{"id":810,"date":"2024-04-07T14:42:14","date_gmt":"2024-04-07T14:42:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/diplomaticpost.co.uk\/?p=810"},"modified":"2025-12-09T15:38:50","modified_gmt":"2025-12-09T15:38:50","slug":"clear-cutting-pristine-ancient-forests-to-burn-as-biomass-an-energy-policy-yes-but-for-which-class","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.diplomaticpost.co.uk\/index.php\/2024\/04\/07\/clear-cutting-pristine-ancient-forests-to-burn-as-biomass-an-energy-policy-yes-but-for-which-class\/","title":{"rendered":"The Scientific Killers Vol II: Depopulation, Genocide and The Black Hand Of Malthus. An Energy Policy, Yes, But For Which Class?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A Green Accounting Trick Makes Burning Pristine Forests Classed As \u201cClean Energy\u201d Despite Being Dirtier Than Coal<\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

This essay attempts to show how \u201cgreen\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As \u201cgreen\u201d 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 \u201cgreen\u201d energy. Wherever green energy is added it leads to an unstable energy grid and exorbitant costs for the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That \u201cgreen energy\u201d 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 \u201cpollutant\u201d is a deliberate form of soft-eugenics. That Deutsche bank now openly talks about an \u201ceco-dictatorship\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That the main movers and shakers behind this movement are not \u201cyoung lefties gluing themselves to the road\u201d 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 \u201cdegrowth\u201d and depopulation can be best described as fascism. That the working class instinctively smell a rat when it comes to \u201cclimate change\u201d and overwhelmingly reject it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Converting Coal Power Plants Into Wood-Power Plants And Burning Pristine Forests Is \u201cGreen\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cburning 6.4 million tonnes of wood. In context, it is the equivalent of 27 million trees.\u201d(Telegraph, Why Britain is burning North American forests to keep the lights on<\/a>, 1 Mar 2024)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The same is happening across Europe<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cForests 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.\u201d (New york Times, Europe Is Sacrificing Its Ancient Forests for Energy<\/a>, 7 Sep 2022)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Britain \u2018celebrated\u2019 it\u2019s \u201cFirst Coal Free Day\u201d the BBC \u201cexplained\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

<\/a>\u201cWind, biomass, and imported energy were also used.\u201d(BBC, First coal-free day in Britain since 1880s, 22 Apr 2017)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Most people would be unaware that \u201cBiomass\u201d is mostly wood, alongside agricultural crops and waste, human sewage and animal manure. In reality though, it\u2019s wood.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chief executive of Drax states in glowing terms<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWe remain the single-largest provider of renewable power by output in the UK,\u201d he told investors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe 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.\u201d (ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cdispatchable\u201d 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 \u201cnet-zero\u201d classifies pristine Ancient forests being clear cut as \u201crenewable\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201crenewable\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 2022 panorama investigation found these forests weren\u2019t new ones, but primary forests<\/em>. Forests that had been untouched by humans that had taken thousands of years to develop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cDrax runs Britain’s biggest power station, which burns millions of tonnes of imported wood pellets – which is classed as renewable energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The BBC has discovered some of the wood comes from primary forests in Canada.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPanorama 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ecologist Michelle Connolly told Panorama the company was destroying forests that had taken thousands of years to develop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>“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.\u201d ( BBC, Drax: UK power station owner cuts down primary forests in Canada<\/a>, 3 Oct 2022)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> How Green Is Burning \u201cBiomass\u201d aka Wood?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Not very<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBurning wood produces more greenhouse gases than burning coal.\u201d (ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

and<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cPrimary 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.\u201d(ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

