needs of remote areas in the state.” [5]

All these Commissions are in turn, focused on a highly complicated jumble of state and local county development programs many of which are integrated or in the process of being integrated into the Agenda 21 blueprint. What Nixon and the Clinton-Gore administration did was to create a new government eco-bureaucracy or “regional” government placing the states into the aforementioned Ten Regions and their requisite federal funding. However, as regional government was the assigned vehicle for federal fund distribution it meant that local government officials were unaware that they were effectively reducing their power by being answerable to administrators of regions. Local authorities would be bypassed in favour of regionalism which isn’t just a system of grant distribution but an extension of State power.

The justification for all these eco-imperatives comes from the United Nations which – in much the same way as the Eurocrats in Brussels – overrides democratically elected decision-makers in favour of SD and SMART associated stake-holder legislations. Fusing management and administration systems based on new technology, redevelopment and eco-imperatives are making regionalism very far from democracy and constitutional accountability. We are faced with a situation where decisions are rubber-stamped by international regional government administrators and their connected councils serving a desperately hierarchical world management system which has nothing whatsoever to do with serving Mother Earth or its people.

The concept of Sustainable Development as it was sold to the public was never a grassroots ignition. It is a top-down product of a world management system dressed up in green language which will allow yet another vast channel of technocratic control to merge with fake land ethics, laws, and regulations. Environmental protection of fauna and flora will certainly take place but society will be in no position or have the legal right to enjoy it! Nature’s new found liberalisation, sagely bestowed by global stewards will always know best it seems.

The UN works through the emerging civil society which is actually made up of thousands of NGOs with largely the same beliefs as UN personnel. They are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. Via summits, national and international conferences, seminars and local outreach groups policy documents are formulated drawn from the gospel of Agenda 21, they are all overseen by Maurice Strong’s UNEP. Under the ever-present influence of NGOs and environmental pressure groups, local governments become un-elected members of “stakeholder councils” managing “empowerment zones”, or “enterprise committees” and “visioning councils” determined to adhere to the concepts of SMART growth. *

Despite many recommendations still to be implemented, the UN has spent – and continues to spend – millions of dollars whilst holding various international meetings which are attended by hundreds of political leaders, corporate CEOs and thousands of other non-governmental organizations who expend equal amounts of time drafting massive policy documents. Clearly, this is much more than a whimsical green distraction. They mean business. Although Agenda 21 is entirely “voluntary” and “non-binding” that is not how it’s playing out on the ground. Using an array of Delphi-based psychological techniques a veritable army of “facilitators” are descending on American cities and part of the neighbourhood councils and planning associations. Often, eco-SMART NGOs are nothing more than pincer movements into communities in order to extract support for redveelopment proposals under Agenda 21/SMART auspices.  Most importantly, they represent a fusion of corporate and government sponsorship which stands to make a lot of money for both parties at great expense to specific communities, most notably in suburbia.  As these new vested interests are drawn from Rockefeller-type Foundations and corporate CEOs it does not bode well for the future that will be defined by the disempowerment of civil society and the dilution, if not disappearance of truly representative local government and community.

The ubiquity of SD activists and advocates becomes especially problematic when so many of these people are tuning in to what is after all, a genuine wish to protect the environment and improve the quality of societies for future generations. Yet there is a refusal and a lack of knowledge as to how an ideology and system can be co-opted and used for something quite different. The young’s natural passion to protect the Earth is strong, so too are the dangers of the dogma and fascism that are intimately connected to the history of the environmental movement. With the present global economic system in terminal decline and media propaganda as potent that it has ever been, we are reminded of Peter Staudenmaier’s observation in the context of rising fascism: “The attraction such perspectives exercised on idealistic youth is clear: the enormity of the crisis seemed to enjoin a total rejection of its apparent causes. It is in the specific form of this rejection that the danger lies.” [6]

So Agenda 21 network continues to infiltrate every aspect of society and local development plans from biosphere reserves, wetlands, greenways, railways, carbon footprints, partnerships, conservation /environmental protection, land use, environmental protection, heritage areas and planning to name but a few. While securing more legislation and government control it reduces the rights of the individual and usurps power from local, democratically elected councils. Perhaps most importantly, after our exploration of eco-fascism and depopulation we should be extremely concerned when a vast blueprint for ecological management and sustainable development is sourced from those who cheerily support perpetual war, state-sponsored terror, cartel capitalism, eugenics, forced sterilisation; a global tax, (usually on those who will be least able to pay) and massive reduction of the human population by any and all means to reach that objective.

So, the perceived belligerent fears from the right-wing resistance to Agenda 21 stems from a much more complex dynamics playing out in plain sight. Therefore, there needs to be much more bipartisan support for rooting out what really gives on this issues both politically and within the public. The refusal to address legitimate fears from liberal and left-wing groups displays the same tunnel vision.

UN-Logo© infrakshun

Building on the advances made from the 1992 Rio summit, the Rio+20 Summit on Environmental Sustainability took place in late June of 2012. Though no real breakthroughs or commitments were forthcoming, the “larger achievement [may have been] making global sustainable development goals a priority on the international agenda” according to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report. The summit produced Rio+20’s outcome document, The Future We Want the greatest contribution of which “… catalyses a global call to make sustainable development priorities central to global thinking and action.” [7]

Whether this is a turn for the better for humanity is entirely dependent on whom we choose to preside over this transformation. Some of the perceived enemies of environmental activism such as large polluting corporations and bureaucratic government departments also play a part as effective double agents on the panoramic stage of social engineering. Presenting and even encouraging the rifts between the two serves to prop up the illusion that the overall conflict is real when it is all part of the programming. That is not to say that is ALL a conscious ruse. Clearly not. But we can hopefully begin to see how these ambitious macro-social projects connect like a vast net across the globe. And a big part of this eco-Intelpro involves the confiscation of land.

The rush to grab land and resources across the world has defined a new form of colonialism in the 21st century. China, America, Britain and other European countries are leading the way in carving up African land under the pretext of offering environmental or humanitarian assistance. [8]But how many of us know about the vast tracts of land which are being bought up by federal government programs in partnership with Establishment families, and hundreds of conservation trusts and environmental groups a bit closer to home?  In the US these “buffer zones” and “rural corridors”; heritage sites and designated conservation areas of “re-wilding” which are falling under the protection of SD and biological diversity legislation sometimes run into anything from 100,000 to 25 million acres where human presence is seen as “interference.” [9]

The re-introduction of species which have died out in specific regions, the management of forests and lakes, reservoirs and various types of land reclamation rides on the powerful and deep-seated wish for people to care for their environment. Difficult as it may be to accept – especially for ecologists and environmentalists who are traditionally some of the most passionate in their beliefs – the US is experiencing a gradual but inexorable large-scale theft of US land by those with money and power in order to turn almost 50 percent of America into protected habitats and reserves for the good of biological diversity. It is a theft because the vast majority of the public has neither access to, nor the necessary information to make an informed decision as to where they stand on the issue. Thanks to the usual lack of proper investigative reporting by the US media and the constant noise and distraction of Republican and Democrat knockabouts, the required public awareness on this agenda is non-existent and thus proceeds with ease, with locals and their councils oblivious to the larger implications, all too often embroiled in the impenetrable bureaucracy that SD has spawned.

The Wildlands Network (formerly the Wildlands Project) is more radical than the vision of SD though it is sitting alongside its ideological platform quite comfortably. The United Nations gave its seal of approval in its “Global Biodiversity Assessment” when it mentioned The Wildlands Project as a possible approach to preserving biological diversity. [10]  It is vast in scope, extending from one end of the continent to the other. Equally impressive is the enormous list of Wildlands Network affiliated organisations and groups, councils and foundations which in turn have sub-categories of affiliates which are thousands in number. And what do you know? The Rockefeller Foundation is there among the donators as is The Turner Foundation, from media mogul and depopulation advocate Ted Turner, the largest sponsor of environmental causes in the country. The Environmental Grantmakers Association makes sure a steady stream of cash keeps this long-term project afloat and on course.

The network was created from the concept of “re-wilding” a term first coined by conservationist and activist Dave Forman, one of the founders of the group Earth First! The term described the creation of “reserve networks” across the United States which would provide vast areas of wildlife habitat, the goal being to maximize biological diversity across the land. Humans, however, do not feature in this grand plan. Having laid the blueprint for the Wildlands Network in the 1980’s with colleagues Howie Wolke, and Bart Koehler, conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss continued to build on the ideas, most notably in an influential paper published in 1998. [11]While Forman’s involvement has faded somewhat, Reed Noss, has become the leading spokesman for the Plan, expanding the possibilities with federal government support.

The philosophy which suffuses the Wildlands Network is Deep Ecology. In the words of Forman, from his popular 1991 book Confessions of an Eco-Warrior: “The only hope of the Earth is to withdraw huge areas as inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology. Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and the plowed lands.” Deep Ecology is essentially a mix of the rich tradition of Pantheistic nature worship with streams of Taoism, Buddhism and American and German eco-revivalism thrown in. It is in fact, a beautiful philosophy. However, in radical hands it becomes something quite different.

Norway’s premier Philosopher Arne Naess and recognised pioneer of the Deep Ecology movement drew up eight basic principles that describe the philosophy:

  • The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
  • Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.
  • Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
  • The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life demands such a decrease.
  • Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  • Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  • The ideological change is mainly in appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
  • Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary change. [Emphasis mine]

Eminently sensible. Except that this same philosophy is also embraced by eco-fascists who define our “obligations”, in slightly more authoritarian ways thereby hoping to change political policies to a situation “deeply different from the present.” We might hazard a guess what they might be prepared to do to get that ideal differential.

Deep Ecology has many positive connections to past traditions which involve co-creating with Nature rather than exploiting it, thus exhibiting a much needed humility. Nonetheless, since it appeals to those harbouring eco-fascistic views and authoritarian designs it is easily absorbed into the Agenda 21 framework.  Despite the central premise of Deep Ecology as philosophical (which often means impractical) and a guide to a deeper awareness of nature and our relationship to it, in the context of Pathocracy it becomes another nail in the coffin of true awareness; the case of the horse bolting before the cart. When Deep Ecology becomes grafted on to the State – much like anything other truth – it cannot become anything else but subverted.  The radicalism of the Wildlands Network in combination with Agenda 21 and Deep ecology advocates has the potential to become something quite different to the romance of us all returning to a more harmonious connection to the Earth. Such radicalism invites it as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine exemplifies: “Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go …”

So, to what does the Wildlands Network comprise? Reed Noss defines it in the following terms: “A wilderness recovery network is an inter-connected system of strictly protected areas (core reserves), surrounded by lands used for human activities compatible with conservation that put biodiversity first (buffer zones), and linked together in some way that provides for functional connectivity of populations across the landscape.” [12]

 agenda21wildlandssustainabilitydiagramThe 4C’s meets the 3E’s 

The characteristics of these core areas include the expansion of parks and “wilderness areas to include adjacent old growth, roadless areas, and ecological areas,” where size means “bigger is better.” (So much for E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful) Existing roads would be closed and “Human access greatly reduced or eliminated altogether.” Noss interjects that: “Many ecologists (myself included) would just as soon see huge areas of land kept off limits to human activities of any kind.” [13] “Buffer zones” allow for some human activity, while “corridors” permit wildlife to travel freely from one core area to another, extend reserve habitats; allow seasonal migration genetic interchange between core reserves; “provide for long distance migration in response to climate change” with the average width of corridor one mile wide where little or no human use is encouraged. All of which seems to confirm the idea of that humans are to be controlled and managed in order to preserve Nature. The Integration and marriage of the natural world of which we are a part seems an unworkable hypothesis, but such segregation would certainly appeal to a super-rich Elite who have made it their long-term purpose to live in these reserve habitats while the rest of us get used to living in Mega-cities.

SD principles and the parallel visions of conservation biology share a special place in collectivist minds. The three pillars of SD which can be found in almost every article or paper related to Agenda 21, ecology and environmental ethics are: “Equity”, “Economy” and “Environment” or “The three E’s of Sustainability.” (See above). Each sector requires a total transformation towards global government. The “transformation of society” under the auspices of the UN and its agencies, the Club of Rome and many other think tanks and non-elected institutions and NGOs is not about a paradigm shift to more freedom and ecological emancipation but to accept a carefully engineered set of beliefs in order to welcome its exact opposite. Equity, Economy and Environment are embedded in the collectivist-corporatist ethos of the 4Cs of: commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control. Equity is about social justice that will put nature before humans and thus create the conditions by which private ownership is diluted and eventually seen as “eco-unfriendly” and against the “greater good”. Integrated into a SMART infrastructure a police state will be relatively “soft” due to the pervasive sanitising of consciousness drawn from socio-eco-engineering principles. In this way, Fabian economics has always been behind much of the new ecological visions currently capturing the minds of the Western young bureaucrats and technocrats. It is the core force behind the 4Cs, the 3Es and the 3EM.

Ecologists, environmental activists, politicians and bureaucrats are so bound up in green visions or the cash incentives for green technology that they cannot seem to entertain the possibility that such huge projects may serve a totalitarian game-plan. As discussed the shadow of right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theory lunacy, rather than a cold-bloodied appraisal of some obvious sign-posts holds sway.  One wonders if the Rockefeller, Oppenheimer, Windsor, and Rothschild dynasties and the protégés of One World, eco-fascists are going to be inhabiting the carefully regulated, SD-designed SMART cities of the future where everything conforms to a bland monotony of ecological and technocratic “efficiency”. I doubt it. The poor of course will remain where they always have – in centralised systems, on the margins of society scratching a living without access to nature (or nurture) while the middle class will be suffocated under more and more eco-SMART technocracy with very little ability to free themselves from  biometric “convenience.” The Elite will be residing in “secure zones” with grand ranches, mansions and resorts set deep in the wilderness away from the human species that does not respect her; like demi-Gods on earth whose stewardship and spiritual status demand their presence as custodians of the New World Religion. The World State writ large. Meantime, the rest of humanity will be corralled into cities known as “safe zones” and far away from “sacred” wild lands. These mega-cities will house what’s left of the human populations, after wars, disease and manufactured crises have done their work…

Dystopian fantasy? Hysterical hyperbole?  Or perhaps we really believe that all of this is really for us, and everyone will be happily paragliding, hiking and rafting the rapids at their leisure from core wilderness centres to the grand corridors of their choosing?

In the next post we will look deeper into the Sustainable Development, UN Agenda 21 and how it is currently affecting cities in America.

 


* In the unlikely event that you still unclear as to what SMART growth actually means, wikipedia provides as good a summary as I can come up with describing it as:

“… an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices. The term ‘smart growth’ is particularly used in North America. In Europe and particularly the UK, the terms ‘Compact City’ or ‘urban intensification’ have often been used to describe similar concepts, which have influenced government planning policies in the UK, the Netherlands and several other European countries.”

As we get to the section on Technocracy you’ll see how snugly all this “exciting” and “liberating” SMART technology fits into Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.


Notes

[1] ‘Sustainable development,’ U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[2] http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
[3] The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[4] ‘Is your private property in jeopardy?’ By Henry Lamb, October 31, 2005 | http://www.sovereigntinternational.com
[5] CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web, Federal Regional Authorities and Commissions: Their Function and Design Updated September 21, 2006, By Eugene Boyd, Analyst, Government and Finance Division. http://www.hsdl.org
[6] op. cit. Staudenmaier.
[7] ‘Examining Rio+20’s Outcome’ Authors: Suan Ee Ong, Senior Research Analyst, Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University Rômulo S. R. Sampaio, Professor of Environmental Law, Getulio Vargas Foundation Andrei Marcu, Senior Advisor and Head of Carbon Market Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies Agathe Maupin and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Research Fellow and National Director, South African Institute of International Affairs. http://www.cfr.org/ July 5, 2012.
[8] The Land Grabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns The Earth by Fred Pearce. Published by Eden Project Books. 2012.
[9] The Wildlands Project: Summary: http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org
[10] Section 13.4.2.2.3, page 993, ‘Global Biodiversity Assessment’ Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[11] Michael Soulé and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” Wild Earth 8 (Fall 1998) 19-28.
[12] “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy, ”by Ross F. Need, Wild Earth Journal, .January 1992.
[13] Maintaining Ecological Integrity in Representative Reserve Networks by R. Noss, World Wildlife Fund Canada Discussion Paper, 1995. p.12.

Dark Green VIII: Waldheim’s UN, Lebensräum and Sustainable Development

The-United-NationsBy M.K. Styllinski

“Governments must take action to support institutions and mechanisms that will improve coherence, as well as bring about integrated policy and action across the social, economic and environmental pillars.

Current understanding supports the creation of a Sustainable Development Council within the UN system to integrate social, economic and environmental policy at the global level.

There is also strong support for strengthening global governance by including civil society, business and industry in decision-making at all levels.”

State of the Planet Declaration


Strains of eco-fascism have been worming their way through the insides of the United Nations and genuine initiatives since it first arrived on the scene, care of Rockefeller funding. The Malthusian influence didn’t fully get underway until 1967 with the Trust Fund for Population Activities, a result of the 2nd World Population Conference in Belgrade, two years earlier. After this, a steady outflow of population bomb hysteria linked with environmentalism, education, international aid and health began to emerge. Ever looking for a way to push through its “scientific technique” of humanism, UNESCO held their conference on the Scientific Basis for the Rational Use and Conservation of the Resources of the Biosphere in 1968, complementing the publication of Paul Erhlich’s book The Population Bomb in the same year. The World Population Conference in Bucharest followed in 1974. [1]

Pertinent to our exploration of Elite-induced eco-fascism, Austrian-Czech Kurt Waldheim seems to have played an important part in its genesis when he became General Secretary of the United Nations from 1972 – 1981. When we look at his background it is not hard to understand why.

After the German annexation of Austria in 1938 Waldheim was attending the Boltzmangasse Consular Academy and the University of Vienna’s Law Faculty which had built a tradition of Nazi recruitment and indoctrination. [2]In the same year, 20-year old Waldheim became a member in the National Socialist German Students’ League (NSDStB), a division of the Nazi Party. Not long after, he applied to become a member of the mounted corps of the SA but it is not clear if he actually became a member. [3]In early 1941, he then served as a squad leader in the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front and soon discharged from further service after being wounded, spending the rest of the war studying for a law degree at the University of Vienna. He also married Elizabeth Ritschel in 1944 who was uncompromising in her belief in Nazism. [4]

It seems Waldheim did rather well as an intelligence officer of the Wehrmacht obtaining the rank of Oberleutnant. According to The International Commission of Historians Waldheim’s functions in the German Army Group E from 1942 – 1945 were as: “… an Interpreter and liaison officer with the 5th Alpine Division (Italy) in April/May 1942, O2 officer (communications) with Kampfgruppe West in Bosnia in June/August 1942, Interpreter with the liaison staff attached to the Italian 9th Army in Tirana in early summer 1942, O1 officer in the German liaison staff with the Italian 11th Army and in the staff of the Army Group South in Greece in July/October 1943 and O3 officer on the staff of Army Group E in Arksali, Kosovska Mitrovica and Sarajevo from October 1943 to January/February 1945.” [5]

Kurt Waldheim

Kurt Waldheim

By 1943 he was in Yugoslavia and embroiled in the massacres carried out by the German and Croatian military. Waldheim claimed no direct knowledge of these atrocities but had heard such things took place. He stated he had been “horrified” but believed he was powerless to prevent such things from happening, which was probably true. [6]However, as author William Walter Kay mentions, this was standard protocol in German Army units in which Waldheim served. He tells us: “In 1942 the multi-national Axis army enacted a system of reprisals for acts of resistance including punitive executions of suspects. SS units randomly lynched Serbs from Belgrade street-posts to meet quota. Worse atrocities were committed by the Axis puppet state of Croatia – a front for the genocidal Ustasha movement …”

Walter Kay also notes: On March 19, 1942, after a spike in resistance, the German 12th Army decreed: ‘The most minor case of rebellion, resistance or concealment of arms must be treated immediately by the strongest deterrent methods… It is better to liquidate 50 suspects than have one soldier killed’ ” These standards were mild. In Bosnia, where Waldheim was, ratios were: ‘100 Serbs to be executed for every German killed, 50 Serbs for every German wounded.’ ” [7]

What came under the spotlight more than any other period of Waldheim’s history is his role in Operation Kozara in 1942. Also known as Operation West-Bosnian by the Axis, fierce fighting took place around the mountain of Kozara in North-Western Bosnia involving Yugoslav Partisan resistance against the Germans, Croatians and Chetniks. Over 25,000 Serbs were sent to concentration camps and many civilian atrocities carried out by the invading forces [8]

One of the biggest and most notorious camps was Jasenovac based in Ustaše (Croatia).

In 1942, when victory over the Bosnian Resistance had been declared, Waldheim was cited for valour before joining General von Stahl’s 72,000-troop Battle Group in West Bosnia in order to rout the partisans once and for all. The General went to work in no uncertain fashion, ringing the surrounding area with barbed wire before advancing. The aftermath saw: “4,735 insurgents/suspects were executed and 70,000 civilians were shipped to camps. Rape and robbery were rampant.” Indeed, Waldheim’s role as an intelligence officer was to keep casualty statistics and to organise transportation for detainees. His name appears on a fine paper commemorative ‘list of honour’ a Wehrmacht document for distinguished service in Kozara. The Croatians awarded him a silver Crown of King Zvonimir medal “for courage in the battle against the rebels in West Bosnia.” [9]

Not exactly standing on the side-lines.

Yet, once again, Waldheim claimed ignorance even though he was in the thick of atrocities and as an intelligence officer it was his job to collate statistics and be acutely aware of the numbers game relating to all aspects of operations. One such operation took place in the Greek city port of Salonika on July 11, 1942 where: “… several thousand Jewish men were corralled into the city square and forced to perform difficult yoga positions under the hot sun while German soldiers hooted, clapped and took photographs. Elderly Jews died on the spot. The photos circulated widely in the Axis press including in a Croatian newspaper popular where Waldheim was then stationed.” [10]

If not directly involved, Waldheim was part of the enabling intelligence apparatus which had detailed knowledge of atrocities. As Walter Kay highlights: “Deporting Jews was a labour intensive operation, much discussed by the soldiers, and unavoidable to an intelligence officer like Waldheim who later pled ignorance.” [11]

Without such enthusiastic support for Croatian fascism Waldheim’s name would scarcely have appeared on the Wehrmacht’s “honor list” of those responsible. In the same year and probably as a reward for a job well done, Kurt Waldheim was allowed time off to complete his PhD thesis ‘The Concept of Reich according to Konstantin Frantz.’” In it he argued that “… the Germanic Reich was the new ‘body of Christ’ inspired by the theory of Prussian statesman Konstantin Frantz (1817-1891) who was part of the Lebensräum ethic of a Greater Germany extending to across Western and central Europe. Poland, Belgium, Switzerland, the Balkans, and the Netherlands were all to be absorbed into the Reich according to Waldheim’s thesis.[12]

Part of the problem with Waldheim’s denial of his own history is the access he had to military information, special briefings, reconnaissance reports, logistics and statistics. As an intelligence officer he was at the sharp end of covert operations. This was best represented by his position as an “O3” officer which: “… were the army’s best informed men.” Walter Kay’s research reveals that Yugoslavian authorities accused Waldheim of involvement in the destruction of villages and massacring civilians, stating: “Orders were planned in detail with the cooperation of the [intelligence] unit at the army corps headquarters, and in particular with the collaboration of Lieutenant Waldheim.” They relied on numerous direct witnesses including three officers from General Loehr’s staff who confirmed Waldheim’s job was “to offer suggestions for reprisals, the fate of prisoners of war and imprisoned civilians.” [13]

After the war in 1947 Waldheim’s record was formally presented to UN War Crimes Commission by the Yugoslav delegation. 75 percent of Yugoslav prosecution requests were rejected by the British-chaired UN Commission. Yet the following year prosecution was recommended in part from British and US veterans’ eyewitness reports and persistent allegations of “putting hostages to death and murder.” [14]And here’s where Waldheim managed to get away with the biggest conjuring trick of his life, which would eventually result in the helmsman ship of the United Nations.

