Following are excerpts from the 1990 (1993?) report, The Greening – The Lawful Path, by Larry H. Abraham. I have corrected a few typos along the way which were likely the result of reproduction. Lastly, note that i have excluded chapter 9, The Green Investment Bonanza, entirely.
There is a lot i disagree with in this report. The author fails to think outside the mainstream box regarding capitalism and the use of earth’s resources which he lacks an understanding of and compassion for. That said, and as the evidence today clearly dictates, a portion of the eco-movement does indeed have a strong religious component and a disdain for science as the author. Behind this pseudo-green movement are some of the wealthiest and most powerful and narcissistic people on the planet and their goals are very different than those of the duped supporters on the front lines.
The material you are about to read may be Larry’s most important expose yet of the people we call “Insiders.” Senator Steve Symms describes “The Greening” as “stimulating…thought-provoking…must reading.” And he concludes, “The power grab is on.”
Indeed it is. After reading the report that follows, you will have no doubt that “The Greening” revolution is an essential part of Insider plans. Their goal is not to green the earth…but to rule it.
Over the past 30 years I have observed, chronicled, and variously opposed numerous onslaughts which would reduce the sovereignty of the individual and add to or increase government’s power.
Without exception, every one of the projects and programs subjected to this scrutiny was presented to the public as “necessary” or “vital.” Some were even presented as “life-saving” or “life-threatening.” And to be sure, equally present in each “crusade” were two constant elements: (1) a grain of truth about the concern; and (2) a well- organized minority which helped create “the appearance of popular support.”
As Edmund Burke said, “The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.” What was true in 1784 is even more applicable today, given the impact of instantaneous and worldwide multimedia coverage. As it was in Burke’s time, so it is now. The delusions for the “give-up” of liberties always produce the same result: bigger and more powerful government.
In this report I have set out to document, and I believe prove, that in the name of “preserving the environment” or “stopping pollution,” the greatest surrender of liberty in all human history is well under way. It will transfer power and natural resources heretofore undreamed of not to “the people” or “the electorate as a body,” but rather to a “small group of men” or elite Establishment.
No, my concern is how “The Greening” juggernaut is steamrolling all opposition, silencing its critics by a feigned moral and intellectual superiority and, in the process, transferring global wealth and power on an unprecedented scale.
Chapter 1 – The Greening is Born
In the process of this “greening of the world,” incredible sums of money are going to be spent, whole new industries will emerge, and vast new fortunes will be made.
[Note that the author quotes the book, Report from Iron Mountain, extensively throughout this chapter. While the authenticity of the book is debated, having read it i am of the opinion that it matters not if it is an authentic government report because it describes accurately the political condition of the world we live in today. Edward G. Griffon agrees, stating “The important point is that The Report from Iron Mountain, whether written as a think-tank study or a political satire, explains the reality that surrounds us.”.]
“Lasting peace, while not theoretically impossible, is probably unattainable; even if it could be achieved it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of a stable society to achieve it.”
“That is the gist of what they say. Behind their qualified academic language runs this general argument: War fills certain functions essential to the stability of our society; until other ways of filling them are developed, the war system must be maintained — and improved in effectiveness.”
Before moving into a discussion of what could possibly serve as a substitute for the positive aspects of war, Doe writes, “Whether the substitute is ritual in nature or functionally substantive, unless it provides a believable life-and-death threat it will not serve the socially organizing function of war.” [Emphasis added] I urge you to reread and keep that statement etched deeply in your mind as we go forward.
Then in Section 6, “Substitutes for the Functions of War,” Doe, writing for the Special Study Group, goes on to outline the economic necessities which must be applied:
“Economic surrogates for war must meet two principal criteria. They must be ‘wasteful,’ in the common sense of the word, and they must operate outside the normal supply-demand system. A corollary that should be obvious is that the magnitude of the waste must be sufficient to meet the needs of a particular society. An economy as advanced and complex as our own requires the planned average destruction of not less than 10% of gross national product…”
After exploring a whole range of “substitute” possibilities, such as a war on poverty, space research, even “the credibility of an out-of- our-world invasion threat,” the Special Study Group reports and Doe recites.” It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation- and-a-half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing, on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.”
Remember, we are talking about a report circa 1967.
The time frame is now complete, as evidenced by an article in the March 20, 1990, Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The front-page headline says, “Pollution a ‘ticking time bomb,’ conference warned.” Datelined Vancouver, B.C., the lead paragraph read, “Environmental destruction is a ‘ticking time bomb’ that poses a ‘more absolute’ threat to human survival than nuclear annihilation during the Cold War, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland told an international environment conference here.”
