global warming

Technocracy I

By M.K. Styllinski

“Technopoly is a state of culture. It is also a state of mind. It consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology. This requires the development of a new kind of social order, and of necessity leads to the rapid dissolution of much that is associated with traditional beliefs.”

– Neil Postman

Under the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) heavily funded by the Rockefeller Foundation we see the centralisation of food under agribusiness merging with SMART society. Technology is the key to delivering a world of plenty according to these scientists and financial backers. On the website we read: “The Rockefeller Foundation envisions a world with SMART Globalisation – a world in which globalisation’s benefits are more widely shared and social, economic, health, and environmental challenges are more easily weathered.” Recall too, our exploration into the scare-tactics of global warming, the implementation of UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development (SD) all of which is hijacking genuine concern for our planet in order to use it to advance a New World Control System, by stealth. On the one hand, we have overt geo-political deception forcing chaos into being upon which a Hegelian solution for that post-war (post-catastrophe?) world can be laid. On the other hand, the requisite, centralised “New International Order” is delivered as a “benign” ecological, socio-cultural and economic template incorporating urban, energy efficient and sustainable “human habitat” zones requiring a high-level population density.

© infrakshun

After great disasters, there are always great opportunities to create new institutions and infrastructure predicated on elite ideologies. World War I and II were prime examples, and indeed partly initiated for this very purpose. Humanity’s spirit must be broken in order that such phases of a New Order are welcomed, albeit with inclusive-sounding labels for peace and prosperity. The aftermath of intense Earth changes and asymmetric warfare will provide the same opportunities for another phase in the Pathocratic encroachment over normal human beings. And what might we expect?

Think of it this way:

If the Pathocrats have their way, we will be carefully managed into SMART operated high-rises with uniform amenities and leisure parks, where metered energy consumption, automation and hyper-digitisation will be encased in an overarching surveillance – for your own “protection.” Only the new technocratic gentry will inhabit lands deep in the countryside. For the rest of us it will be off limits, our movements strictly monitored. In accordance with New World Religion protocols and the New World Civil Servant Resolutions Nature will be protected as “sacred” and barred from the mass of humanity. These Mega-cities will provide for our every need … Provided that is, conformity and compliance remains paramount for the New Collective and the maintenance of a group consciousness duly cultivated, as envisoned by Zone Council Resolutions. This will ensure the efficiency of our SMART society, the most important precept in the New Age.

Break consensus and community cracks. Serve the individual and promote the Self, SMART grid dysfunction and the potential for overall system failure is inevitable and thus a return to fragmentation and dissociation of the past. This cannot be permitted – for the good of the whole. Resistance is like an infection, before you know it, the whole grid would be infected. As such, we must be treated like the historical virus that we are and protected from ourselves by the guiding hand of the Priesthood, otherwise, the potential despoiling of Mother Earth will occur. Accordingly, a vast number of protective measures have been put in place to maintain efficiency and inner happiness. We will want for nothing. To maintain optimum levels of sensate satisfaction, human habitats will have their own integrated “Malware” and “anti-virus” enforcement systems in place as envisioned and voted for by Neighbourhood, Zone Councils and Regional Elects – for the good of all. Community is all, group consciousness is all … Love life, the New SMART Consensus.

You can probably continue the narrative with all kinds of creative allusions inspired by various books and Hollywood flicks. This is the real inverted totalitarianism that both Orwell and Huxley warned about and countless myths and oral traditions.

So, are the checks and balances in place to prevent such a future? Or is it just a silly Dystopian fantasy?

When SD and SMART systems are set against the strangle-hold that our power brokers still maintain currently manifesting as ubiquitous surveillance and the erosion of civil liberties, then questioning the direction this form of technology is taking becomes an absolute imperative. For once we have passed a certain point in technological know-how, artificial intelligence will offer us no way to turn back without wholesale destruction.

Society is rapidly changing thorough technological innovation advancing in ways that challenge the imagination. The horizon is limitless as to how technology will be used. The important question to ask is: do we have any say in how technological knowledge is being applied in the present and thus how it will shape our future? As with most things in life, there are always positives and negatives to any new innovation on a mass scale, but it remains to be seen which one will gain ascendance. As always, this is dependent on who holds the overall power of technology and its uses. So far, we have an appalling track record. As it stands, the advantages are set to provide unquestionable benefits in the medical field communications sectors. But what are the dangers of an over reliance on digital technology applied to all other sectors of society? Will it augment the path to true freedom or be its demise? Already there are serious questions being asked on a number of issues from health to civil liberties, artificial intelligence to cyber warfare, all of which we will explore.

As this silicon revolution continues to submerge us in an ocean of Wi-Fi waves there are signs that our intense reliance on SMART networks may not be the most expedient way to take humanity forward. Nonetheless, selling the idea of convenience and efficiency is proving extremely seductive. It also offers untold benefits to intelligence agencies, in particular the National Security Agency (NSA) to complete its mission to own information and predict behaviour of every individual in America and the globe.

The acronym “SMART” is the new mnemonic buzzword which is being used to describe a network of gadgets, utilities, services, weapons, energy systems and new forms of governance bound together in a sea of digital and Wi-Fi-based technology. Each letter in the acronym stands for a particular objective which can be loosely interpreted. They are typically defined as follows:

S = Specific / Significant

M = Measurable / Motivational

A = Attainable / Assignable

R = Relevant / Realistic

T = Time-bound / Time-Related

The technology promises a broad range of practical and philosophical ideas which are already re-shaping the very concept of communication, travel, agriculture, medicine and city infrastructure. SMART uses computerised systems which incorporate digital metering to monitor and control energy from power plants to appliances within the home. Another acronym used to describe this technological structure of Web-connected appliances and in-home devices is the “Internet of things” (IOT). Although domestic appliances such as fridges, freezers, lighting and televisions fall under the IOT, it is the energy companies and infrastructure – including transportation, health, oil, gas and alternative energy systems – which are being incorporated into a vast SMART grid awash with Wi-Fi technology that will connect to the internet and allow devices to “speak to each other.”

Many corporations such as AT&T, General Electric, are changing their present system of distribution, storage, administration and the very core of their manufacturing towards the IOT and SMART philosophy. For software companies such as Cisco, IBM, Siemens, Microsoft and Intel, this is a lucrative time. As a September 2013 article by online magazine Standard Digital entitled: ‘Tomorrow’s smart cities’ explained: “In Singapore, Stockholm and California, IBM is gathering traffic data and running it via algorithms to predict where a traffic jam will occur an hour before it has happened. Meanwhile in Rio (Brazil), it has built a NASA-style control room where banks of screens suck up data from sensors and cameras located around the city.” IBM has 2,500 smarter cities projects worldwide and is confident in financial future of redesigning cities. To that end it has trademarked the term “smarter cities”.

The article also quotes Anthony Townsend, director of the Institute of the Future and author of Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia. Townsend puts his finger on the pulse when he states: “Some people want to fine tune a city like you do a race car but they are leaving citizens out of the process…” And in relation to a China’s massive new city building projects and huge central control rooms, one of which is already operational in Rio, Brazil: “The control room in Rio was created by a progressive mayor but what if the bad guys get in? Are we creating capabilities that can be misused?” Constant attempts to try and get the UK public to adopt a bio-metric, National ID card have failed, though a foreign ID card for immigrants was unveiled in 2008 as a possible “softening up” exercise for a re-introduction of the scheme. This seems to be one branch in the creation of database state in the UK and abroad. When all the databases are indexed by what is known in the UK as the National Identity Register (NIR) it is then that our lives will be defined by our NIR number and a host of invasive surveillance which may come into play.

The UK organization NO2ID which campaigns against the Database State sees “Transformational Government” as not just a threat to our civil liberties but a whole way of life. Indeed they state: “… what is being transformed is not government but its power over you.” The reason for this increasing disquiet over State interference in the lives of British people is drawn from broad range of measures integral to the emerging SMART society.

NO2ID outlines just some of the UK government’s plans currently evolving:

ID interrogation centres, for passports and ID cards
ePassports that help collect data about your travel
International eBorders schemes that exchange Passenger Name Record information with foreign countries as well as collecting them
Recording of all car journeys, using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)
‘Entitlement cards’ as part of, or linked to the ID scheme, logging use of public services
Centralised medical records without privacy
Biometrics in schools — fingerprinting children as young as 4 or 5
‘ContactPoint’, a database collecting sensitive information on every child
Fingerprinting in pubs and bars — landlords forced to monitor their patrons
A greatly expanded National DNA Database (NDNAD)
New police powers to check identity
Increasing Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks for employees and volunteers
Businesses under pressure to verify ID of staff and customers with the government ^{^[1]}

Neil Postman’s reference to a “Technopoly” as a state of culture is another consolidation of Official Culture. It is a description of an emerging Pathocracy with emphasis on the scientific technique underpinning the dominance of technology and its applications. When combining the Surveillance State, and SMART society we fuse Technopoly and Pathocracy to form: Technocracy. a system of society according to which government is controlled by scientists, engineers, and other experts. It is a scientific dictatorship as discussed in ‘World State Policies III: The Scientific Technique’ and to which UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is integrated.

Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert founded the Technocracy movement in 1932 during the Great Depression and produced what is seen by many as the Bible of the movement: The Technocracy Study Course. Rather than the “price system” the design was based on the metrics of energy and considered apolitical. It was primarily a technological panacea for global economic problems based on energy production and distribution together with precise monitoring and measuring as the pillars of its potential success.

It was a techno-Marxist plan which included nationalising public utilities abandoning the gold standard (which the financial oligarchs loved) and suspending the stock exchange. Why would you need one when the new currency was mainframe of automation and “digital” currency?

The Technocracy Study Course reads like a strange amalgamation of bureaucratic fundamentalism grafted on to a engineer/mathematician/accountant’s world view of humans as binary energy units. (Perfect for the Lucis Trust’s New World [Civil] Servants). They outline their meter reading diagnosis for society in typically precise fashion:

“Register on a continuous 24 hour per day basis the total net conversion of energy.
“By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
“Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption
“Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced and where used.
“Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” ^{^[2]}

Many younger online users attracted to hacktivism, spirituality and social networking have been taken in by the recent manifestation of technocracy in the very slickly produced and marketed Zeitgeist films and the affiliated Venus Project founded by Jasque Fresco. The first film included some excellent truths regarding the nature of the economic world in which we live, as well as an incisive deconstruction of government influence and false flag operations. But the second film entitled: “Addendum” revealed that it had some fatal flaws. Zeitgeist was designed to grab our attention and prime the not so discerning members of the public to accept another version of Elite control this time through systemic technology as saviour, where computers make key decisions. It is the same techno-Marxism that assumes everyone will be thoroughly happy with such a Brave New World of regimented, rule-based precision; where individuals become numbers integrated into a game theory mainframe of “efficiency.”

Source: DefenseForumIndia.com

Naturally, no mention is made of authoritarians and social dominators pre-disposed to the distortion and co-option of well-intentioned technocrats. To say that such a scenario is unrealistic and naïve seems obvious, not least the undesirability of such a sterile future. It is the same old approach to people management with the blessing of the Rockefeller class, all of whom have been extremely active in the “information dominance” brand of social engineering. When you know the awareness is changing the mass mind then you offer the World State scenario under a different guise and adapt good intentions accordingly.

The Zeitgeist Mission Statement gives us all we need to know:

“This ‘Resource-Based Economic Model’ is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a monetary or even political one. It is about updating the workings of society to the most advanced and proven methods Science has to offer, leaving behind the damaging consequences and limiting inhibitions which are generated by our current system of monetary exchange, profits, corporations and other structural and motivational components.”

The term “Technocracy” in Zeitgeist terms, is really another way of referring to the “scientific technique” dipped in coating of trans-humanist fervour. Think eco-aware, engineering geek meets bank manager, meets human resource chief. Throw in a goatee and there you have it. It’s the same story different wardrobe.

In America, appealing to the new generations born in the digital world is a vital part of the social engineering project reaching its apotheosis of the Rockefeller Foundation. The GMO/agriculture research arm of IRRI calls it: “SMART Globalisation”, a corporatist-collectivist vision that sounds wonderfully benign on the face of it. It is the latest meme designed to channel human activity into local, national and global SMART systems from which our finances, health and autonomy would be under complete and automatic control. In other words, a Global SMART Grid. It is here that we see technocracy and neo-feudalism come together in virtual “harmony,” developed with the best of intentions at the lower end of awareness but guided by the worst from the top. The current crisis in the capitalist economic order is all part of the phase to replace the old world with this new vision. Let’s just recall that David Rockefeller has been a long-time admirer of communist China and the hybrid vision of the capitalist-collectivist philosophy.

David Rockefeller and Mao’s deputy Zhou Enlai 1973.| The Rockefellers have been hard at work engineering this World State based on the Chinese model for many decades. For more information see Rockefeller Internationalism by William Banyan

Author Naomi Klein alerted us to the fact that Chinese authorities have taken SMART society to their hearts and created a “model city” of the future re-affirming the Rockefeller and Elite vision for the world. It only took 30 years, for Shenzen to be transformed from a barren wasteland to a SMART city of 21.4 million occupants who are living the “dream” and where 200,000 cameras currently monitor and survey the populace with over 2 million more planned. What this SMART Society provides is a police State testing ground comprising of “central planning, merciless repression and constant surveillance.” Fortune 500 technology companies are watching very closely indeed. So closely, in fact, that high-tech surveillance and censorship programs were provided by IBM, Honeywell, and GE people under the generic name of “Golden Shield,” and used as a test run for what will is envisaged for the US population (once it has been thoroughly broken by social and economic chaos that is…) ^{^[3]}

Recall former US National Security State advisor under Carter and Obama head hunter Zbigniew Brzezinski and his 1968 book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. It was a call to re-envision the technetronic era after a few abortive attempts during the 1930s depression. It was to be the inspiration and backbone to the formation of the Trilateral Commission and its support of the Tiger economies of Asia. It was no coincidence that the book was extraordinarily prescient. Brzezinski, like so many geo-political establishment intellectuals often broadcasts Elite visions under a predictive and softly critical narrative. The intent is to broadcast formulas to the faithful and engage a populist understanding of the principles and their future objectives. And by “populist” we mean not just the public but those who may be termed the worker bees in the hive mind of the global Establishment. Between Two Ages served to ignite the fuse of a Technocracy, the seeds of which were planted in another era of economic depression and ready to download directly into our minds. Brzezinski writes: “In the technetronic society the trend would seem to be towards the aggregation of the individual support of millions of uncoordinated citizens, easily within the reach of magnetic and attractive personalities effectively exploiting the latest communications techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason.” ^{^[4]}

We are already immersed in the “ether” of radio, micro and now Wi-Fi waves ^* indicating that not only is this foundation for a Technocracy present, it is accelerating exponentially. For this growth to continue unabated, Brzezinski posits another future scenario that has come to pass, involving: “… the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values (of Liberty). Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.” ^{^[5]}

He warns us with apparent gravitas:

“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.” ^{^[6]}

There are two ways in which this Technocracy is being implemented both of which naturally intersect:

1) Economics and energy

2) Surveillance and state controls.

In the first instance, the energy issue is being promoted and reorganized via the digital automation of SMART technologies. The US Department of Energy defines these technologies as: “… an electrical grid that uses computers and other technology to gather and act on information, such as information about the behaviours of suppliers and consumers, in an automated fashion to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity.” ^{^[7]}A similar grid is underway in Europe under “SMART Grids European Technology Platform.” ^{^[8]}

America’s old and out-dated power grid is ready for an overhaul and the SMART Grid technology will mean the installation of digital meters in each home and business and 24hr monitoring of energy consumption that goes with it. What SMART means in this context is that there can be communication with other related devices within the home to relay support data information without any contact with the customer. Rather like Homeland Security and its agencies, The SMART Grid Task Force “… is responsible for coordinating standards development, guiding research and development projects, and reconciling the agendas of a wide range of stakeholders.” ^{^[9]}

SMART Grid technology is big money and represents a revolution, particularly in telecommunications and energy. In 2010, the countries investing the most in SMART grid systems were China at $7.32 billion, closely followed by the United States $7.09 billion, Japan at $807 million with Spain, South Korea, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and Brazil all spending millions on transforming their societies’ infrastructure. ^{^[10]}

Like so much of the post-911, military-corporate infrastructure outsourced both home and abroad, the Department of Energy’s mandate to push ahead with this overhaul did not get Congressional hearing. From October 2009 – January 2010 SMART grid project funding ear-marked for 183 projects in 43 states totalled $3.4 billion thanks to the Obama Administration picking up where the Bush Administration left off with the creation of The Office of Electricity Delivery in 2003. The Department of Energy’s press release gives details of what this will mean for the average electricity consumer:

More than 850 sensors called “Phasor Measurement Units” to monitor the overall power grid nationwide
200,000 SMART transformers
700 automated substations (about 5 per cent of the nation’s total)
1,000,000 in-home displays
345,000 load control devices in homes ^{^[11]}

The SmartHouse/SmartGrid Vision c/o The 7th Framework Programme funded European Research and Technological Development from 2007 until 2013 Link: http://www.smarthouse-smartgrid.eu/index.php?id=245

Systems theory and cybernetics had always been attractive to technocrats as a web of relationships that facilitate economic and social control. “The Web of Life” concept of interdependence and interrelatedness of all things within ecological systems was taken on by a number of ecologists and New Age seers. The concept of equilibrium and balance was in fact, determined by vastly unpredictable and creative confluence of non-linear principles, which is why attempts to bottle such non-linear systems into a means of socio-economic control can never work. However, this is where the World Wide Web (WWW) and the Network of Things (NOT) comes in. It is essential to the mind-set who see people as numbers and assigned values to be moved around on a computer screen like a game of SIMS.

