Depopulation, Genocide and The Black Hand Of Malthus. An Energy Policy, Yes, But For Which Class?

A Green Accounting Trick Makes Burning Pristine Forests Classed As “Clean Energy” Despite Being Dirtier Than Coal


This essay attempts to show how “green” energy has been foistered on the working class as a form of darwinian social-murder. Green energy is a tax which gets returned to landed interests whilst emitting more co2 than had we not just burned coal directly.

As “green” energy is added to the grid it requires coal, gas or nuclear to back it up. A 99 percent backup 100 percent of the time. Those power plants are now running at an inefficiency as they have to rapidly decrease and increase loads with the spiking and dipping of “green” energy. Wherever green energy is added it leads to an unstable energy grid and exorbitant costs for the working class.

That “green energy” is not particularly green. Green solutions peddled by unscrupulous imperialists raking in billions from the carbon market often is more polluting and detrimental to the environment. That the green movement is not some grassroots movement with roots in the working class but has deliberately been pushed on the working class as a form of eugenics. That the target of carbon dioxide as a “pollutant” is a deliberate form of soft-eugenics. That Deutsche bank now openly talks about an “eco-dictatorship”.

That the main movers and shakers behind this movement are not “young lefties gluing themselves to the road” but the Rockefeller Foundation, the Club of Rome, the British Royal Family, Henry Kissinger, Margaret Thatcher, Tri Lateral Commission, big banks and a litany of other imperialist figures and institutions that are the physical representations of capitalist-imperialism. That their entrenched-conservative views and imperialist world outlook and their obsession with “degrowth” and depopulation can be best described as fascism. That the working class instinctively smell a rat when it comes to “climate change” and overwhelmingly reject it.

The Rockefeller Family has wealth beyond measure. The richest family in the world from making the world dependant on oil. Why would this dynasty then fund environmental and climate research since the 1950s, shape climate policy in the 1980s and support climate activism since the 1990s?

Converting Coal Power Plants Into Wood-Power Plants And Burning Pristine Forests Is “Green”

The Drax power plant in Yorkshire accounts for 6 percent of the countrys electricity and is clear cutting forests in North America, then shipping them in tugboats across the Atlantic to Britain and

“burning 6.4 million tonnes of wood. In context, it is the equivalent of 27 million trees.”(Telegraph, Why Britain is burning North American forests to keep the lights on, 1 Mar 2024)

The same is happening across Europe

“Forests in Finland and Estonia, for example, once seen as key assets for reducing carbon from the air, are now the source of so much logging that government scientists consider them carbon emitters. In Hungary, the government waived conservation rules last month to allow increased logging in old-growth forests.” (New york Times, Europe Is Sacrificing Its Ancient Forests for Energy, 7 Sep 2022)

For those shocked at such a primitive way of keeping the lights on they can be forgiven due to the deceptive and outright lying methods of the bourgeois press.

When Britain ‘celebrated’ it’s “First Coal Free Day” the BBC “explained”

“Wind, biomass, and imported energy were also used.”(BBC, First coal-free day in Britain since 1880s, 22 Apr 2017)

Most people would be unaware that “Biomass” is mostly wood, alongside agricultural crops and waste, human sewage and animal manure. In reality though, it’s wood.

The chief executive of Drax states in glowing terms

“We remain the single-largest provider of renewable power by output in the UK,” he told investors.

“We have created a business which plays an essential role in supporting energy security, providing dispatchable, renewable power for millions of homes and businesses, particularly during periods of peak demand when there is low wind and solar power.” (ibid)

The “dispatchable” reference here is that Wind and solar are non-dispatchable. They are a wildly erratic source of energy. They cannot be turned up or down like a gas stove and therefore need a hydrocarbon backing it, which is usually natural gas. The topsy turvey world of “net-zero” classifies pristine Ancient forests being clear cut as “renewable”.

Why? Because as a tree ages and eventually dies and rots it would eventually let off the same amount of co2 as if you had just incinerated the tree at Drax power station. Here is the accounting trick of why clearing pristine forests in North America and having them shipped to Britain in tugboats is actually “renewable”.

A 2022 panorama investigation found these forests weren’t new ones, but primary forests. Forests that had been untouched by humans that had taken thousands of years to develop.

“Drax runs Britain’s biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets – which is classed as renewable energy.

The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.”

“Panorama analysed satellite images, traced logging licences and used drone filming to prove its findings. Reporter Joe Crowley also followed a truck from a Drax mill to verify it was picking up whole logs from an area of precious forest.

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.

“It’s really a shame that British taxpayers are funding this destruction with their money. Logging natural forests and converting them into pellets to be burned for electricity, that is absolutely insane,” she said.” ( BBC, Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada, 3 Oct 2022)

How Green Is Burning “Biomass” aka Wood?

Not very

“Burning wood produces more greenhouse gases than burning coal.” (ibid)


“Primary forests, which have never been logged before and store vast quantities of carbon, are not considered a sustainable source. It is highly unlikely that replanted trees will ever hold as much carbon as the old forest.”(ibid)

Not only does wood not burn as well as coal for heat intensity (meaning more co2 if you are particularly worried about co2) but what is left out is the calculation is transportation from pristine forests on lorries to tugboats then on lorries again to Drax.

David John Douglass, a former National Union of Mineworkers branch secretary, explains this madhouse in detail.

“Drax, Europe’s biggest coal power station, which at times supplies the bulk of Britain’s power at peak times, is now forced to lower its emissions or face closure. It has responded by burning hugely expensive wood chippings imported from across the Atlantic from the USA (ed and Canada) instead of coal, despite the fact that coal is cheaper across Britain and the rest of Europe than gas from Europe or anywhere in the world. The wood chippings are more expensive than either. This is the fuel economy of the mad hours; all wrapped up as cuddly ‘green’ love the earth, hippy policies, which disguise a harsh, unnecessarily cruel, and often lethal policy.

“The wood chip “green solution” is now posed as the alternative to the White Rose scheme which had seen a clean coal burning system near completion, which would have greatly reduced CO2 and other emissions. The Government then withdraws subsidies to clean coal and tax relief, killing the scheme dead. By Feb 2017, the penny (!) drops. Burning the wood chips because of its lower heat efficiency emits 12% MORE CO2 than coal per unit of electricity produced. While refusing to continue a ‘green’ subsidy to the clean coal system the Government instead pays $450M or £1.23M every day to burn the biofuel, despite it being 12% MORE polluting than coal through their normal coal power station.

“7.5 million tonnes of wood pellets were imported into Britain for heat and power, mostly from the US and Canada, making Britain alone a bigger importer of the fuel than the EU as a whole.

“Drax consumed one third of all globally traded wood pellets and more than all the wood ‘produced’ in Britain in a year. It is done at the expense of traditional hard wood forests, cleared to grow wood to burn. Wood pellets no longer come from off-cuts and wood remnants or recycled wood as originally envisaged but directly from trees burned for the purpose at the expense of wild woodland. The trees they are burning take 100 years to grow; forests are being decimated to burn in coal power stations because coal is seen as ‘dirty’.

“For Drax the logic is easy – converting half of its generators to burn the new fuel would avoid the ever-rising carbon tax, despite the production of MORE carbon. The Government additionally agreed to pay 150% more for the power supplied by wood chips than from coal.”” (David John Douglass, Coal, Climate Change and the Complete Destruction of the British Coal Industry, p98)

Not content with destroying primary forests in Canada and USA, Drax also contributes to

“Increasing logging intensity in Latvia and Estonia, is not only reducing the ability of forests to absorb carbon, but also destroying precious habitats and threatening forest-dwelling species… Over the past decade, 14 percent of Estonias old-growth forests have been degraded to the point they can no longer be considered old-growth. The number of breeding forest birds is also decreasing, by 50,000 pairs each year and habitat destruction by logging is a key contributing factor… many logging restrictions that previously protected Estonia’s Natura 2000 sites have been eased, meaning ‘clear cuts’ are now allowed.

“Drax previously claimed 12 percent of UK renewable energy was delivered by its biomass plants. Research by Biofuelwatch suggests that Drax power plants in the UK are operating on somewhere near £1 billion in subsidies.” (ibid, p101)

With “biofuels” you are no longer using land to grow food but trees to be incinerated, which also drives up global food prices. (Guardian, Demand for biofuels is increasing global food prices, says study, 20 Sep 2017)

“This is green political policy in action. Destroy the forests and wildlife in another country for the sake of feeling good at home.

“Green activists used to demonstrate against the Drax power station burning coal. It was Europe’s single largest carbon dioxide emitter. The company now boasts of it’s “environmental leadership position” and states that it is the biggest “renewable” energy plant in the world. Demonstrations by green activists have ceased.” (Ian Plimer, Green Murder, p268)

Drax now puts out more co2 than when it was burning coal. Very strange that green protests would stop.

Our Saviour Who Art On Earth: Windmills and Solar Panels

Talking to the average greenie (who’s movement sabotaged nuclear power for decades) will tell you our saviour is to be found in Windmills and solar panels. They insist we must “look forward” to “new technologies”. So they offer us a technology from the 18th century when windmills were in vogue.