David John Douglass, a former National Union of Mineworkers branch secretary, explains this madhouse in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cDrax, Europe’s biggest coal power station, which at times supplies the bulk of Britain\u2019s 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 \u2018green\u2019 love the earth, hippy policies, which disguise a harsh, unnecessarily cruel, and often lethal policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“The wood chip \u201cgreen solution\u201d 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 \u2018green\u2019 subsidy to the clean coal system the Government instead pays $450M or \u00a31.23M every day to burn the biofuel, despite it being 12% MORE polluting than coal through their normal coal power station.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c7.5 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cDrax consumed one third of all globally traded wood pellets and more than all the wood \u2018produced\u2019 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 \u2018dirty\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cFor Drax the logic is easy \u2013 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.\u201d\u201d (David John Douglass, Coal, Climate Change and the Complete Destruction of the British Coal Industry, p98)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Not content with destroying primary forests in Canada and USA, Drax also contributes to<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIncreasing 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\u2026 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\u2026 many logging restrictions that previously protected Estonia\u2019s Natura 2000 sites have been eased, meaning \u2018clear cuts\u2019 are now allowed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cDrax 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 \u00a31 billion in subsidies.\u201d (ibid, p101)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

With \u201cbiofuels\u201d 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<\/a>, 20 Sep 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThis is green political policy in action. Destroy the forests and wildlife in another country for the sake of feeling good at home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cGreen activists used to demonstrate against the Drax power station burning coal. It was Europe\u2019s single largest carbon dioxide emitter. The company now boasts of it\u2019s \u201cenvironmental leadership position\u201d and states that it is the biggest \u201crenewable\u201d energy plant in the world. Demonstrations by green activists have ceased.\u201d (Ian Plimer, Green Murder, p268)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Drax now puts out more co2 than when it was burning coal. Very strange that green protests would stop.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Our Saviour Who Art On Earth: Windmills and Solar Panels<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Talking to the average greenie (who\u2019s movement sabotaged nuclear power for decades) will tell you our saviour is to be found in Windmills and solar panels. They insist we must \u201clook forward\u201d to \u201cnew technologies\u201d. So they offer us a technology from the 18th<\/sup> century when windmills were in vogue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em>), 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cPer 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.\u201d (Imperial Engineer, Issue 39 p14<\/a>, Autumn 2023)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This dash for \u201cgreen\u201d 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\u2019t mind other people\u2019s children getting into mines. As long as they don\u2019t have to deal with a militant working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cTo actually have the \u2018left\u2019 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\u2019s obscene\u2026 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.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cYou don\u2019t need Tories when you got Communists opposing coal mines.\u201d(David John Douglas, Interview<\/a>, Feb 5 2024)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The opposition to this mine didn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s minerals would be consumed. (ibid)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When companies and landowners aren\u2019t clearing pristine forests to burn ancient trees for power consumption… they\u2019re felling them to put wind turbines on. (The Scotsman, Caledonian Forest explained: Exploring Scotland\u2019s forestry heritage after news of 15.7 million trees cut for wind farms<\/a>, 21 Aug 2023) (Daily Express, Fury in Germany as 120k trees in fairytale forest felled to make way for wind farm<\/a>, 8 Mar 2024)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To accommodate a 2000MW coal, gas or nuclear plant a maximum of 120 hectares is required.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>, 1 April 2021)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

370 times more electricity per unit area than Sunport Delfzijl solar park.(Plimer p368)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Britain on 13th<\/sup> January 2021 wind died. Most of Britains wind turbines stopped. Prices rocketed from \u00a340 per mWh to over \u00a3100 per Mwh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

14th<\/sup> Jan 2021 wind was even lower. Prices to balance this \u201cenergy\u201d rose again reaching a peak \u00a31400 per Mwh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