Ready to become part of a virtuality and SIMS-SMART?

With NOT, technocrats wish to bathe us in a sea of Wi-Fi waves, with cities and homes awash with wireless networks where automation rules. From your dimmer switch to powering your juicer; the garage door to the security code on the residential gates. No human intervention is necessary. With strict guidelines as to what they will be programming, the new armies of programmers will be told to download exactly what they want you to see and hear, changing it as they see fit and without your knowledge. If you refuse and wish to take it to an ombudsman or even a civil action, how are you going to watch your T.V. or eat your food if your utilities are switched off? Look at the nature of banking. When did you last see your bank manager or get a problem resolved whilst speaking to some low-wage slave in India you cannot understand? Distance is designed.

The SMART Grid is married to the Wi-Fi Alliance which is readying itself to implement Wi-Fi circuitry in every conceivable device in the home and business sector. It will operate in exactly the same way as Wi-Fi-enabled network modems and routers for personal computers to mobile phones currently being used by homes and businesses globally. Telecommunications electricity, and renewable energy resources will be functionally integrated into a system automatic provision, payment and monitoring. Gmail, i-Pod applications, your fridge and T.V. and the Wi-Fi “ether” that will activate them are ready to be absorbed into the SMART Grid where literally everything communicates with each other in a fully-automated, seamlessly connected world of man and machine.

And now, it means you can literally become part of the very fabric of SMART willingly and forever with electronic senors printed directly onto your skin… Oh, the convenience! Mike Orcutt of MIT’s Technology Review comments: “Such systems could be used to track health and monitor healing …” Sure. And if you fall on the wrong side of your friendly SMART government tracking and monitoring takes on a whole different meaning. But having your i-pad on your wrist as opposed to freedom of movement is clearly more important… More on this later. [12]

Now, you too can become SMART!

Another aspect of the Wi-Fi revolution that is not being talked about is the health effects of living our daily immersed in this type of constant radiation. There is a glut scientific, peer-reviewed papers out there which are unsurprisingly, barely receiving a whiff of recognition that they sorely deserve. Adverse biological effects from Wi-Fi signals, Wi-Fi enabled devices or Wi-Fi frequencies (2.4 or 5 GHz) have been complied by the UK campaign group Wi-Fi in Schools (You can visit them at http://www.wifiinschools.org.uk and print out as many as you like). The many examples of extensive research undertaken by University and independent scientific research institutes provides disturbing evidence across a broad range of experiments carried out on mice, rats and tadpoles.

Some of the findings included:

Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices.
Decreases in human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation from the use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi.
Oxidative injury in rat testis and on oxidative stress in blood induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices.
A provocation study using heart rate variability shows Negative effects on autonomic nervous system from microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone.
Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG
2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells.
Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice
Cognitive impairment in rats was shown after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation.
Stimulation of production of tumor necrosis when exposed in vivo and in vitro to weak electromagnetic waves in the centimeter range
Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. [Source: wifiinschools.org.uk]

Bearing in mind that 16v/m is the average level of exposure for these experiments and that when using a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet computer we can be exposed to electromagnetic fields up to 16V/m. This is only the beginning of research into these areas but the evidence for serious problems on the subtle layers of our biological and neurological make-up is already overwhelming. If we don’t put the brakes on for the health issues alone, then we will be looking at generations with behavioural difficulties, infertility, impaired cognitive ability and an epidemic of endemic brain tumours.

As smartphones begin to rain down from the technocratic ether, the most convincing evidence that mobile phones are causing brains tumours in the young has arrived from Dr. Boian Alexandrov from the Centre for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. His team have shown that terahertz (THz) waves gradually destroy human DNA which is fairly terminal for the human race. Since chips broadcasting THz waves are being considered for use in mobile phones as imaging systems tool across this SMART society and THZ scanner technology is already being used by the TSA at most of our airports, the question as to whether there are any health issues concerning terahertz technologies seems unimportant as the great wave of innovation roars ahead.

The medical establishment is encouraging the use for operations in which scanning will prove highly useful for otherwise invasive procedures while “exciting” innovations in consumer freedom will allow us all to see through objects and walls to find our lost car keys should we choose to buy into the gadget craze. Dr. Alexandrov and his team’s ground-breaking study (among others) is lurking in the background as a minor impediment to the euphoria of “progress.” His team discovered that exposure to THz radiation builds cumulatively and affects human and animal tissue DNA, effectively “unzipping” the DNA molecule. In their paper ‘DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field,’ Alexandrov et al conclude:

“We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.” ^{^[13]}

So, if we continue to breathe in the SMART hype, we’ll soon see where the real growth lies.

* “Wi-Fi is a popular technology that allows an electronic device to exchange data wirelessly (using radio waves) over a computer network, including high-speed Internet connections.

5 Ways Smart Phones Are Dumbing People Down

Notes

[1] http://www.no2id.net/
[2] p.232; The Technocracy Study Source, by Howard Scott and M.King Hubbard, published by Technocracy Inc. 1940 edition.
[3] ‘China’s All-Seeing Eye’ By Naomi Klein, Rolling Stone, May 14, 2008.
[4] Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski 1970 / ISBN-10 0313234981 (p.11)
[5] Ibid.(p.97)
[6] Ibid. (p252-253).
[7] U.S. Department of Energy. ‘Smart Grid / Department of Energy’ http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid.
[8] http://www.smartgrids.eu”. smartgrids.eu. 2011.
[9] Smart grid: an introduction US State Department.
[10] http://www.zprymeconsulting.com
[11] ‘Smart Grid: The Implementation of Technocracy?’ By Patrick Wood, August Review 03 March 2010.
[12] ‘Electronic Sensors Printed Directly on the Skin’ MIT Tech, Mike Orcutt, March 11, 2013.
[13] ‘DNA Breathing Dynamics in the Presence of a Terahertz Field’ by B. S. Alexandrov, V. Gelev, A. R. Bishop, A. Usheva, K. O. Rasmussen. (Submitted on 28 Oct 2009) Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph) Journal reference: Physics Letters A, Volume 374, Issue 10, 2010. Abstract: We consider the influence of a terahertz field on the breathing dynamics of double-stranded DNA. We model the spontaneous formation of spatially localized openings of a damped and driven DNA chain, and find that linear instabilities lead to dynamic dimerization, while true local strand separations require a threshold amplitude mechanism. Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication.

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

By M.K. Styllinski

© 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.

IPCC 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.

Climate 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

By M.K. Styllinski

© 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, 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.

Notes

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

Dark Green XVI: I’ve been Gored!

By M.K. Styllinski

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

– Al Gore

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.

Al 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.

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.

———–

Cool it – documentary by Bjorn Lomborg

Notes

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

Dark Green XIV: Global Cooling, Bilderberg and the Oceanic Wild-Card

By M.K. Styllinski

“In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are: 1) ‘None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.’ 2) ‘No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes.’ To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

– Professor C. R DeFreitas | www.friendsofscience.org/

With the precautionary principle being happily brushed aside yet again via the introduction of geo-engineering into the public arena, the craziness from our so-called “leaders” has reached stratospheric levels of lunacy as the stakes get higher. Nonetheless, let’s get back to meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer and his take on Pacific Decadal Oscillation which, in his view and an increasing number of scientists: “… is critical to our understanding of global warming.”

He reiterates the point that small changes can have enormous impact over time, especially regarding the presence of global cloud cover and states: “… clouds represent the single largest internal control on global temperatures (through their ability to reflect sunlight), [therefore] a change in cloudiness associated with the PDO might explain most of the climate change we’ve seen in the last 100 years or more.” Not forgetting the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) – another variable natural cycle of around 60-80 years which occurs in the North Atlantic Ocean. It seems we are just starting a cool phase on that cycle too.^[1] Both of these circulation patterns in our oceans have been occurring for about one thousand years.

Another theory contributing to the idea of global cooling is water vapour concentrations in the stratosphere which have decreased by about 10% after the year 2000, showing stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change – rather than carbon dioxide. Factor in low solar activity and the continuing lack of global warming for 18 years – despite CO₂ concentrations – there isn’t much of climate science which is pointing to the exclusivity of global warming. Most of the recent climate models have been entirely wrong in their predictions, yet climate activists and many scientists cling to excess CO₂ levels as the main driver of climate change. There is no evidence for this.

As discussed previously, the scientific facts can be spun from either side of the divide and argued into eternity until we see who benefits from the politicising. Clearly, the global warming camp and its traditional left-liberal leanings work in concert with corporate sponsorship and elite ideology which has much to gain, as we shall see in the next post. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry is only too happy to jump aboard with those resisting AGW advocates simply because it fits in with their conservative-corporate views and short-term greed. Coupled with institutionalised science which is as divorced from an ethical discourse as any other activity we have a very heady brew of confusion that sends the public’s collective head spinning.

Ice Age on the way? | © infrakshun

One obvious factoid which has rarely, if ever been placed under the microscope next to climate science is the Bilderberg group’s connection. It is not simply a glorified talking shop but a place where present and future leaders determine which direction international politics should go. Such (perceived) dignitaries included Henry Kissinger, Princess Beatrice of the Netherlands, arch Zio-Con strategist Richard Perle and Bill Gates. Which is why many of us pay attention when attendees and topics for discussion are sometimes leaked from its annual meetings as they are often indicators as to how domestic and geopolitical policy is going to play out in the coming months and years.

At the 58^th Bilderberg Meeting of June 2010 in Stiges, Spain, tucked away in a list of conference subjects under discussion was the mention of “global cooling.” After all the hullabaloo in media and scientific journals decrying “climate deniers” and establishing a scientific consensus on global warming, it is more than a little curious that global cooling was even on the conference agenda, especially when the AGW-led Carbon Tax is a much loved and looming policy of the very kinds of Elite present at the meeting. It is more probable that knowledge of AGW as a social engineering project is generally known by many members, some of whom were responsible for its creation. Therefore, it becomes less surprising that global cooling was given top billing since it may represent a more authentic picture of climate change in the not so distant future. What does this have to do with the picture of global decarbonisation and Carbon Tax? If CO₂ is not the villain of the story – by accident or decree – and it’s a lot more complicated than the Establishment thought, then it will require some substantial tweaking of the AGW script.

Back in 2006, glaciologists were able to show data from tropical ice cores that indicated two abrupt global climate shifts. By comparing ancient climate records trapped in ice cores from the South American Andes and the Asian Himalayas a huge shift from a warm climate to a cooler regime was discovered. This occurred over 5,000 years ago along with a more recent reversal to a much warmer world within the last 50 years. It seems the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) of 1,000 years warmed parts of the globe and was swiftly followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA) and a sudden onset of much colder temperatures, the vanguard of which was the advance of glaciers in Europe.

It seems the rise of a warm climate followed by an abrupt descent of an Ice Age has been happening as a natural cycle not only here on earth but on other planets so it seems even more unlikely that the microscopic activities of us humans are affecting the climate in the way that AGW advocates suggest. Furthermore, instead of the much trumpeted cehrry-picked media images of ice melting and polar bears stranded on floating boats of ice, the reverse seems to be true, at least in part. Antarctica’s land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate but sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. These are two separate phenomena. A recent paper from Bristol University on the Greenland ice sheet (not ‘arctic ice’) shows that changes to the ice sheet mass indicates weather influences (shifting pressure systems in the North Atlantic, or El Niño and La Niña events) rather than anthropogenic climate changes.

Oceanography is another field very poorly understood in relation to climate change. In the 2013, August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten a two part article included academic research on solar influence as well as the mystery of the oceans which stated: “… are generally regarded as the big wildcard in the climate discussion.” The journal quotes Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark to illustrate why this is so. He explains: “How should ocean water under 700 meters be warmed up without a warming in the upper part? … In the period 1990-2000 you could see a rise in the ocean temperatures, which fit with the greenhouse effect. But it hasn’t been seen for the last 10 years. Temperatures don’t rise without the heat content in the sea increasing. Several thousand buoys put into the sea to measure temperature haven’t registered any rise in sea temperatures.”

The IPCC and its legion of computer modellers have assumed that AGW is an obvious fact with further increases of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 with CO₂ as the cause. Yet, at the time of writing eighteen years have passed with no temperature increase and with record levels of cold being recorded over the last few years. Rather than simply a glitch in the global warming trend the decrease in temperature may indicate the underlying cause of climate change is one of cycles of global warming and cooling stretching back thousands of years.

Professor Don J. Easterbrook of Department of Geology, Western Washington University is one of an increasing number of scientists who think that the evidence is pointing in the direction of a global cooling trend and the onset of the “Little Ice Age.” Indeed, Professor Easterbook’s research summarised in his 2008 paper shows that: “Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years.” Comparing over ten global climate changes in the last 15,000 years it is clear that: “….global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant.” The professor is certain that human CO₂ input is not a factor during these ancient global climate changes since anthropogenic CO₂ emissions simply weren’t on the scene during these climatic upheavals. What is more likely is that the cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was … the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.” ^[2]

Easterbrook spent decades studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, (GDO) which showed a pattern of glacial advances and retreats that correlated with climate records. Furthermore, the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve) also correlated with glacial fluctuations. The GDA and PDO data matched global temperature records suggesting a clear relationship. This had implications for the assumption that CO₂ was the arch-culprit in anthropogenic global warming due to the fact that all but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO₂ emissions. In truth, the tiny increase in anthropogenic CO₂ in the atmosphere (0.008%) is likely not the cause of the warming, but a symptom of the natural cycles which have ebbed and flowed over the past 500 years.

The professor believes the significance of the correlation between the GDO, PDO, and the influence of sun-spot activity on global temperature is dramatic. He states: “… once this connection has been made, climatic changes during the past century can be understood, and the pattern of glacial and climatic fluctuations over the past millennia can be reconstructed. These patterns can then be used to project climatic changes in the future.”

Unlike the climate modelling of the IPCC using the climate pattern which had been established for several hundred years, in 1998 Easterbrook created a temperature curve based on past natural cycles which would predict changes from this century into the next and which suggested: “… global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090.” ^[3]

His research has so far been vindicated since it is clear that the IPCC forecast of global climate warming of 1° F was wrong so too the measures suggested to curb AGW in the form of carbon taxes and CO₂-based reduction schemes. From 2007-2008 there was a marked cooling and a continuing decrease in global temperatures with: “… NASA satellite imagery confirming that the Pacific Ocean had switched from the warm mode it had been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. The shift strongly suggests that the next several decades will be cooler, not warmer as predicted by the IPCC.” ^[4]

If the cooling is severe this could lead us into aforementioned Little Ice Age, something which has not only happened before but is likely to happen much, MUCH faster than we imagine. According to findings from a 2009 study led by UK geological sciences professor William Patterson, the earth’s climate can flip from warm to cold extraordinarily quickly.

In November 2013, a newspaper report quoted Patterson describing his research which involved hours of “scraping off layers of mud 0.5mm thick from a lake in Western Ireland” that yielded surprising results. The report went on: “Each layer represented three months of sediment deposition, so he could measure changes in temperature over very short periods. He found that temperatures had plummeted, with the lake’s plants and animals rapidly dying over just a few months. The subsequent mini Ice Age lasted for 1,300 years.” Patterson likened the speed of the arriving Ice Age as: “… the equivalent of taking Britain and moving it to the Arctic over the space of a few months.” The article goes on to make the point that while this is a ‘mini’ ice age in geological terms – 1,300 years is roughly 61 generations. That’s a considerable time and something which humanity may be facing.^[5]

As 2013 was the coldest year for 200 years, Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, of the St Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory went on record in a UK report to warn about the validity Ice Ages. The last big freeze, or “Little Ice Age” was between 1650 and 1850 the return of which Abdussamatov is convinced we are presently on an: “unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.” He further commented: “Humanity has always been prospering during the warm periods and suffering during the cold ones. The climate has never been and will never be stable.” ^[6]

Predictions by scientists backed by the IPCC have included sea level increases between 26 to 81 centimetres by the end of the century. This in turn, may cause expansion of the oceans and the melting of global ice formations. Despite feverish computer modelling churning out the worst case scenarios tied strictly to anthropocentric global warming and feeding into the public belief that it is fact, the embarrassing reality for AGW experts and the IPCC is that most of the dire warnings of horror and mayhem have not come to fruition. Embarrassing that is, if you have let well-intentioned passion succumb to ill-intentioned social engineers. For example, AGW advocates offer a flurry of explanations as to why the IPCC’s projections on global temperature rises have not been met. Warming has continued but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, for instance. Those opposed to AGW believe there is not the slightest evidence for this and represents more computer modelling based on wishful thinking rather than concrete observational data.