These monstrosities that stand taller than the Eiffel tower, made of 900 tonnes of (coal-fired) steel, 2,500 tons of concrete (622kg of co2 is emitted for every single ton of concrete), metals and 45 tonnes of plastic. The energy required to build a Wind turbine is more than ever will be produced by these towering monstrosities of non-energy and monuments to human stupidity that only the profit motive, to a small class of parasites, could invent.

“Per MW, besides steel and concrete natural gas requires 1100kg of copper and 48.3 kg chromium. Per MW for offshore wind 8000 kg copper, 5500 kg zinc, 790kg manganese, 535kg chromium, 240kg nickel, 239kg rare earth metals and 109 kg molybdenum is required.” (Imperial Engineer, Issue 39 p14, Autumn 2023)

This dash for “green” energy has already created another mining boom (that greenies supposedly oppose). Having protested, harassed and banned mining happening in their own imperialist countries, acting in their parasitic class interest to maintain a finance/insurance and real estate economy, the mining takes place in developing nations with little to no environmental regulation or safeguarding for workers. Greens don’t mind other people’s children getting into mines. As long as they don’t have to deal with a militant working class.

“To actually have the ‘left’ standing in opposition to one of the most militant unions of the British Working Class. People standing outside, even from some unions, the development of a coal mine in West Cumberland, alongside people in the Lake District who have come up in their four-by-fours. To object to coal mining in Whitehaven, the fourteenth most deprived area in Britain. It’s obscene… There was an offer of 400 jobs in coal mining, 1500 associated jobs from Whitehaven to Carlisle. These people have been unemployed for a whole generation in one of the most socially deprived areas in Britain. Mass benefit dependency, lack of education and no hope basically. Until this mine came along. People were so enthusiastic about it.

“You don’t need Tories when you got Communists opposing coal mines.”(David John Douglas, Interview, Feb 5 2024)

The opposition to this mine didn’t save any co2 or prevent environmental degradation. The coal was just imported from Appalachia where mining conditions are among the worst in the world, non-unionised and strip mining is done. An extreme version of open caste mining where the top of the mountain is pushed into the valley to expose the coal seams.

Wind turbines require 200 times more raw materials per megawatt of power than modern combined gas cycle turbines (Plimer. P377). The Dutch government in 2019 admitted in a government-sponsored study that if Holland was to fulfill its green ambitions, a major proportion of the world’s minerals would be consumed. (ibid)

When companies and landowners aren’t clearing pristine forests to burn ancient trees for power consumption… they’re felling them to put wind turbines on. (The Scotsman, Caledonian Forest explained: Exploring Scotland’s forestry heritage after news of 15.7 million trees cut for wind farms, 21 Aug 2023) (Daily Express, Fury in Germany as 120k trees in fairytale forest felled to make way for wind farm, 8 Mar 2024)

It’s a good job that they destroyed the wildlife and killed everything there before putting the turbines on as turbines produce massive stress in animals whilst slicing up hundreds of thousands of birds of prey as windblades whizz by at 350km an hour.

The nuclear power plant at Borsella, The Netherlands produces 3.5 billion kWh of electricity 24/7 in a year taking up 16 square kilometres. Germani, the offshore wind farm, occupies 68 square Km to produce an intermittent 2.6 billion of kWh of electricity a year that is backed by natural gas. Borsella (nuclear) produces 570 times more electricity per unit area than Gemini (wind).

To accommodate a 2000MW coal, gas or nuclear plant a maximum of 120 hectares is required.

For solar you would need the land area of Belgium.(Robert Bradley, Land-Intensive Renewables: Three TW of Wind and Solar = 228,000 sq. miles, 1 April 2021)

370 times more electricity per unit area than Sunport Delfzijl solar park.(Plimer p368)

In Britain on 13th January 2021 wind died. Most of Britains wind turbines stopped. Prices rocketed from £40 per mWh to over £100 per Mwh.

14th Jan 2021 wind was even lower. Prices to balance this “energy” rose again reaching a peak £1400 per Mwh.

15 Jan 2021 that figure rose to a staggering £4000 per Mwh. Such prices were never seen prior to 2016 when Britains electricity was not dependent on wind or international floating gas prices to back up winds inevitable failure for when the wind stops.(Conservative Woman, An ill wind for hard-up electricity users, Jan 15 2021)

This cost is passed onto the most vulnerable of society whilst the rich couldn’t care less what price electricity goes to. The working class are then forced to choose between eating and heating.

The landowners busily chopping down forests to stick wind turbines on are laughing so hard their sides are split as they waddle to the bank, raking ludicrous government subsidies that funnel wealth from the poor to the rich.

When wind energy hasn’t stopped because there’s no wind (or because there’s too much wind, they shut off at 70kmph) they are busy poisoning our environment.

Wind turbine blades are a toxic amalgam of composites. Fibreglass, epoxy, plyvinyl chloride foam, polyethylene terephthalate foam, balsa wood and polyurethane. The plastic composite-epoxy cannot be recycled so into land fills they go. In the EU some blades are cut up and burned in kilns or power plants sending this toxic gas and soot into the air.

Blades have a 7-10 year lifespan and (even if they reached their advertised 20 year lifespan which they never do) this 20 year lifespan would account for 418000 tons of rubbish that will not decompose in landfill because they are designed for heat resistance, sunlight and moisture.

Wind blades leech bisphenol A, a chemical so toxic it’s been banned in the EU and Canada. At AGL Hallet 1 wind industrial complex built in 2008 when the blades started failing they ground them up and mixed them with concrete for the bases of new turbines, leeching bishpenol A into the surrounding water supplies. If bisphenol A pollution had been done by coal or nuclear powerplants the authorities would’ve shut them down and fined them into bankruptcy.(Plimer p375)

Solar panels are a carcinogenic chemical cocktail of gallium arsenide, tellurium, silver, crystallised silicon, lead, cadmium and a long list of heavy metals. Solar panels produce 300 times more toxic waste than high-level nuclear waste.(Michael Shellenberger, Why Everything You’ve Heard About Solar Is Wrong, 22 June 2021)

They’re simply thrown into a landfill leeching this toxic waste back into the community if they even last their life expectancy. That’s if they’re not destroyed in a hailstorm before. (Newsweek, Thousands of Solar Panels in Texas Destroyed by Hailstorm, Mar 26 2024)

Greens are unconcerned though as when solar panels are dumped after their life expectancy they ship them to Africa. It’s then African rubbish-pickers who are poisoned by this toxic legacy.

Green Transition Is Impossible

What’s more due to the erratic nature of “green energy” it requires battery backups for when the wind does not blow (or blows too fast) and when the sun is not shining. Without battery backups our energy grid will be subject to blackouts. Who will bear the brunt of blackouts on an unreliable energy grid, whilst the rich use diesal generators or battery back ups where possible? The answer of course is the working class.

“So how much would batteries cost? Using the most optimistic 400 watt hours requirement — something a real engineer would never do — and assuming installation is free — another thing a real engineer would never do — one might look in Tesla’s catalogue and discover the price is $0.543 per watt hour — before installation — and the warranty period, roughly equal to the lifetime, is ten years. Activists insist that an all-electric American energy economy would have average demand of 1,700 gigawatts. If one evaluates the formula 1,700,000,000,000 × 400 × 0.543 / 10, the answer is $37 trillion, or about twice total USA 2020 GDP, every year, for batteries alone.”(Van Snyder, The Great Green Energy Transition Is Impossible, 08 Jan 2023)

Green Activists point to Germany explaining what a success Germany is. Whilst German is hacking down “Fairy Tale forests” to put windmills on. (Express, Fury in Germany as 120k trees in fairytale forest felled to make way for wind farm, Mar 8, 2024)

The coup de grace is seen in a study by 18 European countries of wind power capacity by German power engineers concluded that 99 percent backup by coal/gas or nuclear was needed for 100 percent of the time.(Every year there were always min at least a quarter of an hour, in which more than 99% of the rated power of the German Wind farms were not available and practically a need for 100% predictability Backup performance prevailed.”, Linneman, T & Vallana, G S 2017, Windenergie in Deutschland und Europa. VGB PowerTech, p94)

More wind capacity installed means a more volatile grid as less coal/nuclear or gas can back it. The German energy situation is a complete debacle. In one year 330,000 households had their electricity disconnected. 6.2 million were threatened for disconnection. 44,000 had their gas turned off. Costs have been driven up by the feeding of solar and wind into the grid that syphons money out of the working class to landed interests then has the working class choose between heating and eating.

Things are so bad in Germany Germans have resorted to stealing trees from forests for heating and cooking because they have no electricity.( BBC, Firewood theft: The forests where trees are going missing, 2nd March 2023)

This subsidised energy in Germany has reached a massive 30 billion euros annually – that needs a 100 percent back up by coal/gas or nuclear. It is a good job the Greens campaigned to close the nuclear plants as well as the coal plants whilst also staying mum whilst the Americans destroy their gas supplies in the form of Nordstream 2, the greatest act of industrial sabotage by the Americans.