After the summer of 1945 where he had spent most of it in a POW camp he cut a deal with Anglo-American Intel and offered all he knew. In return, Waldheim gained safe passage back to Austria and a new life knowing that various intelligence agents had powerful bargaining chips over his destiny. With the War Crimes Commission concluded by the end of the 1940s with over 36,000 accused Nazi criminals dismissed without trial communism took over as the new bogeyman and Nazis disappeared into the system. His fate was very much in their hands. Like the Nazis of Operation Paperclip and those that fled to Brazil and Argentina it was life that could be both lucrative and powerful provided you would play ball. Waldheim was no different to many who had their war experiences washed cleaned in return for determining policy for vested interests. The next step was to get Waldheim into a position where he could be useful.

After Austria joined the UN in 1955, it was Waldheim who led Austria’s UN delegation until in 1965, whereupon he took up the post of Austrian diplomat in Czechoslovakia. With a failed bid for the Austrian Presidency with an ultra-right wing People’s Party in 1971, he was ushered into pole-position as an authentic candidate for UN Secretary-General.

Quite apart from the fact that Waldheim had a negative reputation within the UN itself (in one individual’s opinion: “a scheming, ambitious, duplicitous egomaniac ready to do anything for advantage or public acclaim.”) he presided over the greening of the institution in ways that established a cast iron, bureaucratic platform for the global warming industry and subsequent green washing in general. [15]In effect, Waldheim used the UN to usher in his global Lebensräum, a practical expression of Nazi land ethic and race theory. EU states supplied 40 percent of the UN’s budget and 50 percent for funding and programmes with most UN head offices located in Europe and two-thirds of environment offices and staff situated in Europe, prominence and complete bias of European Elite dominated the UN during his tenure. American and Russian influence was eroded by allowing mini-states to enter the consensus building process and creating complex and protracted meetings within the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

Meanwhile, Waldheim allowed a particular brand of European environmentalism to take precedence within the UN. Euro-Environmentalism and the UN are now one and the same with the UN’s Economic Commission of Europe (ECE) – which works closely with European Environment Agency (EEA) headquarters in Copenhagen – forging major treaties and subsidiaries for their implementation sourced from a £30 million annual budget. It is linked to the UN Millennium goals project by overseeing better coordination and continuing to usurp its otherwise economic mandate by making sure the “rational use of natural resources and sustainable development” continues apace. [16]

UN Agenda 21 and sustainable Development being the pinnacle of elite objectives. More on this in future posts.

In 1971, Maurice Strong had commissioned a report on the state of the planet, entitled “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet” co-authored by Barbara Ward and Rene Dubos. 152 experts had given their analyses as to the “State of the Earth”, the first report of its kind. This was to act as a foundation report for the first major UN meeting on the environment in Stockholm the following year.

When Waldheim chaired the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972 it was attended by 113 states, setting for a global environmental textbook for a new industry of activism, operations, institutions and organisations. Twenty-six principles were listed which member states needed to focus their attention, with education, overpopulation, awareness of biodiversity and conversation as the key proponents of a green campaign. Science and society did not feature. The framework for change was predicated on maintaining a capitalist system but placing the ecological principles in the consciousness so that they may be later expanded. In other words, exploitation of resources was fine as long as reserves were not depleted or the environment polluted.

UNESCO’s roots in depopulation, eugenics and humanism was dipped in Waldheim-Green and found to fit remarkably well. Mass education on the perils of global warming and ecological disaster was implemented. The world was running out of oil and radical change was needed in societies. Climate change became an eco-cause.

1971-72 saw a veritable explosion of environmental awareness. Limits to Growth was published, and Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) headed by Maurice Strong all arrived just a few months apart. The UNEP covers a complex range of issues including: the atmosphere, marine and terrestrial ecosystems, environmental governance and green economy. Developing international environmental conventions, promoting environmental science, information and policy integration with national governments, regional institutions and in conjunction with environmental NGOs occupies the headquarters, six regional offices and various country offices around the world. Based in Nairobi, Kenya, with offices worldwide, UNEP’s task was to: “organize regulation of industrial agricultural products, gather data on the detriments of mining, and formulate a global energy balance sheet. UNEP’s inaugural budget financed 100 air pollution measuring stations and 10 stations to record environmental change.” [17]We will be coming back to the UNEP presently. For now, we must jump forward fifteen years.

dreamstime_l_33071801© Cienpiesnf | Dreamstime.com – Go Green Transparent Colorful City

Happy colours! Volunteering and a bright fresh, SMART future for all! I wish that was the reality. This isn’t about tearing down optimistic, and sincere concern for our environment. It’s about calling out elite pathology masquerading as constructive discourse and positive action – and it goes deep indeed. Stay with me here as it’s going to be a long haul.

The term “sustainable development” emerged from the 1987 report of the UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (otherwise known as the Brundtland Commission) chaired by CoR member Javier Perez de Cuellar, of which Maurice Strong was also a member. (Surprise!) The report was entitled: “Our Common Future” and placed sustainability and the focus on environmental resource management at the forefront of UN projects.

The report stated that the governments of the world have a responsibility to “… maintain eco-systems and ecological processes for the functioning of the biosphere, shall preserve biological diversity, and shall observe the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of living natural resources and eco-systems.” [18] Sounds logical and responsible, as all these initiatives do until you read the small print and place it in context. The report defined sustainable development (SD) to mean: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This means that: “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means.” Which is an admirable desire though contradicted when: “Sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.” Hence, the targeting of the third world and very little targeting of those who create and keep the systems in place that defines such a world.  [19]

Due to the vague definition of what constitutes SD, there is still no consensus as to what fulfills the criteria for sustainable practice. Consequently, it has been used to denote and define a wide variety of different beliefs and eco-ideologies from eco-psychology to green capitalism and even domains which have nothing to do with environmental concerns but may feature in the grand scheme of what is perceived as “sustainable.” After all, the architecture of global economics and the dynamics of geo-political strategies connected to securing the world resources can in no way be said to be sustainable. They are based on a “grab and run” mentality. But they both derive their impetus from the environmental fruits of water, energy and food. The sustainable development issue can be used to justify a form of security on the part of the Establishment in order to secure future generations (i.e. their families) with sustainable supplies, despite those resources being finite. That is not to say that SD should not be a vital part of humanity’s endeavours at the local and global level. However, “sustainable” is not synonymous with “green” but it can be a darn good pitch for neo-imperialism.

The recycling and alternative-energy industries employ millions while The World Bank and the UNEP use SD to select which projects to finance. So, if the company walks the green talk and donates to saving a patch of rainforest in the South, he receives the World Bank stamp of approval whilst the company continues to “slash and burn” the Northern section of the forest. Know that your massive mining project will be viewed with disdain by the Structural Adjustment Team? Create a tree foundation and pay the fine. Business will continue as usual, provided you have a good PR dept. Thus a new “Green Capitalism” emerged at the end of the Wall St. eighties which promoted “pollution control pays” as a slogan and where big multi-nationals realised: “environmental management is a powerful corporate tool for improving efficiency” and improving public image even if there was no real change in corporate objectives, commonly known as “green washing”. Which meant the greater the benefits the more willing corporations would be to pay a fine and everyone would be happy. This hasn’t stopped some of the biggest environmental organisations from happily snuggling up to the corporate sponsors.

Mike Wright editor of Green Futures magazine recently commented: “… when it comes to working with business in general, one thing is certain. If our society is to make the decisive shift towards a sustainable future which is so urgently needed, then we need business – including the world’s major corporations – to play a key role in making that happen.” [20] Unfortunately, the nature of the corporation and the financial architecture from which they are birthed simply cannot entertain such a “key role” no matter how hard its employees, environmentalists and the public may want it to happen. Unless that is such dynamics can be turned on its head so that new industries can be borne, tied into the exact same market wheel. If psychopaths cannot be cured and nor can business models cast in their image.

While corporations were “greening” so too was their counterparts in crime.

The World Bank, IMF and UN were tinged with green as part of the international environmental movement’s on going penetration of ecological reform set in motion by the UN’s own Kurt Waldheim. The irony is that advocates of sustainability and self-sufficiency for the developed and underdeveloped world alike see no problem working away within the Structural Adjustment Team who despite every green initiative and conference declaration remain a part of the very economic architecture they wish to dismantle. While the Establishment and the wealthy stay the same, the working class and poor bear the brunt of new ecological systems designed to bring the world closer to a sustainable vision.

One example of the SD complexity inherent in non-linear eco-systems is the latest excitement that is producing ethanol from corn to make fuel. This product was once heralded as a saviour of environmentally sound agriculture in much the same cynical way as GMO foods were for feeding the world’s poor. Although corn is a renewable resource and replacing petrol with corn ethanol seems like a reason to be hopeful. But the cultivation, harvesting and conversion of corn is extremely energy intensive. Even if you succeed in making ethanol more sustainable than petrol you will leave a trail of environmental and social carnage behind you. When you divert corn to make ethanol it translates as less corn to feed your cattle, less corn to feed people which means the cost of corn goes up. That means more land is needed to turn into farmland and depending on the country and / or region that can mean more pressure on fallow or rainforest land which is razed to the ground once more. Open to alternatives sources of fuel and energy still inside the insatiable market maw cannot work unless the root perceptions and thus the economic frameworks upon which they are based has also changed. There lies the real “World Problematique.”

Sustainable Development is a buzzword with the best of intentions behind it. But it remains to be seen how much authentic sustainability can truly take hold in the present. The depletion of natural resources is a reality as is the scope for implementing solutions from permaculture to woodland management. The dark side sees SD fall into the hands of the World State advocates and their technocrats who see it as an opportunity not just to protect Nature over man, but as another avenue from which humanity can find themselves (literally) trapped.

In the next post we will briefly look at the UN’s Rio Earth Summit where many of these ideas were firmly planted in our consciousness care of Maurice Strong. We will then return to  Sustainable Development and how it seamlessly interlocks with another domain currently being contoured away from true creativity and emancipation: SMART growth.

 


Notes

[1] p. 637; Encyclopedia of the United Nations and International Agreements By Edmund Osmancyzk, Routledge, New York, 2003 | ISBN 0415939208.
[2] ‘Austrian university confronts Nazi past’ by Wolfgang Freidl, The Lancet, Volume 356, Issue 9246, Page 1994, 9 December 2000.
[3] Report of the International Historical Commission of 8 February 1988, section on “Membership in National Socialist Organizations”, as cited for example in http://www.nationalsozialismus.at/Themen/Umgang/waldheim.htm
[4] Quoted in William Walter Kay’s article: ‘Waldheim’s Monster: United Nations’ Ecofascist Programme’ 2009. This was in turn sourced from; Waldheim; Bernhard; Rosenzweig Luc, Adama Books, New York, 1987 (p. 18)
[5] The Waldheim Report. Submitted 8 February 1988 to Federal Chancellor Dr. Franz Vranitzky (p.39).
[6] ‘Kurt Waldheim: Austrian head of the UN who as president of his country was later tainted by charges of complicity in Nazi atrocities’. The Times 15 June 2007.
[7] Ibid. (Walter Kay quoting: Herzstein, Robert; Waldheim, The Missing Years; Arbor House/William Morrow; New York; 1988 (p.60 and p. 67).
[8] Bosworth, R.J.B. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Fascism. Oxford University Press. p. 431. ISBN 978-0-19-929131-1.
[9] op. cit. Walter Kay.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid. (Walter Kay quoting Cohen p.85-87)
[14] Ibid. (Walter Kay quoting Cohen p 79 – 80)
[15] Ibid. (Walter Kay quoting Hazzard, Shirley; Countenance of Truth: The United Nations and the Waldheim Case; Viking Penguin; New York; 1990( p. 91)
[16] op. cit Walter Kay
[17] Ibid.
[18] Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment. (1987) http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm
[19] http://www.earthcharter.org 2009.
[20] ‘Sponsorship: green wave or greenwash?’ by Martin Wright, Green Futures, 19th July, 2012.

Dark Green VII: The Club of Rome and “World Problematique” (2)

By M.K. Styllinski

Every man is a moon and has a dark side which is turned towards nobody- you have to slip around behind if you want to see it.”

Mark Twain


Eco-fascism and World State advocates incorporate a host of well-intentioned people. Such movements work, precisely because the genuine emotions behind the propaganda have been tapped. It does not mean every person involved is somehow part of a nefarious conspiracy – it’s cleverer than that. Knowledge of mass psychology ensures compliance; self-censorship and our adherence to comfortable belief and authority usually proves enough. It is also true that many of those doing their part under the Club of Rome and other organisations we have discussed may be subconsciously aware of these authoritarian principles and have the make up of an authoritarian follower. This doesn’t necessarily make them pathological but it does make them ignorant of the wider spheres of manipulation, thus easily swayed, whether academic or layman, politician or scientist. After all, we tend to jump on the band-wagon of belief that most readily conforms to our childhood programming and personality desires.

The Club of Rome is an outfit designed to appeal to the green arm of those romantic visions of one world unity and eco-authoritarian sensibilities. If World State principles are to have a chance they need to adapt quickly and conform to the Rockefeller ideal of a corporatist-collectivist hybridisation which can foster the needed economics, just as they did after World War II. The directive for institution building was “peace,” here, it is “environmental catastrophe” – regardless of the validity. The psychopath’s mind piggy-backs macro-social imperatives in order to extract the best possible outcome for its minority species. In this case, the survival and dominance of their genetic code, not that of normal people.

The CoR authors state:

“The period of absence of thought and a lack of common vision – not of the world of tomorrow will be, but of what we want it to be, so we can shape it – is a source of discouragement, even despair. […] It seem would that many men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together. In the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist – or have yet to be found.” [Emphasis mine]

This harks back to the stanza of “Remoulding it to the heart’s desire” and the allusions to commonality, consensus, communitarianism etc. (Remember Common Core and Common Purpose?) Nothing wrong with any of those things but just who is doing the “shaping” here on behalf of humanity? The same movers and shakers are still in control. It’s the difference between self-organised communities independent of State controls or inverted totalitarianism hijacking truth and so far, every indication seems to be it is the latter.

It seems the Club of Rome and its various offshoots have arrived at the idea that we need a “common motivation” being so disempowered and bereft of ideas of our own. Further, we need an “adversary” in order to act together and get organised just like we need an adversary in the shape of a terrorist threat or the nonsense of Vladimir Putin as a Hitlerian instigator of a new cold war. It’s exactly the same dynamic used to hoodwink the mass mind. The CoR is using in plain sight, the same technique to elicit a Pavlovian response from the populace to create the groundswell to “save the planet” and prevent an ecological catastrophe. In the “vacuums” created by power structures and with psychopaths at specific nodes of influence almost anything can be inserted into the mass mind with enough appeal to instinct (fear) and emotion (altruistic desire) to create a potent force upon which the Elite can ride to fruition. We find the same “scientific technique” so favoured by governments everywhere:

“The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose.”

No arguments there. Rather than moving away from such a manipulation they decide to employ the exact same tactics simply because it is “green” and the future of the planet is at stake. And here we come to the whole point underlying much of the global warming hysteria of the last twenty years:

Can we live without enemies? Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined and new weapons devised. The new enemies are different in their nature and location but they are no less real. They threaten the whole human race and they are and their names are pollution, water shortage, famine, malnutrition, illiteracy and unemployment.  [Emphasis mine]

Finally, the dénouement arrives:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” [1]

Transmute our need for bogeyman and graft them onto a sensible, ecological salvation. Notice how State and society are one in the authors’ minds. To combat the perceived threat to the human race deception is necessary for the good of the whole – i.e. The Elite. Similarly, true to eco-fascist principles, the Establishment are not the enemies but “humanity itself” who has been raised and inculcated along the very same lines of perception management that the CoR is proposing here.

Indeed, taking his cue from the propaganda was the late CoR member Prof. Stephen Schneider of Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change who claimed: “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination … So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” [2] However, in order to achieve this aim notions of democracy and freedom must be turned on their head for the greater good.

In the 1991 edition, (though carefully re-worked in the 1993 edition) we find:

But freedom alone cannot reorganise a state, write a constitution, create a market and establish economic growth, rebuild industry and agriculture and or build a new social structure. It is a necessary and noble, inspirational force but it is far from being an operating manual for a new government. This is why the concept of human rights simply initiates but cannot implement the process of democratization […] The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation. The slowness of decision-making in a democratic system is particularly damaging at the international level. […]

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” [3]

They are right: “Democracy is not a Panacea.” Yet, these proffered “Global Revolutions” – as every managed and co-opted revolution in the past – are not offering progressive change that lies with the people but the exact same notions of change residing in global governance and a New Renaissance of World State dreams percolating in the minds of leaders. They are advocating tighter centralisation grafted onto and through the ideological medium of regionalism and Communitarianism. As the “wise man” of new age environmentalism Maurice Strong mentioned in a recent essay for the World Policy Journal: “… our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.” [4]

Once again, you see that it is governments, the state where the answer lies rather than the people. When you place this in context you see a pattern and you slowly realise that this is ditching democracy in order to replace it with a re-packaging of the 4C’s with the exact same management team presiding over a new Social Contract using ecological catastrophe as the “enemy”. This is a ruse to seemingly “unite us” but it is a unity that serves the few. The same is happening with economics (manipulated collapse) and society as a whole (SMART growth/sustainable development).

In similar fashion, the UN as a policing body which is, in principle at least, concerned with the enforcement of world disarmament as an achievable goal. Now, think about this from a minority psychopath’s point of view. What would the psychopath do if he wanted to ride normal humanity’s back without the possibility of being discovered? Further, when he was revealed, you could no longer cause him harm? He would feed humanity an array of enticing “foods”  and cultivate distractions that would make make it progressively docile and asleep to psycho-spiritual danger; a mass condition of Stockholm Syndrome would arrive, effectively disabling humanity’s ability to SEE evil in its midst. While it slept the psychopath caused us to to gorge on empty mental, emotional and physical “nourishment” while eventually removing our teeth under cover of night. When and if we finally awoke our will and ability to defend ourselves from psychic infection would be gone.

Whilst violence is not the answer, disarming the population is a standard, historical tactic of the Establishment and ensures compliance to a World Order with the minimum of resistance, both in terms of the mind and regarding the possibility of civil unrest. A future armed resistance from those who would rather have the choice as to whether they are embedded in a pathocratic “SMART society” is an understandable reaction. Yet, even here the fostering of “revolution” in the minds of the masses is also a part of social engineering and a veritable smoke and mirrors of conflicting desires, since every revolution is designed to break down Official culture so that the Establishment can introduce their own “solutions.”

If you think the CoR is doing its level best to defer to those with conscience and use language that would buffer the true meaning – then you would be correct. The real intention is stated far more bluntly by Fred G. Thompson in his article for the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome:

[W]e have temporarily acquired the means to defy Nature, it is only for a short time. If we do not design policies to halt, and then reverse population growth, Nature by default will soon exact a most punishing solution. […] The reduction of human population by default means in plain language the reduction of human numbers by war, disease and famine. […]

Over-consumption is, of course, the basic cause of polluting the atmosphere and global warming. So it must be dealt with.

One possible scenario would be the imposition of birth control by a world government which possesses the capacity to enforce it globally. Not a pretty scene, but an alternative to global war, disease and starvation. [5]
[Emphasis mine]

And yet, global war, disease and starvation are exactly the methods and effects which have been used by the Elite for centuries. Talk about a contradiction! Despite the insistence that: “ ‘Global ‘governance’ in our vocabulary does not imply a global ‘government’ but rather the institutions set up for cooperation, coordination, and common action between durable sovereign states” it is one of many disingenuous statements which amount to semantics.  How likely is such a global scenario to play out when those same players that coordinated past disasters are still residing at the top of these institutions which are attempting to become supra-global and when democracy is deemed inefficient and out-dated?

How likely is any notion of success to be realised when deception, bad science and blatant determinism is used as the arbiters of a perceived truth?

Democracy has indeed succumbed to the very same forces proposing global consciousness along eco-fascist principles. Democratic decision-making is seen as “damaging at the international level” because of its slow pace. It can also be argued that it can act as a safeguard to precipitous decisions and runaway policies based on reaction and reflex instead of careful thought and transparent arbitration.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sister organisations, the Club of Budapest which focuses on social and cultural issues and the Club of Madrid which has a more political emphasis. Both follow the same themes of sustainability and developing new socio-political and ecological frameworks which leave capitalism and democracy behind. The CoR has also established a network of over 35 National Associations. Although, as of writing, the “Ex Officio membership” at the CoR website is conveniently blank which would have otherwise given a snapshot of the kind of belief from which the CoR has traditionally drawn. A brief summary of current and past members from CoR and its sister organisations include:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner and Emmy winner. Gore led the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference and chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997. Stating in Grist Magazine in 2006: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are…” He is most well-known for being opposition candidate to the Bush-Cheney Reich in 2004 and for producing the scientifically compromised but multi-award-winning global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

Javier Solana – is a Spanish physicist and Socialist politician. Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy. He is a frequent speaker at the prestigious U.S. based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was also Secretary-General of NATO from 1995-1999 and gave the Clinton led go ahead for the bombing campaign of the former Yugoslavia as well as giving full support for the invasion of Iraq under the illusion of full European support: “Today’s message to Baghdad is very clear: the UN Security Council resolution expresses the unity and determination of the entire international community to assume its collective responsibility.” [6]

Mikhail Gorbachev – The big Daddy of New World Order change; a CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Maurice Strong) of the Earth Charter. Gorby has come out with some memorable statements: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.”

Most recently the Russian elder statesman had this to say at Lafayette College commenting on the Occupy Wall St. Movement:

“Others, including myself, have spoken about a new world order, but we are still facing the problem of building such a world order…problems of the environment, of backwardness and poverty, food shortages…all because we do not have a system of global governance. We cannot leave things as they were before, when we are seeing that these protests are moving to even new countries, that almost all countries are now witnessing such protests, that the people want change. As we are addressing these challenges, these problems raised by these protest movements, we will gradually find our way towards a new world order.” [7]

Diego Hidalgo SchnurCutting his teeth at the World Bank from 1968 to 1977, he is the founder and president of FRIDE, (Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior), of the Club of Madrid. He is the Chairman of the Board for DARA (international organization) and Concordia 21. He is also a founding member and senior fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation of North America (GFNA).

Ervin Laszlo – Concert pianist, scientist and philosopher. Founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN’s Global Roll of Honour.

Sir Crispin Ticknell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner. Ticknell is a keen believer in Gaia theory stating that: “Gaia has no particular tenderness for humans. We are no more than a small, albeit immodest, part of her.” [8]

Maurice Strong – Described by the New York Times as the “Custodian of the Planet” Strong has been Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council. He is also a devout follower of the Baha’i religion and propagator of Gaian theology.

And Here’s what Mr. Strong said in his autobiography, in a section described as a report to the shareholders, Earth Inc, dated 2031: “And experts have predicted that the reduction of the human population may well continue to the point that those who survive may not number more than the 1.61 billion people who inhabited the Earth at the beginning of the 20th century. A consequence, yes, of death and destruction — but in the end a glimmer of hope for the future of our species and its potential for regeneration.” [9]A “glimmer of hope” after death and destruction over which he is not only happy to preside,  but to encourage. This is key to understanding the impetus behind global warming and other forms of eco-Intelpro: it is eco-fascism of the highest order. Yet commenting on Strong’s legacy of environmentalism Kofi Anaan thought: “It would be a mistake to think of Maurice solely as one of the world’s leading environmentalists. His main cause has been people.” [10]It’s a “cause” all right, just one that ignores the true roots of the global crises while promoting Nature over humans.Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace. No surprise that we found the late Mr. Muller working his magic here and who observed:

“In my view, from all perspectives — scientific, political, social, economic and ideological — humanity finds itself in the pregnancy of an entirely new and promising age: the global, interdependent, universal age … the birth of the global brain, heart, senses and soul to humanity, of a holistic consciousness of our place in the universe and on this planet, and of our role and destiny in them.”

Which may well be, but such gushing statements are quite useful for those wish to build a global consciousness based on the opposite. Muller’s World Core Curriculum was based directly on the Alice Bailey teachings. His role seems to have been to plant the seeds of a New World Religion in the faithful: “We must, together, create an agency within the U.N. and perhaps an independent United Religions Secretariat. What an incredible challenge that would offer to the United Nations, and what untold good it would bring to humanity, which desperately needs a moral and spiritual Renaissance.” [11]

Which of course means supporting the CoR and all it stands for.