Since minds and money were not brought to bear thirty years ago to initiate preventative measures and mitigate the effects of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere it seems we are literally between the devil and the deep blue sea. This doesn’t mean that global cooling scenario alleviates the possibility of catastrophic change. Massive implications remain for agriculture, the total breakdown of the social fabric and city infrastructure, ecological destruction and species die-off, the signs of which are already appearing – with or without an ice age. A global warming scenario compared to a new ice age might actually be preferable. It prompted US climate change scientist Franklin Hadley to say in a 2009 article for MIT: “Given how catastrophic another ice age could be, one might be tempted to ask whether a human-caused increase in atmospheric and ocean temperatures will actually be a boon.” ^[7]

The frozen Thames 1677 by Abraham Hondius

So, what is the central issue that we need to be aware of in amongst the mire of politicised science?

Simply this: that preventative measures are being lost in favour of fake solutions which benefit only those who intend to cream off one last big financial bonanza before the globe goes belly up.

It is a horrendous truth to contemplate that there really are people out there that willingly use civilian casualties and environmental destruction to bolster their stock options at boardroom get-togethers. But it should be no surprise that massive scientific fraud and naive activism is similarly used to make big money. The Bilderbergers and other elite outfits are certainly aware of the ramifications of climate change since it is their business to analyse and predict socio-economic trends in order to load the dice toward the own plans. What is more compelling for many scientists and researchers is the reality that the weather is infinitely more complex than we ever realised and that’s without including more anomalous Earth changes and cosmological influences. There are factors that loom much larger than the idea that human beings can affect the outcome of meteorological phenomena on a scale which has been suggested.

I suspect the cosmos would laugh at such an idea…

What does appear to be true is that greenhouse gases, fossil fuels and terra firma destruction in general may have exacerbated and added to the naturally occurring cycle of climate change. In this sense, human beings are culpable. Sensible skepticism about the magnitude of greenhouses gases is necessary rather than claiming there is no validity to any of the climate theories. No one can argue that we are not collectively responsible for despoiling our planet and allowing psychopaths to rape the ecology of our minds, thus our external environment. However, once again, we must understand that science is not exempt from pathogenic infection and the ease to which the best of intentions can be subverted toward their cause.

We know there is Climate Change. We should know that there is more than a strong case that AGW and CO₂ as the primary cause has been massively hyped. We also know that greenhouse gases and the ozone layer, the sun and natural cycles are all playing a crucial part. More importantly, the green spin tells us that if we adopt a host of new global economic and social laws and infrastructure changes then it will inevitably solve the problem.

It will not.

Excluding the purposeful design of control that is behind, UN Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, SMART society and a global warming fraud, if we ushered in an Ecotopia overnight it would not change the vast processes of cyclic change of which we are a part. This is much bigger than us. Therefore, the correct preparation and preventative measures would be welcome in the face of either global warming or global cooling based on reality and away from elite centralisation.

Sadly, it is unlikely we will be able to see the wood for the trees when the very heart of the debate is compromised.

Notes

[1]‘The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO): Key to the Global Warming Debate?’ By Roy Spencer, 2008.
[2] ‘Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades’ By Daniel Easterbrook, Global Research, October 2008.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] ‘Ice Age took just SIX months arrive 10-years’ Daily Mail.
[6]‘Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age.’ Daily Express.
[7] ‘Global Warming vs. the Next Ice Age,By Franklin Hadley Cocks ’63, SM ’64, ScD ’65 ‘MIT News Magazine December 21, 2009.

Dark Green XIII: Geo-Engineering and Global Warming

By M.K. Styllinski

“From Yale University and the ‘we had to burn the village to save it’ department: Geoengineering, an emerging technology aimed at counteracting the effects of human-caused climate change, also has the potential to counteract political polarization over global warming, according to a new study.” | Image credit: John J. Reilly Center, University of Notre Dame | Source: ‘Nutty claim: Advent of geoengineering may help lower temperature of debate over climate change’ by Anthony Watts at www.wattsupwiththat.com

As if the mess couldn’t get any more dire, some global warming combatants have now reached into the stratosphere of idiocy by embracing geo-engineering to save the world – the ultimate in climate change hubris.

If the climate won’t do as it’s told then you can always force Nature’s hand …

Sure…That’s always worked.

Geo-engineering, the macrocosmic manipulation of global weather patterns using various forms of known and unknown technology has been going on for quite some time. An October 2013 piece in The Independent describes just one example of weather manipulation during the Vietnam War with “Operation Pop-eye” carried out between 1967 and 1972. It was the first official use of: “weather as an instrument of war” in which the US air force operated more than 3,000 flights: “… above the Ho Chi Minh Trail, where planes seeded clouds with silver iodide particles, causing storms and extending the monsoon season. ‘Popeye’ turned the strategic pass into a bog – and appalled the international community. In 1977, the Enmod (Environmental Modification Convention) treaty outlawed weather warfare.” ^{^[1]}

In 1977, an international Convention was by The 1977 UN General Assembly ratified an international convention banning ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’ Though such conventions provide an official record that such activities should be prohibited covert military programs continue to exist regardless of what the UN or any other body thinks about it, thus ratifications are merely exercises in finger-wagging.

Environmentalists and meteorologists remain largely ignorant of this dimension and the threat to ecosystems but weather warfare has been part of the armoury military intelligence operations during and since the collapse of the Cold War. Information dominance and the perpetual war objectives of the Pentagon ensure that military use of geo-engineering is likely a major weapon of choice since governments are able to oust regimes and target nations without any suspicion that it may part of a cogent geo-strategy.

Despite claims of its closure in 2014, the most obvious source of this technology still remains the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP). (It is highly likely that the decades of research has merely been privatised care of DARPA and shunted elsewhere). ^{^[2]} Officially claiming to conduct research into the ionosphere and climate change it is alleged to have the capacity to destabilise global agricultural and ecological systems. This includes the stimulation of earthquakes and severe weather patterns such as hurricanes and tornados.

A US Air Force research document makes it plain that weather warfare was seen as a serious consideration in 1996 where the technology: “offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary” and with capabilities that include everything from the triggering of floods, droughts, hurricanes, and earthquakes: ‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

Sample from USAF document: ‘Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025.’ (1996) http://www.csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume3/vol3ch15.pdf (no longer available)

Of particular note is the idea of cloud seeding and the current interest in “chemtrails”. What many activists, commentators and a small collections of scientists believe to be toxic chemical compounds, heavy metals and viruses being systematically sprayed into the upper and lower atmosphere in huge quantities causing a number of serious effects ranging from heavy metal poisoning, the increase in rare diseases, mass animal, plant and tree die-offs to a global ecological degradation. They believe that contrails – water vapour made of liquid droplets or ice crystals left behind aircraft – are in actual fact evidence of a global military-corporate conspiracy to dump massive quantities of poisonous substances behind aircraft into various sectors of the atmosphere.

There are several reasons to suggest this is, at least in part, a misinterpretation of genuine phenomena. Firstly, based on evidence of global cooling, the nature of the upper atmosphere is changing.

Journalist Niall Bradley of sott.net explains:

“Contrails are staying longer and becoming larger suspended in the sky for hours that often spread to become several miles wide, or even cover the sky from horizon to horizon if they live under or near busy flight traffic areas where many aircraft traverse at high altitude. A lingering contrail may even blow in your direction without you ever seeing any aircraft because our atmosphere has a number of layers and each layer has its own temperature and wind speed and direction and, very often, things in one layer take a very long time and distance to mix or mingle with other layers, IF they mix at all. Usually, the wind speeds in the upper layers are such that anything deposited there might only penetrate to lower layers after many thousands of miles of travel. In short, if it is in the troposphere and lingers there, it is probably just contrails in an altered planetary atmosphere layer, or it is a bounce screen for HAARP waves.” ^{^[3]}

Though chemtrails may well be a reality in a limited number of localised cases, as a vast global conspiracy the logistical and financial incentive doesn’t add up, quite apart from the obvious fact there have been far more cost effective ways to dumb down and control populations. Why would a program of poisoning be sanctioned when our daily lives are already replete with habits and effects which are inherently toxic? What of decades of atmospheric nuclear testing; frequent oils spills; the endless use of pesticides and GMO foods; the prevalence of depleted uranium munitions in war zones and the presence of PCBs in every sentient life-form? Why waste money doing more?

Most importantly, as Bradley notes:“… anything that precipitates to the ground under the area where it is sprayed must be released in the lower troposphere, not between 20 and 30,000 feet where most commercial jets fly.” He also observes that the prevalence of aluminium, barium and strontium found in soil and water does not mean they come from chemtrails as advocates suggest, but indicative of more natural causes, aluminium being: “… the third most abundant element (after oxygen and silicon) and the most abundant metal in the Earth’s crust. Because of its high chemical reactivity, barium is never found in nature as a free element, but barium compounds are used as an ‘atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves along military jet flight paths, missile test ranges.” ^{^[4]}Since the concentrations of barium are found along military flight paths this is also not surprising that forms of strontium have been present in radioactive fallout, the earth having endured nuclear testing on a phenomenal scale since 1945.

Again, this doesn’t mean the idea behind chemtrails is ludicrous. There is never smoke without some fire. Geo-engineering is taking place but the key issue is to discover the primary cause from which truth is transformed into disinformation by the media and delivered to the public.

Something strange IS going on because the atmosphere has changed, but isn’t necessarily down to chemtrails or the poisoning of people from the air.

Similarly, something IS going on in the climate but it isn’t anthropocentric global warming.

It seems that many are being suckered into the whole mythology of 1) chemtrails as a dastardly plot to kill us all, when they have already been successfully dividing and killing us for decades now without wildly uneconomical ventures in the air and 2) HAARP as the primary source of military weather control. The promotion of the idea that the government is poisoning the global population and /or seeking to comprehensively control the weather – either militarily and /or to oppose global warming – appears to be a red herring. The latter especially should present a red flag. What if the spraying that is taking place is for other purposes, not for changing the weather but for creating a suitable screen for HAARP mind control waves? Whacky as this may sound, we have the possibility of the camouflaging of two core truths: mass manipulation of the mind through HAARP or adjunct technologies and global climate change linked to the cooling of the atmosphere and cyclic cosmological phenomena. (These possibilities will clarify if the reader peruses the Technocracy series).

As is always the case, when the Establishment would rather keep such activities secret, public questioning about the logical validity of such capabilities are met with decades of denial. Now that it is convenient to do so, geo-engineering has been allowed to filter through to the MSM having existed in “fringe” regions of conspiracy commentary. Once again, this is not to say that geo-engineering isn’t taking place – it obviously is. But the manipulation of the weather may serve as an excellent buffer to the true nature of what is going above our heads.

It was back in January 9 2012 that a new study did the rounds on geo-engineering, this time from the University of Oklahoma political science Dept. and George Washington University’s Cultural Cognition Project entitled: ‘Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication.’ ^{^[5]} This idea was further promoted by none other than the IPCC in September 2013 by suggesting its use as a possible weapon against global warming. The IPCC’s Chief scientific adviser on climate change, David MacKay stated from the evidence of their new modelling religion: “Modelling indicates that [geo-engineering applications] if realisable, have the potential to substantially offset a global temperature rise.” Following the report’s release, this coalition called for more investment in research and development stating: “I am going to recommend that this is a public priority for the long-term.”

Earth has been viewed as one great petri-dish of possibilities with the public as unwitting participants. Stratospheric aerosols, ocean reflectors, artificial trees, space reflectors, afforestation, and cloud seeding are just some of the applications currently being deployed or under review in a bid to offset the effects of AGW. A veritable genie is about to be unleashed which would be very difficult to place back in its bottle with no evidence that such artificial changes in weather patterns would ever be controllable and more importantly would exacerbate the existing problems in ways unforeseen – even helping to speed up the very things they wish to avoid.

What a tangled web we weave …

Historian Laura Knight-Jadczyk’s extraordinarily comprehensive research comes as close as you are going to get to a unified overview of the complex factors which make up our understanding of climate science today – not least how much vital information has been purposely excluded. A short response to a questioner in relation to geo-engineering serves as a useful summary on subject that is in desperate need of proper research by all true scientists:

Weather is nonlinear and nobody in his right mind would meddle with it. Obviously they try to, but with very limited results and it usually backfires on them. Their inputs are just so small they don’t perturb the system very much. (The same applies to ‘anthropogenic global warming’.) Plus, notice the most important clue: that the weather is changing dramatically on the other planets in our solar system which suggests a more ‘cosmic’ cause. Also notice the other interesting phenomena such as increasing volcanic eruptions (keep in mind that 75% of the planet’s volcanoes are under water and appear to be erupting with greater frequency lately), sinkholes, torrential rains, landslides everywhere on a scale previously unknown, heating of the troposphere from internal heat of the earth, combined with cooling and sinking of the stratosphere, comet/meteor dust loading of the stratosphere resulting in noctilucent clouds being seen further south than ever before. Then, there is the meandering of the jet stream. Put that together with the really sad performance of the sun during this solar maximum, the puzzling decrease of the Earth’s magnetic field, the increase in electrical activity, including the now well-known ‘mysterious sounds’ phenomena, and you get the impression that something outside the solar system or at least at the edges of it, is ‘grounding the current flow’ through all the planets and things are definitely getting interesting. ^{^[6]}

Evidence that water vapour from aircraft contrails has not been dissipating in the past twenty years is compelling. The patterns which have been formed are like cirrus clouds usually found at higher altitudes than passenger airliners which means that we can conclude that the upper atmosphere’s colder layer has fallen to a lower level. This means that contrails are forming in air that is much colder and creating cirrus-like effects. Contrails haven’t changed but the atmosphere within which they form certainly has. With an extremely quiescent sun over the last few years, many scientists agree.

A NASA-funded study which was monitoring the thermosphere described a massive contraction of the vast layer of gas far above the earth’s surface – the biggest in 43 years. According to John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab it was a: “… a Space Age record.” His paper on the findings were published in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). During 2008-2009 the contraction (or collapse) took place during what is called the solar minimum. Although the thermosphere naturally contracts when there is little solar activity, on this occasion the collapse was spectacular at two or three times the normal rate which left researchers perplexed as to the cause. ^{^[7]}

While AGW supporters claim that the oceans are absorbing the excess heat from global warming and hence the “pause,” in truth, scientists are as confused as the rest of us. Though there are many qualifications climatologists are trying to grapple with and which do not need to feature the influence of CO2 at all, it seems there are factors currently dragging AGW kicking and screaming towards global cooling. Firstly, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) consists of two complex circulation patterns that appear every 30 years or so in the North Pacific Ocean. It has a warm positive phase which heats land in the Northern Hemisphere and a cool, negative phase. We are now experiencing the negative effect hence the idea that oceans are absorbing the excess heat of global warming, though that, in truth, is another cycle.

Continued…

Notes

[1] ‘Let’s play God: The scientific experiments that might save the world (or destroy it…)’ The Independent, October 2013 Memphis Parker.
[2] ‘HAARP Facility Shuts Down’ January 7 2013| http://www.arrl.org/news/view/haarp-facility-shuts-down extract: “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) isexpected on site as a client to finish up some research this fall and winter. DARPA has nearly $8.8 million in its FY 14 budget plan to research ‘physical aspects of natural phenomena such as magnetospheric sub-storms, fire, lightning and geo-physical phenomena.'”
[3] ‘Chemtrails, Disinformation and the Sixth Extinction’ By Niall Bradley, August 12, 2012.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication Dan M. Kahan ; Yale University – Law School; Harvard University – Edmond J. Safra Center for EthicsHank C. Jenkins-Smith ; University of Oklahoma – Department of Political Science; Tor Tarantola University of Cambridge – Department of Psychology; Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law SchoolCarol L Silva; University of Oklahoma – Main – Department of Political Science Donald Braman; George Washington University – Law School; Cultural Cognition Project, January 9, 2012, Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Sci., 658, 193-222 (2015), doi: 10.1177/0002716214559002
[6] op.cit. Bradley.
[7] ‘A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere’ NASA Science NewsJuly 15, 2010.

Dark Green XII: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(2)

By M.K. Styllinski

“… the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS [American Physical Society] before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. … I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.”

– Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB

Jumping into the climate change debate is like voluntarily submerging yourself in the quicksand of dogma and propaganda. Once you are in, it can be difficult to find your way out; the more you struggle to maintain a grasp of current scientific principles the more easy it is to be sucked under. A helping hand can come from one camp or another, only to realise they’re actually trying to push you further down into the mire. Such is the murky world of climate science and commentary.