If the so-called “green transition” is impossible, why is it being championed?

That nagging question returns: it’s not really about the climate, is it?

A Brief History Of The Green Movement: Eugenics, Transhumanism and Malthusianism

All of the above is lunacy. For those that describe the situation as such negate class analysis under which lens it makes absolutely perfect sense. The contempt the imperialist-bourgeoisie has for human beings cannot be overstated. The “environmental” movement was never a grass roots movement but conducted and shilled for by a few hundred rich people, who’s wealth is outside of most people’s imaginations. A movement that is neither “progressive” nor “left-wing”.

The environmental movement was started by eugenicists, Malthusians and the British Royal Family. It was the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution that laundered fake race science through the hallowed halls of bourgeois academia (Stanford, Princeton, Harvard) and funded the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute that would make Nazi Germanys “racial hygiene laws”.(Edwin Black, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics, Sept 2003)

Not deterred by the significant contribution to the holocaust the Rockefeller dynasty got right back at it, albeit pursuing eugenics under a different name:

“After WWII, when eugenics had become disreputable for well-known reasons, the Rockefeller family still kept pursuing the cause under different names, such as population control, family planning, genetics, and transhumanism”

“Conservation became an international concern. In 1948, Julian Huxley, general secretary of UNESCO, founded the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Julian Huxley was the grandson of anthropologist Thomas Huxley and brother of the author Aldous Huxley. Julian had been secretary of London Zoological Society 1935–42 and was chairman of both the British Eugenics Society and the British Humanist Society. In 1957 he coined the term “transhumanism.” Huxley’s advocacy of internationalism, eugenics, population control, and evolutionary humanism (a secular humanist religion) coincided with the goals of the Rockefeller family and Conservation Foundation.”(Jordan Nordangard, Rockefellers: Controlling The Game, Chap 2)

The eugenicists retained their bourgeois elitist outlook at controlling population growth or deciding who “breeds”.

“In 1952, the Conference on Population Problem was held, at the initiative of John D. Rockefeller III… Its mission was to develop a global plan for keeping the world’s population growth in check. In the 1940s and early 50s, several methods had been proposed as solutions to the population issue; increased social and economic equality; better distribution of the world’s population by international migration; and fertility control. Population Council chose the latter and would work primarily in developing countries with social studies and experiments aimed at lowering fertility by family planning and sterilisations. This was done in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industry both dominated by and closely linked to the Rockefellers. After its founding, the Population Council moved into a building on the campus of Rockefeller Institute… the Population Council Board of Directors (with John Rockefeller III as Chairman), included Bronk, Strauss, and Frederick Osborn (from American Eugenics Society) who had expressed clearly elitist ideas about who should inhabit the planet in the future. Frederick’s cousin Fairfield Osborn from Conservation Foundation was also a member of the Population Council. …we need the greatest number of births among genetically superior individuals. (Frederick Osborn, Eugenics Review 1956) The old ideals had been rebranded but the goals were the same. Meanwhile, initiatives were taken to sway public opinion in support of more drastic measures.” (ibid)

The environmental movement picked up pace. In the hysterical green environmental movement claimed that famines would be on the horizon by the usual Malthusian trick of assuming a growing population (that has hands and feet to labour and a mind to be creative in, increasing productivity even at the shop floor level and not just simply “another mouth to feed” as shown in Julian Simones Ultimate Resource 2… Human beings create more than they destroy) will simply starve by extrapolating current crop production against rising population and insisting this will cause famines and wars.

This environment created the concepts of “Limits to Growth” (eventually becoming a book by the imperialist outfit Club of Rome) that the Earth was a “lifeboat” and “hard decisions needed to be made before hitting those ‘limit’s’”. Limits to Growth would be the best selling environmental book in history. Pushed by the cosmopolitan-imperialist outfit the Club of Rome.

“But that book has been so thoroughly and universally criticized as neither valid nor scientific that it is not worthwhile to devote time or space to refuting its every detail. Even more damning, just four years after publication it was disavowed by its sponsors, the Club of Rome. The Club said that the conclusions of that first report are not correct and that they purposely misled the public in order to “awaken” public concern.”(Juliane Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p96)

Today’s climate hysterics insist they need to “awaken” public concern. Fool me once.

This insistence on “Limits” never really went away and would morph into “peak oil” (again, that we had reached “peak oil” and society would decline and collapse as a result). By the mid 1980s and all their hysterical predictions had collapsed the narrative switched. In the Club of Romes own words:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. 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.”(Alexander King, The First Global Revolution: A Report By The Club Of Rome, 1991, p115)

This excerpt shows the incestuous relationship and revolving door of the same people in different foundations and organisations in how “environmentalism” was built up

“The strategy of inviting environmentalists would become even more professionalised in the decades to come, with activists becoming a staple of every major conference. Not until the end of the 1980s, however, would climate change be added to the list of concerns inspiring radical action. Despite the many genuine activist groups, the Stockholm Conference was an elite project from the start, with countless connections to the Rockefeller family and affiliated organisations. Funding for the conference secretariat and one of its advisory committees came from Rockefeller Foundation). Maurice Strong, who had been an oil man for most of his career and would become president of Petro-Canada, was a friend of David Rockefeller’s and had been a board member of Rockefeller Foundation 1971– 76, with later skeptic Frederick Seitz). Strong’s conference advisor was Nelson Rockefellers’s friend Carroll L. Wilson. The chairman of the American delegation, Russell Train (chairman of Conservation Foundation), was a close friend and mentor of Laurance Rockefeller. Laurance Rockefeller was also part of the U.S. delegation, leading the group Human Settlements. Barbara Ward and René Dubos (Rockefeller University) wrote the framework for the conference titled, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet (through IIEA, funded by the Ford Foundation and the World Bank). Ward was also a personal friend of Nelson Rockefeller. In 1967 she was appointed Albert Schweizer Professor of International Economic Development at Columbia University, established by Nelson when he was governor of New York.” (Nordangard, p124)

Transhumanism as a ideology became (and is) a huge focal point for imperialist-bourgeois. The long story short: transhumanism, which is the religion of the imperialist-bourgeois today, is that they are going to merge with computers, network with each other into artificial intelligence and become God-like creatures whilst homo-sapiens will become irrelevant. To read more on this you can read it from World Economic Forum imperialist parasites Yuval Noah Harari in his book “Homo-Deus” (Latin for “Man-God”).

To put it bluntly they already consider homo-sapiens a “dead-end”. Transhumanism marries perfectly to the imperialist-bourgeois view of Malthusianism, eugenics and “sustainable development goals”…ie Economic degrowth and the hampering of forces of production. It supposes an Ayn Randian elite class rising above the ‘revolting’ masses who become not just a ‘superior’ class but superior beings.

“For the first time, transhumanist ideas were introduced, presenting the vision of a technologically upgraded human with a brain connected to a computer (“Symbionic Minds”). The development of a technologically improved human and artificial intelligence was also discussed at the conference by later New Age guru, Barbara Marx Hubbard from the International Committee for the Future. These ideas were thereafter presented to the general public via science fiction films and popular science magazines. The ultimate computer will be grown in a petri dish implanted inside the skull, and interfaced with the brain. (Lewis M. Branscomb, head of R&D at IBM, Populär Vetenskap, 1/1982) Chairman of the closing session was Maurice Strong from the Club of Rome, who would later include many of the conference ideas in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (and after his chairmanship of UNEP become executive director of Petro-Canada oil company). Soon, the Rockefeller family’s long-time goals of reducing population in developing nations would be transformed into climate change action and reducing fossil fuel consumption. It was time to create “a common future” for humanity.”

Maurice Strong, the “oil-man”, is credited with organising the first Earth summit and the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. In 1988 Maurice Strong, with great assistance from Margaret Thatcher, formed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The reader can assess for themselves whether the recent transgender craze was a grassroots movement based in real people’s struggles or whether it was a psychological operation originating in the likes of Harvard, Rockefeller Foundation and the Tavistock Institute then blasted across social media to gullible children and teenagers to assist in the furtherance of the bourgeoisie’s transhumanist ideology. Ie. to normalise the concept of changing your sex at will to further the idea that you can change what it means to be human if a human is capable of merging with machines. That topic is beyond the scope of this article.

Surely The Greenies Would Celebrate An Unlimited, Clean Energy Source?

Greens have taken wildly contradictory stances on energy. In the 1980s the greens supported coal against Nuclear arguing for coals carbon capture technology that can capture carbon before it’s even released. Todays prominent greens, like George Monbiot, are Nuclear enthusiasts against coal.

In the 1980s when nuclear fusion (not to be confused with the Nuclear plants in operation that are Nuclear Fission) would occasionally hit the headlines, promising an unlimited supply of cheap and clean energy. There is a famous joke that nuclear Fusion has been “only 20 years away” for the last 70 years. Fission utilises the decay of heavy atoms such as uranium. Fusion unleashes much more power through the fusing of two light atoms, hydrogen for example. The sun is an example of nuclear fusion.

A breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion would be the ultimate energy fantasy coming true. It would be the cheapest and cleanest and plentiful energy source ever created. For the Marxist-Leninist this would mean the Promethean construction of humanities potential. With Nuclear Fusion we would not have the worry of Nuclear Reactor meltdowns, nor the storage of Nuclear waste. The environmentalists could not be upset at the giant coal chimney stacks (where most carbon is captured before it’s released anyway!).

What did environmentalists say to the possible onset of Nuclear Fusion?

And even if it were, given society’s dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,” Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich says.

Laments Washington-based author-activist Jeremy Rifkin, “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.”

Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste.(LA Times, Fear of Fusion: What if It Works?, 19 April 1989)

A mere technological change in fuel sources also does nothing to change man’s attitude toward nature–what UC Berkeley physicist John Holdren calls the “pave the planet and paint it green” mentality.(ibid)

Fusion proponents, he notes, also estimate that commercial applications of their work are at least 20 years off. And it will be 30 years beyond then before fusion power has significant impact. In this sense, says Ehrlich, fusion is irrelevant because, he asserts, the world will have long since succumbed to over-population, famine, global warming and acid rain.(ibid)

“Fusion energy is an expedient short-lived diversion to the real problem,” Rifkin says. “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.”(ibid)

Ehrlich, having failed his predictions in Population bomb is here again insisting in 1989 that the “world will have long succumbed to over-population, famine and global warming” within 20 years, 2009. Rifkin repeats the debunked insistence that there are “limits to growth”.

Beyond that what more is to be said of these petite-bourgeois ‘intellectuals’?

Margaret Thatcher Creates The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

When anyone hears the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” they assume it is a respectable institution setup to serve the interests of humanity. And not what it actually is, an institution setup by civil servants to serve up a political line.

After the stunning victory of the coal miners and National Union of Mineworkers in toppling the 1974 Conservative Heath government the Thatcherites took environmentalism, what was once the parlour talk of monarchists and eugenicists, to the mainstream. To be used as a tool against the coal miners, coal and the NUM specifically.

“Rather, the prime movers behind the Global Warming scare were a coterie of centre-right politicians such as: German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, US President George Bush Sr., Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and above all others, Britain’s Margaret Thatcher.” (William Walter Kay, The Prime Movers behind the Global Warming Scare: Margaret Thatcher and the Rise of the Climate Ruse, July 26 2022)

Thatcher’s support led to the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation co-launched the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in November 1988.

“In a 1989 BBC special (The Greening of Mrs. Thatcher) Thatcher named protecting Earth’s climate as her top priority.

In Thatcher’s keynote address to the Conservative Party’s 1989 Conference, she bragged about her global climate leadership; especially of her having laid the groundwork for a UN climate framework.”(Ibid)

Viscont Ridley drafted the blueprint for destroying the NUM in 1977 with tactics such as stockpiling coal, installing generators to burn either coal or oil (even if uneconomical), importing coal and deploying mass police violence against NUM picketers.

Sir Crispin Tickell, one of the Thatcherite strategists to destroy the NUM, began to study the climate as a promising anti-coal pretext

“In the 1970s, British Foreign Office mandarin, Sir Crispin Tickell, took sabbatical to study climatology at Harvard and to write Climate Change and World Affairs – on the perils of global cooling. At the outset of the 1984 Miners’ Strike, Tickell recommended Thatcher explore Climate Change as a promising anti-coal pretext.Thatcher invited Tickell to Number 10. Tickell advised Thatcher from 1984 onwards.” (ibid)

Tickell was up to his neck in Rockefeller and Kissinger global outfits and a staunch Malthusian.

Like Keir Starmer and Jeffrey Epstein, Tickell was a member of the (David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded) Tri-Lateral commission: who wrote a paper in the 1970s saying there was “too much democracy in the West and it was getting in the way of running global capitalism”. (Tri Lateral Commission, The Crisis of Democracy, 1975)

“The climate concerns had previously been raised in the European Community and at the G7 meeting in 1979 by British diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell (related to Julian Huxley of UNESCO). Tickell was a sherpa for G7 and 1977–1981 Chef de Cabinet to British Roy Jenkins, chairman of the European Union (and also a member of the Trilateral Commission).

“Here, too, Henry Kissinger played a part. During his time as a fellow at the Harvard Center for International Affairs 1975–76, Tickell had been commissioned to analyse how climate change could affect world politics. This resulted in the book Climatic Change and World Affairs.

“As advisor to Margret Thatcher, Tickell also brought it up the climate issue at the 1984 G7 Summit. Just like the Rockefeller family, Tickell was deeply engaged in the population issue and later became involved with the British organisation Population Matters which advocates a drastic population reduction in order to preserve the planet and its resources.” (Jacob Nordangard, Rockefellers: Controlling The Game, p48)

The eugenicists would culminate in the notorious National Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM200). Or by it’s nickname, the Kissinger Report. In this document the United States would make, as national security, the reduction of world populations and particularly developing populations as “growing populations would see them revolt” against US comprador states. (US Government, NSSM200, 10 Dec 1974)

The BP, Shell and the Rockefellers Create The “Climate Research Unit”… Of Later Wikileaks ClimateGate 2009 Fame

“In 1971, the Climate Research Unit (ed of later “climategate” fame) at the University of East Anglia in England was founded by Graham Sutton and Lord Zuckerman, and funded by BP, Shell Oil and Rockefeller Foundation.” (Nordangard p24)

The Climate Research Unit would be involved in 2009 as what has come to be known as ClimateGate. The CRU is the worldwide bottle neck for IPCC reports. In other words, scientific data is laundered through the CRU upon which the IPCC base their policy directives.

All of their emails got leaked to WikiLeaks. They are shown ignoring weather stations “too cold”, truncating graphs, bragging about easily attainable grants, with-holding data and discussing “tricks” to hide the medieval warm period, when grapes were grown as far north as Scotland.

Reading mainstream media’s coverage of ClimateGate you would think it was a simple case of data theft, with no mention to what is in the emails. You have to turn to alternative media to get a grasp on what ClimateGate was due to mainstream censorship or read the emails yourself. (Corbett Report, Climategate Rebunked With Marc Morano, Dec 10, 2019)

Climategate exposed the Scientists that were handpicked by that imperialist institution, the United Nations, to serve up political tripe for United Nations agendas.

Reading corrupt mainstream media you wouldn’t even know the ‘researchers’ were found to have broken the law from hiding data from the public.(Nature, Climate row university ‘broke law on information disclosures’, 28 Jan 2010)

Or that Phil Jones of the CRU was forced to admit he’d fabricated the data for the famous Hockey Stick graph and that there had been no discernable warming for the past 15 years. A remarkable set-back for the capitalist-eugenicists.

Not deterred by facts, truth or their exposure they got right back at it. Agenda 2021 became Agenda 2030.

The Corrupt IPCC

With it’s foundations as a Thatcherite civil servant organisation to serve up political lines to advance the most reactionary and backward sections of the imperialist bourgeoisie it is unsurprising the IPCC is completely and hopelessly corrupt.

The Sixth Assement Report (AR6 2021) report whittled down all the proxy data, removed the medieval warm period and the bitterly cold Little Ice Age. The fraudulent “hockey stick” reappeared after making it’s first appearance in 2001. The AR5 report stated “on a continued scale, temperature reconstructions of the medieval climate anomaly (years 950-1250) show with high confidence intervals of decades that were as warm in some regions as in the late 20th century.”

No evidence was given why AR6 reversed this position, disappearing the medieval warm period for a 2nd time this century.

Is it any wonder then that Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, called the IPCC “fundamentally corrupt” and demanded it’s abolition?

“Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.”(Dr Vincent Gray, SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC, 9 Mar 2008)

The IPCC is not a partisan institution. It is a corrupt organisation serving up political lines for a parasitic elite’s plan for mass-impoverisation of the working class under the eugenics “lifeboat” politics.

“The End Is Nigh”

Hysterical shrieking has been popular for a long time. Green predictions by (either due to outright malicious actors who have corrupted institutions) or “well-meaning” greens sell an apocalyptic future. Mainstream media find it good to report these apocalyptic scare stories which in turn sell newspapers. The imperialist-bourgeoisie long strategised in pushing “chronic depression” on the population as a form to reduce the birth-rate, as discussed in the Jaffe Memo by the Population Council.

Stories of apocalypse have such a commonality in human history it would be tedious and boring to reiterate every single one. Couple in that man was at the mercy of nature for the majority of his history, human mortality in general and one can hardly fault this recurring theme in history. There are sea fossils on the Himalayas, also known as the “rooftop of the world”.

Is it a wonder human cultures are filled with histories of floods, natural disasters and other arrays of death the climate has waged on mankind? Welded into minds by stories like Noahs flood and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Tsunami’s and earthquakes still occur regularly worldwide.