Other Club of Rome members include Kofi Anaan, Lionel Jospin, George Soros, Hassan bin Talal, Tony Blair, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Jose Maria Anzar, Bill Gates, The Dalai Lama, Garret Hardin, King Juan Carlos of Spain and his wife Queen Sophia, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philippe of Belgium and many more. And of course, as ever, David Rockefeller, whom we know a little about …

Project partners and funding for the organisations comes from a variety of foundations and government bodies which by their mere presence is enough to conclude that such organizations cannot be trusted: Cisco Systems; International Economic Club of China; Turkish Future Researches Foundation (TUGAV) United Nations Foundation (UNF) Rockefeller Brothers Fund; Eurasian Economic Club of Scientists; Bertelsman Stiftung; Hunt Alternatives Fund; The Cousin’s Charitable Foundation; Institute for Security Studies (South Africa) Institute on Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) Brookings Institution; Centre for Concern Rethinking Bretton Woods Project. With annual conference sponsorship from the Rockefeller Foundation; Google; Samsung; Microsoft; McKinsey & Co and GDF Suez.

The Rockefeller funding is present in all three CoR organisations.

rio-earth-tio1Rio Earth Summit 1992

Blame it on Rio

The drive to protect the Earth and Nature under attack is obviously an admirable one. The destruction of the Rainforests is something that actually gives me a literal pain in my heart when I see it. But how is all this mass emotional energy actually being used? The last thing the pathocratic Establishment want is an informed and thinking public who are able to discern signposts to eco-social engineering. It seems we still have a long way to go when it comes to green issues and notions of just who is “healing the Earth”.

When the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit arrived in 1992 it was chaired under  the ubiquitous Maurice Strong. The Convention on Biological Diversity; The Framework Convention on Climate Change; and the UN Agenda 21 were all birthed there on a wave of green emotion and a sincere desire to take action. Psychological seeding was the intent rather than rapid change. Since then, in concert with SMART society initiatives and redevelopment cartels these policies have redrawn the framework of local and national government policy. Regardless of whether they understood the nature of the green mask, change agents were needed. What counted was their iconic presence.

In 1994, Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev, formally introduced the Earth Charter as a civil society initiative as part of the declaration of Rio. The independent Earth Charter Commission, “… was convened by Strong and Gorbachev with the purpose of developing a global consensus on values and principles for a sustainable future. The Commission continues to serve as the steward of the Earth Charter text.” [12]Now, one of the principle creators of the Earth Charter was… (drum-roll) … Steven Clark Rockefeller! He was chairman of the Earth Charter international drafting committee and member of the Earth Charter Commission and Steering Committee. He also happens to be an advisory trustee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund while still finding time to act as professor emeritus of Religion at Middlebury College. The ideal person to create such a UN-driven declaration that: “we are one human family and one Earth community with a common destiny,” and that a “change of mind and heart” is needed for this global undertaking. Like Alice Bailey’s “New Group of World Servers,” – who and what exactly, are we ultimately following?

Towards the end of the Earth charter we are provided with more “choices” dressed up as no choices at all:

As never before in history, common destiny beckons us to seek a new beginning. Such renewal is the promise of these Earth Charter principles. To fulfill this promise, we must commit ourselves to adopt and promote the values and objectives of the Charter. This requires a change of mind and heart. It requires a new sense of global interdependence and universal responsibility. We must imaginatively develop and apply the vision of a sustainable way of life locally, nationally, regionally, and globally. Our cultural diversity is a precious heritage and different cultures will find their own distinctive ways to realize the vision. We must deepen and expand the global dialogue that generated the Earth Charter, for we have much to learn from the ongoing collaborative search for truth and wisdom.”

“In order to build a sustainable global community, the nations of the world must renew their commitment to the United Nations, fulfil their obligations under existing international agreements, and support the implementation of Earth Charter principles with an international legally binding instrument on environment and development. Let ours be a time remembered for the awakening of a new reverence for life, the firm resolve to achieve sustainability, the quickening of the struggle for justice and peace, and the joyful celebration of life.” [13] [Emphasis mine]

When we come to talk about the UN Agenda 21 and its push for SMART growth redevelopment within urban centres and suburbia, you will see why the above is dangerous manipulation – a green mask, if you will.

By 2000, the Earth Charter text had been taken to activists, NGOs and governments hearts appealing to both romantic and ideological aspirations, with huge glut of conferences, seminars, neighbourhood meetings all attended by suitably paid “facilitators” and lobbyists. Sustainable development in the 1990s was only the first stage. Once SMART growth and society were not merely buzzwords but the technology was there to support it, SD and SMART fused into one. The Earth dialogues followed in 2002, launched by Strong and Gorby as an outgrowth of Green Cross International. These series of annual public forums sought to: “… bring together civil society and the private and public sectors in the search for solutions to resolve the most pressing and interconnected challenges of insecurity, poverty and environmental degradation.” [14]

Sounds inspiring doesn’t it? It’s a shame this is another lie. It seems the young have been sucked into yet another Strong/Gorby production: the Earth Charter Initiative where children are sought as “change agents” for the new “Global ethic.” According to the website description:

“The Earth Charter Initiative is the collective name for an extraordinarily diverse, global network of people, organizations, and institutions who participate in promoting the Earth Charter, and in implementing its principles in practice. The Initiative is a broad-based, voluntary, civil society effort, but participants include leading international institutions, national governments, university associations, NGOs, cities, faith groups, and many well-known leaders in sustainable development.” [15]

Its objectives regarding education is an example of a familiar dogma:

“The Earth Charter values and principles must be taught, contemplated, applied and internalized. To this end, the Earth Charter needs to be incorporated into both formal and non-formal education. This process must involve various communities, continue to integrate the Charter into the curriculum of schools and universities, and constitute an on-going process of life-long learning.” [16]

The best way to gain a commitment from the awakening mass mind is to appeal to their values and shared commonality. The Earth Charter text and initiative are worded in such a way that a form of entrainment occurs which fits seamlessly into grass roots aspirations. Social transformation of young minds can then fit into the Agenda 21 structures currently being implemented. After all, according to Strong: “The real goal of the Earth Charter, is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.” [17]

Once again, this isn’t about saving the planet or offering a new template that will empower people to find creative solutions outside of the Establishment. This is about the exact reverse: to homogenise thought and action related to green issues and ecological science by contouring focus into pre-designed, socially engineered parameters, where national parks, land allocation, land resource, the prohibition of private property and SMART ghettoization takes place by stealth. This society will be supremely green and highly efficient but lacking any freedom to choose. Indeed, the whole concept of sustainability and SMART is are already being sold as desirable – even inevitable – choices when in fact, it has all been based on another dialectical formula to herd the population.

The reader may remember the late former Assistant-Secretary of the UN Robert Muller, who was a highly influential spiritual guru within the institution and a follower of the Alice Bailey teachings explored in a previous post. The Earth Charter Initiative is overseen by the United Nations University of Peace founded by Muller (yes, Maurice Strong is the President) its governing council a veritable honey-pot of Club of Rome members, including the now retired Secretary-General Martin Lees. Like the Earth charter initiatives in education, Robert Muller schools continue to pop up all over the world “educating” children towards a singular perception of reality. Yet, the more we look into Muller’s background and what he is advocating the more troubling it becomes. The laudable sentiments for world peace and harmony on earth are undercut by the same spiritual fascism that we can find in the Bailey writings and militant environmentalists.  What is more, it presents a spiritual narcissism so extreme it defies belief that such a man until recently had such power over the decision-making process in UN circles. Yet it is this very genuine and highly devotional personality that is so often useful in promoting a fake agenda.

clip_image002_thumb.jpgThe ubiquitous Maurice Strong

clip_image004_thumb.jpg“global visionary” Robert Muller

On Muller’s website goodmorningworld.org a series of personal conversations with God ensue:

God: “Dear Robert, congratulations for having finished your 4000 ideas. May I ask you: which one do you consider the most important?”

I: Well, my most important idea and conclusion after all my adult life as a world civil servant is this: The United Nations must be vastly strengthened to resolve the major global problems henceforth increasingly confronting humanity and the Earth. It must be empowered to adopt and enforce world laws and regulations.

God: “Thank you, dear Robert, for what you are recommending. Perhaps after all, the greatest jewel of my Creation, the Earth, can be saved.” […]

Under these circumstances I cannot accept that you consider your 4000 ideas to be the end. You should, you must continue and work hard on implementation. I will help you from heaven, creating the right circumstances and ensuring that your ideas and efforts will be known at the right, highest world levels.”  [18] [Emphasis mine]

Notwithstanding the assumption that Muller has been hand-picked by God because of the quality of his ideas which will work at the “highest world levels,” he proceeds to enthusiastically trumpet his visions which include the United Nations mandating: “… urgency plans or conferences to halt the rapid decline of Plane Earth’s life giving capacities and wealth,” such as a: “… world emergency plan to stop for at least five years the human population explosion;” “… a world emergency plan for the more rapid reduction of carbon dioxide emissions;” and “… a world emergency plan to avoid further risks of climatic changes;” and many other “ideas” which are, by now, quite familiar. [19] All of this, with the enforcement of “world laws and regulations.

It seems Robert Muller’s delight at being a “world civil servant” is genuine… Is this global governance to be made up of an eco-technocratic elite of civil servants, traditional Iagos and Machiavellian snakes which inhabit all the quangos and corridors of political power, easing, oiling and subverting where necessary? It would seem so. This is not to say that Muller isn’t sincere. He may be a thoroughly decent man. But that isn’t the issue.

Good intentions never have been.

While there is much to praise in Muller’s stream of ideas, his ignorance of the nature of ecology and non-linear change – and more importantly geo-politics – is truly frightening considering the position he found himself. The level of spiritual egocentrism is profound. For exanmple, his comments on population:

“Perhaps the recent increase of terrorism is the beginning of that revolution. The attacks against the US World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were perhaps the opening of it. Among the measures, which can reduce this new world danger, the UN should urgently convene a World Emergency Population Conference. Another is a new, immediate World Marshall Plan, as recommended by the Club of Budapest.” [20]

And the Club of Budapest is Muller’s own bar-code of approval touting the same centralisation and homogenization of human creativity. To Muller, unless we get with the picture, it is not just a danger but a “New World danger!” Is there a New World toaster perhaps? Or a New World Supermarket with New World Baked Beans? Has Muller exhausted the call for a New World —– (fill in the blank) enough?

Urgently convening conferences based on Elite blessings and interminable calls for New World authorities and centralisations were Muller’s speciality and therefore, fairly meaningless, but no less fanatical.

Everything in Muller’s vision is sourced from Alice Bailey and molded into his own prolific worldview which is dangerously naïve, messianic, blind to the dangers inherent in the ideas he is proposing. His impression of humanity is that we: “… are still a very primitive, underdeveloped species” which needs the stewardship of folks like himself desperate for a singular type of New World. Muller further believes: “Communism has died. It is now the turn of capitalism to change or die. The new ideology should be Earthism, the proper management and conservation of our precious, life-nurturing and sustaining Earth. Capital should be used to save the Earth and become eco-capitalism.” Not a word on ponerology, not a word about the fact the very challenges we face are not sourced from the human species but a minority who soil the sandpit. The underdeveloped species of course, clearly doesn’t include Muller who sits on the right hand of God and is therefore his valuable conduit outside such nastiness. [21]

This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination.

“New” is prefixed in front of every possible discipline and domain, from a new political system to a new economics; a new education and a new media and new communications to a new democracy and a new global leadership; a new science and technology to a new anthropology, sociology and new ways of life; a new human biology and a new philosophy, cosmology and long term, view of evolution to a new world ethics and justice and a new world psychology all connected under “the art of planetary management” and group  consciousness. A vast homogenous mass – collectivism at the ground level of a clinical, urban wasteland with romantic, warm and fuzzy trigger words to engender conformity. Will you become one of the chosen few who will be living in the assigned zones of ecotopia; with their neighbourhood police and gated SMART-buildings with round the clock security?

The Earth Charter is a set of principles which enhances and streamlines Agenda 21 which is a framework by which a re-shaping of society according to sustainable principles can be implemented. They go hand in hand. The International Covenant on Environment and Development allows a smooth passage of laws in relation to Charter to go through unimpeded and is being prepared by the Commission on Environmental Law at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) which is a monolithic agency straddling more than 700 other international agencies. (You will not be surprised to hear that Maurice Strong is giving the Rockefellers a run for their money by being on the board of the directors of the IUCN as well as everywhere else…)

Alongside corporations who are also patrons of the very same UN philosophies and providers of education materials with their logos stamped on every page, thousands of schools and educational organisations are currently promoting Earth Charter materials. Children are being exposed to entrainment that subtly conforms to the habitual group think and group consciousness hitherto discussed. Many of the themes and principles in the Earth Charter are sound and practical – even visionary – but they sourced from a purview of highly contested computer modelling techniques of the Club of Rome, UNEP and the IPCC who work together to fuel fear and alarm alongside the imperative for change via global governance. Underpinning New Age declarations for Global unity is bad science and cynical perception management that most assuredly does not have the best interests of humanity at heart.

Seat_of_the_House_of_Justice

Seat of the Universal House of Justice, governing body of the Bahá’ís, in Haifa, Israel

Of utmost importance is education towards the idea of a World State and the imposition of a New World Religion or “spirituality” depending on which agency you are involved in. As such, standard religion has to be side-lined or preferably done away with all together. After all, according to commongood.org a forum for Inter-Religious Groups and Spiritual Leaders “… it is clear that our religious institutions have barely begun to articulate the core values of sustainable development.” [22]

It seems the Bahá’í Faith is one of the models which is deemed an exception to the rule.

The New World Religion that is doing the rounds at the UN offices and heavily promoted by Strong and Gorby is the Bahá’í faith. Founded by Bahá’u’lláh in 19th century, it is a monotheistic religion with, of course, a strong emphasis on world government. This is why New Agers, collectivists and UN acolytes have been persuaded (mostly by Strong) to embed the Bahá’í religion within the UN.  Much like the Lucis Trust, it is permitted to have consultative status with the following organisations: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM); United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); World Health Organization (WHO).

The Bahá’í International Community is an agency under the direction of the Universal House of Justice in Haifa, Israel. Drums, rituals and sacred messages at numerous conferences organised by Strong have featured a background of Bahá’í-inspired rituals in praise of Gaia and Mother Earth. Similar to the Lucis Trust and its “Great Invocation” the Bahá’í religion adds a further layer of institutionalised ritual to the UN.

Perhaps we could say that there’s nothing wrong with a bit of ritual and the rehashing of ancient wisdom. After all, don’t we want to live in a world of peace, harmony, tolerance and social justice? Don’t we want to preserve our emerald lands and provide a sustainable way of life which includes access to clean water and plentiful food for the planet’s inhabitants?

Even if it were based upon entirely authentic intentions, forcing it into being won’t work, and it will be especially hollow if we allow a monoculture of laws alongside a ritually-based platform for an authoritarian band of Word Civil Servants” to control the mass of humanity.

See also:

Ann Bressington Exposes Agenda 21, Club of Rome

Dark Green X: UN Agenda 21 and SMART Growth


Notes

[1] Ibid. (p.85)
[2] Schneider SH (August/September 1996). “Don’t Bet All Environmental Changes Will Be Beneficial”. APS News (American Physical Society): 5.
[3] op. cit. King; Schneider, 1991 edition: (pp.82 and 159) Interestingly, the 1993 version is worded differently but says exactly the same thing.
[4] ‘Facing Down Armageddon: Our Environment at a Crossroads’ by Maurice Strong, World Policy Journal, May 2009.
[5] ‘Turning the Elephant Around’ By Fred G. Thompson Canadian Association for the Club of Rome, Proceedings: Analysis of the Human Predicament, VoSeries 3 / Number 10 May 2007. (p.17).
[6] Disarming Iraq by George Sedall, p.53.
[7] ‘Mikhail Gorbachev Says Uprisings Signal an Emerging New World Order’ October 20, 2011, Layfayette College, Philadelphia.
[8] p.224; Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century By Stephen Henry Schneider, Published by MIT Press 2004.| ISBN-0262-19498-8|
[9] Where on Earth are we Going? By Maurice Strong 2000. Published by Vintage Canada.
[10] http://www.mauricestrong.net
[11] Spring 1995 issue of The Temple of Understanding newsletter under the headline, ‘Preparing for the Next Millenium.’
[12] http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/
[13] Ibid.
[14] http://www.gcint.org/what-we-do/earth-dialogues
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Maurice Strong on “A People’s Earth Charter” Interview with Maurice Strong Chairman of the Earth Council and Co-Chair of the Earth Charter Commission. | www. http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/
March 5, 1998
[18] ‘Paradise Earth Robert Muller’s Ideas & Dreams Nurturing Our Home’ http://www.paradiseearth.us/
[19] http://www.robertmuller.org/ideas/
[20] Idea 2055 http://www.robertmuller.org/ideas/
[21] Idea 6335 Robert Muller ‘s Good Morning World Today’s Idea Dream For A Better World From Robert & Barbara Muller, Friday, August 10, 2007. http://www.goodmorningworld.org/blog
[22] http://www.commongood.info/cooperation

Dark Green VI: The Club of Rome and “World Problematique” (1)

By M.K. Styllinski

 “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”

Edmund Burke


According to the Club of Rome’s (CoR) own website the global think-tank was founded in April 1968 by: “… a small international group of professionals from the fields of diplomacy, industry, academia and civil society met at a quiet villa in Rome.” This villa was none other than the Rockefeller brother’s estate in Bellagio, with brainstorming sessions at the neighbouring Accademia dei Lincei.

The CoR describes itself as “a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity” who aim:

“… to identify the most crucial problems which will determine the future of humanity through integrated and forward-looking analysis; to evaluate alternative scenarios for the future and to assess risks, choices and opportunities; to develop and propose practical solutions to the challenges identified; to communicate the new insights and knowledge derived from this analysis to decision-makers in the public and private sectors and also to the general public and to stimulate public debate and effective action to improve the prospects for the future.” [1]

From its website we can also read that they are now focusing on:

“…on the root causes of the systemic crisis by defining and communicating the need for, the vision and the elements of a new economy, which produces real wealth and wellbeing; which does not degrade our natural resources and provides meaningful jobs and sufficient income for all people. The new programme will also address underlying values, beliefs and paradigms.”

The above sounds wonderfully inspiring until you look at the background of the CoR.

logo_web_whiteAlthough claiming to be a non-governmental, non-partisan organisation, this is not the case. The organisation has numerous connections with both NATO and government-related bodies and think-tanks: the Bilderberg Group, the UN, Trilateral Commission, and the Royal Institute of International affairs all of whom feature heavily in its networking memberships. A cross-fertilisation takes place drawn from what is essentially the same mix of global government, population control and social engineering outfits. An imposition of a singular type of International order is their remit – this time through the hijacking of environmentalism and ecology.

It would have been illuminating to be a fly-on-the-wall on that idyllic spring day. Members sipping vino blanco and munching the odd olive or two, were Erich Jantsch, Hugo Thiemann, Lauro Gomes-Filho, Jean Saint-Geours and Max Kohnstamm. They were met by their hosts the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish scientist Alexander King, who: “… came together to discuss the dilemma of prevailing short-term thinking in international affairs and, in particular, the concerns regarding unlimited resource consumption in an increasingly interdependent world.”  [2] They decided that each participant would do their best to influence world leaders and decision-makers with growing “global interdependence” and the application of “systems-thinking” to light the road ahead. The “originality of their approach” however, was not so much that it was innovative, rather it was bad science tailored to an agenda. Peccei was an ardent supporter of a one world government and it becomes clear that this was the primary reason for his creation of the Club.

One of the flagship books to be commissioned by the CoR is The Limits to Growth (LtG) written in 1972 by Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The book served up dire consequences for industrialised society and the world should the growth of the human population continue on its present course. The associated issues of economics and the demand for finite resources would ensure the inevitability of an ecological collapse within the next one-hundred years. Translated into more than forty languages with sales at more than 30 million the book certainly tapped into the genuine wish that lies within most responsible people that we must seek ways to reduce our ecological impact and not continue to despoil our own backyard. Their lies its success. Take a genuine truth and then apply a subtle bell curve towards the proposed model of your choosing.

Of course, can anyone really disagree with the logic that we do not live on a planet with infinite resources and that we must work with Nature instead of against her?

An extract from the book gives the overall design of its message:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

“It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”

“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind’s very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”

“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”

“Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society – one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

“Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.” [3]

Now come along…there’s a good population, nice and controlled and orderly please….

At first glance, it’s difficult to argue with the above. But did you catch the emphasis on global growth and global equilibrium? In this scenario population explosion is the cause rather than the multiplicity of factors that actually show that population growth is not as relevant as we imagine. As we saw in a previous post, while global population is slowly rising birth rates are falling across the globe. Today, women have only 2.7 children on average and sometimes as low as 1. In the 1970s women around the world had six children each. The United Nations has marked 1.5 as the crisis point for population growth. For the first time on record, birth rates in Southern and Eastern Europe have dropped below 1.3 – well below the 1.5 mark, which means that population there will be cut in half in around 45 years if things continue on their present course. In Italy, population growth has been steadily declining at 1.2 and 1 – the lowest birth rates in the world. Italy, Spain, Greece and Germany are all losing 100,000 people a year while Russia, Romania and Bulgaria’s populations are set to decrease by half. Japan too has seen fewer families due to a fertility rate that declined by nearly a third between 1975 and 2001, from 1.91 to 1.33.[4]East Asia’s birth rate has fallen with the fertility dropping from 2.4 in 1970 to 1.5 today. Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan and Burma are all around 1.5 with South Korea bring up the rear at only 1.1 children per couple. China’s rate is down from 6.06 to 1.8 and declining though with the past stringent one-child birth control policy it is not hard to see why. Now they have a desperate shortage of females.

The United Nations had predicted world population would reach 11.5 billion by 2050. Due to the population decline this has been revised to 9.5 billion. According Dr David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University global population will begin to decline at around 2070. [5]While overall, the rate is down, African countries still have significant population growth at 2.6 percent a year. India is set to overtake China by 2050 and the United States coming in at as the third biggest nation of people at 420 million. In the UK, France, the Netherlands and Scandinavia birth rates are all steadily increasing. Yet rarely do we hear about depopulation of these countries. Rather, the developing world is singled out as the over-breeding culprit. The incredible adaptability of humans and the waiting resource and technology alternatives which are literally waiting to be applied mean that the most serious demographic problem in the West is not a population explosion that competes for resources and produces waste but the plummeting fertility rate that is too low to sustain a healthy workforce.

Is it not ironic that the perpetrators of a system of cartel capitalism which has deformed an already exploitative system into a global beast which has reduced millions into poverty are still at the head of a population reduction drive targeting the third world? And this is being pushed through in order to continue this economic model at a higher rate of commercialisation, consolidation and centralisation? And when we realise the upper classes in Europe have more children than the lower classes, this increases the blatant hypocrisy still further.

“Twenty years ago fertility started to decline in Nepal and Bangladesh when they were still poor. Korea wasn’t rich when fertility declined. By contrast, the Gulf oil states continued with high birth-rates long after they got huge wealth.” So, said professor of Medical Demography at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, John Cleland, who thinks that falling population levels occur in richer families is: “… the biggest lie that’s ever been perpetrated.”[6]

Invasive methods to sterilise the world’s populations is a mix of faulty science, the well-intentioned and covert psychopathy. The macabre irony is that resource scarcity, economic disparity and crippling debt all contribute the unnatural rise in populations and short-termism of cartel capitalism. Thus the methods of population control implemented by neo-liberalist visions or the “globalist Elite” are a consequence of their own misunderstandings of the human and natural world; a result of their imposition of materialist agenda of the 4C’s and the inevitable effects it produced. Ultimately, for the psychopath this is about reducing the numbers of normal people in the global population.


(Note: If the reader is unconvinced please read Kevin Magur Galalae’s Killing us Softly: Causes and Consequences of the Global Depopulation Policy (2013). Prior to reading a warning must be attached to the book in that after a detailed analysis of the historical methods of GPC the author advocates much the same methods though with the caveat of transparency which does not automatically mean a correct path, as we are discovering. As such, he acts as a supporter of population control methods and buys into the myth. These problems will not be solved by adopting the same methods, however “transparent.” A whole new perception across all societal domains is necessary. The e-book can be found available online through any search engine.