Despite all that, it is possible to extricate ourselves from all the obfuscation, politicisation and horrible academic egos on show. Not easy, but possible. What needs to be born in mind is Cui Bono? Who benefits from all this confusion and suppression of information? The global warming industry and the panic, urgency and fear promoted by outfits like the ICLEI serve to embolden UN Agenda 21 and its various tributaries. It doesn’t matter that some form of climate change is real, it is the overall engineering of the crisis to support an agenda that has nothing to do with climate science itself – that is the key point to remember.

Climate science is informed by the same principles of our Official Culture, which means it undoubtedly suffers from the exact same self-serving beliefs, and overarching agendas we found in UN Agenda 21 and politics in general. When human nature is immersed in such endemic pathology then we have to be extremely suspicious of any science which is given the wholesale support of the Establishment and their bull-horning lackeys. The same can be said of the fossil fuel industry, yet this is all part of the Divide and Rule formula.

A Primer

Climate change science and the influences that contributed to the evolution of Anthropocentric Global Warming (AGW) can be traced back to the early 1800’s and the First Industrial Revolution. This radical change resulted in a large increase in green-house gas emissions and a spike in population growth due to better agriculture and sanitation. The traditional view of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedback dominated. By the end of the 19^th Century a handful of scientists had suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most believed such theories were impossible.

By the 1930’s, enough data had been accumulated to suggest that the planet was undergoing a warming trend. As the 1960’s approached, meteorologists found the opposite: that this trend had now changed to a marked cooling in just a couple of decades. Climate change began to be seen as infinitely complicated with some scientists preferring the warming model and others predicting a continuance of the cooling model. Now, this is where it gets interesting …

During the early 1970s and all the environmental hullabaloo which arrived on the squeaky, donkey-driven cart of Club of Rome science, the green-house gas issue was enough to push most scientists over to the idea that continued warming would prevail. The larger natural cycle of cooling was displaced in favour of the apparent evidence in ice flows, tree rings and other natural phenomena to support that the world was indeed warming. In fact, the summary of warming-cooling oscillations appeared in 30 year trends dated as follows:

1882 – 1910 Cooling
1910 – 1944 Warming
1944 – 1975 Cooling
1975 – 2001 Warming.

And from around 2009-2010 indications are that the planet has started to cool again, and will probably continue to do so until about 2030. If these fluctuations are correct, then it merely confirms what has been happening for a long time. ^{^[1]}

If we go back to what is known as the Medieval Warm Period beginning at AD 1000 – 1300 it was virtually a Mediterranean climate in Europe as well as other regions around the world which were experiencing a significant rise in temperature.^{^[2]}By the time we reached the beginning of the 1400s we were fighting freezing temperatures of what is called the “Little Ice Age” which lasted to the end of the 1700’s. Since then temperatures have been rising steadily at 0.5°C per century since about 1750, as a process of recovery from that mini ice age. ^{^[3]}Once these effects have passed, the evidence suggests that the temperature will return to the Medieval Warm Period, continuing a natural cycle which had been repeated during what is called the Roman Optimum and in the Holocene optimum. ^{^[4]}

The Maunder Minimum is the term used for the period beginning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became extremely rare. The period happened to land right in the middle and coldest part of the Little Ice Age giving plenty of evidence that there is a strong causal relationship between low sunspot activity and the rise of cold, hard winters. ^{^[5]}Solar UV output is also much more variable over the duration of a solar cycle than was previously thought linking terrestrial climate effects such as cold or warm winters according to that data. The effects of that vast ball of unimaginably white-hot fire the sun, has been strangely overlooked in much of mainstream climate science. As the Sun’s core is so hot that a piece of it the size of a pinhead would give off enough heat to kill a person 160 kilometres away, one would think perhaps it plays a small if not highly significant part in climate change science and in ways which may not fit conveniently into the current paradigm. ^{^[6]}There is still much to be learned about the influence of the sun on climate change along with a host of other factors including cosmic rays.

Source: Ethan Siegal Remember How Tiny We All Are

You think, just maybe … the Sun has more to do with Climate Change than we think?

Since the spectre of acid rain didn’t cut the mustard in the 1980s, carbon dioxide emissions has taken over as the stimulant to AGW hysteria, though there is still no compelling evidence that an increase in human produced CO₂ levels is the main culprit of global warming. But one example, in a sea of refutation, critique and counter-critique is the discovery of “spurious bias” in satellite and modelling evidence as a result of “exaggerated estimates” and “faulty assumptions,” where it was found that: “… the new sensitivity estimate also suggests that warming over the last century cannot be explained by human greenhouse gas emissions alone, but instead might require a mostly natural explanation.” ^{^[7]}

Another paper studied the IPCC’s projections for the mean global temperature anomaly and found the measurements to be incorrect, with global temperatures “even less than the projections with emission commitment held constant at year 2000”. As the Professor stated at the end of his findings: “It is crucial that public policy be based on facts. CO₂ driven global warming is not supported by the data.” ^{^[8]}As we shall see later on, the IPCC is about as far away from facts and impartiality as it is possible to be. Yet, this is the temple to which most climate scientists bow down in unquestioning homage.

Human caused CO₂ emission levels did appear on the scene before about 1850 and were entirely insignificant when compared to current levels until after 1945. So, why the insistence that humans have contributed to a significant degree in destabilising the world’s climate?

One of the biggest examples of climate science controversy was the temperature graph given the nickname of the ‘’hockey stick,’ apparently showing a stable temperature from the year 1000 AD until the 20th century after which it began climb dramatically. The flat part of the line reminded people of the handle of an ice-hockey, while the upstick resembled the blade. It was appropriated by the IPCC and liberally used in its 2001 reports. It also featured heavily in Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth.

The ‘hockey stick.’ (IPCC)

The problem with the climate activist viewpoint is that the studies carried out to check the veracity of the hockey stick data were carried out by the same small clique of researchers, using similarly flawed statistical techniques, and/or relying on the same dubious sources of data, something which happens quite often. It is therefore not a surprise that data is sought to reinforce beliefs rather than to find the truth. ^{^[9]}The Hockey Stick revelation was made by a young American geophysicist named Michael Mann who had just been granted his PhD. Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick published a paper questioning the statistical methods used in the Mann et al. paper showing that the shape of the graph was determined mainly by faulty tree-ring data. Indeed, it was even discovered that the computer algorithm Mann used was so inaccurate and biased that hockey sticks could be produced from random noise! Their criticisms were upheld in 2006 by two expert committees: a US congressional panel headed by statistician Edward Wegman and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Both parties heavily criticised the science behind the Hockey stick data yet it was still being used in IPCC’s 2007 climate reports with carefully “cherry-picked” data all of which were produced by Mann’s colleagues. ^{^[10]}

A 2000-YEAR GLOBAL TEMPERATURE

RECONSTRUCTION BASED ON NON-TREE RING PROXIES

With 95% confidence intervals (in red) shows a non-tree-ring temperature reconstruction published by Craig Loehle and Hu McCulloch in 2008, show a Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. The last point on the graph represents 1935. The temperature today is still below that during the MWP. (scienceandpublicpolicy.org)

Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg, Hans von Storch also offered substantial contribution to the critical storm, though the former authors have remained the more commonly quoted amongst climate sceptics. ^{^[11]}

The way Michael Mann was given superstar status was bizarre to say the least. He was suddenly clasped to the bureaucratic bosom of the IPCC and the recipient of grants which fell like pennies from heaven. This was despite the fact that the institution never bothered to check the data, presumably because he fit so well into the preconceived beliefs rather than objective science the IPCC claimed to espouse. Consequently, Mann became a new source of propaganda-fuelled cash injection.

Or in other words:

“If you look in GeoRef, which is the bibliography for publications in geology, you will find 485 papers on the Medieval Warm Period and you’ll find 1,413 on the Little Ice Age. So the total number of papers in the geologic literature is 1,900. And we’re expected to believe that one curve [based on] tree rings is going to overturn all of those 1,900 papers? I don’t think so.” ^{^[12]}

So said Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, with B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Washington and who has studied global climate change for five decades. He has written many books, published more than 185 papers in professional journals, and presented 30 research papers at international meetings in 15 countries. He seems qualified to comment on the hockey stick temperature graph, which presented a totally new view of the temperature record, counter to the one long accepted by scholars. Not that this is necessarily indicative of skulduggery at this stage, nor should unorthodox contributions ever be dismissed, but it should give rise to caution at the very least. When coupled with the political interests within the climate change industry as a whole, it becomes highly suspicious. Indeed, as it stands, any departure from the Green Establishment line of AGW merits a tenacious orthodoxy which isn’t about to budge.

Former President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus describes the set of beliefs which make up the AGW, global warming “consensus” as “… an ideology, if not a religion.” He further states: “It lives independently on the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, but are part of the ‘conflict of ideologies’. Temperature is used and misused in these disputes. The politicians, the media and the public – misled by the very aggressive propaganda produced by the adherents of the global warming doctrine – do not see this. It is our task to help them to distinguish between what is science and what is ideology.” ^{^[13]}

Which will be a tall order since science is about as far as it can be from being impartial and objective thanks to AGW supporters compromising much of the internet sources of information. Anyone perusing climate science articles on internet encyclopaedia Wikipedia would be forgiven for thinking that there is a scientific consensus on global warming.

Then there is the issue of “Climategate” which had climate activists scurrying around applying damage limitation editorials left, right and centre. It’s not difficult to see why. In November 2009 The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) server was hacked at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by persons unknown. Possibly looking for maximum media coverage just prior to the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, over 4,000 emails and computer files were copied and uploaded to various locations on the Internet. Over 5,000 emails were hacked again in 2011 by a possible whistleblower calling himself “FOIA” and posted on his website. This was called “Climategate 2.0,” apparently timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the original Climategate leak and with the United Nations Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa.

The correspondence included a host of characters but most notably Professors Phil Jones and Dr. Mick Kelly. Jones happens to be a prominent contributor to the IPCC and has worked on temperature records of the last 1000 years with Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame. The unit has received research grants totalling £2,725,000.00 since 1990. Other emails included frequent appearances by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist for the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research (UCAR) and a major contributor to climate and carbon-cycle models; Kevin E. Trenberth head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research and lead author for IPCC reports for 1995, 2001 and 2007; Thomas R. Karl Director of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Centre; James Hansen Head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Gavin Schmidt founder of the RealClimate website and contributor to ocean and climate models. There were many other scientists also involved in the scandal.

It was a gift for climate sceptics and no doubt those in the fossil fuel lobby happy to ride on the confusion and noise created. Though this did not disprove the theory of AGW, for many climate sceptics this was cast-iron proof that there was indeed a conspiracy to manipulate and cover up data. This was a serious blow however, to the credibility of AGW research and a vindication from many other scientists that the field was compromised by politics. Unsurprisingly, the CRU rejected the accusations and tried desperately to cultivate a business-as-usual approach. Clinging to their academic life-jackets like survivors of the Titanic, the CRU and climate activists insisted that all the comments were taken out of context and “merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.” ^{^[14]}Yet, within that honest exchange lay blatant dishonesty, if not downright fraud which can only harm science in general.

Lon Glazer, a Chicago blogger at “Commission Impossible” gave a fine summary of the behaviour of those involved in the scandal the implications of which were being brushed under the carpet. He reveals that:

1. The scientists colluded in efforts to thwart Freedom of Information Act requests (across continents no less). They reference deleting data, hiding source code from requests, manipulating data to make it more annoying to use, and attempting to deny requests from people recognized as contributors to specific internet sites. Big brother really is watching you. He’s just not very good at securing his web site.

2. These scientists publicly diminished opposing arguments for lack of being published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In the background they discussed black-balling journals that did publish opposing views, and preventing opposing views from being published in journals they controlled. They even mention changing the rules midstream in arenas they control to ensure opposing views would not see the light of day. They discuss amongst themselves which scientists can be trusted and who should be excluded from having data because they may not be “predictable”.

3. The scientists expressed concern privately over a lack of increase in global temperatures in the last decade, and the fact that they could not explain this. Publicly they discounted it as simple natural variations. In one instance, data was [apparently] manipulated to hide a decline in temperatures when graphed. Other discussions included ways to discount historic warming trends that inconveniently did not occur during increases in atmospheric CO2.

4. The emails show examples of top scientists working to create public relations messaging with favourable news outlets. It shows them identifying and cataloging, by name and association, people with opposing views. These people are then disparaged in a coordinated fashion via favourable online communities.

What the emails/files don’t do is completely destroy the possibility that global climate change is real. They don’t preclude many studies from being accurate, on either side of the discussion. And they should not be seen as discrediting all science. ^{^[15]}[Emphasis mine]

The latter paragraph in italics is important to remember. This is about valuing good science and discarding politics of belief and large egos. The above is an example of the pervasive spectre of “group-think” rather than free thought which needs to be countered vigorously whenever it raises its ugly head – which is often.

To give the reader a taste of what Glazer has summarised let me offer some of the verbatim quotes from the scientists themselves.

>Phil Jones reveals how he made his data show warming:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University, on covering up recent cooling:

“Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Prof. Phil Jones’ view on the sharing of scientific data:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

Dr. Mick Kelly confirms what we already knew:

Told Paul Horsman of Greenpeace “The IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalization agenda driven by organizations like the WTO [World Trade Organization].”

Prof. Michael E. Mann on “cleaning up” code:

“I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.”

Tom Wigley on global warming:

“We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming – and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.”

Thomas R Karl on data requests:

“I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues.”

A CRU programming code for dealing with tree-ring data:

“Uses corrected MXD but shouldn’t usually plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures.”

Adam Markham to the CRU:

“… are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible.”

Phil Jones’ true colours:

“I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

From Phil Jones to Australian Tom Wigley regarding the Medieval Warm Period:

“Bottom line – there is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years … this is all gut feeling, no science, but years of experience of dealing with global scales and variability.”

More evidence of Phil Jones covering up and deleting data. He warns Michael Mann about Steve McIntyre and Prof Ross McKitrick, the first individuals to comprehensively debunk the “hockey stick”, and who wish to look at CRU data:

“If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone … We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”

Phil Jones to staff:

“PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act!”

After FOI request from David Holland Phil Jones asks Michael Mann:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise … Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?”

Tom Wigley on ousting the editor of Geophysical Research Letters (which was achieved):

“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse sceptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann on two sceptics’ papers:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Michael Mann on removing the editor of Climate Science [This was achieved]:

“How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that anti-greenhouse science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).”

From Phil Jones to Michael Mann, on the death of Australian sceptic John Daly:

“In an odd way this is cheering news!”

IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately tells colleagues that global warming is absent from the data and counter to climate model predictions:

“… where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. … The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” ^{^[16]}

So, why so much emphasis on AGW? Is it just because the science says so?

When you read through the mountains of data you realise very quickly that underneath the teetering columns of graphs and pie-charts, references and citations there is still a whole lot of assumption and inconclusive data. No one really knows but so many want to know and are willing to jump to erroneous conclusions and blame humans for the whole kit and caboodle as a result. After all, it follows in a grand tradition does it not? And humans ARE destroying ecological systems and their wildlife at a terrific rate. Ergo…

Professor Phil Jones from the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia

‘University of East Anglia refused to share information on global warming’ |”The university at the centre of the ‘climategate’ scandal behaved in a “reprehensible” manner by refusing to release research behind the science of global warming, according to MPs.”

Roy Spencer, PhD was the Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001; Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre; NASA U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He is a scientist well qualified to comment on the nature of global warming. Awarded NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites with Dr. John Christy, he continues to provide congressional testimony on the subject of global warming. As he mentions on his website: “He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.” ^{^[16]}

Dr. Spencer explains the logic which appeals to so many singing the AGW tune:

Earth’s atmosphere contains natural greenhouse gases (mostly water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane) which act to keep the lower layers of the atmosphere warmer than they otherwise would be without those gases. Greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation — the radiant heat energy that the Earth naturally emits to outer space in response to solar heating. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40 percent to 45 percent higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s.

It is interesting to note that, even though carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere. As of 2008, only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air were CO₂, and it will take mankind’s CO₂ emissions 5 more years to increase that number by 1, to 40.

The “Holy Grail”: Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called “climate sensitivity”. This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing’, of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.

Spencer explains that the well-worn word: “consensus” sees the Earth’s sensitivity as high (about 0.25 deg. C to 0.5 deg. C) and warming every ten years as long as the use of fossil fuels continues as our main source of energy. The climate sensitivity is very high and thus the limiting of fossil fuels and CO2 production is the primary pillar of AGW beliefs. He thinks that knowledge on ‘climate sensitivity’ has been difficult to accrue and believes they are missing a vital point:

How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming are critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.

The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of….the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. You don’t need the sun or any other ‘external’ influence (although these are also possible…but for now I’ll let others work on that). It is simply what the climate system does. This is actually quite easy for meteorologists to believe, since we understand how complex weather processes are. Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ’sceptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate. Climate change — it happens, with or without our help. ^{^[17]}

^{^{[Emphasis mine]}}

The climate change industry is hugely influenced by the idea that carbon dioxide emissions have been fingered as the evil villain of anything from freak tornadoes to flash floods and future sea-level rises where islands will cease to exist. Though human activity does indeed have a lot to answer for – certainly in terms of ozone depletion and rainforest destruction, to name but two examples – placing non-linear weather patterns and their effects at humanity’s door is both unrealistic and prescriptive, though it has provided a thriving industry of computer modelling and carbon credit companies. Without this much-touted “scientific consensus” climate change would be a very different beast indeed.

The graph shows the predicted path of global temperatures is set to continue their decline as a result of depletion of CFC’s in the atmosphere. Credit: Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo Source: http://www.Phys.org

One of the most recent studies from the University of Waterloo in Canada published in the International Journal of Modern Physics confirmed that Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide. An “in-depth statistical analysis” shows that: “CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change.” Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo’s Faculty of Science state”: “Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong,” he said. “In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming.” ^{^[18]}

A correlation perhaps, but one certainly a whole lot more watertight than the present evidence for CO₂.

Indeed, in a recent article by Paul Driessen he highlights the problems with the AGW climate change which clearly seems to have been going on throughout history reiterating the fact that: “… it is costly policies imposed in the name of preventing change: policies that too often destroy jobs, perpetuate poverty and kill people.”

He states further:

“Those perceptions are reinforced by recent studies that found climate researchers have systematically revised actual measured temperatures upward to fit a global warming narrative for Australia, Paraguay, the Arctic and elsewhere. Another study, ‘Why models run hot: Results from an irreducibly simple climate model,’ concluded that, once discrepancies in IPCC computer models are taken into account, the impact of CO₂-driven manmade global warming over the next century (and beyond) is likely to be ‘no more than one-third to one-half of the IPCC’s current projections’ – that is, just 1-2 degrees C (2-4 deg F) by 2100! That’s akin to the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods and would be beneficial, not harmful.” ^{^[19]}

It doesn’t stop there. Steven Goddard’s Real Science blog also provides some interesting information direct from the National Climate Data Center. His comments follow each graph reproduced here:

There is only one piece of US climate data which correlates with CO2 – the amount of data tampering NCDC is applying to US temperature.

All of the other relevant metrics show either no correlation, or negative correlation vs. CO2. The whole thing is a 100% scam – from top to bottom.

Hot days show no correlation vs. CO2

Severe tornadoes have declined as CO2 has increased

Measured (untampered) US temperatures show no correlation with CO2

US hurricane strikes have declined as CO2 has increased

US heavy rainfall events show no correlation with CO2

East Coast sea level rise shows no correlation with CO2

Once again, if anything is going to have a drastic effect on temperature change and any possibility of warming trend it is the Sun, rather than CO₂.

***

Clearly, there is much more to this subject than is possible to summarise, even in a whole book. The point to remember is that science is working for social engineering programs which incorporate both conscious and unconscious agents which are always determined by their psychological profile. This is true for all societal domains where psychopathy has a foothold and its psychological footprint has gained ground. The exact same indications of ponerisation appear in climate science as it does in all other spheres of Official Culture. The organising principle is one of confusion and disinformation which is propagated by large egos and beliefs. These latter attributes manage to create obstruction and stagnation quite nicely without any radical influence from agents on high. The ultimate agenda is to create so much hysteria, fear and co-opted scientific inquiry so that the real creative solutions are left by the wayside.

There is global warming but not of the type presented by most scientists and their media lackeys. Such a phenomenon may exist cyclically and precede global cooling, substantial earth changes ending with an Ice Age. If the World State ideologues knew very well about these epochal changes but wished to retain control when much of the population had been wiped out, do you think they would reveal such information to the public at large and risk the eventual dilution of their powerbase? **

Blaming humans for what are very possibly complex cosmic processes far beyond the physical influences of humanity feeds into the same disinformation and ignorance we have been exploring in the last series of posts. More importantly, it once again distracts from the theories of cyclic catastrophes which have visited this planet over and over again, strangely enough, at the exact moment when Global Pathocracies are reaching their zenith.

Perhaps it is this knowledge that is really being concealed by the climate change debate?

* Reading Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion will bring the reader up-to-date on every aspect of the famous temperature graph and which reveals the same story of financial and ideological fraud running rampant in climate change science.

** I strongly urge readers to read Earth Changes and the Cosmic-Human Connection by Pierre Lascaudron which goes into the complex forces at work from the electric universe to cometary bombardment. From the book description:

“Jet Stream meanderings, Gulf Stream slow-downs, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, meteor fireballs, tornadoes, deluges, sinkholes, and noctilucent clouds have been on the rise since the turn of the century. Have proponents of man-made global warming been proven correct, or is something else, something much bigger, happening on our planet?

While mainstream science depicts these Earth changes as unrelated, Pierre Lescaudron applies findings from the Electric Universe paradigm and plasma physics to suggest that they might in fact be intimately related, and stem from a single common cause: the close approach of our Sun’s ‘twin’ and an accompanying cometary swarm.

Citing historical records, the author reveals a strong correlation between periods of authoritarian oppression with catastrophic and cosmically-induced natural disasters. Referencing metaphysical research and information theory, Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection is a ground-breaking attempt to re-connect modern science with the ancient understanding that the human mind and states of collective human experience can influence cosmic and earthly phenomena.”

Notes

[1] ‘Global Warming: A Classic Case of Alarmism’ by Dr. David Evans, Science and Public Policy Institute, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, April 2, 2009. (PDF)
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P.. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.” (Wikipedia).
“Climate alarmists contend that the degree of global warmth over the latter part of the 20th century was greater than it has been at any other time over the past one to two millennia, because this contention helps support their claim that what they call the “unprecedented” temperatures of the past few decades were CO2-induced. Hence, they cannot stomach the thought that the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago could have been just as warm as, or even warmer than, it has been recently, especially since there was so much less CO2 in the air a thousand years ago than there is now. Likewise, they are equally loath to admit that temperatures of the Roman Warm Period of two thousand years ago may also have rivaled, or exceeded, those of the recent past, since atmospheric CO2 concentrations at that time were also much lower than they are today. As a result, climate alarmists rarely even mention the Roman Warm Period, as they are happy to let sleeping dogs lie. In addition, they refuse to acknowledge that these two prior warm periods were global in extent, claiming instead that they were local phenomenon restricted to lands surrounding the North Atlantic Ocean. In another part of our Subject Index we explore these contentions as they apply to the Medieval Warm Period. In this Summary, we explore them as they pertain to the Roman Warm Period, beginning with Central Europe.” […] See: ‘Roman Warm Period (Europe – Central) – Summary’ http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropecentral.phpfor further discussion.
[5] ‘Regular Solar Cycle Could Be Going on Hiatus’ by Nancy Atkinson on June 14, 2011 Universe Today at http://www.universetoday.com/86643/regular-solar-cycle-could-be-going-on-hiatus/#ixzz2HnDWS1eq
[6] http://www.solarspace.co.uk/Sun.php
[7] ‘Global Warming: Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found? ‘ by Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. updated 7:00 a.m. CDT, June 30, 2008 Including a simplified version of a paper entitled “Chaotic Radiative Forcing, Feedback Stripes, and the Overestimation of Climate Sensitivity” June 25, 2008 for publication in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
[8] Ibid.
[9] The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science (Independent Minds) by Andrew Montford. Published by Stacey International, 2010. ISBN-10: 1906768358.
[10] Climate Audit by Steve McKntyre at http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
[11] ‘Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series’ published in Energy & Environment 2003.Mcintyre, S. and R. McKitrick | Also see: “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance”. Geophysical Research Letters 32 (3): L03710. Bibcode 2005GeoRL..3203710M. 2005 | ‘The decay of the hockey stick’ by Hans Von Storch, May 3, 2007, http://www.nature.com
[12] ‘Don Easterbrook PhD, Mann Hockey Stick graph not supported by data’ audio=YouTube.com
[13] Václav Klaus, Magistral Lecture at the International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, organized by the World Federation of Scientists, Erice, Sicily, Italy, 20 August 2012. (For full transcript see Appendix 15, Vol. III).
[14] ‘Sceptics publish climate e-mails ‘stolen from East Anglia University’ by Ben Webster, The Times (London). November 21, 2009.
[15] ‘Commission Impossible: ‘Men Behaving badly’ by Lon Glazer at http://www.norcalblogs.com/commission/archives/2009/11/men-behaving-ba.html
[16] ‘Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues’ November 22, 2009. | All email data and individual emails can be found on www.http://di2.nu/foia/
[17] http://www.drroyspencer.com/
[18] Ibid. (‘Global Warming’)
[19] ‘Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, new study says’ http://www.Phys Org, May 31, 2013.

Dark Green XI: Climate Change: Divide and Conquer all over again…(1)

By M.K. Styllinski

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”

– H.L. Mencken

© infrakshun

The centralisation of power in the tradition of the Holy Roman Empire is the objective. It always was. And as long as psychopaths remain at the helm of the decision-making process in our societies across the globe, securing resources and depopulating the mass of ordinary people will remain a key resolution of the 0.001 %. The Global Pathocrats want it all and they really believe that the husbandry of their quaint human-chattel is the only destiny available, as it was in past empire civilisations of antiquity, so shall it be again. It is in this context that the history of environmentalism becomes an evolution of eco-Fascism.

For the ponerisation of core values and the rise of mass pathology to be implanted you need a cogent form of high level, well-funded propaganda that must gain sufficient momentum and popularity to succeed. It must also have many factions appropriating it for their beliefs. It must be normalised to the extent that it can be in plain sight and held aloft as principles to which we must all aspire.

This brings us to global warming and climate change.

One of the biggest scams of the century is the global warming hoax. True or false?

With that statement alone I’ve immediately placed myself in a category that is either:

a right-wing Obama-hater
American patriot and gun-toting conspiracy theorist
Corporate agent for the oil, coal and nuclear power industry
Liberal-leftie who’s lost his way in a heartless world of disinformation.
All the above. (Anything is possible).

It’s very easy to become lost in the friction created between all these warring beliefs and where an objective rendering of the facts becomes almost impossible. And this is where we find ourselves. Most people know that there seems to be something odd happening to our weather systems and most people believe that some sort of climate change is afoot, the most likely culprit being human influenced (anthropocentric) global warming.

However, alternative reasons for climate change are not only being marginalised or ignored but actively covered up. Instead of good science and open rigorous public discussion, we have a global warming industry with an army of thought police monitoring its academic and media brethren as a dictator would his people. When anyone questions the gospel of anthropocentric global warming (AGW) they are immediately seen as a heretic and working for the other side. Labels of “climate deniers” with the obvious associations to holocaust deniers have been attached to those brave enough to question the science of AGW.

Lauded institutions such as the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) remain the source of much of the global warming theory and its place in academia and MSM as the theory, despite the facts which show that academic corruption is common place. This is not surprising since global warming – care of the Club of Rome – is a useful adjunct to the whole UN Agenda 21/SMART growth ideology.

The majority of ecologists and environmentalists agree with the Establishment in their support for AGW whereas others support the evidence for a natural cycle of climate change. Then you have various shades of grey between both camps which neither tend to appreciate. It’s either black or white – evil heretic in the pay of corporatism or or angelic Percevals forging a scientific path to climate science glory. As is ever the case, when you find yourself going against the Establishment line (money, power and faulty science) and find consistent scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus, you are setting yourself up to be that heretic, an especially harrowing experience in science circles where you could lose your job and your reputation. This is the reality today if you are an advocate of the natural cycle despite the hard data available.

When science merges with activism of any hue it ceases to become objective and instead allows belief to subtly or crudely alter experimentation and research. Climate change and carbon credits are in the same boat as UN Agenda 21. It is a huge industry with the fossil fuel and oil lobby playing the part of evil oppressor of the greener-than-green AGW crowd. It’s a tried and tested formula. Real science doesn’t get a look in, before it’s corporatised and politicised. As a result, corruption and greed further erode science, the toxicity of which has entered both education and academia without most people really being aware of its presence, thus playing a part in its propagation. If you side with the consensus however, and suppress your misgivings whilst signing on to the AGW gravy-train, you can rest easy and continue to preach the gospel, safe in the knowledge that your pay cheque is safe and your students won’t hate you for being a closet corporatist.

Digging for the truth on this subject is a quagmire of impenetrable cross-conceptualisations, moneyed interests, poor science and aggressive beliefs straining at their leashes, gagging to take a chunk out of your open-mind. The problem is, if you talk to the AGW advocate he will list all kinds of evidence supporting his theory. He will talk of “consensus” and what “most people believe”. He will passionately poo-poo other theories and generally tear strips off their so called “science” leaving without any doubt that others are on the wrong track and sadly deluded.

CO2, green-house gases, sea-levels rising, humans as detritus – How could it be wrong? The data is there in black and white! Look around the world – what do you see? Look at the melting ice-caps, rain-forest destruction and desertification! Are you crazy??

So, not wishing to be on the wrong side of the “consensus” so much touted by the media and the increasingly vociferous AGW-Greenpeace-activists, our belief begins to grow, displacing our open mind. We decide to avoid the natural cycle guy sitting forlornly on his own in the climate change canteen because we already know and AGW fits perfectly with our imagined assumptions about wicked humans and a return to Eden. The problem then becomes one of selective omission in our minds. We have chosen to hear one view from one climate camp and we don’t have the time, energy or inclination to find out what’s going on in the other camp. So, this is already falling way short of an informed decision. Perhaps he’s an agent of the fossil fuel lobby to obfuscate and muddy the waters? Besides, it’s comfortable. You like it. This is part of your worldview of scientist and activist. This is your identity.

Even if you’ve heard the dominant media-led AGW arguments and the opposite view – that there is no climate change (it’s all a hoax) – and you have heard the global cooling advocates …but you haven’t heard from all the other experts bringing other positions to the table. What about those who don’t believe in in human-influenced climate change but don’t jump aboard the global cooling train either? What about those who think the sun is the primary culprit or that cosmological influences need to be taken into account? Perhaps we have assimilated two dominant views in the media, with the Establishment busy enforcing the conflict so that the general public are never exposed to first rate science and their discoveries. Since science today is extremely corrupt and is inhabited by persons with truly enormous egos, the need for multidisciplinary research outside of the lure of money, power has never been more urgent.

Why should climate change science be immune to ponerisation when so much money is involved?

Once you know this, you begin to see and sense very obvious indications right from the start; so, obvious that it becomes garish and crude in its manifestations. Divide and rule works both ways. The right-wing corporatist /fossil fuel lobby against the left-leaning AGW, scientist-activists fighting for Mother Earth. Neither have it right and that’s the general idea. Belief is a powerful lubricate in the never-ending circus of emotionally driven conclusions, whether scientist or layman.

Taking into account ALL the data from all domains in society and given what we know about an Official Culture of psychopathy my reasoning falls towards climate change as a natural cycle of warming and cooling with both meteorological, oceanic, geo-physical and cosmological elements all playing a part. Human influence can be attributed to ozone depletion, greenhouse gases and the obvious tangible physical destruction on the ground – but that is all.

It seems there is no longer sufficient exploration of theoretical constructs and rigorous observation but a lot of simulation and software as the driver of research. The politicisation of science has arrived with a vengeance and nowhere is the problem more acute than in the field of climate change. Think-tanks, foundations, trusts, and bureaucratic institutions like the United Nations and the IPCC have become political conduits provided with never-ending grant programs and support which is very far from scientific objectivity but big on ideology and greed.

Already riding high on the propaganda wave of UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development, various lobbying groups – within universities especially – are fostering more deception rather than true understanding and informed debate. A top down approach to science in higher learning is similarly shackled by a competition for government funds that inevitably dilutes quality. When money becomes the deciding factor it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that this is a slippery road for all. Reputations and careers are at stake depending on which side of the climate divide you stand. The challenge of experimenting with new theories and experiencing truly free debate at the multidisciplinary level is more difficult than ever.

When authoritarian principles begin to infiltrate scientific inquiry then science becomes just another tool for social control. Reasoned debate becomes point scoring whilst objective research slides evermore to results which are subjective, impartial and distorted. Since fear is always useful to those engaged in mass subterfuge, global warming sensationalism offers a powerful conduit for furthering Agenda 21. It matters little that there may be some truth to an approaching environmental cataclysm for instance, but it is the manner in which such information is processed and how data can be used to railroad science into supporting issues which fall outside scientific inquiry that should be given attention.

Enter once again, our nondescript Canadian entrepreneur-New-age-eco-guru come bureaucrat: Mr. Maurice Strong. It was this man who was given the task of persuading movers and shakers that global warming was the primary tool for social engineering leaders and the public alike in “saving the planet.” Who cares if the science was missing? Limits to Growth computer modelling and its legacy would take up the slack. It was to be another coup d’état for Strong in the long-term when it was floated at the UN Swiss conference of 1971 and a later re-injection of passion at the UN sponsored Kyoto Conference in 1992. A gradual tidal wave of funding crashed on the shores of climate research and the IPCC emerged in 1988 to act as a pinnacle of academic resource on climate change science. AGW now had a benefactor and protector which would grow considerable teeth in the subsequent years.

To understand how the global warming hysteria is hindering true scientific understanding of our ecological future we must take a brief look at its origins.

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

By M.K. Styllinski

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

– Mark Twain

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

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

The CoR authors state:

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

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

© Cienpiesnf | Dreamstime.com – Green Development Concept Earth Photo

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 this 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 heads 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]}

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 that will preside 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 sleeping, the psychopath caused us to to gorge on mental, emotional and physical inducements devoid of nourishment while eventually removing our teeth under cover of night. When and if we finally awake 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 those that govern us 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 Schnur – Cutting 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. Strong has also long been a Rockefeller agent of change, having been financially backed by the family since he was knee-high to an oil drum. Yes, Strong, had his beginnings in oil. It is for this reason that Strong has managed to create environmental organisations, think-tanks and foundations as well as being on the board of almost every other environmental initiative and enterprise. (For more on the eco-Intelpro background of Strong please watch James Corbett’s video series on Big Oil).

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 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 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 land use 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 and 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 diversion, 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.

New World (Eco) Indoctrination

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.

The ubiquitous Maurice Strong

“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 example, 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, while fairly meaningless, were 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 19^th 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.

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

By M.K. Styllinski

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

– Edmund Burke

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although 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 resource and technology alternatives which are waiting to be applied means that the most serious demographic problem in the West is ultimately 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 and the economic architecture that encourages criminal mismanagement of human lifestyles.

Is it not ironic that the perpetrators of a system of cartel capitalism which has forced millions into poverty and debt 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 sterilize 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 to the unnatural rise in populations. Thus the methods of population control implemented by neo-liberalist visions or the “globalist Elite” are a consequence of their own misunderstandings of human nature and the natural world; a result of their imposition of an ultra-materialist agenda and the inevitable effects it produces. Ultimately, for the psychopath this is about reducing the numbers of normal people in the global population. *

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 human-influenced global warming 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 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 since 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. 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 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 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.

From on an article on the CoR website we 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. 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 a refusal to listen to the message of 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 it for precisely this reason. 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, overpopulation 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 also a 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 objective 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 inter-dependence then where exactly is the cut-off point where this slips into eco-SMART 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 rises 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 offering its exact opposite. This is how it has always been and characterises the rise of Empires. Limits to Growth? Yes, but limits to the rise of institutional psychopaths in our midst and who turn our cultures into 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 LtG 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 our ecological conscience and the promotion of holistic values, it is is not people per se, who are the direct cause, most of whom are struggling to survive, it is sourced from the very institutions aligned to the CoR and which likely have the same seeds of ponerisation. The real collective error is not to see the Magician behind the curtain who still manages both the world problematique and resolutique toward the same patterns of collapse at ever greater turns of the spiral. Until we breakthrough this pattern of cyclic ignorance to which ancient history attests, all such re-inventions will move toward the same scenario, the usual suspects at the helm all over again.

The problems highlighted in Limits to Growth – whether pollution 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 eco-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 such a 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 and though masked by “double-speak.” Even lauded philosoper Russell was quite happy to embrace totalitarianism as long as it was “worldwide” and if it was dressed up as necessary for “…mankind’s survival.”

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 means 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 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 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”, creating the groundswell for fascistic thought 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 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 buffering 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 homogeneous world order of bland mediocrity and uniformity, 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 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 will 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. I kids you not.

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 tyrannical obsession 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 terrorist 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? 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 a brutal example of eco-fascism as 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 use of euphemisms, jargon, double-speak, NLP, and Delphi methods by 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 increase the fear and threat factor, this time proposing that environmental destruction was the new terrorist; time is up and radical changes needed to be made. Failure to do so would produce 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 when it comes to dealing with the global problematique, therefore, 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 remold it to their heart’s desire – A New World Government or World State. It would be well to keep this in mind 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 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.”

* = 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. Nonetheless, this is an excellent work and well worth the read. The e-book can be found available online through any search engine.

Notes

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

Dark Green V: Elephants & Tigers

By M.K. Styllinski

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

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

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

“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]}

WWF’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.

Sumatran 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 27^th 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?

‘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 21^st 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.

Notes

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

World State Policies X: MONSANTO and Seeding the Future

“The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender”

– Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star, January 9 2001.

VISTOENLAWEB.ORG

With its astonishingly aggressive lobbying and ruthless application of gene technology, the Monsanto Corporation lies at the top of the GMO pile. if ever there was a psychopath in corporate form, Monsanto fits the bill. As the largest producer of glyphosate herbicides, Monsanto’s most popular brand, “Roundup” has proved to be a health hazard for humans and animals and just about any sentient being unfortunate enough to come into contact with its mass spraying. The Environmental Protection Agency has officially stated that Monsanto is a “potentially responsible party” for 56 contaminated sites in the United States.

Not content with routinely damaging the health of its employees or residents living nearby, the company was involved in yet another controversy when introduced recombinant Bovine somatotropin (rBST), a synthetic hormone injected into cows to increase milk production. Unfortunately for Monsanto there were substantial side effects for humans, including the reduction of natural defences against cancer. ^{^[1]}Cows became seriously ill with various diseases most notably mastitis, an infection of the udder which contaminates milk with pus. It was found that the unnatural increase in milk production at the expense of the cow’s health was ultimately passed on to the consumer along with the high level of antibiotics inflicted on the cows in order to combat the original side-effects. Before selling the operation, it did not stop the company from conducting a large-scale lobbying campaign to prevent labelling of rBST milk which was largely successful.

Phil Angell, Monsanto’s director of corporate communications summed up the regulatory ethos in 1998: “Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is FDA’s job.” And when the Food and Drug Administration has been holding hands with Monsanto throughout its career of maximizing profits over people, this statement amounts to nothing more than callous irresponsibility. ^{^[2]}

With its legendary history of environmental pollution and such heart-warming products as defoliate Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, the manufacturing of DDT and widespread innovation in plastics and subsequent spread of PCBs, Monsanto feels right at home when virgin forests need clearing and indigenous peoples require to be forcibly removed if the bribes prove ineffectual. The soya bean crops can and will be planted, come what may. The dominant types of GM foods as transgenic plant products include corn, canola, rice, and cotton seed oil, all of which Monsanto produces, distributes and directs according to a military-evangelical blend of national and international lobbying. Argentina was an early target of the GMO junta and represents a classic case-study of geo-political strategy working in unison with government and agribusiness’ interests. The soya bean has radically changed socio-economic and environment of the country. The displacement of other forms of often natural crop cultivation, pasture-based cattle ranching and the destruction of virgin forests and grasslands continues apace, with China and Europe benefitting from its substantial exports.

Economically, the divide between the rich and poor always becomes more pronounced when mass farming is introduced. Argentina has seen hundreds of thousands of workers forced off the land and a rise in poverty and malnutrition since the imposition and subsequent dependency on the soya bean. According to official statistics: “20.6 percent of Argentina’s 38 million people are poor. But in the North Eastern region, where soy is king, 37 percent are below the poverty line, and 13.6 percent live in absolute poverty, unable to feed themselves properly.” ^{^[3]}

The revolving door of individuals working for Monsanto and Federal government (click on the image to enlarge) Source: http://occupy-monsanto.com/

Back in the mid-1970s Kissinger, as a Rockefeller provocateur, had considerable experience in fermenting dissent in other countries. Chile had been a textbook case of black operations let loose against a democratically elected leader and replaced with General Pinochet’s brand of fascism. According to declassified US State Department documents released years after the event, the same formula was envisaged for Argentina in a 1976 meeting between Argentine Foreign Minister, Admiral Cesar Guzzetti; Rockefeller’s political go-between vice-president Nelson Rockefeller and Kissinger as Secretary of State. Author F. William Engdahl notes: “Rockefeller even suggested specific key individuals in Argentina to be targeted for elimination. At least 15,000 intellectuals, labor leaders and opposition figures disappeared in the so-called ‘dirty war.’ ” ^{^[4]}

Argentina began its trade in slavery and an increase in minority wealth and social divisions. With the help of foreign investment and support from Monsanto and the big six grain conglomerates such as Cargill, wealthy landowners worked to erode traditional workers’ rights and grab as much extra land as they could. Upwards of 200, 000 rural famers and their families have been displaced from generationally owned land, inevitably finding themselves destitute or living hand to mouth on the outskirts of cities or in slum areas. Prior to Wall St. and their banking families descending on Argentina, it enjoyed one of the highest living standards in Latin America. In fact, Soy is now the main export of the nation, amounting to one-third of the country’s total exports. ^{^[5]}

Both in Latin America and the USA, Monsanto is now able to hold farmers to ransom by forcing them to sign binding contracts where they must agree not to re-use saved seeds. They must also pay new royalties to Monsanto every year. The fact that farmers have been working the land for thousands of years with their own seeds provided by Nature, free of charge is a minor quibble for the corporation and its shareholders. Despite most of the world’s farmers being too poor to afford the company’s GMO license and various other seed fees, most fall under Monsanto’s targeted multi-million marketing and live to bitterly regret it. Such a system is another manifestation of the neo-feudalism so favoured amongst the Establishment. Seeds have become an intellectual property and by extension, the genetic source of Nature as patent.

Source: www.cotocrew.wordpress.com/

With the advent of soya bean monoculture and mass farming techniques comes the intensive use of agrichemical herbicides and pesticide, and preferably for Monsanto, their favourite and highly toxic “Round up.” Ironically, parallel to much lower yields with Roundup crops compared to traditionally grown soya, health issues for rural communities, farmers and animals soared as a result of constant exposure to the spraying crops increased. They found their own natural food cultivation destroyed by the chemicals not having the built-in gene resistance found in the large Monsanto designed soya bean crops.

In 2002, it was found by the UK’s Cropscience company that chicken fed glucosinate-tolerant GM maize Chardon LL were twice as likely to die prematurely than chickens in the control group. And from the same year up to 2005, four Italian universities published articles revealing adverse effects from GM soya which targeted pancreatic, hepatic (liver) and testicular cells in young mice. ^{^[6]}

In 2005 and 2006, the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted an experiment on female rats fed with glyphosate-tolerant GM soya and reported that the female rats produced an excessive number of stunted pups, over 50 percent of them dying within three weeks and the other half, sterile. Accusations of faulty data could not be levelled at the experiment as it was repeated many times with the same result. ^{^[7]}

Many more studies have not only shown the toxic effects on plants and animals but the economic and environmental unsustainability of herbicide and pesticide use. As the top-soil becomes essentially burned away, more and more agrichemicals are needed to maintain a false fertility derived from a dying soil and zombie crops saturated with chemicals. This inevitably leeches into the animal and human food chain adding to the concern of health issues and the already questionable nature of GMOs themselves. Meanwhile, great profits continue to accrue for the CEOs and their shareholders safely tucked away behind their boardroom desks, buffered from the carnage of the ecological and socio-economic disaster that claims the most vulnerable, a dynamic which has continued to characterise large-scale GMO cultivation.

As F. William Engdahl observes, the consequences for the environment and human health remain worrying:

“By 2006, together with the United States, where GMO Monsanto soybeans dominated, Argentina and Brazil accounted for more than 81 percent of world soybean production, thereby ensuring that practically every animal in the world fed soymeal was eating genetically engineered soybeans. Similarly, this would imply that every McDonald’s hamburger mixed with soymeal would be genetically engineered, and most processed foods, whether they realized or not.” ^{^[8]}

With the help of WTO sanctions, strong-arm tactics of companies like Monsanto and the background support of a Washington Government firmly on board, the ambitious objective of controlling the world’s food supply by seeding every country with GM crops is well underway. In 2002, aid agencies were instructed by the US State Department to take their orders from the government agency USAID and to:

“… immediately report to them any opposition in a recipient country, to GMO food imports. They were told to collect documentation to determine if the anti-GMO attitude of the local government was ‘trade or politically motivated’ If they determined it was trade motivated, the US Government had recourse to the WTO or to the threat of WTO sanctions against the aid recipient country, usually an effective warning against poor countries.” Even emergency famine relief aid came in the form of: “… genetically modified US surplus commodities, a practice condemned by international aid organizations, as it destroyed a country’s local agricultural economy in the process of opening new markets for Monsanto and friends.”

In the same vein, the cosy relationship between agri-business, GMO firms and the US State Department and its agencies is obvious when food aid organisations ship only grain that has been provided by USAID – and that meant only genetically modified US grain. ^{^[9]}

In the late 1980s and 1990s Monsanto’s gene technology produced a breakthrough which would enforce the rights of the company’s gene patents and fees. It was a chilling development in biotechnology fittingly named “Terminator” where the seeds would be genetically modified to “terminate” themselves after just one harvest season. A toxin was released before the seed ripened which caused the plant embryo to die. This meant that the thousand year old tradition of saving of seeds for the next harvest would become illegal under agribusiness.

The Terminator seeds or patented ‘suicide’ seeds, officially termed GURTs (Genetic Use Restriction Technologies) hark back to a project more than twenty years old as part of the early experiments in genetic engineering. By 1998 the US Patent Office had granted joint ownership to US Dept. of Agriculture and the Delta & Pine Land Company for ‘Control of Plant Gene Expression’ Patent No. 5,723,765. ^{^[10]}

In the official D&PL SEC filing it states:

“The patent broadly covers all species of plant and seed, both transgenic (GMO-ed) and conventional, for a system designed to allow control of progeny seed viability without harming the crop’. […] ‘One application of the technology could be to control unauthorized planting of seed of proprietary varieties … by making such a practice non-economic since non-authorized saved seed will not germinate, and, therefore, would be useless for planting.” With almost salacious anticipation: “the prospect of opening significant worldwide seed markets to the sale of transgenic technology in varietal crops in which crop seed currently is saved and used in subsequent seasons as seed.”^{^[11]}

The company is clearly saying that dis-empowering farmers is economically viable by preventing any escape from the GM juggernaut once it has duped its passengers into hitching a ride. It is a disturbing declaration of intent and planning which has been pressing ahead since the first GM trials back in 1982.

A second generation of Terminator technology was developed at the end of the 1990s called T-GURT seeds, or Trait Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. Otherwise known as the ‘Traitor’ process the plant’s fertility and its genetic characteristics can be controlled by the introduction or restriction of a chemical inducer, rather like a light switch which could be turned on or off depending on what you wanted the plant to do. It was cheaper and less complicated to produce than Terminator seeds. Tied to the agrichemicals, it was potentially a big bonanza with total control over what the farmer could and couldn’t do, charging him every step of the way. Of course, the gene resistance to certain pests would be provided by Monsanto or Syngenta who held the patent rights. You wanted your GM crops to flourish then you had to pay. If farmers tried to buy “illegal seeds” from other sources then the chemical compound needed to turn on the resistance gene would be missing. As with any commercialisation and consolidation process, more farmers in the developing world needed to be “persuaded” to climb aboard and the big companies were not afraid of using the tactics of bribery, coercion, and illegal smuggling.

The health issues still loom large in Monsanto’s continuing fortunes. For instance, in 2003, the company’s Bt maize hybrid left five Pilipino villagers dead and many seriously ill. They tested positive for antibodies to the Bt protein. ^{^[12]}The Law of Unintended consequences frequently arrives in the absence of humility. As many experts have warned, the rise of superbugs and their ability to adapt in response to highly synthetic crops and their chemicals was inevitable. A research paper published in the latest issue of the journal GM Crops & Food ^{^[13]}detailed the problems from the Western corn rootworms which have been busily munching their way through genetically modified maize. A 2010 sample of the rootworm population had “… an eleven-fold survival rate on the genetically modified corn compared to a control population.” Strong resistance to GM corn is becoming the norm. As farmers become dependent on GM crops the outlook is bleak for both agriculture and consumers. Adaptation, resistance and increasing recovery rates amongst the burgeoning population of super-bugs means ultimately the poor and vulnerable and the burgeoning global middle-class will foot the bill, not just for corn which has become a vitally important derivative product, but for a range of foodstuffs and consumables in general.

The drop in GM crop yields will continue just as many farmers continue to plant, while receiving very little in return and where rising costs outweigh the perceived benefits. As food prices steadily rise in response to yet another manipulated economic downturn, Elite families like the Rockefellers are not remotely concerned. After all, they sell organic food and non-GMO food in their various cafeterias and conference venues, ^{^[14]}so why should they be concerned about their agri-engineering of the world’s populations if it gives them a good return on their money and reduces the population growth that much more?

This hypocrisy gives the global population two forced choices: eat poisoned GM foods or die of starvation.

The Obama Administration carried on the tradition of staying snug and warm in the corporate pocket as the above diagram illustrates. To that end, bought-and-paid-for Congress happily allowed their puppet president to sign into law the Agriculture Appropriations Bill 2013. This effectively gave immunity from prosecution for agri-business, which means MONSANTO has a free reign to do as it pleases.

As we have seen so far in this series, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Population Council, the World Bank and the UN Development Program and their close working relationship with the WHO banded together to introduce covert sterilisation programs using vaccinations. Lest we think that the merging of birth control and eugenics is just paranoid ramblings of researchers with too much time on their hands, keep in mind the sources behind the genetic engineering and biotechnology are not necessarily those who work within these fields. It then becomes easier to determine which direction humanity is being led.

Transgenic plants have already taken on frog and fish genes but in the context of birth control the Rockefeller passion for a depopulated world, the geneticists have been busy bees. Take Epicyte in San Diego for example, which held a press conference in 2001 to make an announcement about its work stating:

“Epicyte reported that they had successfully created the ultimate GMO crop-contraceptive corn. They had taken antibodies from women with a rare condition known as immune infertility, isolated the genes that regulated the manufacture of those infertility antibodies, and, using genetic engineering techniques, had inserted the genes into ordinary corn seeds used to produce corn plants.” ^{^[15]}

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is another media darling that has rode the wave of philanthropy and praise while concealing its real agenda. While anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (rather than Climate change) is fast being seen for what it truly is: a politically driven power-grab, this apparently escaped the notice of the billionaire in his TED talk of 2010 where he followed the Al Gore (Goldman Sacs) propaganda of CO2 emissions as the global culprit for ensuing global catastrophe. Eager to show his depopulation credentials by highlighting dire projections of a global population at 9 billion by 2050, he made this curious comment early on in the talk: “… if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent.” It is here we see that Bill has enthusiastically bought into the Elite nonsense and has put his money where his misinformed mouth is by pledging $10 billion for vaccines in order: “… to fight disease among the “world’s needy children.” ^{^[16]}That is an extraordinarily large sum by anyone’s standards and truly admirable if it is founded on real science and long-term beneficial effects.

Unfortunately, neither of those possibilities is likely to be true.

Bill Gates

Bill Gates is famous for his relentless drive and constant activity. He is the CEO of the Microsoft Corporation representing one of the most all-encompassing monopolies on earth. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have used an almost inconceivable amount of dosh dispensed to needy causes around the world. It also helps that multibillionaire Warren Buffet added to the already blistering endowment total of $34.6 billion with a gift of a further $30 billion dollars’ worth of shares in one of his businesses which no doubt made Bill & Belinda supremely happy.

Apart from Gates’ chosen ignorance and/or indifference regarding the toxic health effects and long-time propaganda relating to GM foods and their use and distribution, vaccines are still Gate’s number one passion. His foundation decided to commission Japanese scientists to make another whacky vision a reality by engineering vaccines into mosquitoes that will deliver the inoculations through their bite. Bill & Melinda had stalwart support and involvement from the World Health Organisation, The PEW Charitable Trusts, and government agencies in the United States, England and Malaysia. They secured the development and promotion of the GM mosquitoes under the pretext of eradicating Dengue fever which was virtually non-existent until it suddenly popped up in Florida just after the genetically-modified vaccine carrying mosquitos was released. ^{^[17]}In truth, GM mosquitos were released into the environment in the Cayman Islands in 2009 but the CIA sponsored experiments in bio warfare had been using mosquitoes in Florida for several decades so it was no surprise to find Dengue fever conveniently appearing to support Bill and Melinda’s quest for mass vaccination and the depopulation they so earnestly seek.^{^[18]}

Where Rockefeller’s and Gates’ visions really fuse is through the little known project that has been quietly carrying out its operations in the remote location of Svalbard, Spitsbergen, on the Barents Sea near the Arctic Ocean.

It was claimed by Norway without much fuss in 1925 because no one really wanted it. Nonetheless, on this barren outcrop of rock inside the mountain lies the “doomsday seed bank” or more officially known as the Svalbard Global Seed Vault where a motley crew of Monsanto, the Syngenta and Rockefeller foundations and Bill Gates have been investing millions; squirreling away different varieties of seeds from all over the world, ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future,’ according to the Norwegian government. ^{^[19]} They have the capacity to store more than 3 million seeds tucked safely away from whatever catastrophe they envisage befalling the Earth’s environment. As F. William Engdahl not unreasonably, asks: “What future do the seed bank’s sponsors foresee, that would threaten the global availability of current seeds, almost all of which are already well protected in designated seed banks around the world?” ^{^[20]}

Up until 1998, Margaret Catley-Carlson was working for John D. Rockefeller’s Population Council (the eugenics inspired front for “family planning and sterilisation) and now chairs the Rome-based Global Crops Diversity Trust (GCDT) founded by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Bioversity International (formerly the International Plant Genetic Research Institute), a branch of the CGIAR. Other GCDT members read like an Elite encyclopaedia of Establishment insiders from the weapons industry to Hollywood, biotech companies to bankers, all of whom share the same entropic perception of reality that hasn’t changed for two hundred years. With such rampant colonisation of the developing world; ecologically disastrous consequences from invasive technology like Terminator and Traitor; the death of traditional farming practices and the fake harvest gains they engender, the construction of the Doomsday Seed Vault surely raises urgent questions as to its true nature. It represents a significant biotechnology resource in combination with other seed banks around the world, all of which are owned and run by the same six agribusiness partnerships and their affiliated think-tanks and top-tier organisations. The Svalbard seed vault has the capacity to house over 4.5 million seeds, but to what end?

Svalbard Global Seed Vault (left) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation HQ (right)

When you have the likes of Bill Gates, Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta and the Rockefellers getting together for a joint venture you can be sure that it is most certainly not for altruistic reasons but to make a big, fat profit. However, they are not just in it for the money. On the one hand, the “Green Revolution” and the monoculture expansion continue to make inroads into Africa while on the other, they preserve seed diversity in a “doomsday vault.”

Is it not chilling that the guardians of this seed diversity are corporations and foundations pushing for a biotechnological free-for-all with a history of rapacious corporate predation and the funding of social control and eugenics?

***

The nature of psychopaths in power demands the introduction of long-term ideas that facilitate the reduction and dilution of the global population. Social dominators and authoritarian personalities are attracted to romantic notions of a World State and a neo-feudalism in order to maintain Elite bloodlines. Is it possible that eugenic beliefs of Anglo-Saxon superiority and various military-corporate-occult machinations are a cover for the mass culling and manipulation of “normal people” in favour of psychopathic dominance? This obsession with genetically altering nature has a variety of disturbing off-shoots in this context.

If we cast our eye back to the discussion of Israeli ethnic specific weaponry, the advances in genetic bio-warfare and interest in eugenics and place this in context of population reduction, is it really so far-fetched to expect that genetically modified crops may serve a more sinister purpose at the very top of this agricultural pyramid? A book called BattleField of the Future has a chapter written by Lt. Col. Robert P. Kadlec, USAF entitled: “Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare.” Kadlec refers to cost effective and economically viable nature of biological weapons and warfare (BW) stating: “Not only is BW more affordable, but militarily significant quantities of BW agents (kilograms) in legitimate biological laboratories make BW production easy to accomplish and conceal. Any nation with a moderately sophisticated pharmaceutical industry can do so.” He then remarks on GMO-based biological weapons of mass destruction, the use of which: “… under the cover of an endemic or natural disease occurrence provides an attacker the potential for plausible denial. In this context, biological weapons offer greater possibilities for use than do nuclear weapons.” ^{^[21]} Indeed, MIT biology professor Jonathan King says that the “… bio-terror programs represent a significant emerging danger to our own population,” adding: ‘while such programs are always called defensive, with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.’ ^{^[22]}

If we recall the Rockefeller history and Kissinger’s “Food as a weapon” politics and the US military fetish for bio-warfare then we must also entertain the probability that genetic engineering serves a variety of purposes all of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the betterment of humankind. If the spectre of bio-warfare and the weaponisation of food are part of the “invisible hand” of Pathocratic rule then we can expect a future planted with the same dark seeds.

There may be a further reason why the Elite are falling over themselves to eradicate a large quota of the population, build their bunkers and conserve various seed species. Do they have the inside knowledge that “something wicked this way comes”? The rise in cases of Ebola and various strains of Bubonic plague and the possibility of adaptive and muting strains may well indicate a strange confluence of natural occurrences and synthetic manipulation connected with the above bio-warfare. Further, if you are aware that the Earth endures terrain changes and cyclic catastrophes throughout its history with a similar cyclic manifestation of disease carried by cosmic harbingers such as comets and meteors, knowledge of such a confluence may be known by many at certain privileged levels. They may be at least partially aware of myth and science that tells us that we are way over due for another periodic of environmental and cosmological upheaval. Specific preparations would ensue, especially if you seek to retain control and protect your place at the top of the pyramid after the dust and ashes have settled.

Whatever the truth, it seems we won’t have too long to wait before we all find out.

In the next series of posts we will look into how the Establishment has co-opted environmentalism with special attention to the idea of eco-fascism and its traditional alignment to elite ideology.

——————

For news, resources and activism please visit: monsantowatch.org

Notes

[1] Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, Hunter DJ, Michaud DS, Deroo B, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Pollak M (May 1998). “Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer”. Lancet 351 (9113): 1393–6. DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)10384-1. PMID 9593409. / Pollak M (June 2000). “Insulin-like growth factor physiology and cancer risk”. Eur. J. Cancer 36 (10): 1224–8. DOI:10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00102-7. PMID 10882860. / Sandhu MS, Dunger DB, Giovannucci EL (July 2002). “Insulin, insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I), IGF binding proteins, their biologic interactions, and colorectal cancer”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 94 (13): 972–80. DOI:10.1093/jnci/94.13.972. PMID 12096082.
[2] ‘Playing God in the Garden’. The New York Times by Michael Pollan October 25, 1998 The New York Times Magazine. p. Section 6; Page 44.
[3] ‘Soy – High Profits Now, Hell to Pay Later’ By Marcela Valente , Jul 29 , 2008 (IPS)
[4] op. cit. Engdahl (p.178)
[5] Javier Souza Casadinho, “Expansión de la soja en el Cono sur” (“Expansion of Soy in the Southern Cone”), Centro de estudios sobre tecnologías apropiadas de la Argentina Red de Acción en plaguicidas de América Latina (Center for the Study of Appropriate Technologies of Argentina, Pesticide Action Network Latin America) (Source Watch)
[6] GM Crops the Health Effects, The Soil Association 2007 | http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=SqDvBO1pyEUpercent3D&tabid=390
[7] ‘Weaponized Food and Medicine is Bad for Your Health’ by Paul Fassa, Natural News, August 25, 2009 | http://www.naturalnews.com/
[8] op. cit. Engdahl (p.190)
[9] op. cit. Engdahl (pp.267-268)
[10] United States Patent 5,723,765 Oliver, et al. March 3, 1998: Oliver; Melvin John (Lubbock, TX), Quisenberry; Jerry Edwin (Idalou, TX), Trolinder; Norma Lee Glover (Quanah, TX), Keim; Don Lee (Leland, MS) Assignee: Delta and Pine Land Co. (Scott, MS) The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of (Washington, DC) Appl. No.: 08/477,559. http://patft.uspto.gov/
[11] op. cit. Fassa.
[12] Ibid
[13] ‘Western corn rootworm and Bt maize: Challenges of pest resistance in the field’ Volume 3, Issue 3 July/August/September 2012. Authors: Aaron J. Gassmann, Jennifer L. Petzold-Maxwell, Ryan S. Keweshan and Mike W. Dunbar. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.20744
[14] ‘Gates and Rockefeller Cafeterias Reject Monsanto GE Foods 01 March 2012. | http://www.templestreamxangablog.com
[15] op. cit. Engdahal (p.270)
[16] ‘Gates’ Vaccine Boost’ UPI, Jan. 29, 2010.
[17] PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases – http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001502
[18] ‘Viruses and the GM Insect “Flying Vaccine” Solution’ by Brandon Turbeville, Activist Post December 13, 2010
[19] ‘‘Doomsday Seed Vault’ in the Arctic – Bill Gates, Rockefeller and the GMO giants know something we don’t’ By F. William Engdahl Global Research, December 4, 2007.
[20] Ibid.
[21 Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues Editors: Barry R. Schneider, Lawrence E. Grinter Revised Edition 1998. PDF http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/ Chapter 10 Biological Weapons for Waging Economic Warfare, Lt Col Robert P. Kadlec, MD, USAF (p.251).
[22] op. cit. Engdahl (Global Research)

Save

World State Policies V: Common Core

“Everything you have been told about Common Core is a lie. It is not a state initiative. It was not developed by educators. It is not going to better prepare students for college or real world applications. It is part of a century-long process of using the education system to mold students into more obedient workers and tax cattle. And it is promoted by billionaires with hidden agendas of their own.”

– James Corbett, Eye-Opener Report, Boiling Frogs Post

Let it be said that there is nothing inherently wrong with a little Marxism in the right context just as there is nothing wrong with communitarianism should the society be well-adjusted enough to make it work. But that’s not what we are talking about here. Any belief that is foisted on the public using disinformation, manipulation and deceit – however noble the intentions – deserves to be analysed and outed. Moreover, when those beliefs are channelled through people who are cynically used as chess pieces to achieve long-term objectives of control, the need to counter such moves cannot be over stated.

Other than the usual think-tanks and government agencies, there doesn’t seem to be an exact replica of Common Purpose in the United States but there are signs of the same corporate-cultural Marxism appearing within the education system. With the rise of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and SMART Society, education is seen as a key foundational strategy that must give rise to the acceptance of all three movements.

Education and the programming of young, malleable minds has long been a major component of social engineering, the first experiments of which lay with the industrialists and now with a blend of cultural Marxism upon a SMART-communitarian template. Common Core is the latest curricula to roll off the Elite think-tank conveyer belt. As with so much of Obama-marketing, it sounds good on paper until you dig deeper and do the research only to see the same disingenuous manipulation through the back-door of good intentions. Universal standards for all children in preparation for college? The problems inherent with such a vision are buried under an avalanche of nebulous propaganda. President and founder of Ink think tank Vicki Cobb, made it plain what this nationwide project was about: “Policies, laws and now the Common Core State Standards are all sets of rules designed to guide and shape human behavior. These rules are implemented through institutions. How does an individual find one’s way through all these rules, regulations, and institutions to become an informed, self-reliant, productive citizen?” ^{^[1]}

Common Core advocates appear to operate in much the same way as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which has long been politically compromised. After analysing Common Core documents the American Principles Project released an analysis last year of Common Core, where it described itself as “internationally benchmarked,” “rigorous,” and “evidence-based.”

This is simply untrue. No such benchmarks or evidence exists. As we shall see, it adheres to the usual propaganda notwithstanding some sporadic positive applications which are unfortunately lost in the pendulum swing from one traditional extreme to a centralised blanket of standardised conformity and group think. As you’d expect, many Conservatives are running around shouting about a socialist or communist take-over while democrats and the Establishment-left are singing its progressive praises.

Putting aside the idea of an overarching agenda behind this re-structuring even the most myopic should see that any centralised, one-size-fits-all attempt to redefine education will never work. Yet, it appeals to those with left-liberal tendencies and the Marxist technocrats lost in ideas of World State Utopia and it doesn’t take much for them to buy into it. As usual, conservatives and authoritarians in general are clueless and are merely reacting to anyone who doesn’t happen to be part of their flock. Anything that has the slightest whiff of socialism will be left in a cloud of emotional dust. That is not to say that Obama wasn’t chosen precisely for his left-leaning sentiments, though that in itself is hardly cause for concern. As we have discussed previously, this is not an issue of left and right politics. Obama is just another slickly marketed puppet for psychopathic dominance. He takes his orders and plays his golf. Being at the helm of a New Order of Cartel-Capitalism on an icing of collectivist principles remain part of his valued role – whether he is fully conscious of this or not.

America’s Common Core education otherwise known as The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a product of standard-based education reform of the Obama Administration with close participation of the National Governors Association(NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) along with support from Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). (There’s that “SMART” wording again…we’ll return to this meme presently) As an obvious top-down standardisation of state and local education systems which has been almost universally panned by left and right alike – it is still being pushed through. Diversity of education is essential due to the basic truth that we are all made up of different intelligences and different experiences. So, at the outset it is no wonder that more control from the Federal government insisting on standardisation would not be gratefully embraced.

Before we delve deeper into the appearance of Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) at this time, let’s get some of the other concerns about the initiative out of the way. A wide range of organisations and civic bodies across the political spectrum have voiced opposition to these reforms on the grounds that:

The US education has been predicated on a one hundred year old problem of market economics being the driver of state learning. This will not be solved on National Standards being applied to all. This conclusion is supported by the absence of a relationship between the repeatedly low scoring score on these tests and its economic ranking.

Common Core assessments of these standards will obviously mean more testing, more administration and bureaucracy which is already at breaking point.

A “one-size-fits-all” curriculum ignores cultural differences among classrooms and students while diluting the need for initiative.

Corporate interests and policy-makers determined the standards rather than educators. Which is probably why it accentuates “learning by rote” and conformity rather than understanding and creativity despite protestations to the contrary. Thus innovation and the potential for State, cultural and individual tailoring will be further squeezed out.

Common Core removes local control over what is known as K-12 curriculum in maths and English. This will also apply to private schools and homeschoolers.

Critics have also said that the standards emphasize rote learning and uniformity over creativity, and fail to recognize differences in learning styles.

There will inevitably be an emphasis on non-fiction “informational texts” and manuals rather than literature and classics. When historical documents are included they are without context or sufficient analysis. Detractors have said that such non-fiction amounts to government propaganda.

Public consultation was not in evidence before or after Common Core Standards began rolling out across 46 States.

It seems that public input on CCSSI was not required and subsequent meetings on the implementation and adoption of these standards shows that the panel takes a very dim view of disagreement. This was graphically shown from a community video posted on the internet where one Robert Small, a Maryland Parent, had the temerity to reasonably question Common Core principles and was promptly ejected from the public meeting, arrested and charged with assaulting a police officer and disrupting a school function. The amateur video of the incident showed nothing but a member of the public exercising his right to free speech and being shoved out of the hall for doing so.

Small attempted to tell the assembled teachers, administrators and parents that he wanted to know: “… how many parents here are aware that the goal of Common Core standards isn’t to prepare our children for full-fledged universities, it’s to prepare them for community college,” While being strong-armed out of the meeting by an off-duty Baltimore police officer moonlighting as a security guard, he was applauded by the audience who were shocked by the overreaction and silence of the panel. On the video Small is heard shouting: “Parents, take control,” as the Policeman pulls out some handcuffs: “I’m not an activist, I’m a parent. I have a right to speak.” The obviously groundless charges of assault against the police officer were later dropped and we can see why. Since the debacle Small’s actions have placed Common Core further into the spotlight.

Still from the The video “Arkansas Mother Obliterates Common Core in 4 Minutes“ which sums up the serious concerns of parents across America. A teacher wipes the floor with an analysis of the curriculum. Source: www.arkansasagainstcommoncore.com

CCSSI supporters – such as they are – repeatedly assert that the Federal government wasn’t involved in the development of standards and refute the idea that it is a national curriculum. Rather, according to the “myths and facts” explained on corestandards.org they believe there is “… a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed.” Which manages to say very little. One might as well say “because the Bible says so.”

It is difficult to give one’s blessing to the CCSSI when so much of its agenda is underhand and just plain wrong as is so often the case with disingenuous think-tank “products.” For instance, advocates claim it is voluntary. This is true if we do not include the fact that the system is based on an educational grant program but only if State schools agree to adopt the Obama Administration’s policies – especially Common Core. If they do so the government will give those obedient States a gold star and higher scoring in the grant applications. As a result, a mish-mash of standards are currently vying for supremacy as teachers and educators grapple with what a vast untested, unpiloted National Standard policy really means.

Alongside this preferential treatment is the inadequacy of the grants themselves which are not stretching far enough. Mike Johnson, the superintendent of Bexley schools in Ohio stated in an article in The Christian Post that: “We were spending a disproportionate amount of time following all the requirements,” and where: “It was costing us far more than that to implement all of the mandates.” ^{^[2]}He is not the only one concerned about cost on top of an actual dilution of standards. In a Washington Post article Valerie Strauss reports:

“The costs of the tests, which have multiple pieces throughout the year plus the computer platforms needed to administer and score them, will be enormous and will come at the expense of more important things. The plunging scores will be used as an excuse to close more public schools and open more privatized charters and voucher schools, especially in poor communities of color. If, as proposed, the Common Core’s ‘college and career ready’ performance level becomes the standard for high school graduation, it will push more kids out of high school than it will prepare for college.” ^{^[3]}

There is money to be made from educating the young, where companies creating the school curriculum tests, the preparatory test materials, computer and software industries, and the federally-funded states which have been dutifully compliant will ensure an industry of dumbing down, where quality and politics will be the winner. So far the indications are only confirming what experienced teachers already told the D.C. policy-makers – that failure rate will rise exponentially.

Rachel Alexander, Attorney and editor of the Intellectual Conservative makes several important points on the curriculum stating in a recent article that if the curriculum replaces classics with “informational texts,’ government documents, court opinions, and technical manuals” where “Over half the reading materials in grades 6-12 are to consist of informational texts rather than classical literature” and context and sufficient explanatory criteria are lacking, it is little wonder children are bewildered. She draws our attention to Maths standards which have proven to be “equally dismal” Alexander continues:

Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only mathematician on the Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the math standards, because they would put many students two years behind those of many high-achieving countries. For example, Algebra 1 would be taught in 9th grade, not 8th grade for many students, making calculus inaccessible to them in high school. The quality of the standards is low and not internationally benchmarked. Common Core denies this on its website as a “myth,” but Professor Milgram’s opposition contradicts this. ^[4]

It would be wrong to think this is merely a conservative back-lash and lose sight of the core agenda in yet another “progressive” guise. And we come to the financial and ideological source of this initiative which has allowed Washington D.C. policy makers and the National Governors Association to set CCSSI in motion.

Common Core has some supporters that by now will be familiar to those of us who have seen how often they seem to crop in relation to the same ideologies and perceptions. These are the non-profit organisation of inBloom created by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (a red flag right there) the Achieve Organisation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York and state school officials.

The sharp decline in the quality of education has continued since the war and even though it was based on a corporate agenda from its very inception, at least the pre-War standards allowed some form of quality and measurable performance to evolve. From billions of dollars of wasted money spent on Goals 2000, to School to Work, to No Child Left Behind now a Bill Gates financed experiment numbering millions, this has resulted in the Common Core Initiative. Let’s not forget that our Bill is part of the minority within the 000.0.1% who believe in eugenics, depopulation, corporate domination and the corporatist-collectivist ethic at the elite level. He is a globalist dedicated to Elite centralisation.

Unsurprisingly, in amongst the standardised modules are the usual “progressive” principles, human-influenced global warming theories and the logic of carbon taxes, cap and trade, group consciousness and One World ideology all of which is designed to be taught in every class, at every level, starting from Kindergarten to post graduate secondary education. Since every teacher will teach the same material most children will be under the same yoke of conformity. In fact, the CCSSI is a continuation of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and UN/UNESCO education principles which sound laudable and sensible at first hearing but when placed in context and with the idea of a pretext aligned to a particular mind-set, it takes on an entirely different hue.

Gates has donated millions to all three Elite-inspired organisations. It is not hard to understand why the Establishment is so keen to get America to adopt these uniform standards. A cardinal rule to remember: if the Establishment thinks it’s a good thing for our children you can be quite sure that it isn’t. Readers familiar with Bill Gates’ antics will also know that he is a frequent partner and supporter of Rockefeller social engineering in both agribusiness and social science. Therefore, educators should be concerned that he is one of the original founders of the Common Core movement and its copyright holders, NGA/CCSSO.

Bill Gates at the DFID – UK Department for International Development (wikipedia)

Although CCSSI claims to foster critical thinking, analysis and creativity it actually reinforces the opposite through group-think commonality to the exclusion of individual, unpredictable and non-linear, lateral thinking. Here’s how: At the root of the massively expensive Common Core is the education theory of Bloom’s Taxonomy developed by psychologist Benjamin Bloom in 1948. There are six levels of learning progressing from memorisation to analysing and creating. This, essentially, describes Common Core. If you take the time to compare the two, the difference is only in the modern syntax but the concepts are exactly the same. Hardly a revolutionary new platform for change. But who could argue that learning to think critically and creatively is not a good thing?

Therefore, what’s so bad about Bloom’s Taxonomy?

Absolutely nothing.

The difference here is: that the content and direction of this methodology is being carefully directed towards uniformity and away from a initiative that is a creative application truly rooted in community – thus divorced from monolithic, state control. More importantly, in the hands of a psychologically compromised government and its agencies it follows an entirely different agenda which disguises propaganda as progressive education. When a universally accepted education is applied then it becomes far easier to tailor the theory behind these national standards and begin a process of attrition starting in the very impressionable minds of the young. (So, much easier to keep the pesky population in line). Children can be taught perfectly well to think critically and creatively using Bloom’s Taxonomy and many other forms of education but when an agenda is lying in the background in order to prepare the new generation of children for World State policies then ANY standards and curricula will be suspect. Pretext and context is everything.

The re-orientation of the world’s young towards Agenda 21, One world, One government, group consciousness, social justice, sustainable development, global warming science and SMART society is channelled into the CCSSI which serves as a primary conduit for disseminating such propaganda whose only objective is to offer global totalitarianism – by the back door. Once adopted there will be very little chance to debate the veracity of the claims in such “standards” since they will underpin the whole framework of Common Core itself. Like the British Common Purpose, the edifice upon which they are created is immovable. It is unlikely that you will hear the other side of the global warming debate for example, or the downside of the emerging SMART society and its ubiquitous “efficiency.”

For instance, educator John W. Whitehead explains the role of InBloom and its educational software partner, Compass Learning who provide:

“Common Core participants data collection tools geared toward collecting enough information to provide each student a personalized learning experience, delivered through an online gateway. Compass Learning’s privacy page acknowledges collecting personal information and while pledging not to share data with third parties indiscriminately, it does admit exceptions, and it disclaims responsibility for how school hosts handle data security. The company’s terms of use page disclaims liability for damages caused by loss of data.” ^[5]

Perhaps more importantly, Common Core slides neatly into the US and European governments’ obsession with National Security and surveillance. It provides a vast upload of data collection which will inevitably intrude on citizens’ privacy and that of their children. Everything from students’ and parents’ voting habits, level of income, sex, age, ethnicity, health status, blood type, religious views, criminal records, is of a type of information far in advance of anything seen before in the collection of “education” data.

Previous whistle-blowers have been sounding the alarm at just how extensive and pervasive surveillance and snooping by the government agencies has become and Common Core simply plugs in to that surveillance and the unresolved presence of invasive data collection. The aforementioned Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) solicits the information, though it tells us that large demographics are obtained rather than individual data. But can we honestly trust that this is the case given the track record so far? Aside from the NSA accessing exactly what it wants, when it wants and who it wants, the outsourcing of data to States bypassing constitutional protections opens up another channel for abusing privacy rights and unwarranted Federal search and seizure deployments. In fact, there are no safeguards to prevent voluminous data from being passed on to Federal authorities and certainly not if you have deemed to have stepped out of line.

This brings us to why it is so important that teachers and educators get informed and stand up to these infiltrations by unelected entities. American youth are already some of the most dumbed down citizens on the planet. But it wasn’t always this way, as John Whitehead mentions:

“The purpose of a pre-university education in early America was not to prepare young people to be doctors or lawyers but, as Thomas Jefferson believed, to make citizens knowledgeable about ‘their rights, interests, and duties as men and citizens.” And Jefferson continued: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

And here we see where the real problem lies: a total lack of knowledge regarding the presence of psychopaths in positions of power which have been allowed to eviscerate basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This lack of knowledge has in turn, permitted education to become something other than a learning experience and more of an exercise in various forms of mind control so that a crucial understanding of the US constitution and civil rights is excluded.

According to Whitehead, numerous studies confirm this:

“… when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 29% of respondents couldn’t name the current vice president of the United States. Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why America fought the Cold War. More critically, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6% couldn’t even circle Independence Day (the Fourth of July) on a calendar.

A survey of American adults by the American Civic Literacy Program resulted in some equally disheartening findings. Seventy-one percent failed the test. Moreover, having a college education does very little to increase civic knowledge, as demonstrated by the abysmal 32% pass rate of people holding not just a bachelor’s degree but some sort of graduate-level degree.” ^[6]

If teachers and parents are going to accept that government and their think tanks know best and that they should have little or no say in how their children are educated then we will receive an education system that suits that chosen ignorance. And as we have seen it isn’t just the education system that is being re-shaped according to a minority mind-set. Which is why it may be that the only viable alternative is home-schooling, a movement that is increasing in popularity year by year. The advantages are clear in the present state of Official Culture theatrics.

Map of the Legality of Homeschooling around the world. Green is legal, yellow is legal in most political subdivisions but not all or is practiced, but legality is disputed. Red is illegal or unlawful. Orange is generally considered illegal, but untested legally. (wikipedia)

To build real community it must start with family and friends outside state control. Admittedly, with so many toxic socio-economic factors pressing in from all sides, establishing community support has never been more important. Indeed, as economic and social conflict increase home-schooling may become the preferred option, by default. There are many advantages to making such a move, the most obvious of which is the natural alignment toward the same philosophy of autonomy and independence of mind that is such an anathema to the powers that be who require obedient, unthinking drones to inhabit its future. This is why home-schooling (along with refusal to accept vaccinations for your children) will likely become illegal in the not so distant future. Indeed, in some European countries this is already happening. The extraordinary case of the Wunderlich family from Darmstadt in Germany is worth noting.

In September 2013, they had the pleasure of surprise visit by armed police who arrived at their home to enforce a ban on home-schooling. Youngsters aged 7-14 were taken from their home under instruction from the presiding judge to use force “against the children” if necessary. Journalist Damian Gayle that: “A team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed the home of Dirk and Petra Wunderlich because they refused to send their children to state schools. The youngsters were taken to unknown locations after officials allegedly ominously promised the parents that they would not be seeing them again ‘any time soon’”. ^[7]

It was clear that the legal grounds for removing the children was purely due to the parents insistence on home-schooling their children. There were no allegations of abuse or neglect. Mr Wunderlich said:

“I looked through a window and saw many people, police, and special agents, all armed. ‘They told me they wanted to come in to speak with me. ‘I tried to ask questions, but within seconds, three police officers brought a battering ram and were about to break the door in, so I opened it.’

He went on: ‘The police shoved me into a chair and wouldn’t let me even make a phone call at first. ‘It was chaotic as they told me they had an order to take the children.At my slightest movement the agents would grab me, as if I were a terrorist.

‘You would never expect anything like this to happen in our calm, peaceful village. It was like a scene out of a science fiction movie. ‘Our neighbours and children have been traumatised by this invasion.”

The Wunderlichs have, over the past four years, moved from country to country in the European Union looking for a place to where they could freely homeschool their children. ^[8]

Nor are they the only family to become victims of Germany’s draconian laws on home-schooling.

The Romeikes fled the country in 2008 after uniformed police officers arrived at their home and took their children which resulted in their enforced attendance to state run schools. After years of resistance the Romeikes were forced to pay thousands as a result of their resistance. The family fled to America in 2008 in a bid to escape these laws only to face US authorities keen to deport them.

The Washington Times ran the story on April 2013 under: ‘A plea from abused home-schoolers – Parents seek asylum to keep family intact’ which described they plight in detail:

The Romeikes, who say German schools teach subjects that go against their evangelical Christian beliefs, are parents of three boys and three girls, ranging in age from 20 months to 15 years. They live now on a farm in eastern Tennessee’s Great Smoky Mountains. They sought and were granted political refuge in the United States in 2010, but the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals overturned the decision last year, contending that Germany’s ban on home-schooling doesn’t violate the Romeikes’ human rights. The administration essentially says parents have no fundamental right to educate their own children, hence no political asylum. Should the Romeikes be forcibly repatriated, fines are the least of their worries. They could face stiff prison sentences, and their children could be taken away from them. ^[9]

While it is likely that this is a preventative measure so that similar asylum claims do not become norm, according to Karla McKanders, an asylum and refugee law specialist at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville it should be a low priority with minimal resource expenditure for non-criminal immigration issues, yet, as a March 2013 ABC News report indicated entitled: ‘Home Schooling German Family Fights Deportation’ this is not the case as one official stated. “… they meet the standard.” After a public uproar and legal wrangling which lasted a year, in March 2014, the family were finally granted permission by Homeland Security to stay “indefinitely.”

It is almost a formality that we can expect exactly the same scenario in the United States as Common Core makes inroads into education. Indeed, if you are part of the opt-out of our Official Culture as it stands and do not wish to be absorbed into the Establishment’s version of a sustainable SMART society rather than the principles of individual freedom, minimal government interference, self-sufficiency, community organic farming and alternative modes of finance, trade and economical living, then you will be targeted as being a threat to the vast global social engineering program that is currently fanning out from America as the primary experimental model.

Refusing to participate in State Education whether for religious beliefs or because you do not wish for your child to be part of the state-mandated vaccination or even simply – horror of horrors – you feel you might know what is best for your children, this should be an absolute civil right. But there are numerous cases that the US government is coming down hard on such signs of freedom to choose. It isn’t just parental rights at issue here these are the first signs of the “scientific technique/method” merging with the Police State. Home-schoolers are another social grouping persecuted by a mentality that cannot abide independent thought which chooses to operate outside the group-think of Official Culture.

On the rise once more is an even stranger belief but one which never died, only changed its label. A bizarre mix of Social Darwinism and ecological determinism is presently spreading through many UK and American institutions and is one of the potent streams of pseudo-science so enamoured by the Establishment: Eugenics.