The article goes on, “The conference, Globe ’90, was launched yesterday amid warnings that pollution and overpopulation are threats that require resources previously committed to the arms race.”
In the section, “Substitutes for the Functions of War,” they conclude:
“However unlikely some of the possible alternate enemies we have mentioned may seem, we must emphasize that one must be found, of credible quality and magnitude, if a transition to peace is ever to come about without social disintegration.”
Then they say, “It is more probable, in our judgment, that such a threat will have to be invented, rather than developed from unknown conditions.”
It is finally “a generation- and-a-half” later, and the whole world is gearing up for Earth Day 1990. As I write, it is amidst the rising cacophony of what is to come. April 22 is going to be a very big day. My latest tally shows that 107 countries worldwide will be involved in a planet-wide recognition of this Green Gala.
In a front-page feature in the Sunday, January 28, 1990 Seattle Times, reporter Bill Dietrich said, “Environmentalists are hoping history is about to top itself with a[n]…Earth Day celebration…involving more than 100 countries and 100 million people. The goal is to make the ’90s the ‘Decade of the Environment.'”
How does this fit with the Report From Iron Mountain? Just two citations from the same Seattle Times piece make the point:
“Government, business, and consumers have spent up to a trillion dollars, by Department of Commerce count, to clean the environment…the U.S. seems to find three new environmental hazards for each one it conquers.”
So let’s quickly do a recap on the environment and see if it fits the “Substitute for the Function of War” so desperately sought by the Special Study Group in the Report From Iron Mountain:
- We have a “war”
- It involves “everyone — everywhere”
- It’s “urgent”
- It’s already required the spending of “a trillion dollars”
- It’s “international;” and most frightening of all,
- “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
Yes, I think we can say there is a fit here. One that is planned to bridge East and West, communist and capitalist, into a single clean, pure, breathable New World Order.
Chapter 2 – Tell Them What They Want to Hear
Sun Tsu knew, as do his more modern practitioners, that painting false pictures for the purpose of deception is an integral part of the “ultimate weapon.” Believe me, our enemies know all about the strategies of deception. An important new book on this subject has just been released by the brilliant investigative reporter, Edward Jay Epstein. He has even called his book Deception, and it is one that I highly recommend to you. In it he says:
“First, the victim’s leadership has to be in a state of mind to want to accept and act on the disinformation it receives from its own intelligence. This might not happen unless the disinformation fits in with the adversary’s prevailing preconceptions or interest — which is, at least in the case of the United States, not difficult to determine. Angleton [former CIA head of counter-espionage] suggested that Lenin showed he understood this principle when in 1921 he instructed his intelligence chief in crafting disinformation, to ‘Tell them what they want to hear.’
“Second, the victim has to be in the state of mind in which he is so confident of his own intelligence that he is unwilling to entertain evidence, or even theories, that he is or can be duped. This kind of blanket denial amounts to a conceit, which Angleton claimed could be cultivated in an adversary…[to leave] a nation defenseless against deception.”
Here are some further points to keep in mind as we attempt to untangle the deceptions being foisted upon us:
- Dissidents such as the late Andrei Sakharov and Lech Walesa are not really anti-socialist or exponents of competitive capitalism at all. They seek to preserve the current power structure, call it “non- communist,” declare a so-called “market socialism,” and provide a new face. These men are carbon copies of a ploy that was used many years ago, during Lenin’s first glasnost, the New Economic Policy. Then, the so-called opposition was called “The Trust,” and it was later proved to be created and directed by the Party itself.
- The “student revolution” in China started while Gorbachev was visiting Beijing and it was encouraged by the Communist Party leaders themselves. In the process, it identified all the real anti- communists who were promptly marked for extinction.
- All the TV news and newspaper commentaries are using anti-communist rhetoric of the type they would have scorned only a few months earlier. But at no time do they call for breaking diplomatic relations or imposing South African-style economic sanctions on China. Why?
- Did you notice, by the way, that not once in all those thousands of hours ground out by ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN was a truly anti-communist analyst the subject of those in-depth interviews? Nor were any representatives or diplomats from Taiwan interviewed.
- Without a single exception I can think of, every expert interviewed (and sometimes doing the interviewing) was a familiar CFR Trilateral type, such as Henry Kissinger, William Hyland, John Chancellor, Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Orville Schell, Flora Lewis, and Betty Bao Lord (wife of elite Insider Winston Lord, our immediate past ambassador to China).
- In almost every instance, from China to Poland and all stops in between, the news coverage has been written and arranged for Western and especially U.S. audiences, not for domestic consumption.