The LtG’s credibility and its sequels twenty and thirty years later – is founded on computer modelling which is notorious for not describing the real world in which we live and bypassing a non-linear reality which offers a profusion of things we do not yet understand. Trying to predict the future or even offer worst case-scenarios by feeding mathematical formulas into computers and excluding a host of equally important variables, exacerbates bias and belief within the minds of the modellers and those who do the commissioning, presumably with their own waiting solutions in mind. [7]Yale economist Henry Wallich reviewed LtG and concluded: “… the quantitative content of the model comes from the authors’ imagination, although they never reveal the equations that they used.”

LtG forecasts were very carefully assessed by Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University William D. Nordhaus in his paper “World Dynamics: Measurement Without Data.” The LtG authors employed the “world dynamics” model developed by Jay Forrester, an MIT engineering professor who had employed systems dynamics or the use of differential equations which is standard in economic theory. The model he proposed and which underlay LtG suffered from a multitude of serious scientific flaws among which were the lack of: “… effort in ‘World Dynamics’ to identify any relation between his model and the real world.”
The professor continued:

There is no explicit or apparent reference to data or existing empirical studies. […]

“… the methodology of modelling in World Dynamics differs significantly from other studies of economic systems. World Dynamics constructs a world model using assumptions which are intuitively plausible to the author, but without reference to current knowledge. The behaviour of this world model is then examined by calculating the dynamic path of the variables. Whereas most scientists would require empirical validation of either the assumptions or the predictions of the model before declaring its truth content, Forrester is apparently content with subjective plausibility. This discrepancy in scientific standards of acceptability is probably what lies behind the dispute about the value of World Dynamics.

“… the predictions of the world’s future are highly sensitive to the specification of the model. Simulations given above indicate that if assumptions regarding population, technological change, or substitution are changed, Forrester’s model behaves in a dramatically different manner.” [8]

This same system of computer modelling has been used to promote the human-influenced global warming agenda under the all-seeing-eye of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and taken up exactly the same message as the Club of Rome.

Journalist Donna LaFramboise discusses these computers programmed with complex mathematical formulas which “confirm” the evil nature of more CO2 in the atmosphere and which constitute “hard evidence” that nevertheless: “… requires a rather large leap of faith.” LaFramboise points out: “If math and computing power were the only things necessary to predict the future, investors would already know the price at which gold will be trading five, ten, and twenty years hence. But the world is chaotic and unpredictable. It rarely unfolds in the manner that even the smartest people, aided by graphs, charts, and computers, think it will.” [9]

The problem is that extrapolation of the computer modelling data lends itself to a linear interpretation without accounting for unknown variables from a multitude of sources. The favourite example of the UN, UNICEF, UNESCO and the Club of Rome is population growth which, according to their computer modelling data, will mean a world population of around 12 billion by the year 2025 with over a 100 percent increase in resource demand which is obviously unsustainable. This is fallacious reasoning as the Earth and its people operate on unpredictable changes which take place in a system far removed from equilibrium. Not only is unpredictability not accounted for it is actively avoided by authoritarian personalities who demand control and certainty.  Such narrow, linear thinking amounts to denial that the world is in a constant state of flux and adaptation based on natural cycles of change. What is more, nothing that the Club of Rome offers in its double speak and carefully chosen words approaches anything like true alternatives: only a very Darwinist centralisation under cover of emotional appeal to world unity.

What we discover is that The Limits to Growth is the phase in a Malthusian agenda placing the blame on the poor, not as victims of cartel-capitalism but as perpetrators of environmental destruction while a Western Elite can defer land reform and bolster existing rural class structures. [10] The overemphasis on the environmental impact of over-population obscures the real cause and effect while eclipsing many and variable alternative solutions to deal with finite resources and the failure of the present economic model. This overarching desire to protect the environment, resources and “feed the world” has nothing to do with saving the earth and its environment but quite a lot to do with maintaining control of the mass mind and claiming global resources for the Establishment’s survival when the inevitable changes do arrive – as they surely will. (Yet, the current co-opted version of climate science may find itself blind-sided on that one too.)

From on an article on the CoR website we can read:

“Prophets of doom, nowadays, are not stoned to death, at least not usually. Demolishing ideas that we don’t like is done in a rather subtler manner. The success of the smear campaign against the LTG ideas shows the power of propaganda and of urban legends in shaping the public perception of the world, exploiting our innate tendency of rejecting bad news. Because of these tendencies, the world has chosen to ignore the warning of impending collapse that came from the LTG study. In so doing, we have lost more than 30 years. Now, there are signs that we may be starting to heed the warning, but it may be too late and we may still be doing too little. Cassandra’s curse may still be upon us.”

Well, there can certainly be “smear” campaigns based on fear and reflex and that may have been the case from conservative reactionaries. However, if “we have lost more than 30 years” in tackling the problem of climate change and innumerable other problems then it wasn’t due to LtG, it was due to a recurrent and persistent lack of understanding of psychopathy within our Establishment, the way our social systems reflect their values and how they work through institutions exactly like the Club of Rome; to hijack and enforce agendas through otherwise well-meaning folks.  Anything else is window dressing and distraction.

Climate modelling is only as good as the objective science behind it. And there were plenty criticising precisely this. Yet, the simplistic notions behind LtG remain in their updated versions. They appear to have no awareness that social trajectories are engineered, financial crises are manipulated and designed. The onus is placed firmly on the public and the natural flow of social science as though divorced completely from any notion of social control. It is not just that the LtG’s focus was wrong rather it is the absolute omission of the psycho-spiritual causes of our predicament which allows solutions to be so neatly streamlined into a pathocratic definition of ecological balance and sustainability. You can be sure that with resource scarcity and imminent collapse touted for so long, the promotion of specific solutions will be ONLY those that align themselves to Earth Summit, UN Agenda 21 and SMART protocols. One world themes still permeate CoR initiatives and without any reference or awareness of institutional psychopathy nor its eco-fascistic presence. Aside from purposeful obfuscation, we can only assume this is because it part of the agenda, unconsciously or otherwise. There is second component to this distraction we will come to presently.

This imminent collapse  termed the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique’ was tailored towards their own carefully engineered alternative of a truly global society interdependent and “organic.” The Limits to Growth: The first Report to the Club of Rome represented the first phase in a comprehensive eco-social engineering exercise was which would alert humanity to the urgency of the problem. The second phase arrived with a book entitled Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome (1974) culminating in a third phase: The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome (1991).

In Mankind at the Turning Point gloves are removed and it is here that you see the Establishment agenda shining through. Remember the emphasis on global governance/world government,  global economics, a global religion and a global consciousness all presided over by the same Council of the Club of Rome and their various Elite members? Using the same flawed system of computer modelling, the infiltration of New Age terms and neo-pagan philosophies begins to make an appearance, unveiling and hijacking  ancient wisdom concerning a genuine “holism” and “organicism” that was also appropriated by fascists for their own aims.

The objective is to promote the idea of a Master Plan or blueprint which exists in Nature and to encourage the idea of interdependence and interrelatedness as key principles. Why? “Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system.” [11] Would that include The Plan and Great Invocation that Bailey proposed? Does that include the dissolving of sovereignty and nations as a perquisite of that Plan? It seems the usual euphemisms indicate precisely that because:

“Cooperation by definition connotes interdependence. Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence.” […] “…the statement acknowledged, even if unintentionally, the dawn of an era of limits to independence – even for the strongest and biggest nations of the world.” [12]

I wonder if this applies to the Elite and already formed, covert network of global governors? If there is a decrease in independence towards an increase in interdependence then where exactly is the cut-off point where interdependence becomes totalitarianism?

The only course of action open to us is away from a particular mindset that seeks control through the auspices of benign solutions. That means grassroots, creative community empowerment fully cognizant of the issues previously discussed. Before that happens, a collapse of the old order will be necessary. Who arises from the chaos to redesign society will either be those with the conscience and perspicacity to have truly learned from the recent past or those who will gladly turn over the reins of self-empowerment to those offering the exact same plans as they always have: to initiate change through a cycle of DIS-empowerment where collapse and rejuvenation redefine the “resolutique” actually permitting greater and greater consolidation and centralisation while ostensibly offering its exact opposite. This is how it has always been and characterises the rise of Empires or Pathocracies.

Limits to Growth? Yes, but limits to the rise of psychopaths in our midst and who turn cultures into the unsustainable and chaotic systems which must end in collapse.

The real waste of 30 years’ of research was not the modelling of population growth and the consumption of resources but the systematic withholding of knowledge concerning cyclic catastrophe borne from the alleviation of psychopaths in power. Once again, the ultimate focus of LtoG and Club of Rome mentality serves as a monumental distraction from the real issues, diverting attention to humanity as pariah rather than our pathocratic Establishment who remain locked into the same continuum, at both ends of the green and corporate wheel.

Though all of us have a responsibility to engage in ecological conscience and the promotion of holistic values, it is is not people who are the cause, most of whom are struggling to survive, it is sourced from the very institutions aligned to the CoR and which have likely the same seeds of ponerisation. The real collective error is not to see the Magician behind the curtain and who still manages both the World problematique and resolutique toward the same patterns of collapse at ever greater turns of the spiral. And this is the challenge: to recognise and seek solutions that take into account institutional pathology. Perhaps then, when global collapse has arrived we will all be in the position to truly initiate a New World – in the truest sense of the term.

Until we breakthrough this pattern of cyclic ignorance to which ancient history attests, all such re-inventions will move toward the same scenario with the usual suspects at the helm all over again. The problems highlighted in Limits to Growth thesis, whether a perceived overpopulation or resource depletion will not be solved by encouraging the exact same forces who perpetrated these social dynamics to appeal to the eco-conscience of the public at large. How can the latter truly tackle these problems when even activism is shackled by eoc-fascist visions about which they remain largely unaware and which the Club of Rome and the United Nations actively embrace?

Having scanned briefly the importance of organicism in Nazi, aristocracy and Establishment circles and the perennial attraction to fascist organisations, the theme of an “organic” global society is exactly what the Club of Rome is pushing. And what does an organic society under the auspices of Elite control usually mean? Let’s go back to Bertrand Russell whom we explored in a previous chapter:

“Totalitarianism has a theory as well as a practice. As a practice, it means that a certain group, having by one means or another seized the apparatus of power, especially armaments and police, proceed to exploit their advantageous position to the utmost, by regulating everything in the way that gives them the maximum of control over others. But as a theory it is something different: it is the doctrine that the State, or the nation, or the community is capable of a good different from that of individual and not consisting of anything that individuals think or feel. This doctrine was especially advocated by Hegel, who glorified the State, and thought that a community should be as organic as possible. In an organic community, he thought, excellence would reside in the whole. An individual is an organism, and we do not think that his separate parts have separate goods: if he has a pain in his great toe it is he that suffers, not specially the great toe. So, in an organic society, good and evil will belong to the whole rather than the parts. This is the theoretical form of totalitarianism. …In concrete fact, when it is pretended that the State has a good different from that of the citizens, what is really meant is that the good of the government or of the ruling class is more important than that of other people. Such a view can have no basis except in arbitrary power. … I do not believe that dictatorship Is a lasting form of scientific society – unless (but this proviso is important) it can become world-wide.” [Emphasis mine] [13]

Obviously this embracing of our benevolent “World State” of plenty depends on “Whether or not [humanity] … embark[s] on the path of organic growth” and “…a question of mankind’s very survival…” [14]This is the danger of having holistic concepts and ancient wisdom principles in the hands of pathocratic human beings – they become something entirely different, though masked by “double-speak.”

As with the Lebensräume of Nazi Germany and the Land ethic of American conservationists later imbued with deep ecology and holism, the “whole” is always in danger of subsuming the individual and notions of independence. Add together constant brainwashing of global consciousness and global governance you have a recipe for totalitarianism by the eco-friendly garden gate. In other words, ecologists, environmental activists – and particularly conservationists – praise the “meta-organismic” processes in nature, which, by the definition of ecology and systems thinking the individual component parts are lost in a “web of life.” While lip-service is given to honouring of local,  individual independence, in reality, holistic, macro-ecology takes precedence. And this is a theme we see over and over again from the members of the Club of Rome, the Sierra Club, as well as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF, many of whom do not have the slightest awareness of ponerology or even a basic understanding or knowledge of social engineering. Yet, they do exhibit a rather militant form of green awareness which makes it almost impossible to approach their cherished beliefs rationally since they are often completely identified with sanctity and sacredness of Mother Earth. Thus, any perceived move away from that trajectory is seen as an attack on the Goddess/eco-psychology/eco-science etc.

(Having been both a Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth member and activist I can assure you fanatical thinking most assuredly exists in these organisations).

The American philosopher John Baird Callicot, had this to say on the preference for a ‘biotic right’ to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community, a right which tends to “species, not to specimens.” Conservationists and ecologists: “… are professionally concerned about biological and ecological wholes – populations, species, communities and ecosystems – not their individual constituents. For example, the conservation of endangered plant species is often most directly and efficiently affected by the deliberate eradication of the feral animals that threaten them.” In response to Aldo Leopold’s vision he stated succinctly:

“If members of overpopulous species, such as deer, ought to be ‘culled’ or ‘harvested,’ in the name of preserving the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community, and if staggeringly over-populous Homo sapiens is also but “a plain member and citizen” of the biotic community, then why should culling and harvesting humans be any less obligatory?” Further, if “… preserving the integrity of a biotic community often requires reducing the population of some component species…” [15]

We may then ask: what would happen if humanity itself was seen as the greatest impediment to the survival of Planet Earth and where you saw yourself not only as a superior being granted a divine right to rule but your duty to cull the population by any means necessary to ensure that your survival is at the top of the pile?

Callicott believes that accusations toward notions of land ethic and deep ecology are weak because such eco-ideology lacks any notions of nationalism and militarism. He also believes that because such fine ecological movements do not seek to replace a code of ethics but add to the underlying ethical discourse already present. This is the same ignorance on display that somehow means such movements are immune from ponerisation. This becomes especially problematic when humanity is held in obvious contempt by so many in the ecological or environmental Establishment. Sacrificing human beings to the God of Nature is an inversion and just another expression of the “ends justify the means”. This fuses with pathocratic discourse creating the groundswell for manifestations of fascism inside an emerging “global consciousness”. After all, according to the authors of Mankind at the Turning Point: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” The CoR would no doubt agree with Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepard Conservation Society who said: “Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.” [16]

Does that mean a form of chemotherapy is being enacted on the global populace?

Developing a “one world consciousness” and a global ethic where every individual realises his role as a member of the world community… and where such an ideology “… must become part of the consciousness of every individual” doesn’t sound something aligned to democratic freedoms. Especially as this can only happen if: “… the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.” [17]Which means a linear and narrow move from the individual, which for the Club of Rome script is equated with selfishness rather than a healthy autonomy within the whole. Indeed, we all need to forget about all our petty concerns and give ourselves over to the “… necessity of a change in the man-nature relationship and the emergence of a new perception of mankind as a living global system.” Sure, but what will underlie this new global SYSTEM? Sustainable development programs and SMART growth, which as we will discover is very from an ideal template despite the effect of such buzzwords.

It seems we won’t have time to answer that question because doomsday is so urgent that: “… the use of human resources and the survival of the human species” will dominate this new apocalypse where “personality and social classes” will not feature. [18]These “one world” ideas are not about joining together in genuine unity but establishing a homogenous world order of bland mediocrity and sameness, where conformity replaces true unity. This prescriptive ideology has nothing to do with true community but an imposed form of communitarianism where centralisation and individual freedom are the causalities – by (SMART) design. These ideas are the soft, gradualist version of green militancy or eco-fascism that is particular to Liberal Establishment machinations.

The following declarations from Dave Forman, co-founder of Earth First! proves this point when he states:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

Or in another fit of inspiration he proclaimed:

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.” [19]

What about Gaia theorist and biologist Sir James Lovelock who suggested:

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”

And our depopulationist friend Professor Paul Ehrlich:

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”

Whilst Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defence Fund chimes in with:

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”

Not leaving the eco-feminists outside in the cold, theologian Rosemary Radford Ruether also follows the humanity-as-amoeba approach and cheerfully uses a gardening metaphor to illustrate her point:

“We need to seek the most compassionate way of weeding out people … In place of the pro-life movement we need to develop the ‘spirituality of recycling’ … a spirituality that includes ourselves in the renewal of earth and self. We need to compost ourselves.” [20]

Not elucidating exactly how we must evaporate the population surplus to requirements, Ruether nevertheless breezily told the liberal Catholic organisation, “Call To Action” that “We must return to the population level of 1930.” [21]  Would this mean that roughly 2 billion people are stamped for termination and consigned to the big compost heap in the sky?

All of the above green advocates are happy to wipe away industrialisation – something I have some sympathy for – but when ideology meets reality on the ground the usual result is more chaos. Artificially restrict and interfere with the natural order in an attempt to reverse already pathological human constructs with more of the same will not work. Yet, returning power to people and their communities outside of elite designs may offer more hope. For now, however, the United Nations and most environmental movements are entirely ponerised and embedded in eco-intelpro, whether they are aware of it or not.

To illustrate a more classic example of modern-day eco-fascism, Deep Ecologist Pentti Linkola is a text book social dominator who just happens to be drawn to ecology as the belief, which might as well be as random as falling leaves. He has no problem in voicing his opinions, stripped down of the kind of euphemistic camouflage so typical of Club of Rome adherents. The Finnish ecologist advocates the enforced stoppage of immigration; downsizing the population; the killing of “defectives” and the halting of “rampant technology.” He also thinks in order to combat the encroachment of industrialisation cities they should be attacked with nuclear weapons.

As with so many eco-fascists, Linkola has interesting perspectives and genuine insights into the ecology of the Earth but they are crushed under the jackboot of his own delight in creating a tyranny to protect Nature. Sure enough, the same “humans-as-cancer” meme is dragged up as a reason to eliminate everyone who doesn’t tow the ecological line. Accordingly, when any act of genocide, war and natural disaster befalls humankind, you will find Linkola rubbing his hands together in glee. To say he is a cold rationalist would be the kindest of labels. For instance, in the context of the Madrid Bombing he stated in a televised interview that: “Every act which disrupts the progress of Earth’s life-destroying Western culture is positive.” [22] 

The following passage comes from his book Can life Prevail? Written in 2009:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economic growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves. A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her. Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen. [23]

Where have we heard that before? Nazi Germany perhaps? (Or Prince Philip?)

From “narcissism” to overt totalitarianism where the former is merely the results of a covert totalitarianism. And so the wheel goes around so fast that no sensible, creative solutions are allowed access. Indeed, it’s becoming difficult to see where some quarters of the Western Establishment begins and Nazi ethos ends. Perhaps because the mind-set and direction is the same, only differing by degree. While the above may appear as brutal example of eco-fascism as it is possible to find, it follows exactly the same beliefs and wishes of the Club of Rome, the only difference being that Linkola has dispensed with the buffering, from the use of euphemisms, jargon, double-speak, NLP, and Delphi methods – going straight for the jugular.

Now take the view of perhaps the most influential man in the UN-mandated environmentalist/New Age movement Mr. Maurice Strong, who essentially follows the same line of thought as Linkola, if we follow the implications of what he is saying. In a 1992 interview, the founder of the UNEP was discussing a possible plot-line of a book he would like to write:

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal 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? 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?” [24]

What he doesn’t mention is what will replace such a collapse brought about by manipulation and the possibility he is merely being used to consolidate and centralise control still further.

Though clearly passé for the likes of Linkola, a third phase of green hijacking called for the 1991 book entitled The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome.It was co-authored by one of the founders of The Club of Rome, Alexander King and euro economist Bernard Scheider.It had been decided that this book would up the ante on the fear and threat factor this time posing that environmental destruction was the new terrorist. Time is up and radical changes needed to be made. Failure to do so would be dire consequences for all. Just like the members of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Round Table and the Royal Institute for International Affairs – they deem democracy as outmoded and ineffective to deal with the global ‘Problematique’ – world government is the only solution. Before the foreword on the first page there is a reminder of where the CoR’s ideological allegiance lies with the following quotation from Edward Fitzgerald’s The Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam:

Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,

To grasp this sorry state of things entire,

Would not we shatter it to bits and then,

Remould it nearer to the heart’s desire?

Where have we seen this before?

In none other than the Fabian Society’s cherished stained-glass window created by George Bernard Shaw. The Earth is on an anvil being shattered into bits by Fabian leaders so that they may remould it into their heart’s desire – A New World Government or World State. It would be well to keep this in mind that when reading the Club of Rome literature – it sounds great on paper but needs a finely-tuned attention to “double-speak” in order to extract the underlying thinking from the euphemisms and mechanistic platitudes.

After the foreword we have a quotation included from our friend Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh who dispensed his usual wisdom in the following way: “No generation has ever liked its prophets, least of all those who point out the consequences of bad judgement and lack of foresight. The Club of Rome can take pride in the fact that it has been unpopular for the last twenty years. I hope it will continue for many years to come to spell out the unpalatable facts and to unsettle the conscience of the smug and the apathetic.” [25]Knowing what we know about the Duke of Edinburgh’s heritage and true beliefs it is a bit rich to consider that he is not, at the very least one of the “smug” and “apathetic” that characterises the very essence of the Establishment of which he is a part. Secondly, would you really want someone of this nature blessing a book unless you followed the exact same precepts yourself?

Let’s have a look at what Mr. King and Mr. Schneider are broadcasting to their fellow members and the environmental movement they wish to influence:

Order in society is determined by the cohesion of its members… Thus a vacuum has been created in which both the order and the objectives in society are being eroded. […] The opposition of two political ideologies no longer exists, leaving nothing but a crass materialism. Nothing within the governmental system and its decision-making process seems capable of opposing or modifying those trends which raises questions about our common future and indeed about the very survival of the race. […] The task is indeed formidable but if we show no sign of accepting its challenge it is likely that people may panic, lose faith in their leaders, give in to fear and offer support to extremists…[…] Capitalist and free-market economies have found it necessary to make adjustments so as to survive while socialist systems also made adjustments belatedly did not survive. […]  [26]

Unfortunately, the obsession with “order in society” is borne from their own technocratic beliefs and has little to do with reality. A natural order has to arrive naturally without such “cohesion” being imposed. Vacuums are created as a routine by-product of geo-political policy sourced from exactly the same Establishment circles that commissioned The First Global Revolution. What is being suggested here is that if we do not jettison the democratic process and all that goes with it then the only avenue is fear, panic and headless-chicken extremism. What a very dim view of people, a view no doubt that his viral-highness Prince Philip would endorse. Actually, faith in our leaders is exactly why we are in this predicament. The only realisation that needs attention is that people have the power rather than a minority of psychopaths who are the designated “leaders.”

 


Notes

[1] http://www.clubofrome.org/
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind by
D.H. Meadows. Published by Macmillan 1972 Revised Edition 1979.
[4] ‘Population Paradox: Europe’s Time-Bomb’ by Paul Vallely, The Independent, August 9, 2008.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Lethal Model 2: The Limits to Growth Revisited’ by William Nordhaus, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Volume 23 Issue 2, 1992.
[8] ‘World Dynamics: Measurement Without Data’ William D. Nordhaus, The Economic Journal, Vol. 83, No. 332. (Dec., 1973), pp. 1182-1183.
[9] p.23; The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert by Donna Laframboise. Published by Createspace, 2011 | ISBN-10: 1466453486.
[10] The Malthus Factor: Poverty, Politics and Population in Capitalist Development by Eric B. Ross. Zed Books; First Edition edition, 1998 | ISBN-10: 1856495647.
[11] pp. 39, 144 ; Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to The Club of Rome, 1974. By Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel | ISBN 0-525-03945-7
[12] op. cit. Mesarovic; Pestel (p.7, p.21)
[13] op. cit. Russell
[14] Ibid. (p.70)
[15] “Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism.” Pages 59-76 in J. Baird Callicott. p.60; Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany, N.Y., State University of New York Press. 1999| ISBN 0-7914-4084-2. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: by Tom Regan, University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-049047
[16] ‘The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth? There is a Biocentric Solution.’ Commentary by Paul Watson, Founder and President of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, May 4 2007.
[17] op. cit. Mesarovic; Pestel (p.146)
[18] Ibid.
[19] Earth First! Confessions of an Eco-Warrior By David Foreman, 1993. | Sourced also from: ‘This Land is OUR Land – Untamed nature & the removal of humans.’ By Tim Findley Range Magazine, http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/fall03/fall03_this_land.shtml
[20] Michael S. Rose, “Feminist Theologian Urges Religious To Find A Way To ‘Weed Out People’,” The Wanderer, June 11, 1998, (p.1)
[21] Ann Sheridan, “CTA Conference Presents The Reality of Unreality,” The Wanderer, November 12, 1998,( p.1)
[22] On Madrid bombing in “Persona non grata” –show, 2004.
[23] pp. 13 and 177; Can Life Prevail? By Pentti Linkola Published by Arktos Media Ltd; 2009. ISBN-10: 1907166009 | The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of The Club of Rome: A Strategy for Surviving the World by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, 1993.
[24] p.95; Environmentalism: ideology and power By Donald Gibson. Nova Publishers, 2002 | ISBN1590331494.
[25] Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh’s Message to the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Club of Rome, Paris, 1988.
[26] p.79; The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome: A Strategy for Surviving the World By Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. Published by Orient Longman, 1993 edition| ISBN-10: 0679738258.