A few brief examples (any extensive list could fill a book) English sect leader Joanna Southcott claimed she was pregnant with the new messiah and the world would end in 1774. John Turner (follower of Southcott) predicted October 1820.

Catastrophic floods were predicted in 1523.

20,000 Londoners fled for the hills preferring to die on the hills than in their homes.

Mathmatician Georg Tannstetter argued the world would not end but was ignored by the hysteria created. Frantic boat building began in England and Germany. In Germany Count Iggleheim built a three storey ark into which he retreated when the date was pushed back to 1524.

It rained gently. Hundreds died in a stampede and the Count was stoned to death.

Humanity was at the mercy of the climate for thousands of years before we slowly began to master it through selective breeding of crops, irrigation, sea walls, pumps, dikes, ditches, genetically modified crops, pesticides, specialised housing for earthquakes (in Japan), better transport during periods of drought, fertilisers and a myriad other ways.

The prolific amounts of whining that the “end is nigh” from Green Activists shouldn’t surprise us, it is a recurring cultural phenomena. But these green activists have been whining for a considerable period so it is only fair we examine their predictions if we are to drastically change our way of life to basically self-impoverish ourselves whilst the bourgeoisie buy climate credits on the “carbon market” and live even more lavishly and decadent as they did before.

Thomas Malthus is perhaps the most famous. His prediction was that the population would collapse because he refused to take into account improving technology, improving science and human ingenuity. When his prediction of population collapse came and went he revised his prediction and did the famous Malthusian trick of insisting he was still right but the collapse would come later. His proposed solutions were letting disease run through populations.

Thomas Huxley advocated ethical evolution. Fairfield Osborn revived Malthusianism, a prominent eugenics advocate and advocated “breeding desireable hereditary traits”.

Eugenics research was funded by Carnegie institution and Rockefeller Foundation. Both of whom now fund climate “research”.

Paul Erhlich became a sensation in the 1960s and 1970s with his “The Population Bomb” in which he advocated a chilling set of eugenics including putting sterilising agents in the water supply.

Early editions of the book started with

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” (Paul Erhlich, The Population Bomb, 1968)

Legislation for abortion and sex education should be expanded, according to Erhlich.

The Population Bomb was written at the suggestion of David Brower. The executive director of the Sierra Club, an environmental organisation founded in 1892, by bourgeois parasites.

“Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.” […]

“It’s hard to think of anything that will pop up and save us. I hope something will but it really will be a miracle.””Paul Ehrlich (2012) 

Not totally surprising considering in Population Bomb he compared humans to cancer

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people … We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer… – (Paul Ehrlich, ‘The Population Bomb’ (Ballantine Books 1968) pg. xi, pg. 166 )

In foreign policy the book argued for dropping food aid to countries not self-sufficient in food production. A paradoxical argument given US imperialisms deliberate dumping of goods in countries to destroy their agricultural production to retain their monopolies.

In reference to nations like Bangladesh, bourgeois writers were advocating “letting whole countries go down the drain”.

“When Bangladesh became independent after the devastating war in 1971, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called it “an international basket case.” Over the next few years the food supply was sometimes so bad that some writers advocated “letting Bangladesh go down the drain,” whatever that arrogant phrase might mean.” (Julian Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p122)

These bourgeois pessimists were wrong and forced to admit as much when they returned in 1980

Life expectancy in Bangladesh rose from 37.3 years at birth in 1960 to 47.4 years in 1980 to 55 years in 1984. Compare this actual long-term result with the pessimistic predictions in Lester Browns 1978 The Twenty Ninth Day, where he heads a section “The Tragic Rise in Death Rates,” and puts into a table data that show increasing mortality in one area of Bangladesh from 1973-1974 to 1974-1975, and in three areas of India from 1971 to 1972. On the basis of just those two one-year reversals in the long-run trend, Brown built a prediction of decreasing life expectancy.(ibid)

In 1956 models were used to predict that oil production would rapidly decline from around 1965-1970 onward. We currently have more oil reserves in history due to exploration and technology.

Not deterred by their terrible predictions, followers of Malthus get right back on the saddle. Here is Erhlich in 2012

“The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050…How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”(Guardian, Cut world population and redistribute resources, expert urges, 26 Apr 2012)

Now imagine a world in which these parasites of bourgeois academia, think tanks and Foundations that manipulate civil society are taken seriously. We would have to get to culling asap.

Dennis Meadows (author of the fraudulent Limits To Growth) which used computer models to predict humanity running out of resources offers a similar solution despite all his predictions being incorrect. The failed predictions of Limits To Growth were whitewashed with the familiar Malthusian trick: I was right I just got the timing wrong.

Dennis Meadows solution is to get the world back down to one billion people and he hopes it can be done “in a relatively equal way”.

“But in one way or another we are so far global you are so far above the population and the consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that i know in one way or another it’s going to come back down. So I don’t hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a a civil way. I mean civil in a special way, peaceful way. It doesn’t mean uh that everybody’s happy but it means that conflict isn’t solved through violence through force but rather in other ways and so that’s what I hope for that. I mean the planet can support something like a billion people maybe two billion depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption you have to have fewer people. And conversely you can have more people, I mean we could even have eight or nine billion probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart. That’s unfortunate, you never have smart dictatorships, they’re always stupid so but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living you could have a..(unintelligible) but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal uh you know so that people share uh the experience. And you don’t have a few rich you know trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes. I mean these are pretty pessimistic hopes you know but i mean that’s that’s what lies ahead” – (Dennis Meadows, Author of Limits To Growth)

What more needs to be said about these bourgeois fascist criminals who wrote the “most sold environmental book” ever?

Given the complete failure of environmentalists and greenies to predict anything worth a damn, why should we believe the most of hysterical of them today?

British Green Party Founded. Influenced By Dennis Meadows Limits To Growth – “The Real Enemy Is “Economic Growth And Increase In Population”

The PEOPLE partys (which would become the Green Party) first document was the Manifesto for Survival, largely based on the Blueprint For Survival written by the Ecologist.

The Blueprint for Survival took as fact the book Limits to Growth, the author of whom recently stated there needs to be only one billion people on earth.

The People Party’s Manifesto for Survival demanded population controls after believing the contrived, fake computer models in Limits to Growth, because “Britain can only sustain 30 million people”

“The sustainable level of population for Great Britain is approximately 30 million, This is the number which it is generally accepted can be fed at an adequate level without the necessity for food imports. Even if that is too low a figure, and a substantial increase to say 45 million is allowed, by the year 2000 it still means the population will be far too large unless drastic steps are taken immediately.”(PEOPLE, Manifesto For Survival, 1974)

Like the anarchists, the Greens hope to turn back time to petite-bourgeois modes of small artisan production before the arrival of mass industrial production. “Nay, they are reactionaries because they want to turn back the wheel of time” (Marx, Communist Manifesto)

“There will be considerable scope for initiative and enterprise, but for the ‘little’ man–the painter and decorator, the cobbler, the small shopkeeper, and the rag and bone man, who will be-come the front line in the recycling industries on which much future prosperity will depend.”(Ibid p2)

This petite-bourgeois mindset is explicitly stated identifying economic growth itself as the enemy, alongside humanity.

“PEOPLE accepts the growing body of scientific evidence that the twin evils are economic growth and continued increase in population” (ibid p1)

So according to the greens so far we should abandon economic growth entirely and work toward massive depopulation.

The British Royal Family, The Anglican Church, Catholic Church And Their Push For “Green” Hegemony

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” – Prince Philip

The British Royal family, the most skillful monarchy in the world at waging class warfare is not a quaint holdover from feudalism but a major player in modern politics and culture. Prince Phillip owned vast land holdings. His collected stock portfolio and art collection made him one of the wealthiest people in Britain.

Phillip followed in the footsteps of his mentor Prince Bernhard of Holland, a former Waffen SS soldier. At the height of Prince Bernhard’s power, he sat on some 300 Dutch boards, including boards overseeing weapons contracting, industrial development, and public education.

A biography of Prince Phillip details

“.patronages, trusteeships, presidencies, chairmanships, committee memberships, and military ranks cover sixty-six close typed pages in his Patronage Book at Buckingham Palace.”(John Parker, Prince Philip: A Critical Biograph)

“No cause has been so dear to Prince Philip as has the “environment”. He became patron to the Council of Nature in 1958. In 1961, while recovering from a polo injury at the palace, Prince Philip agreed to become President of the British National Appeal for the World Wildlife International Trust – an organization founded and presided over by Prince Bernhard. In 1962 he organized the Nature Week Exhibition, and in the following year he led three anti-development, anti-“scientific farming” conferences called “The Countryside in 1970”. (Follow-up conferences held in 1965 and 1970 led to the establishment of the UK Government’s “Countryside Commission”.) In 1967 he helped make the eco-film The Enchanted Isles, later broadcast across the UK and the USA. He helped organize the European Conservation Year and gave the keynote address at the launch of the festivities in Strasbourg in 1970. Also in 1970 he spearheaded the Australian National Appeal for the WWF and contributed articles to the acclaimed publication World Wildlife in Crisis – a document credited by some as leading to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm 1972). Philip referred to the Stockholm conference as being “the climax of the environmental revolution.” He published a book entitled The Environmental Revolution in 1978, and he has by now produced at least a dozen major books and films on the topic, including Down to Earth (1988). He was President of WWF International from 1981 until 1996 and continues to hold the title of President Emeritus. Upon his retirement from its presidency, the WWF issued a press release stating:

“Prince Philip was never a mere figurehead. WWF has been the prime focus of his working life. He has spent more time on his work on this organization than on any of his other interests. As International President, His Royal Highness was Chairman of both board and Executive Committees which set WWF world wide policy and approved its international budgets.””(William Walter Kay, The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming, and The Anglican Church)

Prince Phillip was successful in uniting the worlds religions behind green quackery.