- Simultaneous to all of the above, the “Green Movement” has taken over the role of radical socialism from Euro-communism and is being pushed by everyone from David Rockefeller to the Red Brigade.
While the world is singing funeral dirges over the grave of communism, the reality is that we are witnessing “The Greening of the Reds.” It’s one of the most brilliant and diabolically cunning gambits of this century.
If it succeeds, you can be sure that the “great merger” will roll merrily along and that we will have taken a giant step towards the ultimate formation of the New World Order.
Chapter 3 – Perception vs. Reality
In the Summer 1988 edition of Foreign Affairs, the quarterly publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (the senior Insider organization in the United States), Henry Kissinger and Cirus Vance Co-authored a lengthy piece for the incoming and yet-to-be-determined president. It was called, “Bipartisan Objectives for American Foreign Policy.”
Within this presumptuous 22-page epistle, Messrs. Kissinger and Vance used the phrase “new realities” three times — without once defining what they mean. Mr. Gorbachev, in the aforementioned UN speech six months after the Kissinger-Vance article, used the phrase “newly emerging realities” — again, without explanation. Now the same phrase appears in the June 1989 meetings of the Socialist International in Stockholm, Sweden.
Since these “wise men” don’t reveal what their “new reality” is based on, let me tell you what it encompasses.
- It means the abandonment of the old face of communism, and the embracing of the Corporate State.
- It means the merging of State Socialism and Corporate Marxism which, in turn, will build a New World Order [their phrase, not mine] of monetary and political establishments.
- It means the transfer of the major world resources to massive eco-holding companies (the working reality of what the architects of the policy call the World Conservation Bank).
All around the world the move is on to transfer the rain forests, the deserts, the jungles, the plains, and even private property to a consortium of foundations, international agencies and councils, all of which are interlocked through directorships and agenda.
In almost every state of America — I can think of no exception — local environmental groups are pushing ahead with their plans to seize ownership of some of the most productive and beautiful areas of our planet. The same thing is happening in other parts of the globe: Africa, South and Central America, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and even Asia. And always and everywhere, there is some local crisis or pending catastrophe to justify their move. In my home state of Washington in the Pacific Northwest, the beneficiary of this concern is the spotted owl. In Montana it is the timber wolf. In Nebraska the whooping crane. In Africa the elephant takes center stage. (In the case of the spotted owl, the leader of the Sierra Club was quoted as saying, “If the spotted owl did not exist, we would find it necessary to genetically engineer one.”)
Standing astride this environmental juggernaut like a colossus is the same group of Insiders who have been playing God with people’s lives since before World War I. Thanks to their “internationalism” and “balance of power” schemes, the 20th Century has proved to be the bloodiest in all human history. Yet these so-called “wise men” finance tyranny, replace governments, elect presidents and prime ministers, and, in general, act as the un-elected rulers for a world gone crazy.
Let me be specific. I am talking about the economic and political cartel represented in Britain by membership in the Royal Institute for International Affairs, in the United States within the Council on Foreign Relations, and internationally in such groups as The Bilderbergers, The Club of Rome, and most recently, The Trilateral Commission. ”
Now I know that to single out these organizations and the men or women who lead them is not viewed as “responsible” in some circles. But where will an examination of reality take us if not there? Are we to believe that all of this “greening” is the result of some overnight worldwide consensus?
As we examine such foundations as the World Wildlife Fund, the Heritage Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the World Wilderness Congress, Conservation International, the Center for Earth Resource Analysis, to name but a few, what do we find? Not so strangely, key members of the Insider institutions cited above are leading or directing every one of them. This doesn’t take into consideration the UN organizations which are, at the very least, co-directed by representatives of Communist members.
In his speech Tolba said, “The Cold War is dwindling…Environment has rocketed to the top of the world political agenda…We need a global partnership — dynamic, innovative and highly interconnected…We have no choice but to curb the wasteful consumption by the rich and lift the status of the poor…More bilateral and multilateral assistance is needed. Much more. We are talking hundreds of billions.”
And then get a load of this as part of his conclusions. “We need shifting of resources from destruction to building — from arms to protecting our environment. We need to think of new sources. I am advocating The Users Fee a fee for using the environmental resources like air.” Who says you can’t raise big money out of thin air?
As I write this, House Resolution 876, titled the “American Heritage Trust Act,” is being gently guided through Congress. This bill would appropriate in its first year alone a minimum of $1 billion to be used in the purchase of private tax-paying property and lock it away under the guise of preserving our heritage. Utilization of these funds would not so coincidentally be available to “private non-profit organizations…qualified for exemption from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…” The Nature Conservancy, perhaps? These moneys will be extended as matching funds to the various states which are rushing to take advantage of such a windfall.