Dark Green V: Elephants & Tigers

By M.K. Styllinski

“… all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that ‘… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’ ”

– Mark Dowie, Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples


The same process of land ethic revivalism so favoured by the Nazis is alive and well under the Prince. WWF in partnership with Heineken Breweries and other environmental affiliates have paid for studies which conclude that a balkanisation of Europe and a dramatic increase in the creation of nature reserves, conservation areas and game parks all over Western Europe. [1]The Heineken study, sponsored by Board Chairman A.H. Heineken, “… calls for redrawing the map of Europe into 75 mini-states, with populations of 10 million people at the most. Each mini-state would be ruled by a member of one of the existing European Royal Houses.” John Loudon, International President of WWF from 1977-1981 and ex-chairman of the board of Royal Dutch Shell was a member of the Heineken board. [2]

Heineken8

“For a Fresher World” 2011 advertising artwork for Heineken brand

A long-time supporter of WWF, Heineken is one of the greenest businesses existing today with stakeholder activities focusing on sustainability, green commerce and a host of other ecologically sound initiatives. The 1994 IUCN study called “Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe,” followed the same pattern, namely the four-fold increase in setting aside land in Western Europe. All industrialisation would cease including any new infrastructure projects from water to rail links so that millions of hectares of land for parks could be allowed to flourish. [3] Wealthy landowners, families and 1001 Club members have been busily buying up land previously designated as parks and protected areas.

Author Mark Dowie believes this policy was the result of a concept as old as the colonial forefathers called “fortress conservation,” and which is present in almost every large-scale Anglo-American environmental initiative from Agenda 21 to the Wild lands Network: expressly no humans allowed access within these hallowed conservation zones. Even though WWF does not advocate forced relocation it nevertheless firmly believes in the concept of conservation areas off limits to humans. So, how does it get around the fact that there will undoubtedly be families who do not want to leave? [4]

Dowie draws our attention to the November 2004 Third Congress of the World Conservation Union in Bangkok, Thailand, convened to explore new ways to halt the loss of global diversity. In the audience was the only black person in sea of white faces comprising of environmentalists, conservationists and eco-bureaucrats. Martin Saning’o, the Maassai leader from Tanzania was next in line. When it was his turn to comment he described: “… how nomadic pastoralists once protected the vast range in eastern Africa that they have lost over the past century to conservation projects,” and further:

“‘Our ways of farming pollinated diverse seed species and maintained corridors between ecosystems,” he explains to an audience he knows to be schooled in Western ecological sciences. Yet, in the interest of a relatively new vogue in conservation called “biodiversity,”1 he tells them, more than one hundred thousand Maasai pastoralists have been displaced from their traditional homeland, which once ranged from what is now northern Kenya to the savannah grasslands of the Serengeti plains in northern Tanzania. They called it Maasailand. ‘We were the original conservationists,’ Saning’o tells the room full of shocked white faces. ‘Now you have made us enemies of conservation.’” [5]

As Dowie understates, drily, not exactly “… what six thousand wildlife biologists and conservation activists from over one hundred countries had traveled to Bangkok to hear.”

A 2004, United Nations meeting pushed for the passing of a resolution protecting the territorial and human rights of indigenous peoples. The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples read in part, “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation, and where possible, with the option to return.” Later in the year another meeting of the International Forum on Indigenous Mapping, “all two hundred delegates signed ‘Enemies of Conservation’” with one indigenous delegate rising to state that “… extractive industries, while still a serious threat to their welfare and cultural integrity, were no longer the main antagonist of indigenous cultures. Their new and biggest enemy, she said, was ‘conservation.’” [6]

02_wwf-horzWWF’s tasteful advertising campaign on species extinction with a nude black woman and man set against rainforest. I’m sure the Duke of Edinburgh would have got the joke…

Dowie describes other statements becoming increasingly common from the mouths of indigenous populations historically displaced from their homes and lands which now number in Africa alone, 14 million[7] “conservation refugees.” Since the colonial era: “conservation has become the number one threat to indigenous territories;” the “appropriation of common property for conservation,” or even at international and local meetings there was the ignoring “recommendations and interests” of indigenous members along with a general marginalization “… without opportunity to take the floor and express our views.” [8] It is no surprise that delegates have walked out of many conferences when the same neo-colonialism presented itself.

The author goes on to illustrate the experiences of transnational conservation with a wide range of indigenous peoples from the Miwok, Paiute, and Ahwahneechee of Yosemite Valley to the Pygmies of Uganda and Central Africa; the Karen of Thailand to the Adevasi of India; the Kayapo of Brazil and many others. The same story unfolds in each case though differing in response to the colonialism with: “the tendency of conservationists to ignore their basic rights, at times their very existence, in the course of protecting biological diversity.” [9]

As Dowie observes, it is the type of scientific conservationism that harks back to the “scientific technique” of Bertrand Russell and friends that we can see defining the rigid belief that humans cannot co-exist with nature – separation and segregation overseen by an Elite is the only way.

wwftigerSumatran Tiger|wwf.org

Sumatran tigers numbering no more than 500 in 2009 have been part of WWF fund-raising campaigns for many years. Many of the tigers are said to live in the Tesso Nilo, just a few hours from an WWF office. Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter of Der Spiegel take up the story:

Sunarto is a biologist who has long worked as a tiger researcher in the Tesso Nilo. But he has never seen a tiger there. ‘Tiger density is very low here, because of human economic activity,’ says Sunarto, who like some Indonesians goes by only one name. He also points out that there are still some woodland clearing concessions within the conservation area. To enable them to track down tigers, the WWF has provided the scientists with high-tech measuring equipment, including GPS devices, DNA analysis methods for tiger dung and 20 photo traps. During the last photography shoot, which lasted several weeks, the traps only photographed five tigers.

The WWF sees its work in Sumatra as an important achievement, arguing that the rainforest in the Tesso Nilo was successfully saved as a result of a ‘fire department approach.’ In reality, the conservation zone has grown while the forest inside has become smaller.

Companies like Asia Pacific Resources International, with which the WWF previously had a cooperative arrangement, cut down the virgin forest, says Sunarto. His colleague Ruswantu takes affluent eco-tourists on tours of the park on the backs of tamed elephants. The area is off-limits for the locals, and anti-poaching units funded by the Germans make sure that they stay out. ‘The WWF is in charge here, and that’s a problem,’ says Bahri, who owns a tiny shop and lives in a village near the entrance to the park. No one knows where the borders are, he says. ‘We used to have small fields of rubber trees, and suddenly we were no longer allowed to go there.’ ” [10]

The Der Spiegel investigation into WWF highlighted what many already knew: the organisation has overseen the dwindling of farms driven out of tribal lands and the decline of the species it appointed itself to protect. As one indigenous interviewee stated in the report, with the partnership between transnational corporations and the WWF, the organisation has helped to transform “… our world into plantations, monoculture and national parks.” [11] This also brings into relief the apparent contradiction between preserving wildlife and the predilection of aristocracy and Establishment for hunting animals. It seems they just can’t help themselves.

Back in 1961, the year that Prince Philip would inaugurate the creation of WWF to protect the endangered species of the world he was on a Royal tour of India with Queen Elizabeth. It was on this tour that the Prince decided he would blow away an Indian Tiger just for fun. Environmentalists, ecologists and just about everyone else didn’t share Prince Philip’s delight in bagging a 10ft tiger and no doubt confirming his manly virility to Lizzie.  Several tigers and a rare Indian rhino (a legacy given by British tea-planters) were killed for the Royal tour all recorded for posterity by the Queen. But Prince Phillip it seems wanted a bit more of the action. He later killed a female rhino which had got caught in the hunting party after many other members of the entourage had actively tried to assist the animal to leave. Her infant calf escaped though it is highly improbable it survived without its mother. With the launch of WWF months away the whole incident was covered up.

Killing for sport has continued to be a pleasure for royalty down through the ages. The only difference is in the past, they were not pretending to protect wildlife and preach on endangered species while taking great delight in blowing them out of the sky, skewering them with spears or hunting them to death. This sporting pleasure is endemic in so called “high society” and intimately tied up with rural traditions, though firmly divorced from anything approaching pest control or crop protection. The WWF finally had to dispense with King Juan Carlos I of Spain as The President of Honour of WWF after his blood-lust became a little too much of a PR problem. The King made no secret of his love affair for hunting big game in Africa and Eastern Europe. More recently, he took part in a hunt in Romania, killing a wolf and nine bears, one of which was pregnant.[12] A Russian official also claimed that a tame bear was plied with honey and vodka before being shot dead by the King. The bear (called Mitrofan) was killed during a private visit to Russia in 2006, though it was never proven that King Juan Carlos had pulled the trigger. [13]

royalhunt

The prelude to the launch of WWF. Prince Phillip (far left) The Queen is standing just behind the ex-tiger while Prince Jagat-Singh Has his foot on the animal’s head. The tiger was over 9ft long before it’s skin was sent to Windsor Castle as a trophy. Today – like so many animals championed by WWF – it is almost extinct.

Much like Prince Philip who is not one to let the hoi-polloi dictate his pleasures, in 2006 the Polish government allowed him to kill a European bison in Bialowieza forest, even when it is an endangered species. In April 2012, the patron of the WWF was still busy hunting elephants in Botswana.

Prince Charles, also deeply involved with environmental concerns and UK head of the WWF has followed in his father’s footsteps developing a love of fox hunting along with frequent bird shoots at Balmoral. His sons have not been spared the grand tradition either. Reports that William killed a young antelope with a 7ft spear on a trip to see the Maasai were unconfirmed but not surprising. William’s cultivated interest in shooting and stalking stopped his mother Diana from becoming president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, though admittedly, hunting has always been a non-issue for the WWF.

Whether it is buying 250 pheasant, duck and partridge for his brother Harry to shoot at his 27th birthday on Queen Elizabeth’s Sandringham Estate, or boar-hunting on their rural estate in Cordoba, Spain, William is merely embracing normal pastime within the aristocracy, civil list and super-rich. In their last shoot the brothers bagged a staggering 740 partridges on a single day with help from “… Beaters and packs of dogs [who] were brought in to ensure that the princes did not return home without several ‘kills’ to their name.” [14]

Killing animals for sport under the guise of countryside traditions is nothing new and is an activity simultaneously bound up in ancient practices of survival where the animal is either venerated as a source of food or regarded as something to slaughter in a society bereft or meaning. Indigenous cultures – even peasantry in the not so distant past – took the death of their fellow creatures very seriously and afforded them the respect they deserved for providing them with nourishment. Living as we do in mostly urban environments and suburban “countryside” dotted with corporate outlets of factory farming the respect for the cycles of life and death doesn’t play much part in shooting or hunting animals since it is tied to the market place, where weekend shoots act as cathartic exercises in manliness and / or a break from the high-octane pressure of city rat-race. Deals can be done and echoes of the gentry can resurface.

Though dressed up in numerous rationalisations, the idea that hunting and killing animals for fun rather than survival in what we consider to be “civilised” societies seems to be a tradition we can eventually do without. But unless one has grown up in the “country” or is steeped in aristocratic customs one cannot possibly understand this essential “tradition” it seems … However, if we ever return to a full spectrum of true ecological awareness, self-sufficiency, respect for the natural world, a just economy and an inclusive social autonomy with a minimum of government interference, there may be a place in the world for hunting animals as part of a sacred survival, something indigenous peoples understood. Since how we treat animals in any given nation is fairly good reflection of how well we treat humans, then it maybe sometime before the view of animals as playthings or products may change.

Be that as it may, it’s all part of the normal life of so-called Royalty or “nobility” where the residues of feudalism strengthen the explicit understanding that elitism, class divisions and inherited privilege must be supported by the tax payer.

How else are we to keep the vast families and civil list in the manner to which they are accustomed?

bucket of green paint‘Green-washing’ © infrakshun

The issue is not about individual royals, rather it is the notion that we need such a structure of vastly expensive aristocracy when its continued existence only serves to buttress and maintain the status quo and its social divisions. Indeed, this must remain if monarchy, corporatism and Elite privilege is to thrive, tangled up as it is in complex ponerological webs of custom, status and wealth. The idea that we are all still subjects to a ruling King or Queen rather than citizens, has power, even if implicit. Societies at this time, need leaders but leaders with the highest principles which honour tradition as means to free the mind rather than to repeat destructive customs of power privilege and indulgence.

Similarly, organisations and agencies are following a PR image which has little to do with the values a truly progressive society would hope to encourage. WWF does not oppose hunting or situations that pose a threat to animal welfare. “Conservation” is its priority. So much so, that the following statement on the Canadian seal hunt, is illuminating: “As long as the commercial hunt for harp seals off the coast of Canada is of no threat to the population of over 5 million harp seals, there is no reason for WWF Canada to reconsider its current priorities and actively oppose the annual harvest of harp seals.” [15]

Supporting the fur industry is the type of conservation we are talking about here not least the barbarism that seal hunts entail. Clearly, as WWF has stated humane treatment of animals and animal welfare is not its concern. Nor it seems, does it view exploitation as something to be concerned about.

The Sumatran Orangutan in Indonesia, is under intense pressure from Palm oil companies causing massive deforestation. Ian Singleton, Director of the Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Program told journalist Elizabeth Batt that the Sumatran orangutan will be extinct by the end of 2012. WWF being concerned about endangered species would see this as an opportunity to protect this species, right? Wrong. WWF and other eco-groups are involved in a huge green washing deal which operates like this:

“ The global organic food industry agrees to support international agribusiness in clearing as much tropical rainforest as they want for farming. In return, agribusiness agrees to farm the now-deforested land using organic methods, and the organic industry encourages its supporters to buy the resulting timber and food under the newly devised ‘Rainforest Plus” label.’

The ‘world’s biggest wildlife conservation groups have agreed exactly to such a scenario, only in reverse.’ And it’s being led by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Through ‘a series of global bargains with international agribusiness, in exchange for vague promises of habitat protection, sustainability and social justice, these conservation groups are offering to greenwash industrial commodity agriculture.” [16]

Sumatra is home to a rich variety of wildlife some of which only exist in this mountainous paradise. Palm oil is used in biodiesel, toiletries and food products and is in high demand across the world. But the boom in palm oil means environmental degradation with high quantities of pesticides and “slash and burn” deforestation, despite WWF claims of sustainability. Corruption is rife. For example, RSPO stands for “Roundtable on Sustainable palm Oil,” yet as one former Indonesian WWF employee commented:

“Sustainable palm oil, is really non-existent” for the following reasons: “The certificate makes it possible to crank up production while simultaneously placating the consciences of customers. Henkel, the Düsseldorf-based consumer products company, advertises its Terra range of household cleaning products with the claim that it supports ‘the sustainable production of palm and palm kernel oil, together with the WWF.’ ” [17]

But WWF calls all this “market transformation” allowing corporations such as Unilever to process 1.3 million tons of palm oil a year a record that transforms it into the one of the world’s largest palm oil processors along with Wilmar, one of the world’s major palm oil producers. Now that they have completed their “accreditation” and taken into account “social criteria” then, all is well according to WWF. Though virgin forest continues to be cut down and environmental toxicity levels abound.

Charges of profits before principles have dogged WWF since its inception. The Cambodian government was none too pleased with the organisation and its handling of the Irrawaddy Dolphin in the Mekong river systems, listed as critically endangered by WWF since 2004. In June 2009, Touch Seang Tana, chairman of Cambodia’s Commission for Conservation and Development of the Mekong River Dolphins Eco-tourism Zone, accused WWF of misrepresenting the level of extinction danger concerning the Mekong Dolphin in order to increase fundraising. He stated: “The WWF’s report did not implement scientific research,” citing that: “Most dolphins died of fishing net from local fishermen and explosion devices for local people to catch fish. They did not die from pollution, DDT, pesticide or dams.” [18]

Heavy-Pollution-Leads-Mekong-Dolphins-to-Extinction-2

Mekong river Dolphins ‘almost extinct’

Cambodian government estimates between 155 and 175 Irrawaddy dolphins still remain in Cambodia’s stretch of the Mekong River, while WWF last year put the figure at just 85. Since 2012 Cambodia cabinet has agreed to implement a conservation area which will cover a 180-kilometer-long stretch of river from Eastern Kratie province to the border with Laos.

When WWF does do its professed job of protecting endangered species it doesn’t succeed there either, at least according to the 1989 Phillipson Report named after Oxford professor John Phillipson. He did as WWF asked and completed a commissioned internal audit to gauge the organization’s effectiveness. The 252 page report proved the charity had produced a litany of embarrassing failures. Not one endangered species project had been successful. After spending a fortune on “saving the panda” through “scientific breeding” which the fund proclaimed should be applied to all other species, it consequently “relocated” thousands of peasant Chinese so that they were out of the range of the panda’s habitat. In their bid to save the panda from extinction they squandered the millions accrued from donations.

Phillipson states:

“despite a staff of 43 (23 allegedly science-trained), panda breeding has not been a success and research output negligible…. The laboratories, equipped at a cost to WWF of SFr 0.53 million, are essentially non-functional. … A lack of proper advice, inadequately trained staff, and poor direction have resulted in a ‘moribund’ laboratory … The obvious conclusion must be that WWF has not been effective or efficient in safeguarding its massive investment … WWF subscribers would be dismayed to learn that the capital input has been virtually written off.” […]

“It must be accepted that WWF activities in China are largely in disarray … The policy of widening WWF involvement to cover other interests has, in my opinion, been counterproductive and, in view of the virtual cessation of support for all forms of panda research, amounts to an abrogation of responsibility for the much publicized ‘Panda Program.’” [19]

Furthermore, WWF had bribed Chinese officials with donated funds in order to preserve panda habitat but which also allowed the building of hydroelectric dams leading to ever increasing demands for bigger bribes. [20]

After decades of so called expertise in the field of conservation this is surely an odd state of affairs for an environmental institution which is regularly consulted on conservation issues despite having a dubious record on animal welfare and an appalling success rate in protecting species from extinction. Its bank balance is certainly something that could be termed “successful.”

In 2010, WWF proclaimed it the “Year of the Tiger” in keeping with its long tradition of campaigning on behalf of this endangered species. In the early 1970s, it managed to convince the Indian government under then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Indian government to create some protected areas for the tigers. At the time it said there were roughly 4,000 tigers compared to just 1,700 today. Without WWF perhaps the tiger would be no more? It is hard to say. The issue of resettlement played out in India just as it would in China, with assurances by WWF staff that operations were handled properly. Given the magnitude of resettlement in India resulting 300,000 families being “persuaded” to leave their homes in order to create a conservation zone, it is hard to believe that such a mass displacement was willingly undertaken.

>WWF’s insistence that elephant populations were just fine underscored its preference for culling and hunting through much of the 1960s and 1970s. Though almost every environmental movement and nature conservation expert was saying that the elephant was in danger, WWF continued to support that line that estimates of sharp declines were exaggerated. In fact, from the results of various studies it was found that there were 3 million elephants in Africa in the early 1950s; 1.3 million elephants in the mid-70s when the ivory trade was at its height; 400,000 by 1988. Estimated populations of African elephants have recovered somewhat at between 490,000 or 65o, 000, with Asian elephants at only 60,000. [21]

International WWF chairman Sir Peter Scott also had a reputation for the option of culling animals regardless of whether numbers were dwindling or not. In 1963, in a report to the Ugandan Parks Board, Scott recommended the ‘culling’ of 2,500 elephants and according to EIR report by Allen Douglas “… game hunter Ian Parker, … massacred 4,000 hippos while he was at it.” It seems that the Chairman: “… had recommended the slaughter on the Malthusian premise that ‘overpopulation’ required the killing of many individuals in order to ‘save the species.’ In reality, as it later emerged, Scott wanted to create a valuable mahogany plantation in the forests where the elephants fed, and they were in the way.” [22]  If there was any truth to the notion that WWF was interested in preserving species then it was strongly called into question when it embraced the more lucrative idea of allowing only the privileged to kill endangered wildlife under the cover of that well-known term: “sustainable use”, which means the killing of animals in the most efficient way and which maximizes profits without damaging the long-term viability of the species.

An example of this strategy so common in nature conservation was discovered in 1994 where the Tufts Centre for Animals and Public Policy director Andrew Rowan found: “… a single difference in the responses of zoo and humane representatives to 12 hypothetical ethical problems he posed at the White Oak conference on zoos and animal protection. Most agreed that hunting is both ethically and pragmatically dubious as an alleged tool of wildlife management. Yet, endorsing the WWF view, the zoo people were virtually all willing to tolerate trophy hunting as a way to make wildlife lucrative for poor nations, and presumably therefore worth protecting.” [23]

Trophy-hunting and the neo-colonialism of the rich, white man pervades WWF philosophy and practice. In the context of “Sustainable use” this will actually speed up the likelihood of extinction when artificial practices based on blood sport and killing for pleasure wrapped up in rules and regulations replaces the natural balance of hunting for survival and necessity often sitting alongside a healthy wisdom and understanding of the natural world.  The same applies to the politics of “sustainable use” which have attracted the “change agent” doctrine that is seen in Agenda 21 and across the environmentalism movement. Such advocates within WWF and other groups have the gall to suggest to Africans and Asians living on the poverty line that they should allow rich Europeans and Americans to kill animals for sport as oppose to those who kill to survive and must be reduced to living on the scarcity of hand-outs to compensate. As one commentator reiterated: “ ‘Sustainable users’ argue that giving poor Africans and Asians a collective economic stock in wildlife will lead to the development of a collective ethic, whereby poachers will become pariahs. This ignores the history of collectivism wherever it has been attempted, from the failed USSR to Africa’s own overgrazed grasslands.” [24]

With the failure to save the Black Rhino in the 1960s and 70s as well as the declining populations of the White Rhino, John Phillipson stated:

“The project was ill-conceived and indefensible in conservation terms; the Southern White Rhino has never, at least in historic times, occurred in Kenya: Moreover, there is no evidence that the Northern White Rhino ever roamed the lands which now constitute the 87,044 hectare Meru National Park. The assumption must be that in the mid-1960s WWF was either scientifically incompetent, hungry for publicity, greedy for money, or unduly influenced by scientifically Naïve persons of stature.” […]

“The program came to an abrupt end in November 1988, perhaps mercifully in that it removed a constant source of embarrassment. Insurgent Somali poachers shot all the remaining white rhino in an act of defiance, an unfortunate end for the rhino but no doubt a welcome relief for concerned conservationists. Project 0195 is not a project that WWF should look back on with any pride.” [25]

Funded with 1 million Swiss francs Operation Stronghold was ostensibly conducted to save the Black Rhino in the Zambezi Valley from extinction. It soon became clear that this was something other than just Rhino protection and the transferral to safer regions. Taking a leaf out of the rise in private army outsourcing in countries such as America, Britain and Israel WWF paid Chief Game Ranger Glen Tatham and his men to protect the Rhino it seems at any cost. But was the Rhino really the main objective here?

blk-rhino

Black Rhino, Zambezi Valley

In November 1988, When two of Tatham’s unit were charged with murder after allegedly shooting dead “poachers” in cold blood, more details of their activities began to surface. Notwithstanding that over 145 “poachers” had been killed since 1984 and 1991, many had been targeted from helicopters manned by WWF employees. [26] Yet, according to the Game department’s own figures: “Of the 228 people killed or taken prisoner, only 107 guns were recovered. Given that another 202 individuals were recorded as having fled, some badly injured, some of whom would have lost or been unable to carry away their weapons, this means that Tatham et al., failed to recover weapons from three-quarters of those killed, taken prisoner, or driven away. This raises the question of whether those targeted by the guards were in fact armed poachers at all.”  [27]

Rhinos were in fact, shipped off to countries with privately-owned game reserves not just in Africa but all over the world, an immensely lucrative project for WWF.  Following in the wake of WWF’s sleight of hand, the IMF did what it does best and embarked on a restructuring of Zimbabwe’s economy, which meant placing it in debt and cutting what was left of social services. Dumped into the middle of this Western-imposed chaos was the monoculture business of beef ranching for Europe, slap-bang in the Zambezi Valley, the exact position where the rhino’s once lived. A government and corporate-mandated extermination of wildlife then ensued to provide for the IMF beef factories.

Black Rhinos have made a dramatic comeback after private land use was brought into the picture which also utilised armed guards and private army protection. Ever on the look-out for profit, a Price Waterhouse study commissioned by conservancies and WWF-Zimbabwe/Beit Trust to explore the land-use options available to the conservancies concluded that: “from a financial perspective, wildlife is a more desirable land-use than cattle in these Conservancies.” [28]

WWF’s earliest corporate sponsor was the petrochemical giant Royal Dutch/Shell. In 1961 it gave WWF-UK £10,000 a considerable sum back in 1961. So, before green righteousness goes to far let it be remembered that WWF was actually founded on oil money. But it doesn’t stop there. Corporate sponsorship continues apace some of whom include Canon, Volvo, Nokia and HSBC – the latter having been recently fined more that $1.5 billion for financial corruption, a banking cartel that was found to be laundering money for drug barons and crime lords whilst engaging in the kind  of financial terrorism second only to Barclays Banks. Yet getting into bed with oppressive regimes and finding time to indoctrinate slum kids in Pakistan we shouldn’t be too surprised, especially when we nip back to 1988…

In that year, a large cache of paintings were sold for £700,000 to raise money for the World Wide Fund for Nature. The money was deposited in a Swiss WWF bank account by former head of the WWF, Prince Bernhard. In the following year £500,000 was transferred back to Bernhard by director-general of the WWF, Charles de Haes for what was described as “a private project.” In fact, Prince Bernhard had used the money for Operation Project Lock to hire mercenaries—mostly British to ostensibly fight poachers in nature reserves.[29]In 1990, WWF’s cosseted existence was placed under the media spotlight embroiling the organisation in a very public scandal. A joint operation between WWF and British Special Air Services (SAS) had been tasked with infiltrating “commandos” in a bid to save the Rhino and in the hope of dismantling the illegal ivory trade and Rhino horn trading network. That was the theory hatched in the WWF boardroom. It proved to be colossal failure.

Firstly, £1 million went missing. This may have had something to do with the fact that her Majesty’s respected SAS group had set up shop with Rhino products and gone into business for themselves. Far from stopping the illegal trade, they had muscled in on the action taking over the market and continuing the supply lines. Large numbers of poachers were murdered according to statements made by Nelson Mandela’s National African Congress. Further revelations came to light about the depth of British Intelligence involvement which was fully supported by WWF’s own documents and published in the Africa Confidential Bulletin. MI5 was said to have orchestrated Operation Lock with David Stirling, creator of the SAS.

The history of African National Parks is a history of collusion between park wardens funded and armed by WWF. The “poachers” are often phantoms in that such fabrications cover the truth that they are often the very same park wardens. The SAS unit officially sent in to stop the trade were drawn from the ranks of seasoned military professionals with black operational or “dirty warfare” experience. They were members of a mercenary unit created by Stirling called KAS International and just the ticket it seemed for WWF’s designs.

Though largely downplayed and covered up by the media, the trail of culpability led directly to the door of the British Establishment and most notably Prince Philip, the Queen Mother and author Laurens Van Der Post Prince Charles’ tutor, then first counsellor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on African Affairs. (Incidentally, Van Der Post has been proven to have been a fraud who knew very little about the real Africa). Nevertheless, the Duke of Edinburgh is pleased with the legacy. And WWF’s present day “Market Transformation” team shows no sign of observing a distance between corporations and their cash. “Change agents” are at work where the big dealers and producers of commodities like soybeans, milk, palm oil, wood and meat can see the errors of their ways and be shown the righteousness of a sustainable lifestyle. As a result, Cargill and Monsanto, two of the most heinous polluters and human rights abusers on the planet, donate regularly to WWF and attend many of their meetings. Keeping the green spin turning is essential for such companies which have huge investments in genetically modified soybean.

Jobs for the boys continues in 2013 and not much has changed. Thanks to the European Union millions of pounds are being paid to green campaign groups so that they can effectively lobby themselves. The European Commission Environmental Fund and are giving grants to enable scores of green organisations to influence and promote EU policy. According to the Tax Payers’ Alliance which analyses organisations’ spending this special fund called Life+, has exceeded £90 million over the past fifteen years. Set up in the 1990s to fund non-profit initiatives at the European level but most importantly, it is in the development and implementation of Community policy and legislation where Life+ is designed to be most effective. It would be a stretch to say that this money is being used to protect the environment, rather it seems this is another example of EU policies being routed through the back door of environmentalism without due consultation. Sure enough, the European Policy office of WWF (now based in Brussels) is up at the top of the grant listing having received £7.4 million. According to a Deccember 21st 2013 report from The Telegraph entitled: ‘European Union funding £90m green lobbying con’ By Robert Mendrick and Edward Malnick:

“In its most recent round of grants for 2013, Life+ awarded £7.5 million to 32 groups, including:

  • £290,000 to CEE Bankwatch Network, a Czech-based organisation which campaigns against “the activities of international financial institutions in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region that cause negative environmental and social impacts”;
  • £80,000 to Counter Balance, also based in Prague, which lobbies banks to ensure they “adhere to sustainable development goals, climate change mitigation policy, and the protection of biodiversity, in line with EU goals”;
  • £260,000 to Brussels-based Health Care Without Harm Europe, which campaigns to “address the environmental impact of the health-care sector in Europe … to make the health-care system more ecologically sustainable”;
  • £44,000 to Kyoto Club, based in Rome, whose main actions include “lobbying and advocacy for EU climate change mitigation policies, through policy recommendations and reports, information-sharing and campaigning, participation in EU events and stakeholder meetings, and contacts with relevant MEPs, Council and Commission officials”;
  • £350,000 to the Italian-based Slow Food, a group which campaigns to “reduce the impact of food production and consumption on the environment” and will achieve this by “participating in the international and EU debate about food through EU institution advisory committees, expert working groups and other high-level groups”.

At last, finally some cash is being used to implement a global green policy? Well, by now, it should be obvious that all this money flying about doesn’t actually alter the fundamental socio-economic structure but certainly lines the pockets of new “eco” industries and their bureaucracies. Greenpeace is possibly the only well-known environmental activist group who is acutely aware of green-washing having chosen not to take any EU or government funding. It perhaps the best known environmental campaigning organisation, has refused to take any EU or government funding. It should be commended for realising the nature of such compromise and what this really entails. Independence means it is much less likely to provide and open door to ponerisation. (It’s only a shame they don’t apply the same principles to their stance on climate change).

clip_image002.jpg

WWF “Business partners” 2012

The green charity Friends of the Earth (FoE) is another recipient of Life+ with over £2.1 million in funds in 2012 from: “… at least seven different departments of the European Commission. By contrast, the charity’s arm in Britain said it receives less than one per cent of its budget from the EU, with the vast majority of its funding coming from individuals and trusts.” The report goes on to state: “FoEE used its funding last year to produce a four-minute video to put pressure on the British and German governments to back a new EC directive which set a series of legally binding energy efficiency targets across Europe. The video was co-produced with Climate Action Network Europe, which has received £2.3 million from Life+ to ‘improve existing EU climate and energy policies’.”

In fact, the overwhelming drive to promote and lobby for EU directives under sustainable development alongside SMART society in a European setting. Higher tax bills, zero consultation on environmental policy and the new Eco-technocratic bias which goes with it blankets European perception. In the UK austerity measures, rising debt and a generation of older folk frequently have to ration their food in order to pay the electricity bills which have risen by 150 per cent in the last ten years. The German online newspaper deutschewelle.de. reported the figure of 31, 000 Britons, mostly the retired or on low incomes who died in 2012 as a result of the cold. The social and environmental costs are driving the prices sky high. SMART implementation and serious economic difficulties the funding of activist groups for measures and initiatives without due oversight and accountability is an open door to corruption and misappropriation of funds. Since most eco-activist organisations have little or no awareness of the macro-social objectives of those currently shaping European policy it means funding is generally being absorbed into the already centralised belief system inherent in Establishment support. The compromise arrives over time not necessarily in the short-term acceptance of funds. Rather, it contributes to a slow process of attrition where green policy is gradually contoured into a new socio-economic structure which may not be based on the freedom and independence those organisations and NGOs sincerely believe exists.

Employees within WWF and other organisations believe that allowing corporations to continue their natural state of plunder and exploitation while hoping for a change of face is a practical endeavour. For the multitude of good-hearted persons working in organisations like WWF whose patrons clearly have a different environmental and ideological agenda, they are in danger of becoming agents of a change that lead away from what they would sincerely like to see: the betterment of our environment and the human sphere. This will not come without a very different kind of compromise.

**

See also: Greenpeace Helps Corporations Destroy the Planet

 


Notes

[1] Ibid.
[2] Ibid.
[3] ‘Parks for life: Action for protected areas in Europe’ IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas, Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe. 1994.
[4]
Dowie, Mark; Conservation Refugees:The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples Published by MIT Press, 2009. ISBN-10:0-262-01261-8.
[5] Ibid. (p.xvi intro.)
[6] Ibid.
[7] op. cit. Glüsing and Klawitter.
[8] op. cit. Dowie (p.xix)
[9] op. cit. (p. xx)
[10] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[11] Ibid.
[12] ‘Romania: Elite Hunting Spree Sparks Calls For Better Animal’, rferl.org/ September 12, 2012.
[13] ‘Royal row over Russian bear fate’ BBC News, October 2006.
[14] ‘William and Harry fly to Spain to hunt wild boar to celebrate the end of Harry’s helicopter training’ By Rebecca English, Royal Correspondent, 17 January 2012.
[15] Op-Ed: King Juan Carlos not the only questionable association for WWF’ By Elizabeth Batt, http://www.digitaljournal.com April 2012.
[16] ‘Way Beyond Greenwashing: Have Corporations Captured Big Conservation?” by J. Latham, Independent Science News.org.
[17] op. cit. Glüsing, Klawitter.
[18] ‘Cambodia Rejects CNN, WWF Reports about Mekong Dolphin’ June 24 2009. CRI English, Xinhua.
[19] op.cit. La Rouche et al.
[20] Ibid.
[21] IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report 2007 | ‘Asian Elephant distribution’. EleAid. 2007.
[22] ‘The oligarchs’ real game is killing animals and killing people’ by Allen Douglas, EIR.1994.
[23] ‘What’s Wrong with “Sustainable Use”?’ June 1994 Animal People http://www.animalpeople.org
[24] Ibid.
[25] op. cit. Phillipson.
[26]‘Can Mercenary Management stop poaching in Africa?’ Animal People, April 1999. http://www.animalpeople.org
[27] op. cit. Douglas.
[28] Private Conservation Case Study: Private Conservation and Black Rhinos in Zimbabwe: The Savé Valley and Bubiana Conservancies, by Michael De Alessi January 2000.
[29] “Pretoria inquiry confirms secret battle for the rhino”. The Independent. 18 January 1996.

 

Dark Green IV: 1001 Club, WWF & Green-Washing

By M.K. Styllinski

“I have never been noticeably reticent about talking on subjects about which I know nothing.”

– Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, Meeting of Industrialists 1961


WWFJust as there are many environmental organisations and advocacy groups who do extraordinary work for the planet’s environment and wildlife, there are also those that have their roots in eco-fascism and technocratic social engineering. For the sake of brevity and to remain on topic, we shall single out the WWF as an example of this “green mask” as well as its relationship to Prince Philip and corporate sponsorship.

The Nature Conservancy was founded by Royal Charter in 1949 and one of the four official research organisations under the British royalty’s Privy Council. It allowed for the legal protection of National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). After writing the legislation for the body, Edward Max Nicholson became its head in 1952 deeming it important enough to leave his government post as permanent secretary to the deputy Prime Minister. Though he stepped down as Director-General in 1966 he remained a powerful influence over conservation and the environmental movement as a whole, formulating strategy, tactics and direction for several decades. (Nicholson’s 1970 book title: The Environmental Revolution: A Guide for the New Masters of the World should give an idea where his sentiments lay…) Like his friend Julian Huxley, he was an advocate of eugenics and racial purification.

In 1931, the British policy think tank, Political and Economic Planning (PEP) took to the elite eco state with pressure from Huxley, the financier Sir Basil Blackett, the agronomist Leonard Elmhirst, the director of Marks & Spencer Israel Sieff among many others. Nicholson became chairman in 1953. [1]Being a non-governmental planning organisation financed by corporations it was perfectly suited as a pool from which members could be networked and managed to organise other initiatives and projects. [2]

Partially affiliated to the United Nations and with a constitution written by the British Foreign Office, the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature (ICUN) was founded in 1948 by Sir Julian Huxley, bringing together 77 nations, 114 government agencies, and 640 non-governmental organizations and over 10,000 scientists, lawyers, educators, and corporate executives from 181 countries. The ICUN’s mission is: “to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to assure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable.” [3]

To say that ecology is more important than any concept of human need would be to vastly underestimate the ICUN’s precepts. Working closely with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) it was this body that launched the “Global Biodiversity Strategy,” which now guides the conservancy and sustainability initiatives of many countries. The preservation of biodiversity is its primary goal. Back in 1948 however, it needed funds to survive.  The idea for a financial fund for the IUCN initially came from businessman Victor Stolan who passed his suggestion onto to Huxley who in turn, put Stolan in contact with Max Nicholson who had the intelligentsia and corporate elite at his fingertips. In 1961, with Stolan, Sir Peter Scott and Guy Mountfort, Nicholson formed the committee that would found the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (now the World Wide Fund for Nature) officially launching the organization on April 29, with none other than Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands as its official chairman in the following year. The first staff was assembled by more Rockefeller minions, this time in the guise of Godfrey A. Rockefeller and WWF offices opened on September 11th in Morges, Switzerland.[4] Though business as usual, a cat was let out of the bag and Prince Bernhard was embroiled in the Lockheed-Martin weapons scandals in the mid-1970s where he was found guilty of accepting bribes to sell aeroplanes. Prince Philip would eventually replace Bernhard to become WWF chairman from 1981 – 1996 and continues to hold the title of President Emeritus. Princess Alexandra, first cousin to the Queen was chosen to replace him.

The WWF is a meeting point and clearing house for some of the leading European eco-oligarchical families. It is the most powerful environmental organisation in the world, active in over 100 countries. It has frequently been accused of benefiting industry more than the environment and acting as a neo-colonial tool for British interests.  Anti-pollution, endangered species and encouraging renewable energies and sustainable practice form the policy objectives of WWF. To that end, conservation areas, parks and reserves have been set up usually outside the influence of the governments within those nations. According to Executive intelligence Review many of these “ecological reserves” are used “as training grounds and safe-havens for British-backed terrorist organizations” such as the “… national parks in Africa, [which] train and protect all the “liberation fronts” under British control.” [5]

The vast wealth, social, cultural and political influence of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh should not be underestimated in this context. He is patron, chair, trustee and shareholder for many corporations, committees, bodies, boards, panels, commissions and military ranks, which, as one biography mentions: “… cover sixty-six close typed pages in his Patronage Book at Buckingham Palace.” [6]The WWF was and remains dear to his heart. Remember that the handlers behind Sir Julian Huxley and his ideas for getting the general public and lower tier power brokers to “think the unthinkable” was to engage in a form of eco-Intelpro, where environmentalism would act as a mask for eugenics and other World State applications. For Prince Philip and his ilk, environmentalism, neo-feudalism and eugenics are inextricably linked. As author Walter William Kay observes: “During a 1960 tour of Africa, on the eve of the launching of the WWF, Huxley openly boasted that the ecology movement would be the principal weapon used by the British oligarchy to impose a Malthusian world order over the dead body of the nation-state system, and, most importantly, the United States.” [7]

By the time WWF had entered the 1970s and the waning influence and disappointment of the counter-culture, Philip, Bernhard and their associates were creating a funding base not just for the WWF, but for the hundreds of new environmental and ecology-based organisations appearing all over the world. There was a new generation to hijack and deploy “… as the storm-troopers of the new ‘green’ fascism.” This fund was named the “1001: A Nature Trust” or the “1001 Club” among its members. It was so called because Philip wanted to hand pick 1001 members of the crème de la crème of corporate elite. It was in reality a green Bilderberg Group  packed with the same brand of European corporatists and Synarchists. By far the greatest number of members were drawn from the heads of the banking cartels and with an initial fee of £10,000 members could enter the inner sanctum of ecological visions.

Prince_Philip__Duke_of_EdinburghPrince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1961 Meeting of Industrialists 1961

Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a 1001 Club charter member, and a motley crew of known criminals such as arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and former Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Robert Vesco, Edmond Safra and Sheikh Ali Ahmed, also happened to be on board and who became more widely known for their connection to Prince Bernhard when they were exposed by the Financial Times at the time of the Lockheed Scandal. Eco-guru Maurice Strong, also a member of the 1001 Club did his part in placing WWF at the centre of public awareness and the Establishment by sponsoring Earth Day, closely followed by the UN sponsored Stockholm conference which birthed the UNEP and Strong’s future eco-vehicle for the most potent global warming and sustainable development/SMART society propaganda.

In Executive Intelligence Review’s ground-breaking report “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor” evidence is presented that is very hard to deny yet still largely ignored in the MSM. Prince Philip and the House of Windsor is charged with heading the “Club of Isles” which is made up of green NGOs, organisations, corporations and councils, with Queen Elizabeth as the “chief executive officer.” The Club brings together the political and financial power base of intermarried European Royals and dynasty families which extends from Scandinavia to Greece. What this means is that there is eco-fascism at work which employs the same monopolistic methods of both the early Round Table Movement, its corporate cousin the Round Table of Industrialists and other power brokers to accomplish the same ends. Once again, as the global Red Shield Masters of financial directives, the House of Rothschild lie behind its inception as founding members of this interlocking membership of eco-fascists. Accordingly, we have:

“… a new British imperial revival, modeled on the eighteenth and nineteenth century British East India Company, with its private armies, and its corporate sovereignty over large tracts of land, ripped from the hands of nation-states. Today, relics of the heyday of the British Empire, such as Crown Associates and the Corps of Commissionaires, are directly running the affairs of state for such London puppets as [ ] Museveni, and are deploying private armies made up of “former” British SAS officers, now employed by companies such as Executive Outcomes, Defense Systems, Ltd., KAS, KMS, etc. Under the new imperial mandate, the agenda is now explicitly the depopulation of the globe. [8]

WWF and its sister organisation the IUCN has dedicated themselves to reducing the world’s population and controlling the world’s resources so that they stay in the clutches of an updated and modernized British and Anglo-Dutch Empire and their  ties to globalist groups. True to form, the push for a world government is a tacit requirement for its continuance, something which the WWF have dutifully advocated. [9]  Cecil Rhode’s Round Table with Rothschild money; Fabian cross-overs and much of the Anglo-American and Anglo-Dutch Elite lie firmly under the auspices of the Club of Isles, which draws its ideology from the British East India Company and its freemasonic roots in the late sixteenth century, the personification of British Empire’s early corporatism as conquest. Once the company had its royal charter from the Crown then the fortunes of British Aristocracy and elite families was secure.

Where and how does the Queen obtain her wealth? She is the richest woman in the world after all, with a tidy sum of at least $13 billion to her name. Being exempt from disclosing her innumerable holdings it is likely that the fortune is much, much greater. Some of these corporations and holdings operating in Africa are infused with British political directives partially or wholly owned by the Crown:

  • Anglo-American Corp. of South Africa, Ltd – the largest mining company in the world built from the Diamond trade of the Oppenhiemer family with financial support from JP Morgan and The Rothschilds;
  • RTZ Corp. PLC. The second-largest mining company in the world.
  • De Beers Consolidated Mines Ltd. Set up by Cecil Rhodes with Rothschilds’ support to monopolise world diamond production.
  • Barclays PLC. The primary banking cartel in Africa and Europe and membership of the 1001 Club and helped to co-found WWF.
  • Shell Trading & Transport PLC and Shell U.K. Ltd. – World’s largest petrochemical producer.
  • N.M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd. – One of the original families from the Hapsburg Empire and groomed and financed Cecil Rhodes’ exploitation of Africa’s gold and diamonds.
  • Imperial Chemical Industries PLC. (ICI) – Formed in 1926 by Lord Melchett. The present Lord Melchett, grandson of ICI’s founder, is head of Greenpeace, United Kingdom.
  • Unilever – Owns vast plantations in Africa and the continent’s largest trading company (United Africa Co.); key part of the world food cartel, particularly in fats and edible oils. Formed by 1930s strategic merger of English Lever Brothers firm, which owned the West African heirs to the Royal Niger Co, with a Dutch company. [10]

club of isleClub of Isles connections (revamped from ‘The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor’ By Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. November 1994)

The only way such plunder can be continued is similar to the geo-political strategy favoured by her Majesty’s MI6, the MOSSAD and the CIA when they wish to claim a country for their own – create chaos and as much misery, violence and death that is proportionate to the prize.

This brings us back to one of a handful of pioneers on behalf of the British Crown: Cecil Rhodes and the British South Africa Company. It is exactly this perception of the world that informed the direction and policies of the WWF at the board level. The WWF-IUCN marriage is continuing what their 19th Century forerunners started though under an almost impenetrable cover of environmentalism and conservation. Africa has been violated, raped and plundered by the British Elite for two hundred years and is only increasing its activities as we enter the 21st century competing with American, Russian and particularly Chinese interests in the continent.

Neo-colonialism in Africa has been financed by a conglomerate of companies tasked with securing and expanding the fortunes of the Queen and the Crown Corporation of London and its bankers. Keeping civil wars and genocide intermittently turning over is essential to both land grabbing, resource catchment and long term destruction of “inferior races”. The new drive to conquer Africa has multiple benefits and it is perhaps for this reason that WWF has been so closely associated with corporate “green-washing.” The WWF claims that partnering with companies such as Coca-Cola, HSBC and Nokia will reduce their impact on the environment is both false and disingenuous. [11]With over €56 million (US $80 million) from transnational businesses in 2010 (an 8 percent increase from 2009) this is not small coinage we are talking about here. [12]  The organisation has an impressive stream of revenue from a long list of corporate, governmental, private and public sources. Millions of people donate their money around the world, contributing to its annual income of ½ billion euros a year. From just one source, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) WWF has received a total of $120 million over the last several years. [13]  So, how is it being invested?

Rwanda is an instructive example. While WWF’s national park gave refuge to the endangered species of Mountain Gorilla it also offered a safe haven for guerrillas of the Ugandan and British backed insurgency group Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who at the time, were fighting a bloody war against Rwanda’s government and people. Much to the delight of her Majesty’s ruling elite, they have since become the ruling political party of Rwanda, led by President Paul Kagame.

eastern_lowland_gorilla_wallpaper_pc-horz

Silver-backed Mountain Gorilla (left)  Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) flag (right)

The sheer size of these parks is astounding. South Africa’s Kruger National Park is bigger than Ireland or Israel, while the Central Kalahari Game Reserve covers 51,800 square km and is larger than either Denmark and Switzerland. There are more than 1,100 national parks and related reserves in sub-Saharan Africa, of which 36 are designated World Heritage Sites. Since 1970, total protected-area coverage in Africa has increased nearly two-fold, and now encompasses 3.06 million km2 of terrestrial and marine habitats. Protected areas currently cover 15.9 percent and 10.1 percent of total land surface in the East/Southern African and West/Central African regions, respectively. [14]

It is also true that many reserves suffer from what is called “reserve isolation” ironically caused by habitat loss, fences and roads, overhunting, and disease being the most important factors. Ecologist William D. Newmark writing in Frontiers in Ecology describes:

“The ultimate drivers of protected-area isolation in Africa,” which are: “… rapid population growth, economic expansion, social and environmental human displacement, and poverty.” He continues: “Between 1975 and 2001, the human population in sub-Saharan Africa doubled, and it is expected to double again by 2034. Additionally, 42 percent of people living in the region subsist on less than one US dollar per day.” [15]

In fact, the parks have destabilised and disrupted the economic and ecosystems in Africa by: “decreasing the total energy throughput in the entire ecological system” and thus providing an open door to parasites and new strains of disease. The case of the tsetse fly seems to prove this point:

African tribesmen had long kept the tsetse fly – which carries the deadly disease Trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness – in check through extensive cultivation and bush clearance. The tribesmen understood that the fly lived off wild game, particularly antelope. For this reason, many tribal chiefs opposed the creation of the parks, and the related ban on hunting, as a threat to their herds. […]

Today, according to the admissions of Lee and Gerry Durrell, writing for the Conservation Monitoring Centre at Cambridge, England, an entity financed by Prince Philip’s WWF, ‘blood-sucking tsetse flies inhabit 10 million square kilometers of tropical Africa, in a wide band across the continent that takes in 34 countries.’ The authors bemoan modern-day spraying methods which have rendered new areas tsetse-free. In fact, ‘ the tsetse-free areas are growing so fast that … there is a real possibility that the spread of livestock onto marginal land will become a threat to wildlife …’ The eradication of the tsetse fly may be Africa’s misfortune.”  [16]

And it precisely the same interference in African affairs which has given rise to the serious economic situations in the continent with its inhabitants never having the chance to prepare for the future before the next Western-backed coup, land grab, manipulated famine or large-scale nature reserve to send both the social and ecological balance into chaos. Subsisting on one US dollar a day and coupled with Western foreign policy to exploit Africa any which way it can, may be linked to the rise in population growth.

When the mostly white, corporate and international banking fraternity sitting on the boards of WWF-INCU take massive swathes of African land out of circulation, this has economic consequences. The land often has resources lying beneath which can be covertly mined, harvested or extracted much to the frequent outrage of WWF subscribed members but with the sage approval of the hierarchy. The current theme we see over and over is a restricted area for humans where flora and fauna take precedence.

Harking back to Medieval England where lands and forests were sequestered for exclusive hunting by the King and his officers, this has continued first under the guise of the 19th and 20th Century colonial Elite and their obsession with hunting game and the often brutal eviction of local natives. Many early laws, conventions and colonial decrees dating from 1900-1933 paved the way for national parks which gradually drove indigenous tribes away from their homes while restricting their ability to hunt. Their naturally ecologically sound practice was overtaken by mass hunting where the European rich began to commercialise and consolidate nature in Africa. These internal frontiers within the African colonies decreed  the native population were prohibited from hunting or even walking on what was once their own land. It was to be a form of trespass under the pretext of protecting wildlife which continues to the present day, even though colonial rule appears to have long gone.

1024px-Kruger_Zebra

Two Burchell’s zebra in the central Kruger National Park, South Africa  Photo: Nithin bolar k | Location of Kruger National Park Photo: Htonl  (wikipedia)

The Kruger Park was created and named after South African President Paul Kruger in 1889 and lies along the border with the Portuguese colony of Mozambique. After the Boer War between the British and the Afrikaaners and the ecological destruction visited on the park and region by Lord Kitchener, it was re-established by Round Table member Lord Alfred Milner a close  colleague of Cecil Rhodes who was already busy stripping gold from Africa for his Rothschilds handlers. In 1902, he instructed the park’s first warden Maj. James Stevenson-Hamilton fresh from service in the Boer War to rid the park of indigenous black people. Under the banner of “anti-poaching” this took over 45 years with more than 11,000 miles of countryside ethnically cleansed. Locked out of their own parlour, black Africans were forced to find work in cities and mines following a pattern of slave labour which has continued today under corporate rule. As it was then, so it is today.

Where once tribal hunters used the animals they killed for good of the family and tribe, many are often forced to poach because history has shown that to have faith in governments that purport to protect wildlife is a false economy indeed. Corrupt governments with the help of organisations like the WWF sell animals to the highest bidder and make profits from both culling and hunting so “poachers” see no reason why they should not hunt these animals and take the profits before others do.

From the outset, destabilising the African continent was the avowed mission of British Empire agents with Rhodes and Milner two of the most well-known. The only way to secure power for the Empire was to break the spirit and land of the people. For example, from 1952 to 1960, the atrocities of the Mau Mau, an alleged secret society within the Kikuyu tribe was nothing more than a British plot to cut off the head of a Kenyan revolution against British colonial rule. Mass resettlement and severe ecological destruction ensued with many forests burnt to the ground by the British military. Kikuyu factions and tribal warfare was stimulated and encouraged by early British PSYOPS to encourage and perpetrate genocide. By exacerbating ethnic rivalries and historic enmities it reverse-engineered the revolution that was initially against the British so that it became focused on the tribes resulting in a conflagration against native peoples in the region. [17]  Most Mau Mau guerrilla units were an example of synthetic terror led by British military personnel and would serve as valuable knowledge for subsequent operations in present day warfare most notably in the genocides of Rwanda, the invasions of Iraq, Libya and the contemporary US-NATO and MOSSAD backed insurgents of the Syrian civil war. [18]

The British park system provided both cover and training for past and future operations and with the imposed tribal warfare doctrine it would define Africa for the next 100 years and beyond. By the 1960s, the British Empire was winding down from its more overt colonialism but the parks system remained a trenchant outpost of colonial rule while independence sprouted all around. Although still run by a largely British contingent the parks were now being outsourced to NGOs, shareholders and trustees unaccountable to African governments. As a consequence, the National Parks of Africa are mostly privately managed from trustees abroad.

The guerrilla war against the white minority rule of Rhodesia led by the Zimbabwe Peoples Union (ZAPU), and later the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) had both groupings trained by the KGB and Chinese instructors at the Queen Elizabeth park, Gorilla Park in Uganda and the Serengeti and Ruana national parks of Tanzania.[19]The Rhodesian government deployed the Mozambique National Resistance (Renamo) a former guerrilla unit created by Rhodesian intelligence against Zimbabwe and trained in South African regional parks in Natal, and nearby Kangwane.[20] The bloody civil war to originally overthrow Portuguese colonial rule was started in the 1950s by the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) and in the 1960s its rival, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) which lasted over 25 years. The West Zambezi Game Reserve, The Mupa National parks both played host to these warring factions.

Rwanda is a small country and much of the savannah area of the Akagera National park was re-settled by former refugees returning after the end of the Rwandan Civil War in the 1990s. In 1997 the western boundary was re-gazetted due to these land shortages and more land allocated as farms to returning refugees. The park was reduced in size from over 2,500km² to 1,200km² much to the chagrin of environmental groups. Organisations like WWF are using paramilitaries to fight poachers and to hold onto the land come what may. Whether this is strictly for the good of the parks and reserves or to maintain land for strategic and resource purposes is still a moot point. Many of the parks straddle the borders of neighbouring countries and despite being administered by UN agencies they are still effectively “militarised zones.” As journalist Linda La Hoyos describes: “Prince Philip’s WWF was administering the gorilla program in the Virunga Park, while the RPF was using the Virunga to maraud Rwanda.”

She goes on to write:

“In fact, RPF-sponsor Uganda has been profiting from the dislocation of the gorillas caused by the RPF operations. According to Africa Analysis, the RPF invasion had sent Rwanda’s gorillas running to Uganda, giving Museveni the opportunity to launch his own ‘eco-tourism program.’ Without the safe havens, provided by the royal family’s park system, the protracted civil and border wars afflicting Africa since the 1970s would have been impossible.” [21]

There are many ways to fleece a continent, but none prove more fruitful than the through the camouflage of charitable aid.

While conservation groups have been sounding the alarm on the plight of the elephant and calling for a ban on the sale of ivory, the WWF maintained nothing was wrong with the elephant population. When they eventually and grudgingly launched a campaign to assist the elephants in Uganda they set up a camp on the Rwandan border curiously more than 1,000 miles away from the main elephant colony in Murchison National Park. But it was from this exact location that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) would invade Rwanda not long after and the events set in motion that would lead to genocide and human “culling.” Coincidence or forethought?

The game plan at the time and which has since been successful was to: “… destroy Rwanda and Burundi, turning the remains into satellites of Ugandan (British) domination; destroy Kenya by overthrowing [the government] and instigating tribal warfare; and seize mineral-rich eastern Zaire.”  [22]

Did WWF covertly assist in this neo-colonial warfare?

 


Notes

[1] p.210; Memories By J.S. Huxley, Published by Allen & Unwin, 1970 | ISBN 0-04-925006-X | British Archives at http://www.aim25.ac.uk/ archive reference code: GB 0097 PEP/PSI.
[2] ‘WWF in the 60’s’. wwf.panda.org.
[3] http://www.iucn.org/
[4] In Memoriam: Godfrey A. Rockefeller, Kerry Zobor (World Wildlife Fund). January 29, 2010.
[5] ‘How The Green Fascist Movement Was Created’ by Marcia Merry and Joseph Brewda, Executive Intelligence Review, July 18, 1997.
[6] ‘The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming,and The Anglican Church’ by William Walter Kay, 2000. http://www.ecofascism.com
[7] Ibid.
[8] ‘Tinny Blair Blares For Prince Philip’s Global Eco-Fascism’ by Jeffrey Steinberg Executive Intelligence Review, July, 1997
[9] Eco-logic papers ‘global governance’ Sep/October 1997. http://www.freedom.org/el-97/sep97/tocSep97-97.htm
[10x] ‘The Coming of the Fall of the House of Windsor.’ By Lyndon La Rouche, JosephBrewda, Mark Burdman, Carlos CotaMeza, Linda de Hoyos, Allen Douglas, William Engdahl, Manuel Hidalgo, Ken Kronberg, Hugo Lopez Ochoa, Rogelio Maduro, Marcia Merry, Silvia Palacios, Ana Maria Phau, David Ramonet, Raynald Rouleau, Michael Sharp, John Sigerson, Dennis Small, Gretchen Small, Jeffrey Steinberg, Geraldo Teran, Scott Thompson, Charles Tuttle, and Anthony Wikrent. Other collaborators contributed information from Asia, Africa, and Ibero-America. The project editor was Susan Welsh., Executive Intelligence Review. November 1994.
[11] http://www.wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/businesses/
[12] ‘Panda-ing to the Soya Barons?’ Corporate Watch, September 30, 2009 | ‘Ikea – you can’t build a green reputation with a flatpack DIY manual’ by Fred Pearce, The Guardian, April 2, 2009.
[13] ‘Green Veneer WWF Helps Industry More than Environment’ By Jens Glüsing and Nils Klawitter issue 22/2012 (26 May 12) of Der Spiegel.
[14] ‘Isolation of African protected areas’ by William D Newmark, Front Ecol Environ 2008; 6(6): 321–328, doi:10.1890/070003.
[15] Ibid.
[16] ‘World Wide Fund for Nature commits genocide in Africa’ by Linda de Hoyos, “The True Story Behind the Fall of the House of Windsor,” Executive Intelligence Review, Special Report, September 1997.
[17] Gangs and Counter Gangs by Col. Frank Kitson, Published by Barrie & Rockcliff, 1960 | ASIN: B0000CKJUV
[18] ‘NATO Death Squads Attempt to Ethnically Divide Syria’ – Refugees fleeing NATO’s “Free Syrian Army,” not government troops. By Tony Cartalucci, Global Research, July 23, 2012. | ‘British intelligence enabled Syrian rebels to launch devastating attacks on President Assad’s regime, official says – Disclosure is first indication of Britain playing a covert role in the civil war Intelligence from Cyprus ‘being passed through Turkey to the rebels’ Daily Mail, By Leon Watson, 19 August 2012.
[19] ‘The African parks were created as a cover for destabilization’ By Joseph Brewda, Executive Intelligence Review, 1994.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] op.cit. Brewda.

See also: WWF International accused of ‘selling its soul’ to corporations

“Geneva-based WWF International has received millions of dollars from its links with governments and business. Global corporations such as Coca-Cola, Shell, Monsanto, HSBC, Cargill, BP, Alcoa and Marine Harvest have all benefited from the group’s green image only to carry on their businesses as usual.”

Dark Green II: Roots of Eco-Fascism

By M.K. Styllinski

Eco-fascism: “… A totalitarian government that requires individuals to sacrifice their interests to the well-being and glory of the “land”, understood as the splendid web of life, or the organic whole of nature, including peoples and their states”

– Michael E. Zimmerman, pp. 531-532 in Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature


Before looking at how environmentalism and ecological thinking operates today in some sectors of the world, we need to jump back and take a look at some of its roots.

Ecology is an interdisciplinary branch of biology exploring the relationships between living organisms and their natural environment. Even though he was not an ecologist, biologist and philosopher Ernst Haeckel coined the word “oekologie,” in 1866 from the Greek oikos meaning “house” and logos meaning “science.”  The doctrine of Vitalism has strong ties to the evolution of ecology which states that “living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things” [1] It incorporates the idea of “the soul” and “Spirit” as well as the theory of “ether” that bound all living things together; the elusive fifth element in Hermetic philosophy. This is a very old idea that can be traced back to the philosopher/surgeon Galen of Pergamon of the second Century Turkey. Ecology of the mind, land and social systems have tended to go hand in hand with the development of holism or “holistic thinking” so popular in complementary medicine and new science. This theory posits that parts of a whole have an intimate interconnection to each other and as such, cannot exist or be understood independently of that whole. Much work has been done on the validity of this theory that sees the biological organisation of life self-organising: “… into layers of emergent whole systems that function according to non-reducible properties.” [2]

This has never been more applicable to physical and mental disease and in sharp contrast to Cartesian and reductionist theories of mind and matter.

Distinct from environmentalism (philosophy, ideology and social movement) and environmental science, ecology attempts to explain life processes and adaptations; the distribution and abundance of organisms; the movement of materials and energy through living communities and the long-term development of biodiversity in the environment. A number of disciplines come under the umbrella of ecology including: behavioural ecology; community ecology (or synecology); ecophysiology; ecopsychology; ecosystem ecology; evolutionary ecology; global ecology; population ecology; human ecology and social ecology.

monolith Sculptures Near Amsterdam, Holland | © infrakshun

Whether ecology actually is a science is still hotly debated. The fact that it appeals to the wise and benevolent as much as the ignorant and evil is probably due to its diverse mix of disciplines. Whether physiology, evolutionary biology, genetics, or ethology, any science can be made to work for an ideology even at the cost of ramming that square peg into the round hole.  When a passionate love of “pure Nature” is present all that is needed to transform that belief into a toxic time-bomb is to mix in some neo-feudalism, Marxist theory and a touch of occultism and the race is on to control the “viral” spread of humanity under the guise of healing the planet. Though Darwinism and Malthusianism had little to do with ecology, they have often sat alongside ecological thinking and the fascist/collectivist policies that slowly rose up through their ranks.

Historian Anna Bramwell’s The Fading of the Greens: Decline of Environmental Politics in the West mammoth trilogy on ecology and environmental activism shows that ecologists were constantly aligned with fascist parties, fascistic philosophy, the aristocracy and Establishment. [3]   These often anti-transcendent thinkers were both pro-rural and anti-capitalist naturalists and according to Bramwell this mine discovering Nature to learn and: “… return with the recommendation that one clings to the wheel because it is the most sensible path of action. To do so requires sweeping away past identities, past traditions and past errors.” In effect, such a personality: “… a natural protestor.” [4]

Traditionally the seeds of fascistic thinking in ecology and environmental movements began to appear in Europe after the growth of the natural sciences in the 17th and 18th centuries and in the reaction to the exploitation of the land and communities that the Industrial Revolution eventually reconfigured or swept away entirely. Britain’s artists such as William Blake raged against the machine of industry as “Dark Satanic Mills” with pioneers such as John Ruskin, William Morris, Edward Carpenter and Henry Williamson continuing the struggle. Americans too were equally aghast at the destruction and consequent  “desacralisation” of Nature with the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman and Henry Thoreau offering activist wings to ecological thoughts.

This helped to give rise to the environmental movement headed by such people as Arthur Tansley who coined the term “eco-system” and Aldo Leopold who championed the cause of “land ethics” closely mirroring the Back to the Land Movement first initiated by Ruskin, though with a somewhat more scientific focus. Indeed, scientists were beginning to offer the world an ecological framework including Charles Elton’s animal ecology and food chains, along side Alexander Stuart Watt’s plant ecology. By the middle of the 20th Century, humanism and the environment were getting closer and the World State policies trumpeted by biologist Julian Huxley as head of the UN’s UNESCO agency reflected this change. Huxley’s naturalist and ethological background (the study of animals in their natural habitats) fed into his vision of humanity on a petri-dish which needed to be ordered and managed. Since the board of UNESCO saw fit to make him the Chairman, they obviously felt the same way.

In Britain, in the early part of the 20th century the growth of various environmental movements were largely in response to the economic depression which had hit farming hard after the prosperous years of the mid-19th century. The Dartington Trust founded in the 1920s to promote rural regeneration; The Garden City movement which placed a magnifying glass on town and garden design in urban areas; The Council for the Protection of Rural England and The Ramblers Association in the 1930 concentrated on town planning and the relationship to the countryside. Landowners and farmers had to cope with falling prices, lower rents and untenanted farms. Back to the Land came into its own with The English Land Colonisation Society creating 400 farming communities. Cooperatives were formed and derelict land and run-down farms were taken over; Arts and Crafts were revived and community increased. This was something undeniably anti-industry and a healthy reversal of the “filthy tide” of industrialisation which was making the British Empire the uncontested global manager.  The money came predominantly from the wealthy and those with aristocratic connections who were intent on “preserving the countryside, controlling development and shifting the population out of big cities.” [5]

According to Bramwell’s research, ecologists were mostly conservative, monarchist and staunch traditionalists of the “green and pleasant land” mythology which derived from the same traditions as the German Romantic Movement which in turn, came from immensely deep roots in German society. This revival of the land and nature began to be part of the green social movement which meant resisting the inexorable drive of the industrialists. But there was a shadow side. This “Blood and Soil” romanticism became a powerful influence not just in Britain but across all of Europe and America. Drawn from the Völkisch or “Völk” in German culture, it refers to ethnicity from the “Blood” or ancestral descent and the homeland or “Soil”. It places a vital importance on the notion of rural living and the place humans occupy in relation to Nature and their immediate environment. It was made more popular during the rise of the Nazi Third Reich by Richard Walther Darré a Nazi party member, race theorist and eugenics advocate. Yet Blood and Soil sentiment had been present in the  pagan cults embedded in the ecological fabric of Germany and thus a potential political force deep in the psyche of Germans outside the cities. (We will come back to Darré and Germany’s influence on Eco-Fascism later on).

Literature from the 1880s – 1940s was infused with folklore, countryside mythology and the almost pagan sensuality of nature. D.H. Lawrence was one of  the best examples of this new ecological vision. It was through such persons that the emerging environmental and nature activists re-learned vitalism and the “God in Nature.” His wife, Frieda von Richtofen, introduced Lawrence to an artist colony which had a: “… distinctive German brand of serious nature-worship and sun-worship”. This seems to have been a significant influence in his art and according to Bramwell: “appears to resemble the language of the proto-Nazis.” [6] Whether or not that is true, the link between English and German fascism and the art of the European intelligentsia  was very strong indeed.

19th century author and poet Ernst Moritz Arndt and journalist and novelist Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl seemed to personify the eco-fascism of the pre-war period in Germany. Arndt seemed to write beautifully and movingly about the plight of Nature under the Industrial Revolution and the importance of ecological awareness, yet he seemed to despise human beings. He was anti-French, anti-Slav, anti-Semitic and xenophobic, placing German land and people at the forefront of perfection. Riehl learned from his teacher Arndt but differed in focus. The same nationalism and anti-Semitism was present but he leaned towards an early version of environmental activism in which he advocated a fight for “the rights of wilderness.” This was to be for the well-being of the German people alone, however.

Blut und Boden / “Blood and Soil” propaganda card.

The Völkisch movement welcomed them with open arms and as humanist writer Peter Staudenmaier comments: “… it pointedly refused to locate the sources of alienation, rootlessness and environmental destruction in social structures, laying the blame instead to rationalism, cosmopolitanism, and urban civilization. The stand-in for all of these was the age-old object of peasant hatred and middle-class resentment: the Jews.” [7]

A good example of the latent fascism residing in aristocracy and the Establishment was charismatically expressed through politician Sir Oswald Ernald Mosley, 6th Baronet, of Ancoats, who founded the BUF. On 11 May 1920 he married Lady Cynthia Curzon second daughter of George Curzon, Lord Curzon of Kedleston and married his mistress in 1933 in Germany on 6 October 1936, in the Berlin home of Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels. Adolf Hitler was one of the guests.

Mosley was a distinguished orator and and one of the youngest MPs to be elected to represent his constituency of Harrow in 1918. He began as a conservative then joined the Labour Party by 1924 immediately changed his allegiance to the Independent Labour Party (ILP). Mosley and his wife Cynthia were committed Fabians right up to the start of the 1930s. [8] When Labour won the 1929 general election he was appointed to the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, his presence in government was to be short-lived. Mosley put forward a whole scheme in the ‘Mosley Memorandum’ only to find it soundly rejected, despite the fact it preceded much of the socialist policy in the intervening years. [9]

After resigning from the cabinet in 1930 he founded the New Party which gradually warmed to fascist policies. The momentum stalled due to the General Election the following year so Mosley took the opportunity to take a tour of Mussolini’s Italy which finalised his desire to pursue overtly fascist politics back in the UK. So, the British Union of Fascists was born. His corps of black-uniformed paramilitary stewards, or “blackshirts” was constantly in the news for being involved in violent confrontations between Communist or Jewish groups which would eventually lead to the downfall of Mosley’s party. When the government passed the Public Order Act 1936 which came into into effect the following year, it marked the end for his para-military brigade.

Rather ironically, Mosley embarked on a peace campaign throughout the war and was finally interned on May 1940 along with his wife Diana Mitford and other active fascists in the grounds of Holloway prison. After the War the baron rejoined active politics and formed the Union Movement, calling for a European Super-State covering the continent of Europe (known as Europe a Nation), and later attempted to launch a National Party of Europe to this end. This time his fascism was expressed through Synarchy.

At his core, Mosley had a genuine desire to better peoples’ lives, but his powerful drive was also technocratic in that he had a precise understanding of the bureaucratic and economic machinery of his day. [10]His socialism was based on re-imagining the state towards a greater British Empire that moved into Europe and further colonised Africa as “the breadbasket for the West.”sup>[11] Thus he had a lot in common with the likes of Cecil Rhodes and his later Round Table compatriots and would be very influential for authoritarian personalities who embraced fascism in the future. Though overt environmental sympathies were missing in Mosley’s political ambitions his supporters made up for it. In fact, there have been a raft of individuals rather than groups who have both a history of environmentalist views being held by the far-right in the UK.