“In 1986 he held his first conference on this front in Assisi, Italy. It was the 25th anniversary of the WWF, and Philip brought together representatives of five of the world’s religions to form a WWF sub-group – the Network on Conservation and Religion. The attendees agreed to scour their sacred texts for eco-sounding passages, to undertake environmental actions within their respective congregations, and to meet again in ten years’ time. The next major meeting was in May 1995 at Windsor Castle, with Philip presiding; only now there were nine religions represented. Between 1986 and 1995 over one hundred thousand eco-religious events had been organized by groups represented at the first conference. These eco-actions ranged from mere Sunday outings in the woods to the creation of entire college campuses dedicated to enviro-theology. Philip helped organize another meeting of the group (since renamed Alliance of Religions and Conservation and now representing 11 religious organizations with a combined flock of 3 billion followers) in 1998 at Lamsbeth Palace, with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the head of the World Bank acting as co-chairmen.”(ibid)
The Church of England is not separate from the monarchy, the ruling monarch being the “Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. The Head of State is also the Head of the COE. It’s entirely unsurprising then that the COE is pushing green politics too.

“An even greener faction appears to be waiting in the wings of the Church of England and within English Christianity generally. In 1998 Evangelical Environment Network UK issued a two-page “Declaration” commencing:

“As followers of Jesus Christ, committed to the full authority of the Scriptures, and aware of the ways we have degraded creation, we believe that biblical faith is essential to our ecological problems.”

“The “Declaration” goes on to denounce “cultural degradation”, overpopulation, and pollution as sins for which there must be repentance. It contains many other stanzas of eco-Christian gobbledygook that would make even a street-corner Bible-thumper shake his head in bewilderment. The manifesto was, nevertheless, signed by 89 prominent Brits, including 15 professors of religious education and over 20 high-ranking members of the Church of England.

“The stakes here are huge. There are over 110 Anglican Bishops, so the nine who signed must be viewed currently as only a minority radical eco-faction within the larger Church, albeit a growing minority and one with the evident blessing of the House of Windsor-Mountbatten. Should this faction come to fully dominate the Synod, an enormous resource will be handed over to the cause of eco-fascism..”(ibid)

The Catholic Church was also won over to condemning developing nations to poverty inThe Encylical Letter of Pope Francis Laudato Si “care for our common home”. A document also filled with eco-Christian gobbeldegook and no doubt written by some World Economic Forum, DAVOS or some other elite organisation filled with disgusting parasites.

Examined in detail by Ian Plimer in Heaven and Hell: The Pope Condemns the Poor To Eternal Poverty.

The Mother Of The Environmental Movement, Pathological Liar and Killer of Millions, Rachel Carson

The Mother of the Environmental movement was Rachel Carson. Her pathological lies resulted in the banning of DDT due to her fraudulent book, Silent Spring. Published 5 years before the first earth day Carson would wreck unbelievable havoc on peoples lives. They would not be fully uncovered until the early 2000s in J Gordon Edwards, DDT: A Case Study In Scientific Fraud. (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall 2004).

The pathological liar Rachel Carson would be exposed eventually but not before an enormous pound of flesh was exacted from humanity.

The World Health Organisation would not resume spraying of DDT until 2006. Those fifty years of the DDT ban have cost humanity immensely, killing millions of people and condemning many millions more to a lifetime suffering and ill health.

“DDT provides the most effective, cheapest and safest means of eradicating disease-spreading mosquitoes, but its use has been virtually banned since 1972 when a EPA decision was based more on Rachael Carson’s book “Silent Spring” than on sound science.”(WSJ, DDT Hysteria Has Killed Millions of People, 19 Nov 2005)

J Gordon Edwards put his money where his mouth was and as a popular trick in his lectures, would eat a full mouthful of DDT right out the can to prove how non-carcinogenic it was, even to humans and even at such doses. Edwards died at the ripe age of 84, almost a full 10 years higher than the average life expectancy of an Ohio resident.

To cut a long story short Rachel Carson lied about almost everything in her book Silent Spring which was used to justify the banning of DDT which had all but eradicated malaria from developing nations. Leaving millions of mostly women and children to die. The WHO would overturn the ban on DDT in 2006 and resume DDT spraying.

Michael Crichton expressed this outrage succinctly enough

“I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn.”(Michael Crichton, Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion, 15 Sept 2003)

What more is there to say? Another “win” for Green hysteria.

Todays greens defend Carson with revolting historical revisionism and gaslighting like the below

“Rachel Carson never called for the banning of pesticides. She made this clear in every public pronouncement, repeated it in an hour-long television documentary about Silent Spring, and even testified to that effect before the US Senate. Carson never denied that there were beneficial uses of pesticides, notably in combating human diseases transmitted by insects, where she said they had not only been proven effective but were morally “necessary”.(New Scientist, Silent Spring didn’t condemn millions to death, 6 September 2012)

But what could she expect after writing the pathological lies in Silent Spring? Which in turn was promoted by every spectrum of liberal media, endless speaking engagements for Carson and ended in a very predictable ban of DDT in 1972.

New Scientist is likely right though: Silent Spring probably didn’t condemn millions to death. The plan to ban DDT probably would’ve happened one way or the other. The American imperialists just used Carson’s fraudulent book as an excuse and her as the public face of it then ostracized, silenced and demonised all those that did speak out about it.

Scientists did speak out at the time but were silenced by liberal media.

“Thomas Jukes—a British-American biologist who had been a professor of biophysics at the University of California—fought tirelessly against Carson. However, despite these interventions, the liberal establishment quickly moved to silence and ostracize any serious opposition to Carson.”(Janet G West, Rachel Carson: Whore of Babylon, 30 Nov 2023)

One in the eye for capitalism, they killed millions of mostly children, retarded the productive forces in developing nations and fulfilled the goals of the Kissinger Report/NSSM200.

A Little Known Joyce Foundation Lawyer… Barack Obama… Drafts The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rights

The idea of Greenhouse Gas Emission rights was not an intergovernmental initiative but the fruit of the Joyce Foundation. Each state drafts it’s own legislation. The States get an emissions quote which it allocates to companies. Companies that only partially use their rights can resell them on a specialised stock exchange in Chicago.

“The articles of association for this exchange were drafted by a then unknown Joyce Foundation lawyer, a certain Barack Obama (future President of the United States). The call for investors to launch the exchange was organized by Al Gore (future vice-president of the United States), and David Blood (former director of Goldman Sachs bank). Whether you consider these people to be bona fide environmental activists or high-flying swindlers is a matter of perspective.”(Thierry Meyssan of Voltaire Net, Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world., 7 June 2023)

Obama and Al Gore have both bought ocean front properties.

This doesn’t stop Barack Obama from telling Africans they can’t have fridges or cars.

“Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that everybody has mentioned here in Africa, if everybody is raising living standards to the point where everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning, and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over — unless we find new ways of producing energy.”(Barack Obama, Town Hall event in South Africa, 2013)

Whilst World Economic Forum parasite and US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, states that destroying agricultural production needs to be done… In order to save people from starvation.

“Agriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world … And we can’t get to net zero – we don’t get this job done – unless agriculture is front and centre as part of the solution.”

“[A warmer climate] could result in an additional 600 million people not getting enough to eat and you just can’t continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed. It doesn’t work”(John Kerry, 11 May 2023)

Again it is up to the reader to decide if this bourgeois parasite is interested in ensuring people can be fed. From the only country in the world that doesn’t recognise a right to food.(US was the only country in the UN to vote against making food a human right – U.S. Explanation of Vote on the Right to Food, March 24, 2017)

Or whether the United States Foreign Policy is following Paul Erhlichs tips on depopulation: “slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry”.

Co2 Emission Rights: The Carbon Market Worth A Trillion Dollars

Enron made huge money in the cap and trade markets for sulpher. In the 1990s a lot coal plants didn’t have the modern scrubbers on them so they were quite polluting. A lot of soot and sulpher was thrown into the air. Sulpher became the first “emissions trading” in which a market based approach by providing economic incentives was given to energy companies. In other words criminal outfits like Enron were able to make out like Bandits.

