Originally Published at Conspiracy Archive on 2009/12/04
According to Mr. Henderson, the great psycho-wave of the past 35 years is “global salvationism.” This quasi-religious belief has two ill-fitting articles of faith: environmental alarmism, and the assertion that Third World poverty is in some way due to the West taking more than its fair share of global resources. Both problems are alleged to require top-down global political solutions, including giant corporations accepting more “social responsibility.”
The focus of this global master-plan is the bland but subversive notion of “sustainable development,” that without extensive UN-administered government controls the world is going to Hades in a handbasket …– Peter Foster, “The Prince of Power [Maurice Strong],” Financial Post (May 19, 2005)
I can’t think of a better way to put Climategate into proper perspective than to revisit a 1998 Financial Post editorial titled “Global Warming: The Real Agenda.” Its author, Terence Corcoran, quoted from statements given to the Calgary Herald by the former Environment Minister, Christine Stewart.
As “minister of the environment, I am very worried about global warming,” Stewart said, “no matter if the science is phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.”
“Environment Canada, therefore,” Corcoran commented immediately after, “is prepared to act on global warming even if there’s no such thing as global warming. On the strength of phony science, the federal government would still be willing to impose new taxes on energy consumption, cut economic growth, reduce our standard of living, and create bookshelves filled with new regulation governing most facets of the lives of Canadians.”
In another statement quoted by the Herald, Ms. Stewart gave another reason for adopting the religion of global warming. ‘Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.’ Here she gets closer to the core motivation of some of the leading global warming activists. Where socialism’s attempt at a global redistribution of wealth ended in economic catastrophe, global warming is being wheeled in as the next new economic crusade.
Consolidating Ms. Stewart’s statements, we reach some horrific conclusions. Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians – and most citizens of the world – would not otherwise accept.
Ms. Stewart, perhaps unintentionally, has identified the two key foundations of the global warming movement. One is based in environmentalism, which essentially claims that human beings are a problem in nature. The other foundation is the old business of economic redistribution. Both these movements are linked in the international climate change treaty Canada signed in Kyoto. Environment Canada has already given up trying to examine the science. It never really tried. Instead, it spends hundreds of millions of dollars churning out propaganda on the hypothetical effects of global warming.
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster, or for dramatic social change to come and bomb us into the Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our Appropriate Technology, our gardens, our homemade religion, guilt-free at last.– Stewart Brand, 1980 (quoted in: Rodes and Odell, A Dictionary of Environmental Quotations, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997, p. 90)
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.– Paul Watson (founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society), May 04, 2007
We have become a plague upon [ourselves and upon] the Earth…Until such a time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.– David M. Graber, Los Angeles Times, 22 October 1989 (in Rodes and Odell, op. cit., p. 149)
[T]he hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us. …When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory…
Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of life continue to exist but in all probability its well-being would be enhanced. Our presence, in short, is not needed. And if we were to take the standpoint of that Life Community and give voice to its true interest, the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty “Good riddance!”– Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 115
And so on.
There’s some primitivist longing (ala Rousseau or Weishaupt, with a bit of Unabomber- and Gaia-worship for good measure) in the mix, but the main sickness is a bad strain of eco-nihilism – originally diagnosed, perhaps, in George Reisman’s “The Toxicity of Environmentalism.”
Eco-Socialism; Eco-Fascism; Eco-Imperialism
There’s a quote, traced to a single source, attributed to Communist Party USA National Chairman Gus Hall in 1972: “in the struggle to save the environment….we must be the leaders of these movements…. Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible.”
If the quote is genuine, apparently his wish has come true: ample evidence can be had – from the “horse’s mouth” – in books such as The Greening of Marxism; Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature; or in wiki offerings (such as this, this, this, and this). There’s nary a mention of this, though; much less the validity, and inherent hypocrisy, of this.
The “Wise Men” of Globalism
While it’s inconclusive whether the scientists at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) are infected with fatalistic, anti-man Malthusian angst, they have in the past received some intriguing email.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, self-proclaimed president of “Earth Government,” Canadian Germain Dufour, sent CRU his Earth Government April newsletter titled “Formation of Earth Government for the good of all.” Dufour is perhaps an idealist, but his longing for a one world government is shared by the transnational elite (their think tanks in conjunction with the behemoth UN/UNESCO/NGO/Foundation apparatus) and, presumably, the high priests of climatology as well.
(Contrary to some articles, blogs, and forum posts on the web, it is unlikely that “Earth Government” Germain Dufour is one and the same as the Belgian Germain Dufour, who, according to the French journal l’Humanité in 1999, was a labour activist, a former worker-priest, former green party senator [Ecolo], and a Belgian Communist Party candidate. For one, Joseph-Germain Dufour – if his auto-bio is legit – was in Canada in the ‘70s, ‘80s and ‘90s,establishing academic credentials, while studying and working on environmental projects; while the “capuchin Monk” Germain Dufour was variously involved in socialist Belgian labour politics as well as being featured in a 1997 documentary called “Seeker of Silence.” See also the photo comparison below.)
Eco-totalitarianism integrates zealous ideologues, of seemingly disparate persuasions, who collude for top-down control of the planet’s resources. “The climate conference in Copenhagen,” Bilderberg-vetted Herman Van Rompuy said at his first press conference as the newly “appointed” President of the EU, “is another step toward the global management of our planet.” Likewise, the totalitarian bent of the original “wise man” of environmentalism, Maurice Strong, has not diminished with age. In a recent essay for the World Policy Journal, he spewed forth that “our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.” “This is a man, we might remember,” writes Peter Foster of the Financial Post:
who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a “glimmer of hope.” My editor didn’t believe me when I wrote this, so here’s what Mr. Strong actually 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.”
Strong’s Green-comrade is, of course, Mikhail Gorbachev.
A recent article by Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada, founding member of the Club of Madrid, and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation of North America – is titled “Gorbachev continues to shape history.”
“Gorbachev is today not merely a man of historical significance,” Campbell writes affectionately, “but a man who continues to shape history with his world-changing ways.” Behind the scenes he continues “working the world leaders’ circuit selling climate change — the UN in Geneva in early October, the Club of Rome in Amsterdam two weeks later, Nobel laureates in Berlin and the Club of Madrid last week — and then on to Copenhagen next month.”
The Club of Rome has been ramping up its activities as COP15 approaches. The conference that Gorbachev had attended in October was, according to one of its websites, the “last of seven stepping stones, seven global meetings, starting in Turin early 2008, in the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen in December 2009, on which depends so much.” Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009 featured speakers such as global warming propagandist James Hansen (whose presentation was titled “Global Warming Time Bomb: Actions Needed to Avert Disaster”), and was attended by Bilderberg luminary Queen Beatrix.
“The Club of Rome was deliberately fashioned to influence policy,” wrote one of its founders, Alexander King in 1979. It originated 12 years earlier:
when Dr Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, met the present author, a British scientist. They agreed on what later became the central concern of the Club of Rome: to find solutions to the tangle of interacting problems, now facing all mankind. So far the Club’s greatest impact on world opinion was the report it commissioned from The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Limits to Growth.
The interdisciplinary concept is predominant in this and the Club’s five subsequent reports. Regular meetings of Club members with Heads of States and other high officials is a further important activity. Like its small and local precursor, the Lunar Society of Birmingham, two hundred years ago, the international Club of Rome derives its strength from its eminent membership of private citizens, working together as a catalyst and a spur to the world’s conscience.
It comes as no surprise that one of the inspirations behind the work of the Club of Rome was Harrison Brown. J. Rennie Whitehead, one of the founders of the Canadian Association of the Club of Rome (CACOR), writes:
In 1954, Dr. Harrison Brown of the USA had written a book The Challenge of Man’s Future, in which he outlined, with great clarity and foresight, most of the major problems that, fifteen years later, became the preoccupation of the Club of Rome and which now, forty years later, seem to be even further away from solution. Even today, Harrison Brown’s book is still one of the best analytical presentations of the probable consequences of population growth and the inevitable shift from fossil fuels to other sources of energy.
As you may recall “mass sterilization” John Holdren was profoundly influenced by Harrison’s 1954 book as well. Like Harrison and Holdren, pessimistic Malthusian preoccupation has always been the raison d’être of the Club of Rome. Holdren was co-author – a book and few papers – with Club of Rome luminary Paul R. Ehrlich. In the latter’s 1968 The Population Bomb (pp. 130-1), we find the stark admission that:
The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.
Another admission, in 1991, was that the Club of Rome used “environmentalism” as a vehicle for misanthropic gloom and doom:
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 behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.– Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider (co-founder and secretary, respectively, of the Club of Rome), The First Global Revolution, p. 115
Lest the reader entertain the incredulous notion that these globalization kingpins have somehow redeemed themselves, and have all joined the choir; one need only peruse the 2007 CACOR Proceedings.
An article by Fred G. Thompson (“Turning the Elephant Around”), in particular, has this to say:
[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.
(Notice that it’s “Nature” with a capital “N”.)
In the same issue Charles Beaubien proposed that the Club of Rome work toward a super-ordinate (of a superior kind, rank, status) “World Community,” that “would make of the quarrelsome UN a central World Government, interacting with present national governments (minus today’s Security Council).”
And only a few weeks ago there was a press release by Francesco Stipo, Director of the USA Club of Rome. He was promoting his book, World Federalist Manifesto: Guide to Political Globalization, at a National Press Club Luncheon. “A world government is the only solution to world problems, such as climate change and the global economic crisis,” he wrote. “A world confederation that respects the sovereignty of world nations and that deals with the issues of international economy that cannot be dealt by one nation alone.” Which is it – a Federation or a Confederation? The title of the book suggests the former, while the latter seems like a bit of semantics to trick those who may still entertain the notion of patriotism.
The Club of Rome are also funds and supports the major players of the New Age apparatus. An offshoot was established in 1978 by Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei and Ervin Laszlo. The Club of Budapest is a network of consciousness and evolutionary thinkers – new age, communitarian, change agent (paradigm shift), deep ecology humanists – who comprise a World Wisdom Council (WWC) and a World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality.
Dr. Ervin Laszlo is President of the Club of Budapest. He’s a philosopher and “Systems Theory” expert; the “author of more than 400 papers and articles and over eighty books of which the most recent are ‘Science and the Akashic Field’ (2007) and ‘Quantum Shift in the Global Brain’ (2008), and co-founder and president of the board of trustees of the WorldShift Foundation”; and a purveyor of an imminent world shift in 2012 – the last of which fits like a glove with the scaremongering tactics of his Club of Rome benefactors.
In short, the “Aquarian Conspiracy” first identified by Marilyn Ferguson in the 1980s has not only achieved full bloom, but has graduated from infiltration into a consensus-making, global establishment of “powerful networks, partnerships and collaborations in the interest of fostering growing circles and forces for creative transformation on a planetary scale.”