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

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.


“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.


[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)

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.


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.



[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!

“… 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


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.


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.



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

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 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


[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)

 “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.”



[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

“… 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]


“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]


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]


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?


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).


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



[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.
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

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

– Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, 1961 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.


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.


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?



[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.