15 Jan 2021 that figure rose to a staggering \u00a34000 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<\/a>, Jan 15 2021)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This cost is passed onto the most vulnerable of society whilst the rich couldn\u2019t care less what price electricity goes to. The working class are then forced to choose between eating and heating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When wind energy hasn\u2019t stopped because there\u2019s no wind (or because there\u2019s too much wind, they shut off at 70kmph) they are busy poisoning our environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wind blades leech bisphenol A, a chemical so toxic it\u2019s 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\u2019ve shut them down and fined them into bankruptcy.(Plimer p375)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019ve Heard About Solar Is Wrong<\/a>, 22 June 2021)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They\u2019re simply thrown into a landfill leeching this toxic waste back into the community if they even last their life expectancy. That\u2019s if they\u2019re not destroyed in a hailstorm before. (Newsweek, Thousands of Solar Panels in Texas Destroyed by Hailstorm<\/a>, Mar 26 2024)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greens are unconcerned though as when solar panels are dumped after their life expectancy they ship them to Africa. It\u2019s then African rubbish-pickers who are poisoned by this toxic legacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Green Transition Is Impossible<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s more due to the erratic nature of \u201cgreen energy\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSo how much would batteries cost? Using the most optimistic 400 watt hours requirement \u2014 something a real engineer would never do \u2014 and assuming installation is free \u2014 another thing a real engineer would never do \u2014 one might look in Tesla’s catalogue and discover the price is $0.543 per watt hour \u2014 before installation \u2014 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 \u00d7 400 \u00d7 0.543 \/ 10, the answer is $37 trillion, or about twice total USA 2020 GDP, every year, for batteries alone.\u201d(Van Snyder, The Great Green Energy Transition Is Impossible<\/a>, 08 Jan 2023)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Green Activists point to Germany explaining what a success Germany is. Whilst German is hacking down \u201cFairy Tale forests\u201d to put windmills on. (Express, Fury in Germany as 120k trees in fairytale forest felled to make way for wind farm, Mar 8, 2024)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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.(\u201c<\/em>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.\u201d<\/em>, Linneman, T & Vallana, G S 2017, Windenergie in Deutschland und Europa. VGB PowerTech, p94)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>, 2nd March 2023)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This subsidised energy in Germany has reached a massive 30 billion euros annually \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the so-called \u201cgreen transition\u201d is impossible, why is it being championed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That nagging question returns: it\u2019s not really about the climate, is it?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> A Brief History Of The Green Movement: Eugenics, Transhumanism and Malthusianism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cenvironmental\u201d movement was never a grass roots movement but conducted and shilled for by a few hundred rich people, who\u2019s wealth is outside of most people\u2019s imaginations. A movement that is neither \u201cprogressive\u201d nor \u201cleft-wing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cracial hygiene laws\u201d.(Edwin Black, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics<\/a>, Sept 2003)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

\n

\u201cAfter 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\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

…<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cConservation 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\u201342 and was chairman of both the British Eugenics Society and the British Humanist Society. In 1957 he coined the term \u201ctranshumanism.\u201d Huxley\u2019s advocacy of internationalism, eugenics, population control, and evolutionary humanism (a secular humanist religion) coincided with the goals of the Rockefeller family and Conservation Foundation.\u201d(Jordan Nordangard, Rockefellers: Controlling The Game, Chap 2)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The eugenicists retained their bourgeois elitist outlook at controlling population growth or deciding who \u201cbreeds\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn 1952, the Conference on Population Problem was held, at the initiative of John D. Rockefeller III\u2026 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\u2019s 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\u2026 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\u2019s cousin Fairfield Osborn from Conservation Foundation was also a member of the Population Council. \u2026we 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.\u201d (ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201canother mouth to feed\u201d as shown in Julian Simones Ultimate Resource 2\u2026 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This environment created the concepts of \u201cLimits to Growth\u201d (eventually becoming a book by the imperialist outfit Club of Rome) that the Earth was a \u201clifeboat\u201d and \u201chard decisions needed to be made before hitting those \u2018limit\u2019s\u2019\u201d. Limits to Growth would be the best selling environmental book in history. Pushed by the cosmopolitan-imperialist outfit the Club of Rome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBut 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.\u201d(Juliane Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p96)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Today\u2019s climate hysterics insist they need to \u201cawaken\u201d public concern. Fool me once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This insistence on \u201cLimits\u201d never really went away and would morph into \u201cpeak oil\u201d (again, that we had reached \u201cpeak oil\u201d 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.<\/strong>\u201d(Alexander King, The First Global Revolution: A Report By The Club Of Rome, 1991, p115)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This excerpt shows the incestuous relationship and revolving door of the same people in different foundations and organisations in how \u201cenvironmentalism\u201d was built up<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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\u2019s and had been a board member of Rockefeller Foundation 1971\u2013 76, with later skeptic Frederick Seitz). Strong\u2019s conference advisor was Nelson Rockefellers\u2019s 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 Ren\u00e9 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.\u201d (Nordangard, p124)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cHomo-Deus\u201d (Latin for \u201cMan-God\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To put it bluntly they already consider homo-sapiens a \u201cdead-end\u201d. Transhumanism marries perfectly to the imperialist-bourgeois view of Malthusianism, eugenics and \u201csustainable development goals\u201d…ie Economic degrowth and the hampering of forces of production. It supposes an Ayn Randian elite class rising above the \u2018revolting\u2019 masses who become not just a \u2018superior\u2019 class but superior beings.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cFor the first time, transhumanist ideas were introduced, presenting the vision of a technologically upgraded human with a brain connected to a computer (“Symbionic Minds\u201d). 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, Popul\u00e4r 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\u2019s 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 \u201ca common future\u201d for humanity.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Maurice Strong, the \u201coil-man\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reader can assess for themselves whether the recent transgender craze was a grassroots movement based in real people\u2019s 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\u2019s transhumanist<\/em> 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 <\/em>if a human is capable of merging with machines<\/em>. That topic is beyond the scope of this article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Surely The Greenies Would Celebrate An Unlimited, Clean Energy Source?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s even released. Todays prominent greens, like George Monbiot, are Nuclear enthusiasts against coal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201conly 20 years away\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s released anyway!).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did environmentalists say to the possible onset of Nuclear Fusion?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