The problem was eventually solved (in laymans terms) by putting scrubbers on top of coal power plants which collected most of the most harmful pollutants instead of letting them shoot into the air.

However this left the financial markets without a commodity like sulpher to trade.

The Soviet Fight With the IPCC – “Co2 Is Beneficial To Humanity”

The Scientist who coined the term “greenhouse effect” did so with a positive analysis of humanity that the greenhouse effect would stave off another ice age as ice sheets are continually retreating and engulfing the globe in a cyclical effect. The Soviet Union believed more co2 would benefit humanity via the co2 fertiliser effect.

“During the 1980s, Kondrat’ev began to give global environmental change a significant amount of attention, and this included the specific issue of global climate change. His work in this area was characterised by a number of general themes. First, while he considered the debate concerning anthropogenic climate change of significance, he was at the same time wary of over-simplifying the issue as well as the inadequacies of available datasets. In particular, he understood the climate system as just one facet or expression of the Earth’s global physical system. Second, this expansive understanding of the climate system ensured that he placed emphasis on the functioning of the biosphere as a whole, and resisted reducing the climate issue down to single factors such as an increase in CO2 emissions.”

“Battle lines were now clearly drawn inside the IPCC, then in the process of drafting its first report. It could not afford to offend major governments or its sponsors. Born into the controversy over response strategies, it had already become a target for conflicting pressures. One of its first actions would be to discredit the Soviet view, stated by Professor Izreal [sic] at home, that global warming was a good thing, and reducing Soviet influence in WGI [Working Group I].

For Alan Hecht, writing in the foreword to the English-language edition of Izrael’ and Budyko’s book Anthropogenic Climate Change (1987), the notion of a possible favourable future climate for parts of the northern hemisphere was grounded on the results of the application of palaeoclimatic analogues outlined in the book. Budyko’s insistence on the potential beneficial impacts of climate change, primarily through anticipated increased levels of precipitation and the so-called ‘fertilizer effect’ of heightened CO2 levels (enhancing crop growth), clashed with Western climate modellers as well as the emerging international consensus that anthropogenic climate change was an issue to be addressed with growing urgency.”( Jonathan Oldfield, Imagining climates past, present and future: Soviet contributions to the science of anthropogenic climate change, 1953–1991, April 2018)

The Co2 fertiliser effect is on full display with the amount of extra crops that can be produced and the recent greening of the earth by as much as 20 percent.

The Chinese View

The Chinese stand to benefit massively from the push toward inefficient and unreliable energy sources in Western countries. The Chinese have an almost complete monopoly on rare earth minerals. Not only have imperialist nations handed their energy security to China, China stands to make billions whilst gathering into it’s hand the energy security of those countries.

What’s more imperialist nations have been pushing themselves to war with China. Laying the groundwork with the completely fake and US state department concocted “Uyghur genocide” and it’s encirclement of China with US bases. It’s flooding of guns and weapons across the Afghan border during the Afghan war to terrorist groups in Xinjiang like East Turkestan Islamic Movement.

In such circumstances you would expect the Chinese to continue what they have been doing: turning up at whatever new environmental agreement put forward by the imperialist-eugenicists then go back to China and build a bunch more coal power plants to spread prosperity among their people whilst the West gets hooked on “green” energy (which emits more co2) which leads to an unstable energy grid, poverty and loss of jobs as energy becomes more expensive (and therefore production takes place elsewhere).

Let those dogs bark, the caravan will move on.

Most people in NATO countries wouldn’t fight for NATO as evidenced by polling, with only a handful of countries having a majority that would fight for NATO. The recent testing of the water by Rishi Sunak about bringing back conscription led to a deluge of people stating their reasons they would never fight for Britain on TikTok. A similar response from the French public in regard to Macrons recent statements about sending troops into Ukraine.

But if you collapse their energy grid they’ll be open to demagogues and imperialists pointing the fingers at China for imagined grievances.

Take Zhang Meifang in Nov 17 in a now deleted tweet

“There is no scientific proof that carbon dioxide is responsible for any of the slight warming of the global climate. Only 0.04% of the atmosphere. Humans are 18%. Carbon is not a problem nor has it been for centuries” (Zhang Meifang in Belfast Telegraph, NI’s Chinese diplomat: no evidence of carbon dioxide link to global warming, Nov 17 2023)

Zhang Meifang quickly deleted her tweet due to the backlash of (predominantly) infantile American Communists on twitter who all insisted “science was done by consensus”. Not realising that science is almost completely corrupt as an institute giving results to whoever pays with the largest bag of cash. Coupled in with the reality of petty squabbles, ego, inner-cliques, pride among scientists etc.

Consensus has never been a thing in science. Particularly when the science has been deliberately corrupted for decades to utilise very specific methods of social control and depopulation.

In an interview from 2010 the Climate Scientist Ding Zhongli (which routinely goes viral on Chinese social media), when discussing the Copenhagen agreements says “in a nutshell this is about energy and development issues”.

When asked what this means for ordinary citizens (in regard to being asked to “cut emissions” by Copenhagen agreement) he states

“It means the improvement of life and development of the country. Whether your welfare can be increased, whether you have a job or not”.

“Many people understand it as a scientific conclusion(ed Climate science). But how did this 2 degree come about? This 2 degrees is from a computer simulation. This computer is actually a crystal ball of a fortune teller. It doesn’t look at changes in warming and cooling during geological history. It calculates and calculates and draws a conclusion after the calculation. If the temperature rise by 2 degrees, the extinction of so many species will occur. This research is done by a British research Group. This conclusion becomes popular. After it becomes popular it becomes a value judgement”.(China’s Chief Climate Expert Ding Zhongli Interviewed by Notorious Environmentalist Chai Jing [2010])

In the interview insufferable liberal Chai jing states that the IPCC is a “reputable institution with scientists from all over the world” and that the IPCC represents the “mainstream”.

“Main stream? Does science have a mainstream?” Zhongli responds.

And finally Zhongli does the coup de grace, the IPCC plan to reduce economic development for the general maintenance of capitalism.

“but it’s the same thing as the allocation of emission rights that I just mentioned. This is easy to understand. The 800 bilion tons of cake is set. Although you reduced it by 80%, but your base is large. Your base is 4.8 times that of developing countries. If you just cut the cake like this, wouldn’t it cut more than twice your size? So this is a very big trap in it… If future emissions are based on very strict international limit then carbon dioxide emission rights will become a very, very scarce commodity. ”

The carbon market in 2023 went to $949 billion.

In 2010 Mark Schapiro wrote an article Conning the Climate for Harpers Magazine in which he described the emerging carbon markets.

“And unlike traditional commodities, which sometimes during the course of their market exchange must be delivered to someone in physical form, the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one.”

The amount of money being “produced” by ficticious capital that ultimately rob the working class are staggering. The moneyed interests behind the “climate emergency” are vast and they have captured the majority of the worlds States, “International” (IE. US imperialist) organisatons and most of the worlds religions.

There Is No Climate Emergency

The basis for a “climate emergency” is that increased co2 means increased temperatures on earth. The increased temperatures will make crop growing harder and heat will kill millions (even billions if you listen to Extinction Rebellion).

What these propagandists and footsoldiers of Finance capital have not told you is that the history of the earth has been warmer (and much colder) in the last 500,000 years. A brief look at previous temperatures will show you a recurrent warming period and then slipping into an ice age.

Is it any wonder the scientist who came up with the greenhouse effect considered this a positive development in staving off a new ice age?

And cut down to 10,000 years..

and cut down to 1000 years

From an obvious glance at the graph we see why the climate hysterics in the IPCC had to remove the medieval warm period. Including it shows that the earth was warmer during this period. Bringing us to another inconvenient fact. Warmer temperatures are better for humanity given the cold kills much more than heat.

Looking at the Maunder maximum and Maunder minimum cycles (ie when the earth rotates on its axis and is closer to the sun and when the sun rotates on its axis and is closer to earth) we see corresponding warming periods.

W hat the hysterics leave out is that at times of higher temperatures on earth were rapid expansions of civilisation. The idea that we need to return to 1850 level of temperature is demented in the extreme. 1850 was not a particularly nice environment for human beings.

It is no surprise then that 1900 scientists have signed the There Is No Climate Emergency document.

“The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.

“Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.

“CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.

“There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.”(Clintel, There Is No Climate Emergency)

Interestingly John Clauser (one of the Clintel signers) once brought up to Joe Biden that the climate models were absolute rubbish and could not be trusted on his visit to the White House on winning the Nobel Laurete in physics in 2022.

Genocide Joe Biden responded

“That’s just right wing talking points.”

Quite surreal. But then Joe Biden did declare trans day of visibility on Easter Sunday earning him his “left credentials”.

“Planetary Emergency”: A Bankers Dictatorship

“A certain degree of eco-dictatorship will be necessary…I know that eco-dictatorship is a nasty word. But we may have to ask ourselves the question whether and to what extent we may be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship”(Deutsche Bank, What We Must Do To Rebuild)

Deutsche Bank have said outloud what the parasites in the imperialist class demand.