Oswald-Mosley-image

Sir Oswald Mosely and Diana circa 1936

Jorian Jenks was a farmer, environmentalist and political activist, serving as Mosley’s agricultural advisor in the BUF. He was “one of the most dominant figures in the development of the organic movement” [12]and yet another of the fascists who found themselves detained by the government in 1940, this time at Walton Prison and released a year later. It was after the war that Jenks moved “…  from politics to ‘meta-politics’ evolving a more spiritual ‘spiritual ecologism’ which would address the cause of national disintegration and replenish the bond between man and soil.” [13]

Niece of Lord Arthur Balfour of the Balfour declaration fame, and English farmer and organic farming pioneer, the visionary Lady Eve Balfour and her Soil Association provided Jenks with an outlet to pursue the science and practice of organic farming. He served as editorial secretary and published the association’s journal Mother Earth through which his eco-fascist views could be heard much to the delight (or consternation) of those reading the material. He stated: “An anti-modernist philosophy embracing land reform the paramountcy of agriculture; the subordination of mechanisation to organicism; the localisation of economies and the cultivation of the consciousness of the ties of blood and soil.” Jenks saw the Soil Association policy as “pure Aryan”… “though they don’t make a point of it.” [14]

Despite Jenk’s clear fascism his contribution to agricultural policy and the scientific experiments exploring the differences between organic and non-organic foods were extremely influential, as were his warnings on the dangers of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. He found his way to the Soil Association via Kinship in Husbandry which he had joined in 1942. This group had been founded by Rolf Gardiner with support from H. J. Massingham and Lord Lymington. It was essentially a platform for eco-fascist principles which had bubbled up into the Soil Association to the extent that Gardiner became co-founder; such was his passion for the future of organic farming. He was also an avid English folk dancer, naturist  and active in far right politics. Gardiner’s passion for English folk dancing helped to revive the Morris dance which was inflicted on Germany and the emerging Hitler Youth of the time. Despite the homoerotic overtones he insisted this was a thoroughly masculine and virile ritual of pagan nature worship. (The latter was part of the Third Reich’s inspirations, though it remains to be seen if they were impressed by the Morris dancing…)

dh-lawrence[1]

D.H. Lawrence

A one-time Kibbo Kift member as a Cambridge University student Gardiner had also greatly admired D.H. Lawrence  whom he visited in 1928 while in Switzerland. Their teacher-student relationship blossomed into a long lasting friendship that was based on:

“… a shared faith in the organic which was by no means confined to their descriptions of the landscape or nature. By seeking organic solutions to the problems of contemporary life – emphasising the important of ‘natural’ hierarchies, for instance, or the ‘rootedness’ of culture in the native soil, or the ties that bind language, culture and racial destiny – Lawrence and Gardiner found themselves drawing from the same wellspring which nourished Völkisch and fascist movements. Indeed in 1953, Bertrand Russell famously wrote that Lawrence’s views led straight to Auschwitz.”  [15]

Although highly ironic coming from Mr. Russell who was hoisted on the same humanist-Fabian pole, the above passage sums up perfectly the problem of the naturalists and those sensitive to the destruction of Nature who may in some instances also harbour authoritarian traits: they inevitably gravitated towards the rich history of the Völkisch and the New Order proposed by National Socialism. It was both a product of the times and a trigger which seemed to draw out the latent fascism waiting to leak from otherwise natural and healthy principles.

Writer, naturalist and farmer Henry Williamson who wrote Tarka the Otter (1927) and many other classics, supported the BUF and was greatly impressed after visiting the National Socialist Congress in 1935. (We don’t know what he thought of Gardiner’s Morris dancing, however). His growing fascist views, led him to be detained during World War II, like Mosley, under the Defence Regulation 18B. He contributed to the Anglo-German Review for whom “… the Anglo-German sympathizers of the period were united by a common interest in nature and ecology.” [16] The same Germanic sun-worshipping and pagan revivalism was found in his writings most particularly where the ancient light of the sun represented the real meaning of his own existence by illuminating his ancestral past and revealing the truth of redemption through Nature.” [17]

Like many artists of post-World War I his experiences of death and horror culminating in the Christmas truce of 1918 helped him to see Germans and the Nature worship embedded in their culture as a new light for the world. He had been seduced by the seemingly vibrant economic and cultural renaissance best symbolised by the Hitler youth with “faces that looked to be breathing extra oxygen; people free from mental fear.” Williamson was certain that National Socialism was the answer and echoed D. H Lawrence’s obsession with “blood and soil” believing that they represented: “… a race that moves on the poles of mystic, sensual delight. Every gesture is a gesture from the blood, every expression a symbolic utterance … Everything is of the blood, of the senses.” [18]

He seemed to remain a fan despite the failure of the Nazi ideal by protesting against the unjust nature of the Nuremburg trials. Although these were indeed a showpiece to cover up the fact that many of the Nazis Elite were absorbed into the American National Security State, it nevertheless showed that his sympathies remained strong. It is this paradoxical eco-fascist romanticism as sweet as syrup yet cast in molten metal that often remains impervious to any change. Just as the seeds of psychopathy have long been exposed to the right Anglo-American conditions for various strains to multiply like fungi on an otherwise healthy tree, this ecological inversion has continued from its romantic pre-war passion to much more subtle expressions. Similar to eugenics, it has insinuated itself into the fabric of society with respectable sounding names, sacred philosophies and philanthropic causes. But it is essentially the same ponerisation, yearning to control human beings, now under the cover of Gaia. [19]

That is not to say that all environmentalism has at its root latent fascism, only that we need to be aware of this inversion – roots can grow in a variety of soils given the right conditions.

In 1970, the first issue of The Ecologist magazine appeared in the UK, with genuinely fascinating and productive articles. Nevertheless, its underlying theme of “humans as virus” and ecological parasites was common throughout and a direct link back to fascistic beliefs, albeit largely unconscious.  The magazine’s founder, the late Edward Goldsmith, displayed the same beliefs as Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, in that humanity was a disease which had to be halted. Like so many who seemed to have authoritarian tendencies he displayed a frequent wish to control and micro-manage the lives of others. Government, in Goldsmith view should mimic his own patriarchal leanings and become a “schoolmaster” to “an ever more demanding and self-indulgent electorate.” In other words, we all needed to be horse-whipped into submission so that we may break free from our wicked ways. Indeed, Goldsmith went further, suggesting  that: “… radical change in our way of looking at man’s relationship with his environment, … must involve taking measures that in many cases are contrary to our accepted values. Thus, to control population we may have to interfere with ‘personal liberty’, while to reduce economic expansion we are forced to curb ‘the march of ‘progress.’” [20]

It is hear that we come to the crux of the problem with such thinking since it perfectly aligns with elite beliefs that demand populations are suppressed and managed in much the same way as Nature has been through the centuries.  The dividing line between co-creating with the planet and bending it to our will is blurred. The wild sanctity and purity of the biosphere is set against the population who are despoilers and viri – a disease to cut out so that Nature may reign once more. The problem is clear. Such binary thinking can very easily mixed up with good intentions leading catastrophic results as we have seen time and time again. The only disease is that of ponerological strains within humanity whose job it is to subvert and invert.  Ideologies born from socio-economic distress and spiritual vacuity are blended in the minds of authoritarians and their followers and grafted onto passions and beliefs which would have otherwise remained connected to a benign and rejuvenating force.

2013-05-27 17.21.56

© infrakshun

Germany also had a pronounced tradition of controlling Nature. For over 250 years it had radically drained mash and fenlands, exploited vast tracts of Bavarian moorland, managed rivers and built dams in high valleys. The impact of hydrological dams after the 1750s was enormous, changing the face of the German landscape. Where once there was fear of the vast tracts of wilderness, for some they became the new source of romanticism, especially when they began to disappear. This was paradoxical and as historian David Blackbourne asks: “Why did the pace of moorland drainage and colonization increase after the First World War? Because Germans began to see themselves after the Treaty of Versailles as a ‘people without space,’ a Völkohne Raum, so that every cultivated acre counted.” [21]

The Conquest of the Europe meant the conquest of nature which seemed to run counter to the ecological ethos that Nazism promoted. Historians Groninga and Joachim Wolscheke-Bulmanha wrote in an article in Planning Perspectives journal of 1987: “… to explain the destruction of the countryside and environmental damage, without questioning the German people’s bond to nature, could only be done by not analysing environmental damage in a societal context and by refusing to understand them as an expression of conflicting social interests. Had this been done, it would have led to criticism of National Socialism itself since that was not immune to such forces.” [22]

Though it was not to be.

At the same time technocratic and authoritarian, in order for Nature to be returned to the romantic myth of Germanic perfection the space had be created for the German people as guardians and worshippers of Nature so that the former Edenic state could return. Once cleansed of “weeds” and the uniformity of human design the superiority of the Aryan race could stand at the head of a New World Order which would necessarily mean harmony between land and people, inseparable in the National Socialist mind.

The man who had most power in the Reich second to Hitler was probably SS Field Marshall Heinrich Himmler who epitomised classic eco-fascist ideology when he mused:

“The peasant of our racial stock has always carefully endeavoured to increase the natural powers of the soil, plants, and animals, and to preserve the balance of the whole of nature. For him, respect for divine creation is the measure of all culture. If, therefore, the new Lebensräume (living spaces) are to become a homeland for our settlers, the planned arrangement of the landscape to keep it close to nature is a decisive prerequisite. It is one of the bases for fortifying the German Völk.” [23]

The adaptation of biological concepts to social systems tied up with romantic verbiage led to the strategic importance of environmental resources. This was the official policy of Lebensräume or “Living space”. Expansionist politics would mean that the Balkans would be chosen as the provider and coincide with the extermination of the Slavic races, which they deemed inferior. As Hitler stated: “Every healthy Völk sees the right to expansion of its living space as something natural.” [24]

Land, conquest and ethnic cleansing became inextricably linked with a spiritual mission.

By the time Ernst Haeckel had invented the term “ecology” there was the appearance at least, of a “… scientifically based ecological holism with Völkisch social views,” which consisted of a potent mixture of “… nineteenth century cultural prejudices, romantic obsessions with purity [and] anti-Enlightenment sentiment,” fused with “aggressive nationalism, mystically charged racism, and environmentalist predilections.” [25]Haeckel was also responsible for merging Social Darwinism and ecology into his own philosophy of “Monism” which provided an outlet and scientific cover for his belief in Nordic racial superiority. The Third Reich’s obsession with the occult was in large part due to the Germanic nature worship and which had given rise to revivalism and green politics in the intelligentsia. This was reflected in Haeckel’s decision to join the Thule Gesellschaft or Thule Society founded by Bavarian occultist and freemason Baron Rudolf von Sebottendorff an instrumental in the formation of the Nazi Party. [26] The Society was the organisation that sponsored the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP), later reorganized by Adolf Hitler into the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP or Nazi Party).

The Youth movement of the Weimar Republic or the Wandervögel (‘wandering free spirits’) was a fusion of almost every type of transcendent, occult and folklore ideology that was available. Reason and rational discourse were rejected. It was effectively a nature cult elevating peasantry to mythical status joined with the authoritarian impetus of the State which was needed to show people the way. Peter Staudenmaier believes this heralded an important: “… shift from nature worship to Führer worship,” where National Socialism’s adoption of environmentalist themes of nationalism and sacred naturalism “… was a crucial factor in its rise to popularity and state of power.” [27]

The foundation of these beliefs was made concrete through two levels of ecological support within the core of the Third Reich. These were at the ministerial and planning and administrative levels, evidence of which can be found in the archives of the Reich. Agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism was dominant and central in Nazi ideology so that most of the leading members were ecologically aware or had some overlapping naturist belief. 60 percent of the membership rolls of several Naturschutz (nature protection) organizations during the Weimar era had joined the National Socialist Party in 1939. [28]

Gleichklang Alfred Bernert‘Gleichklang’ by Alfred Bernert

Hitler as a vegetarian and an animal lover was a believer in the Völk and the value of Nature but he was also a pragmatic strategist. However, three other notable players close to Hitler represented various shades of dark green belief within the Third Reich.  His deputy, Rudolf Hess, was an enthusiastic fervent devotee of naturism, anthroposophy and homeopathy. Working for Hesse were leading ecologists who produced draft reports on the necessity for “organic, ecologically sound land use and planning.” Hess’s top land planning officer called soil: “… the foundation of the formation of the community”.[29]

Hermann Göering was a nature conservationist, animal husbandrist and the Reich’s Chief Huntsman. He favoured the forest over the rights of the farmers and their fields. He organised many International Hunting Exhibitions for the wealthy. Hitler once referred to these groups as “the green Freemasonry”. As Air Force commander he discontinued the use of animals to test weapons and used people instead. [30]

Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler had a degree in agriculture, was a farmer, an occultist and neo-pagan. Power over the concentration camps, death squads and the liquidation of the Jews and other minorities lay at his door. And he, like Hitler, valued animals over people, being responsible for the Third Reich’s anti-vivisection legislation which was the first law of its kind. While Hitler soared into the mysticism of the Völk, Himmler’s beliefs veered towards theosophy, anthroposophy, astrology, Wicca, herbalism, organicism, astrology and homeopathy. He was the first true New Age Nazi with power at his hands, his interests of which inspired him to follow in Blavatsky’s footsteps by sending an SS team to Tibet in 1938 led by zoologist Ernst Schäfer, officially to conduct anthropological experiments, unofficially to open a dialogue between Tibetan Monks of Agharti which were following the “Black arts.” [31] (See: The Light Bringer)

With the infiltration of the Agriculture Ministry and National Food Estate by the SS under Himmler’s say so. When East Europe would be conquered and ethnically cleansed of undesirables a new race of farmers would be deposited on the land and given free farms, provided they passed the eugenics check list set up by the newly created Racial Office was created within the SS. [32]

Therefore three main green beliefs were personified within the Reich: The Aristocratic-freemasonic eco-conservativism of Göering; the folklore, anthroposophy and organicism of Hesse and the occult-neo-pagan beliefs of Himmler.

By 1937 Poland was under Himmler’s settlement program using state funds and seized land while Race and Settlement officers were busy searching for “… farms that could be farmed organically”. After all, it was only SS farmers who could understand “…the superiority of organic farming methods as opposed to artificial fertilisers”. And Chemical fertilizers were criminalised under Himmler’s land planning laws. [33] The SS-owned Institute for the Study of Medicinal and Alimentary Plants, (ISMAP) was an SS owned research organisation where German scientists, physicians, botanists, and chemists conducted research into medicinal properties of plants and many other agrarian experiments. An experimental farm called “Plantage” was based in the surrounding fields of the Dachau death camp and was the brainchild of Himmler but operated by ISMAP.

Marcus J. Smith, a US military doctor who was assigned to Dachau after it was liberated, was told by the former inmates that:

“… many ambitious projects were undertaken, such as the production of artificial pepper, the evaluation of seasoning mixtures, the extraction of Vitamin C from gladioli and other flowers, the potentiation of plant growth by hormone-enriched manure, and of most importance to Germany, the development of synthetic fertilizer. As a profitable side-line, garlic, malva, and other medicinal plants, and vegetable seeds, were cultivated by the prisoners and then sold; the profits went to the SS.” [34]

Other experimental farms were set up at Auschwitz concentration camp and Mauthausen concentration camps in Austria where experiments were conducted by the SS on different kinds of diets including “famine experiments” on Russian POWs. [35]

In 1935, Himmler, founded the Nazi think-tank Ahnenerbe to “study society for Intellectual Ancient History.” The goal was to find confirmation of the myths and philosophies relating to the Aryan race and Nordic populations from an anthropological and cultural perspective. With Himmler’s fascination with the Catharism, Norse mythology and the Knights Templars it led him to expend time and money attempting to uncover many of the alleged secrets behind the legends of the Holy Grail. Indeed, many voyages to a variety of destinations across the globe were carried out and funded by the SS. Among a handful of founding members included SS-Obergruppenführer Richard Walther Darré, Reich Minister of Food and Agriculture, animal breeder and one of the leading promoters of Nazi “blood and soil” ideology.

As a young man Darré was another Völkisch acolyte who joined the Artaman League, the same back-to-the-land movement of which Himmler was a member. This eventually led him to concoct the theory that the future of the Nordic race was deeply connected to soil and which subsequently led to “Blut and Boden” or the “Blood and Soil” meme. According to Nazi ideology, while the relationship to the environment over time becomes embedded in the consciousness of the dweller and vice versa, Germans, due to their Nordic ancestry had a peculiar, almost mystical connection to the land. German soil was sacred, in direct opposition to the “wandering Jew.” Nordicism or “Nordic Theory” claims that a Nordic race, within the greater Caucasian race constituted a master race, and it is this ethnic purity that Darré believed could be found once again.

330px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_119-2179,_Walter_Richard_Darré

Richard Walther Darré, Reich Reichsminister of Food. “The unity of blood and soil must be restored” (photo: wikipedia)

“The unity of blood and soil must be restored” was a phrase that resonated throughout the Gothic halls of the Reich and came from Darré’s 1930 book called Neuadel aus Blut und Boden (A New Nobility Based On Blood And Soil) describing a systemic eugenics program partnered with careful environmental awareness which would clear up the problem of racial impurity and return Germany to its glorious ancient past. With a keen interest and training in farming, animal husbandry and breeding Darré merely adapted his knowledge into the human world and injected it with the usual racist ideology. Geo-political conquest was justified through: “The concept of Blood and Soil [which] gives us the moral right to take back as much land in the East as is necessary to establish a harmony between the body of our Völk and the geopolitical space.” [36]

He was also a fan of the theosophical offshoot of Anthroposophy established by Rudolf Steiner despite National Socialist ideologues being hostile to the movement. Unfortunately for Darré, anthroposophy considered “Blood, Race and Folk” as primitive instincts that must be overcome. [37] Clearly, this short-coming was not enough to quash his enthusiasm for anthroposophical principles with its emphasis on Nature, art, medicine and biodynamic agriculture all based on the theory that there is an unseen spiritual world comprising a variety of “subtle realms.” As bio-dynamic farming involved a holistic view of organic agriculture the rejection of chemical fertilisers and insecticides and by extension, the trappings of industrial capitalism it was tailor-made to elevate the mythical status of the German peasant and therefore be absorbed into Nazi ideology. Racial health and ecological sustainability would be assured. Darré even “… commissioned a top anthroposophist to start a bio-dynamic farm at Marienhole. [East Germany] The farm’s journal, Demeter, had the motto: “Health through Natural Living – Harmony between Blood, Soil and Cosmos.” [38]

The anthroposophist in question, Dr. Edhart Bartsch and his biodynamic farm was run by the research group “The Imperial Association for Biodynamic Agriculture” and was closely followed by Darré and another anthroposophical convert Rudolf Hess both of whom had substantial success in pioneering bio-dynamic principles and products. However, as anthroposophy was not following Nazi principles it was all wound up by 1941. [39] The large-scale organic farming methods and ecologically sound farming practices which Darré pioneered are still in evidence in Germany and much of Europe today.

It seems eco-fascism in Nazi ideology, while no means embraced by all, (Goebbels, Boorman, Speer) was nevertheless crucial in the implementation of Nazi designs. By using potent myths and archetypes of Nature and race which had particular appeal in the German psyche these acted as part of the moral imperative to save not just the German nation but the world. It became a mystical dogma of the most virulent kind hijacked by psychopaths happy to use any and all ideologies to manifest Pathocracy. On the one hand, you had uniforms and jackboots, on the other, a symbolic return to green wellies and haystacks. Manly blond, blue-eyed Supermen working in the fields in manly union; the conservation of nature and animal husbandry on the one hand and on the other: the systematic destruction of land and people if they did not conform. It was a mass psychosis predicated on preference for ideals which have very little to do with objective reality. These are the same influences at work today the only difference being that they are more subtle and sophisticated in their manifestations.

The ideological marriage between National Socialism, nature conservation, ecology and green issues is a cast iron one. Fascism goes hand in hand with green issues and as such we need to be more prudent when those issues become politicised by any one organisation or grouping. The Nazis were a huge, technicolor warning to that end.

Once you had a confluence of Social Darwinism, politics, a green culture and occult ideology which busily distorted an otherwise healthy attention to nature then it is inevitable that it would continue to be used as a pretext for many other directives for social control. “The Natural Order” would be synonymous with a “New World Order” where “scientific technique” of race-biology would force man into their “natural” roles. Or, in the words of the National Socialist Teachers Association: “National Socialism is politically applied biology.”  [40]

 


Notes

[1] Vitalism. In E. Craig (Ed.), William Bechtel and Robert C. Richardson, Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998 | http://www.mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/vitalism.htm
[2] Liu, J.; Dietz, Thomas; Carpenter, Stephen R.; Folke, Carl; Alberti, Marina; Redman, Charles L.; Schneider, Stephen H.; Ostrom, Elinor et al. (2009). “Coupled human and natural systems”. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 36.
[3] Blood and Soil, Richard Walter Darre and Hitler’s ‘Green Party’, Published by Kensall Press, Buckinghamshire, 1985 | Ecology in the 20th Century, A History, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1989 | The Fading of the Greens, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1994 | All by Anna Bramwell.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] ‘Fascist Ecology: The ‘Green Wing’ of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents’ By Peter Staudenmaier taken from Eco-Fascism: Lessons from the German Experience. By Janet Beihl and Peter Staudenmaier. 1995. Published by AK Press. | ISBN 1-873176 73 2. | http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html
[8] Mosley’s name can be seen in a list of Fabians from Fabian News and Fabian Society Annual Report 1929–31.
[9] p.44; Mosley By Nigel Jones, Published by Lite & Times Haus Publishing, 2004 | ISBN-10: 1904341098
[10] Sir Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists by Robert Edwards, Published by League Enterprises, 2002. (introduction) | http://www.oswaldmosley.net/rome-revisited-1933.php
[11] p.64; Very Deeply Dyed in Black: Sir Oswald Mosley by Graham Macklin, Published by I.B.Tauris, 2007. | ISBN-10: 1845112849
[12] R. More-Collyer, ‘Towards “Mother Earth”: Jorian Jenks, Organicism, the Right and the British Union of Fascists’, Journal of Contemporary History, 2004, (p.39)
[13] op. cit. Macklin (p.64)
[14] Ibid. (p.65)
[15] p.6; Rolf Gardiner: Folk, Nature and Culture in In Interwar Britain by Matthew Jefferies, Mike Tyldesley2011 | ISBN-10: 1409412040
[16] op. cit. Bramwell, Ecology, (p. 173-4)
[17] ‘Henry Williamson: Nature’s Visionary’ by Mark Deavin, National Vanguard Magazine, Number 117 March-April 1997.
[18] Ibid.
[19] “The Gaia theory was developed in the late 1960’s by Dr. James Lovelock, a British Scientist and inventor, shortly after his work with NASA in determining that there was probably no life on Mars. The theory gained an early supporter in Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist at the University of Massachusetts. […] “The Gaia Theory posits that the organic and inorganic components of Planet Earth have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating system. It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, ocean salinity, and other factors, that maintains its own habitability. In a phrase, “life maintains conditions suitable for its own survival.” In this respect, the living system of Earth can be thought of analogous to the workings of any individual organism that regulates body temperature, blood salinity, etc. So, for instance, even though the luminosity of the sun – the Earth’s heat source – has increased by about 30 percent since life began almost four billion years ago, the living system has reacted as a whole to maintain temperatures at levels suitable for life.”- http://www.gaiatheory.org/synopsis.htm
[20] ‘Living with Nature’ by Edward Goldsmith, The Ecologist July 1, 1970 (www.edwardgoldsmith.org/)
[21] p.5; The Conquest Of Nature: Water, Landscape, and the Making of Modern Germany, by David Blackbourn, Published by Pimlico, 2007 | ISBN-10: 0712667261
[22] ‘Politics, planning and the protection of nature: Political abuse of early ecological ideas in Germany, 1933–45’ by Gert Gröninga & Joachim Wolschke‐Bulmahna Planning Perspectives Volume 2, Issue 2, 1987.
[23] Peter Staudenmaier Quoting from Heinz Haushofer, Ideengeschichte der Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarpolitik im deutschen Sprachgebiet, Band II, München, 1958, (p. 266).
[24] Hitler Speech, Völkischer Beobachter, 11 November 1931.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] op.cit; Staudenmaier.
[28] p.107;The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871–1971 by Raymond H. Dominick III Indiana University Press, 1992.
[29] op.cit. Bramwell; Ecology (p. 197-8)
[30] pp 182-190; Goring, a Biography, by David Irving. Published William Morrow and Co., New York, 1989.
[31] Himmler’s Crusade: The True Story of the 1938 Nazi Expedition into Tibet.by Christopher Hale, London: Transworld Publishers | ISBN 0-593-04952-7.
[32] op. cit. Bramwell, Blood and Soil (p. 132-8)
[33] op. cit. Bramwell, Ecology, (p. 202-4) | 0p. cit. Bramwell, Blood and Soil (p.132-38)
[34] ‘Work in the Dachau camp’ http://www.scrapbookpages.com
[35] ‘Using Science For The Greater Evil,’ Newsweek, Dec 1, 2003.
[36] op. cit. Janet Biehl, Peter Staudenmaier (p.19).
[37] Report of the SD-Hauptamtes Berlin: “Anthroposophy”, May 1936, BAD Z/B I 90.
[38] op. cit. Bramwell, Blood, (p. 203).
[39] http://www.demeter.net/ | “Biodynamic Agriculture: The Journey from Koberwitz to the World, 1924-1938”, By John Paul, Journal of Organic Systems, 2011, 6(1):27-41.
[40] Hans Schemm, Founder and Head of the National Socialist Teachers Association from Ernst Haeckel’s The History of Creation. 2 vols. (New York: D. Appleton, 1876), vol. I, p. 11.