And even if it were, given society\u2019s dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is \u201clike giving a machine gun to an idiot child,\u201d Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich says.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Laments Washington-based author-activist Jeremy Rifkin, \u201cIt\u2019s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet\u2019s resources, to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste.(LA Times, Fear of Fusion: What if It Works?<\/a>, 19 April 1989)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

A mere technological change in fuel sources also does nothing to change man\u2019s attitude toward nature\u2013what UC Berkeley physicist John Holdren calls the \u201cpave the planet and paint it green\u201d mentality.(ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cFusion energy is an expedient short-lived diversion to the real problem,\u201d Rifkin says. \u201cIt gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth <\/strong>and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.\u201d(ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Ehrlich, having failed his predictions in Population bomb is here again insisting in 1989 that the \u201cworld will have long succumbed to over-population, famine and global warming\u201d within 20 years, 2009. Rifkin repeats the debunked insistence that there are \u201climits to growth\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond that what more is to be said of these petite-bourgeois \u2018intellectuals\u2019?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Margaret Thatcher Creates The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When anyone hears the \u201cIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cRather, <\/em>the prime movers behind the Global Warming scare<\/strong> were a coterie of centre-right politicians such as: <\/em>German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, US President George Bush Sr., Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney<\/strong> and above all others, Britain\u2019s <\/em>Margaret Thatcher<\/strong>.\u201d <\/em>(William Walter Kay, <\/em>The Prime Movers behind the Global Warming Scare: Margaret Thatcher and the Rise of the Climate Ruse<\/a>, <\/em>July 26 2022)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Thatcher\u2019s support led to the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation co-launched the <\/em>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in November 1988.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn a 1989 BBC special (The Greening of Mrs. Thatcher<\/em>) Thatcher named protecting Earth\u2019s climate as her top priority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Thatcher\u2019s keynote address to the Conservative Party\u2019s 1989 Conference, she bragged about her global climate leadership; especially of her having laid the groundwork for a UN climate framework.\u201d(Ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sir Crispin Tickell, one of the <\/em>Thatcherite <\/em>strategists to destroy the NUM, began to study the climate <\/em>as a promising anti-coal pretext<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn the 1970s, British Foreign Office mandarin, Sir Crispin Tickell, took sabbatical to study climatology at Harvard and to write <\/em>Climate Change and World Affairs<\/em> \u2013 on the perils of <\/em>global cooling<\/em>. At the outset of the 1984 Miners\u2019 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.\u201d <\/em>(<\/em>ibid<\/em>)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Tickell was up to his neck in Rockefeller and Kissinger global outfits and <\/em>a <\/em>staunch Malthusian.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Like Keir Starmer <\/em>and Jeffrey Epstein<\/em>, <\/em>Tickell<\/em> was a member of the <\/em>(David Rockefeller and <\/em>Z<\/em>bigniew <\/em>B<\/em>rzezinski founded) <\/em>Tri-Lateral commission: who wrote a paper in the 1970s saying <\/em>there <\/em>was \u201ctoo much democracy in the West and it was getting in the way of running global capitalism\u201d. <\/em>(Tri Lateral Commission, The Crisis of Democracy<\/a>, 1975)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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\u20131981 Chef de Cabinet to British Roy Jenkins, chairman of the European Union (and also a member of the Trilateral Commission).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHere, too, Henry Kissinger played a part. During his time as a fellow at the Harvard Center for International Affairs 1975\u201376, Tickell had been commissioned to analyse how climate change could affect world politics. This resulted in the book Climatic Change and World Affairs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAs 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.\u201d (Jacob Nordangard, Rockefellers: Controlling The Game, p48)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The eugenicists would culminate in the notorious National Security Memorandum 200 (NSSM200). Or by it\u2019s nickname, the Kissinger Report<\/em>. In this document the United States would make, as national security, the reduction of world populations and particularly developing populations as \u201cgrowing populations would see them revolt\u201d against US comprador states. (US Government, NSSM200<\/a>, 10 Dec 1974)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> The BP, Shell and the Rockefellers Create The \u201cClimate Research Unit\u201d\u2026 Of Later Wikileaks ClimateGate 2009 Fame<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cIn 1971, the Climate Research Unit (ed of later \u201cclimategate\u201d 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.\u201d (Nordangard p24)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of their emails got leaked to WikiLeaks. They are shown ignoring weather stations \u201ctoo cold\u201d, truncating graphs, bragging about easily attainable grants, with-holding data and discussing \u201ctricks\u201d to hide the medieval warm period, when grapes were grown as far north as Scotland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reading mainstream media\u2019s 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<\/a>, Dec 10, 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climategate exposed the Scientists that were handpicked by that imperialist institution, the United Nations, to serve up political tripe for United Nations agendas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reading corrupt mainstream media you wouldn\u2019t even know the \u2018researchers\u2019 were found to have broken the law from hiding data from the public.(Nature, Climate row university \u2018broke law on information disclosures\u2019, 28 Jan 2010)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or that Phil Jones of the CRU was forced to admit he\u2019d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not deterred by facts, truth or their exposure they got right back at it. Agenda 2021 became Agenda 2030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> The Corrupt IPCC<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

With it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201chockey stick\u201d reappeared after making it\u2019s first appearance in 2001. The AR5 report stated \u201con 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<\/sup> century.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No evidence was given why AR6 reversed this position, disappearing the medieval warm period for a 2nd<\/sup> time this century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is it any wonder then that Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, <\/strong>called the IPCC \u201cfundamentally corrupt\u201d and demanded it\u2019s abolition?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cOver 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.\u201d(Dr Vincent Gray,<\/strong> SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC<\/a>, 9 Mar 2008)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The IPCC is not a partisan institution. It is a corrupt organisation serving up political lines for a parasitic elite\u2019s plan for mass-impoverisation of the working class under the eugenics \u201clifeboat\u201d politics.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> \u201cThe End Is Nigh\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Hysterical shrieking has been popular for a long time. Green predictions by (either due to outright malicious actors who have corrupted institutions) or \u201cwell-meaning\u201d 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 \u201cchronic depression\u201d on the population as a form to reduce the birth-rate, as discussed in the Jaffe Memo<\/a> by the Population Council.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201crooftop of the world\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s and earthquakes still occur regularly worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Catastrophic floods were predicted in 1523.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

20,000 Londoners fled for the hills preferring to die on the hills than in their homes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It rained gently. Hundreds died in a stampede and the Count was stoned to death.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The prolific amounts of whining that the \u201cend is nigh\u201d from Green Activists shouldn\u2019t 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 \u201ccarbon market\u201d and live even more lavishly and decadent as they did before.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thomas Huxley advocated ethical evolution. Fairfield Osborn revived Malthusianism, a prominent eugenics advocate and advocated \u201cbreeding desireable hereditary traits\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eugenics research was funded by Carnegie institution and Rockefeller Foundation. Both of whom now fund climate \u201cresearch\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paul Erhlich became a sensation in the 1960s and 1970s with his \u201cThe Population Bomb\u201d in which he advocated a chilling set of eugenics including putting sterilising agents in the water supply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Early editions of the book started with<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d (Paul Erhlich, The Population Bomb, 1968)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Legislation for abortion and sex education should be expanded, according to Erhlich.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Population Bomb<\/em> was written at the suggestion of David Brower. The executive director of the Sierra Club, an environmental organisation founded in 1892, by bourgeois parasites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cSome 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.” […]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt’s hard to think of anything that will pop up and save us. I hope something will but it really will be a miracle.”\u201dPaul Ehrlich (2012) <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Not totally surprising considering in Population Bomb he compared humans to cancer<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

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… <\/em>– (Paul Ehrlich, ‘The Population Bomb’ (Ballantine Books 1968) pg. xi, pg. 166 )<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reference to nations like Bangladesh, bourgeois writers were advocating \u201cletting whole countries go down the drain\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cWhen 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.\u201d (Julian Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p122)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

These bourgeois pessimists were wrong and forced to admit as much when they returned in 1980<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not deterred by their terrible predictions, followers of Malthus get right back on the saddle. Here is Erhlich in 2012<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe optimum population of Earth \u2013 enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone \u2013 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.\u201d(Guardian, Cut world population and redistribute resources<\/a>, expert urges, 26 Apr 2012)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 <\/em>got<\/em> the timing wrong.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dennis Meadows solution is to get the world back down to one billion people and he hopes it can be done \u201cin a relatively equal way\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cBut 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\u201d \u2013 (Dennis Meadows<\/a>, Author of Limits To Growth)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What more needs to be said about these bourgeois fascist criminals who wrote the \u201cmost sold environmental book\u201d ever?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> British Green Party Founded. Influenced By Dennis Meadows <\/em>Limits To Growth<\/em> \u2013 \u201cThe Real Enemy Is \u201cEconomic Growth And Increase In Population\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The People Party\u2019s Manifesto for Survival demanded population controls after believing the contrived, fake computer models in Limits to Growth, because \u201cBritain can only sustain 30 million people\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d(PEOPLE, Manifesto For Survival<\/a>, 1974)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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. \u201cNay, they are reactionaries because they want to turn back the wheel of time\u201d (Marx, Communist Manifesto)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThere will be considerable scope for initiative and enterprise, but for the \u2018little\u2019 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.\u201d(Ibid p2)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This petite-bourgeois mindset is explicitly stated identifying economic growth<\/em> itself as the enemy, alongside humanit<\/em>y.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cPEOPLE accepts the growing body of scientific evidence that the twin evils are economic growth and continued increase in population<\/strong>\u201d (ibid p1)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

So according to the greens so far we should abandon economic growth entirely and work toward massive depopulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> The British Royal Family, The Anglican Church, Catholic Church And Their Push For \u201cGreen\u201d Hegemony<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” – <\/strong>Prince Philip<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A biography of Prince Phillip details<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

<\/a><\/a>“.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)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cNo 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.”\u201d(William Walter Kay, The English Environmental Elite, Global Warming, and The Anglican Church<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Prince Phillip was successful in uniting the worlds religions behind green quackery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn 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.\u201d(ibid)
The Church of England is not separate from the monarchy, the ruling monarch being the \u201cDefender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England\u201d. The Head of State is also the Head of the COE. It\u2019s entirely unsurprising then that the COE is pushing green politics too.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAn 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.”

\u201cThe “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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe 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..\u201d(ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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><\/em>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Examined in detail by Ian Plimer in Heaven and Hell: The Pope Condemns the Poor To Eternal Poverty<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> The Mother Of The Environmental Movement, Pathological Liar and Killer of Millions, Rachel Carson<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a>. (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 9, Number 3, Fall 2004).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pathological liar Rachel Carson would be exposed eventually but not before an enormous pound of flesh was exacted from humanity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cDDT 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.\u201d(WSJ, DDT Hysteria Has Killed Millions of People<\/a>, 19 Nov 2005)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Crichton expressed this outrage succinctly enough<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cI 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.\u201d(Michael Crichton, Crichton: Environmentalism is a religion<\/a>, 15 Sept 2003)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

What more is there to say? Another \u201cwin\u201d for Green hysteria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Todays greens defend Carson with revolting historical revisionism and gaslighting like the below<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cRachel 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<\/em>, 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 \u201cnecessary\u201d.(New Scientist, Silent Spring<\/em> didn’t condemn millions to death<\/a>, 6 September 2012)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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<\/em> ban of DDT in 1972.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Scientist is likely right though: Silent Spring probably didn\u2019t condemn millions to death. The plan to ban DDT probably would\u2019ve happened one way or the other. The American imperialists just used Carson\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientists did speak out at the time but were silenced by liberal media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

<\/a>\u201cThomas Jukes\u2014a British-American biologist who had been a professor of biophysics at the University of California\u2014fought tirelessly against Carson. However, despite these interventions, the liberal establishment quickly moved to silence and ostracize any serious opposition to Carson.\u201d(Janet G West, Rachel Carson: Whore of Babylon<\/a>, 30 Nov 2023)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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

<\/a> A Little Known Joyce Foundation Lawyer\u2026 Barack Obama\u2026 Drafts The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Rights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The idea of Greenhouse Gas Emission rights was not an intergovernmental initiative but the fruit of the Joyce Foundation. Each state drafts it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe 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.\u201d(Thierry Meyssan of Voltaire Net, Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world<\/a>., 7 June 2023)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Obama and Al Gore have both bought ocean front properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This doesn\u2019t stop Barack Obama from telling Africans they can\u2019t have fridges or cars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cUltimately, 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.\u201d(Barack Obama, Town Hall event in South Africa<\/a>, 2013)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Whilst World Economic Forum parasite and US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, states that destroying agricultural production needs to be done\u2026 In order to save people from starvation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cAgriculture contributes about 33% of all the emissions of the world \u2026 And we can\u2019t get to net zero \u2013 we don\u2019t get this job done \u2013 unless agriculture is front and centre as part of the solution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c[A warmer climate] could result in an additional 600 million people not getting enough to eat and you just can\u2019t continue to both warm the planet while also expecting to feed. It doesn\u2019t work\u201d(John Kerry<\/a>, 11 May 2023)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019t 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<\/a>, March 24, 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Or whether the United States Foreign Policy is following Paul Erhlichs tips on depopulation: \u201cslow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> Co2 Emission Rights: The Carbon Market Worth A Trillion Dollars<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Enron made huge money in the cap and trade markets for sulpher. In the 1990s a lot coal plants didn\u2019t 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 \u201cemissions trading\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However this left the financial markets without a commodity like sulpher to trade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> The Soviet Fight With the IPCC \u2013 \u201cCo2 Is Beneficial To Humanity\u201d<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Scientist who coined the term \u201cgreenhouse effect\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

<\/a>“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\u2019 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 \u2018fertilizer effect\u2019 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.”<\/strong>( Jonathan Oldfield, Imagining climates past, present and future: Soviet contributions to the science of anthropogenic climate change<\/a>, 1953\u20131991, April 2018)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Budyko And The Climate Optimum <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In 1989 the Climate movement did not have it’s complete totalitarian grip on society. The roots of this poisonous malthusian ideology had already been planted with Maurice Strongs Earthday and were getting stronger under the Thatcher regime, who were using the climate movement to destroy the coal industry. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that in the New Scientist magazine they penned an article titled Soviet climatologist predicts greenhouse ‘paradise<\/span>‘ <\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

THE MAN who first predicted that the greenhouse effect could warm our planet in the coming decades now says that the warming is beneficial and should be encouraged. He envisages cattle grazing in what is now the Sahara desert and crops growing in arid parts of central Asia.(New Scientist, Soviet climatologist predicts greenhouse ‘paradise’<\/a>, 26 August 1989)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Noting he was the first scientist to predict the greenhouse effect. New Scientist also referred to the current warming as “Climate Optimum”. A reflection that warmer periods have always benefited humanity whilst explicitly dismissing “climate catastrophe”. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In an interview for Climate and Man, a television programme that is to be broadcast this Sunday in Britain, Budyko says: \u2018Climate catastrophe is not probable for the future because the main idea about such a catastrophe is connected with the idea of aridisation of continents. The great majority of continents will be in a better condition of moisture.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He predicts that an initial drying in the American Midwest will be replaced by the middle of the next century, as warming continues, by wetter conditions. \u2018Deserts should disappear in the future,\u2019 he says. \u2018In warm epochs there was no desert.\u2019 Ten million years ago, before the start of the ice ages and before the emergence of human beings, Africa was covered by forests. Now, says Budyko, \u2018paradise can return\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Global warming is a good thing,\u2019 he says. \u2018It will increase harvests everywhere.\u2019 The Soviet Union and Canada will flourish most, he says. \u2018These two countries have enormous areas which are very difficult for productive agriculture because they are too cold.\u2019 English people are, he says, \u2018probably are very lucky. England is one of probably a very limited number of countries in which no considerable climatic change will take place.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Budyko was one of the first scientists to warn about the greenhouse effect more than 20 years ago. \u2018At the very beginning of this problem, I think I was in a minority of one . . . nobody believed in such a possibility,\u2019 he says. \u2018It contradicted many, let us not say scientific facts, but scientific superstitions. The opposition was enormous. If I was not bold enough to ignore this opposition, quite possibly scientific development would not be exactly the same as we have now.\u2019 Now, he says, \u2018my position is rather conservative\u2019.(ibid)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Soviets (Budyko’s) Accurate Prediction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a> The Chinese View<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s hand the energy security of those countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s more imperialist nations have been pushing themselves to war with China. Laying the groundwork with the completely fake and US state department concocted \u201cUyghur genocide\u201d and it\u2019s encirclement of China with US bases. It\u2019s flooding of guns and weapons across the Afghan border during the Afghan war to terrorist groups in Xinjiang like East Turkestan Islamic Movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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 \u201cgreen\u201d 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let <\/em>those<\/em> dogs bark, the caravan will move on.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most people in NATO countries wouldn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if you collapse their energy grid they\u2019ll be open to demagogues and imperialists pointing the fingers at China for imagined grievances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take Zhang Meifang in Nov 17 in a now deleted tweet<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cThere 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\u201d (Zhang Meifang in Belfast Telegraph, NI\u2019s Chinese diplomat: no evidence of carbon dioxide link to global warming<\/a>, Nov 17 2023)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Zhang Meifang quickly deleted her tweet due to the backlash of (predominantly) infantile American Communists on twitter who all insisted \u201cscience was done by consensus\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an interview from 2010 the Climate Scientist Ding Zhongli (which routinely goes viral on Chinese social media), when discussing the Copenhagen agreements says \u201cin a nutshell this is about energy and development issues\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When asked what this means for ordinary citizens (in regard to being asked to \u201ccut emissions\u201d by Copenhagen agreement) he states<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIt means the improvement of life and development of the country. Whether your welfare can be increased, whether you have a job or not\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMany people understand it as a scientific conclusion(ed <\/em>Climate science<\/em>). 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.<\/strong> It doesn\u2019t 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<\/strong>. This conclusion becomes popular. After it becomes popular it becomes a value judgement<\/strong>\u201d.(China’s Chief Climate Expert Ding Zhongli Interviewed by Notorious Environmentalist Chai Jing [2010]<\/a>)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\n