Assembling A UN Military Force To Occupy Countries Not Maintaining Their “Carbon Limit”

Meanwhile Professor Waever advocates military measures for countries that don’t hit their “carbon targets” and assembling a UN military force to enforce carbon dioxide limits.

“That’s what happens when something becomes a security issue, it gets the urgency, the intensity, the priority, which is helpful sometimes, but it also lets the dark forces loose in the sense that it can justify problematic means,” he says.

This urgency, he says, could lead to more abrupt action at an international level.

“If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told ‘this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil it’, then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not,” he says.

“A bit like what we saw in southern Europe with countries like Greece and the debt crisis and so on.

“There were decisions that were made for them and then they just had to have a more or less technocratic government and get it through.”(ABC News, Could climate change become a security issue — and threaten democracy? 3 Dec 2019)

The UN rubber stamped the Korean War (or rather Fatherland Liberation War). In 1952 Colliers magazine wrote an article in which a United Nations force was drawn up to occupy the Soviet Union. Todays UN forces are rape and death squads forced on Haiti. Given that the United Nations is a tentacle of US imperialism we see how the expansion of the “climate threat” is really an expansion of “Responsibility to Protect” (the UN global commitment used to justify the destruction of Yugoslavia).

Except now the imperialists will occupy your country if you dare to develop it economically.

It’s not really about the climate, is it?

A Coming Breach In The Wall Of Propaganda By The IPCC.. A Russian Scientific SMO Against The Eugenicists

In the West we have been submitted to 70+ years of lying Malthusian propaganda. Whilst the Soviet Union existed they retained scientific (read “political”) independence. Under the newly created Russian Federation their scientific prowess was subservient to the West. With the rise of Russia again as a world power they are asserting their political independence from the Wests “science”.

Russia is rejecting Western “climate science” also.

“The Russian Academy of Sciences has just put forward a third theory (ed of climate change), also based on observation of nature. According to it, “The main cause of local climatic catastrophes is the increasing emission of natural hydrogen due to the alternating gravitational forces of the moon and sun, which cause holes in the ozone layer. The resulting rise in temperature and the mixing of ozone and hydrogen are the main causes of forest and steppe fires”.

The Académie des Sciences not only questions the dogma of the IPCC, it also challenges the mechanism for reducing holes in the ozone layer. Namely, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol “whose implementation has wiped out entire sub-industries of the chemical industry without affecting the size of ozone holes, which have only increased”.

The Russian Academy of Sciences’ theory is also based on the idea that global warming is not a comparable phenomenon in different parts of the world. Contrary to popular belief, the temperature of the Pacific Ocean is actually cooling.”(Voltaire Net, Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world, 7 June 2023)

Thierry Meyssan goes on to comment that a political battle was already underway to silence Russian scientists at Cop28 which took place in Nov 2023. The Russian scientists were no doubt silenced so in return the Russian’s stated plainly they had no intention of helping reach a temperature under 1.5 degrees C (Moscow Times, 5 Things Russia Said at COP28, Dec. 13, 2023) and held oil talks in the UAE whilst COP28 was going on, to the fury of ‘green’ activists.

“Don’t you dare come to COP,” warned one of several signs held by climate activists from the Fridays For Future movement. “Fossil dictators out,” declared another.

“And, more bluntly: “Fuck Putin.”

(Politico, Putin trolls COP28 with oil talks next door, 6 Dec 2023

Environmentalism, like so much of the cosmopolitan social-fabric created by US imperialists, acts to shore up US imperialism and it’s interests.

An Energy Policy For Workers And Humanity

Should inevitably require the nationalisation of the energy sector and put into the hands of the working class. The Working Class should recognise that as long as we live in class society the State is a weapon wielded by one class over another.

Right now the State is wielded against the Working Class by a small group of cosmopolitan parasites in London who care only for enriching themselves before they swan off to New York or Paris or wherever they can get a lower tax break. Leaving an energy grid in place that immiserates the working class, forces them into new

The Working Class will have to take the State into their own hands and wield this weapon at this small class of parasites to suppress them from their horrific nihilistic Malthusian worldviews. When the Working Class have organised themselves as the ruling class they can then draw up a comprehensive energy plan which is efficient and doesn’t have privatised interests leeching off of it. An energy grid owned and controlled by the Working Class.

Greens Should Seek Religion In A Church, Synagogue or Mosque Instead Of Annoying Everyone

If Green activists feel devoid of a spiritual life they should seek religion in a Church, a mosque or synagogue. (I would suggest avoiding paganism though as otherwise they’ll be back out on the streets annoying everyone by gluing themselves to roads or throwing paint on works of art.)

Instead of “environmentalism” which provides them with “original sin” (industrialisation), repentance (recycling, carbon credits, green vegetarianism, avoidance of meat or children), salvation (green energy that is neither really green nor really energy) and finally revelation (apocalypse: ie I am coming to terms with my own mortality without traditional religion that allows for an afterlife and cannot envision a world that…simply keeps turning. It must collapse.)

But even here (with the complete takeover of the green movement described above of the worlds religions) they will be shoehorned back into demanding austerity and the destruction of our energy grid so the Fortune 500 can pursue their demented dreams of transhumanism.

Sentence Greens To A Life Of NetZero With No Parole

Green activists are footsoldiers of the Club of Rome, World Economic Forum, Davos, Rockefeller Foundation, the British Royal Family and the other assorted array of eugenicists in a completely rotten, decadent imperialist society that has elevated these revolting forces to positions of power, prestige and fame. They advocate genocide when they can get away it.

They commit it when they can.

They force humanity onto insecure and more polluting forms of energy. They terrify our young people with scenes of an apocalyptic future. They terrify young adults who genuinely think they “don’t have a future”.

This terrified social base is perfect for imperialism. Sit in your house, isolated from society with 8 cats and “wait for the tides to engulf the world”.

They have allied with coal against nuclear energy. And then nuclear against coal energy. Nuclear Fusion is the Holy Grail of energy. Similar to Nuclear Fission except it is the fusing of 2 atoms together which burn against each other endlessly. Nuclear Fusion would be a breakthrough of the century for humanity. An endless supply of abundant energy with almost zero waste. No wonder Greens complained about it for “fear of what humans might do”.

These middle class walking rubbish-bags are completely bourgeois in outlook. Divorced from productive labour they are involved in unproductive labour leading to their deadening, contemptible view of humanity. The productive labour they live off usually isn’t even occurring in their country anymore. Handsomly paid off for doing the excel equivalent of digging a hole and filling it in all day and able to sit happily scoffing up tugboats filled with Chinese goods. Then making sure production is placed somewhere else rather than Britain because of fear of their own working class. Idiotic windmills are built in places like Ferndale that used to have thriving coal mining communities as the victory of finance capital over the working class. You will have poor forms of energy whilst you’re on the dole.

Contemptibly, they think they can control the working class: tell them how to eat, how to live, where they can go, who they can see. If they could get away with they’d put sterilising agents in our water supplies like the Rockefeller Funded-Population Council recommended in the notorious “Jaffe Memo”. They’d bring back gas chambers for “useless eaters” if they thought they could get away with it again. They demand “forced abortions”. They’d return malaria on populations that killed at least 50 million, mostly women and children, like the liar and crank and “Mother of the Environmental movement” did, Rachel Carson, for 50 years before the World Health Organisation (itself setup and funded by the Rockefellers) returned to DDT spraying in 2006.

Canada’s euthanisa program is already killing predominantly poor and disabled people – a program ushered in by “enlightened liberals”. Eugenicists have targetted many different groups at different times in history. At differing times they have been black, of “low intelligence”, disabled, jewish etc.

The common denominator between them was that they were poor.

As footsoldiers of capitalist-imperialism they push degrowth on the population to ensure the general maintenance of imperialism. To ensure this declining, stagnant mode of production cannot be overturned by victorious socialism.

The social engineers consider this a bonus side effect though. The Jaffe Memo, for instance, wanted to push “Chronic depression” on the population, alongside it’s demands for compulsory abortion and compulsory sterilisation. What better way to chornically depress everyone than to declare that the world is going to end in ten years? (every ten years, of course).

This ideology is a cult of death and has been setup by institutions strategically to advance the 20th and 21st centuries most premier imperialist-eugenicists and monarchists.

As part of sentencing for anyone partaking in this cult they should be offered a handgun to “reduce their carbon footprint” instead of demanding population controls of everyone else. Instead of assuming they can decide whether “life is unworthy of life”.

Those refusing to reduce their “carbon footprint” should be sentenced to a life of net-zero where they can scrabble about in the dirt and live “in harmony with nature” and drink “natural” diseased quality water that has their guts wrenching in half for most of the day. Or suffer the “natural” effects of malaria without pesticide spraying. Or “natural” organic farming that produces poor amounts of crops and leads to the collapse of entire countries such as Sri Lanka. Or an entirely green grid that cuts out when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow (or blows too fast!)

The sentencing should include no chance of parole.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *