The “Church of Climate Change” demands that Western nations impose restrictions on industrial CO2 emissions, encouraging them to squander billions on unreliable “green” technologies and renewable sources of energy.
They continue to ignore the one policy that has significantly increased atmospheric CO2 levels in the last few decades, generating hundreds of millions of metric tons of the stuff annually: mass third-world immigration (see Kolankiewicz and Camarota, 2008).
If the IPCC were objective, it would demand an end to mass immigration instead of more carbon taxes and emissions trading.
Such indifference in the face of the evidence shows that they care more about racially dispossessing whites than they do about “saving the planet.”
So what is the ulterior motive? To further understand what this may be, we must examine the career of Canadian businessman Maurice Strong (1929–2015).
Thanks to his tireless “lobbying behind the scenes,” the U.N. has played a key role in forging a “consensus” on man-made global warming. In a sense, he was the right man at the right time.
Besides his ability to manipulate others, Strong was aided by other factors, such as the collapse of Soviet communism in the early 1990s. This helped pave the way for the emergence of a new leftist orthodoxy: environmentalism.
Strong was an ardent believer in the efficacy of state redistributive policies. In 1976, Strong told Maclean’s magazine: “I am a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.”
Like his socialism, his environmentalism was also pragmatic rather than ideological. Its purpose was to advance his vision of global governance under the aegis of the U.N.
In a 1992 essay, he wrote: “It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
Strong was the most active and influential member of the Brundtland Commission, established by the U.N. General Assembly in 1983. The Commission’s report, Our Common Future, was published in 1987. Strong helped formulate the report’s concept of “sustainable development.”
This was a call for social and economic egalitarianism within a simple Marxist dialectical framework. The antagonism between capitalist and proletarian worker mirrored the antagonism between industrialized and developing nations.
The First World was identified as the primary culprit behind third-world underdevelopment.
Its need for raw materials forced developing countries to over-exploit and deplete their natural resources, leading to more environmental degradation and underdevelopment. The solution is more money to the developing world from rich Western nations.
Strong’s participation in the Brundtland Commission ensured that man-made global warming and socialist redistribution would be incorporated into the report. These would subsequently form the basis of U.N. environmental policy.
This would become so influential that Western governments would try reversing the effects of the Industrial Revolution in their own countries through restrictions on CO2 emissions and increasing dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies.
In 1988, Strong had convinced the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to agree to the formation of an “intergovernmental mechanism” to monitor anthropogenic global warming and suggest policy recommendations for the U.N. and Western governments.
This organization was the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
Through the IPCC and other U.N. bodies, enormous sums of money were transferred from the West to third-world countries.
In 2010, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established; its purpose was to further the U.N. goal of socialist redistribution in the name of sustainable development.
President Barack Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund in 2014, with the fund receiving a total of a $1 billion by 2017.
However, not all Western politicians subscribed to the false humanitarianism of the U.N.’s avowedly socialist redistributive aims.
President Donald Trump promised during his election campaign to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. In his withdrawal speech on June 1, 2017, he criticized the GCF as a “scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States … to developing countries.”
Strong once posed the rhetorical question: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
His advocacy of socialist redistribution reflected an open hostility to a Western industrial society, which had (in his view) impoverished and underdeveloped third-world societies.
“If we don’t change,” he said, “our species will not survive[.] … Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
Why else have so many globalists backed the outsourcing of the West’s manufacturing base to the developing world?
In the Brundtland Report, Western governments were advised to pursue less energy- and capital-intensive productive activities to promote sustainable development.
The result, of course, would be the managed de-industrialization of the Western nations, with the aim of placing them on an equal footing with the developing world.
If social inequality and environmental degradation were the results of industrialization, then de-industrialization would return the West to the way it was before the Industrial Revolution. This was the clandestine purpose of Maurice Strong and the IPCC.
Strong’s wish to dismantle industrial civilization was profoundly anti-Western. As of 2019, China is responsible for over a quarter of all global CO2 emissions, making it the world’s biggest polluter, yet the burden of reducing CO2 is shouldered entirely by the West.
This burden includes payment of carbon taxes, implementation of cap and trade policies, and development of green technologies and renewable sources of energy, all entirely white, Western endeavors.
Not only is the environmental movement anti-capitalist, but as Václav Klaus (2008) explains, it is profoundly misanthropic and life-denying:
If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology. It sees the fundamental cause of the world’s problems in the very expansion of homo sapiens.
Humans have surpassed the original scope of nature through the development of their intellect and their ability to reshape nature and make use of it.
Not coincidentally, many environmentalists refuse to place human beings at the center of their attention and thinking.
Research and development is necessarily energy- and capital-intensive; if fossil fuel consumption is drastically reduced by limiting CO2 emissions and encouraging dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies, how will man ever progress, scientifically and technologically, as a species?
Environmental ideology demands the end of progress in the name of ecological sustainability. If practiced on a large scale, it will lead to the abolition of Western civilization.
Environmentalists regard humans as subordinate to nature, investing the natural world with greater moral worth. If taken to its logical conclusion, mass extinction of the human species would be the best possible outcome for the planet.
At its core, environmentalism is a nihilist belief system that rejects humanity in favor of nature. It is dangerous because it threatens the character of Western civilization, suppressing all deviation from leftist orthodoxy.
By limiting the sphere of discourse through political correctness, environmentalists create an atmosphere of intimidation where they can indulge their hatred of Western civilization under the guise of “saving the planet.”
What environmentalists fail to understand is that man belongs to nature. His impact on the environment is not at all different from the impact of other endogenous processes.
In nature, these are overcome through adaptation and divergence, not optimal or steady-state equilibrium. This is why environmentalist aims are naïvely utopian.
If vast geological timescales reveal wide divergences in global temperatures, sea levels, atmospheric CO2, etc., then believing that one can turn the “climate knob” back to some ideal temperature through “sustainable development” is laughable.
Man-made global warming is a non-issue. Not only has it never been scientifically proven, but its purpose is to manipulate the masses, using alarmist rhetoric, into abandoning Western industrial society by fanning mass hysteria to a fever pitch.
Once this was done, getting the electorate on board with curtailing Western scientific and technological development would be a cakewalk.
As an ideology, environmentalism is just black-and-white moralizing within a simple Marxist dialectical framework.
The truth is that leftists have no interest in the environment; if they did, they would be neo-Malthusian advocates of zero population growth in places like Africa and the Middle East.
Read more at American Thinker
Strong was just another Globalists and New World Order advocate one of those nuts running loose
Strong owes much of his success in his desire for a New World Order by a simple manipulatio of one word in the English lnguage = SUSTAINABLE.
Until 1972, the word ‘sustainability’ had the following meaning:
SUSTAINABILITY (noun): The quality of being sustainable.
SUSTAINABLE (adjective): a) rare, supportable, bearable
b) able to be upheld or defended
c) able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.
You’ll notice that nowhere in that dictionary definition of the word is there any mention of ecology or the environment. That’s because until 1972 the word had nothing to do with either. What happened in 1972? It’s a convoluted story.
Secretary-General of the UN U Thant invited Maurice Strong to be the secretary-general of a new UN Conference on the Human Environment to be held in 1972 in Stockholm under the chairmanship of the prime minister of Norway, Geo Harlem Brundtland. The purpose of the conference was to consider the future of the environment into the twenty-first century. For the conference to be a success with international impact and not just a talking shop, Strong realised that the attendees at the conference would need to include a significant number of the underdeveloped countries. The problem was that most of those countries viewed pollution and environmental concerns as a fad of developed countries, a problem for the rich. Their main concerns were with poverty and underdevelopment, not the environment.
Later, writing in his 2000 book ‘Where on Earth Are We Going?’ Strong admits:
“If I was [sic] to get anywhere, I’d have to radically re-make the agenda……I called the members [of the organising committee] together for a special meeting. I laid out for them my revised agenda. The key concept called for a redefinition of the concept of environment to link it directly to the economic development process and the concerns of the developing countries. The basic thesis, I said, is simple: environmental and economic priorities are intrinsically two sides of the same coin. The key was to insist that the needs of the developing countries would best be met by treating the environment as an integral part of development”.
The Stockholm conference planners went on to redefine sustainability as ‘sustainable development’. The word ‘sustainable’ had now gained a new meaning. Because from then on it would be repeated again and again, the new definition entered common parlance and was soon incorporated into dictionaries. In dictionaries today, in addition to the original meaning, sustainability is also:
‘Avoidance of the depletion of natural resources to maintain an ecological balance.’
Strong’s redefinition was a great success. The Stockholm conference (or the Brundtland conference as it became known) attracted representatives from 176 countries. The conference lasted twelve days and the participants agreed on an action plan for nations which included no less than 109 recommendations, 28 of which linked the environment and development.
From the point of view of the developing nations, the most significant of those recommendations were:
• No 8 “Development is needed to improve the environment”
• No 9 “Developing countries therefore need assistance”
• No 12 “Developing countries need money to develop environmental safeguards”.
Although the word ‘sustainability’ appears only rarely, the recommendations emphasise the need to preserve resources and develop renewables while pursuing development.
Today’s climate hysteria can be traced back to Strong. He has a lot to answer for. Shame he died before the big con was found out.
The contents of this article have been obvious for some time. One dead give away of the motive to force de-industrialization is the environmental left’s adamant opposition to nuclear power. They oppose an energy source that has zero CO2 emissions, the best safety record per unit of energy, and for the most part runs 24/7/365. The goal of the environmental left is to achieve their goals by making energy both rare and expensive. Nuclear energy undermines this goal.
You know its gone religious when you must believe . …must or you are the devil .
Modern language … “denier ” .
Someday people who are not under water are going to ask how millions of people were so gullible as to think humans are going to control the climate via a trace gas who’s very abundance helps green the earth .
What has happened to purveyors of truth … MSM ? Maybe they were always this bad and we just didn’t know it .
At least sports scores are safe for now .
The UN IPCC is a front of a world wide sting operation .
They needed to create a sense of credibility and deniability .
Remember the IPCC likes to say it doesn’t do it’s own research
they just get volunteers to comb through papers that support their business plan .The IPCC constantly needs scary global warming stories , most paid by tax payers .
They don’t do their own research because they would be sued for fraud
but they create the impression it was unbiased and internally generated to help fool the public . Really, the IPCC is like the man behind the curtain in the
Wizard Of Oz . All bluster and bull shit till you really see the little clique pulling the strings of the worlds largest fraud .
Hey Micheal Moore you have seen enough already to know the truth .
A movie on this scam would make the Wolf of Wall Street look like a Disney cartoon . A $trillion dollar scam and Hollywood is tooting its horn cowered
into silence .