I could continue for pages on this scheme alone. But before we move on, consider these few statistics. In just the 11 western states of the U.S., wilderness areas now account for 86,474,870 acres. Federal] agencies have recommended another 20,256,780 acres for wilderness designation. And further “studies” for possible inclusion would add up to 133,653,459 more acres. In countries like Brazil and Australia, the lockup numbers are not measured in acres, but in square miles.
Up to 30 percent of the world’s wilderness land mass is proposed to be set aside into wilderness areas. That’s over 12 billion acres, with who knows what kind of natural resources underneath. Title to this land would be vested in a “World Wilderness Trust.”
This plan was unveiled to the more than 1,500 people from 60 countries who attended the World Wilderness Congress. And lest you think this was just a group of ineffectual whale lovers and fern fanciers, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. Hosting and attending were such well-known “greenies” as David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan, Baron Edmund de Rothschild of the 200 year old international banking family, and then U.S. Treasury Secretary James Baker.
Let me be among the first to acknowledge the need for sensible conservation programs and environmental preservation. But let me also add that private enterprise has had a vested interest in conservation long before Yale professor Charles Reich wrote his Greening of America in 1970.
Now the name of the game is the creation of world banks, regional currencies, multinational trusts, giant foundations, land expropriations, and massive transfers of natural resources which will ultimately translate into transfers of natural sovereignty. And while the world focuses on the “breakup of Communism” and sings funeral dirges over the grave of the Soviet Empire, the reality is that we are witnessing one of the most brilliant Hegelian gambits of this or any other century –“The Greening of the Reds.”
Chapter 4 – The Great Land Grab
Throughout this report I have chronicled the environmental onslaught we are now facing. It is sweeping across us Like a gigantic tidal wave, and like a tidal wave, it was created and launched by forces we cannot see but whose existence we can track and whose pernicious intent we can definitely document.
The whole panoply shows conclusively how every facet of the Left (along with many movements considered mainstream) is now cooperating in the promotion of a worldwide program whose ultimate objective is to gain control of most of the world’s resources.
This amalgam of groups and organizations includes the United Nations, the Soviet Presidium, the multinational banks, scores of tax-exempt foundations, the Socialist International, most of the governments in the world, the Green Parties of Europe, Congress, the Bush Administration, and radical street revolutionaries in every country.
In virtually every instance where international efforts to protect the environment are discussed, juxtaposed with it you’ll find the subject of debt. Tolba and Brundtland both linked debt to the environment in their globe ’90 speeches.
Not wishing to miss the opportunity of having his country’s debt “forgiven,” Costa Rican president and Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias added his plea. In a column entitled “For the Globe’s Sake, Debt Relief,” which appeared in the Op-Ed section of The New York Times, July 1989, this architect of Latin American policy first decried the “destruction of tropical forests” and the loss of “animal and plant species.” He then went on to proffer the following solution to this worldwide crisis:
“Debt for nature swaps should be encouraged by both developed countries and multilateral development banks [emphasis added]. These swaps should be expanded from commercial to bilateral obligations so that old loans requiring foreign exchange could be earmarked in local currency for environmentally sound projects.”
Sound familiar? Arias then concluded by calling for a massive surrender of national sovereignty:
“Efforts to negotiate global treaties that recognize as common resources our shared elements — such as the atmosphere, the oceans and bio-diversity — should be encouraged and expedited. Actions to mitigate global environment problems cannot wait for a new international economic order.”
You will also recall that I brought to your attention a mischievous piece of legislation that had been introduced in Congress. HR 876, the “American Heritage Trust Act,” would provide federal matching funds to states for the purchase of “environmentally threatened areas” in the United States.
Well, the ink wasn’t even dry when two self-appointed champions of the eco-system held a press conference in Seattle. Former Senator Daniel J. Evans, a Republican, and former Congressman Mike Lowry, a Democrat, joined together to announce the formation of something called the “Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition.”
And what is the first order of business of this new coalition? To win approval for a $500 million bond offering — the money to be used, along with federal matching funds provided under HR 876, to push the eco-land grab.
All of this is no idle “Liberal” dream, either. The coalition’s member organizations include some 20 different groups, not the least of which are the Nature Conservancy and the SierraClub. (Evans’ long- time directorship in the debt-for-nature swap mother ship, the Nature Conservancy, was not mentioned at the press conference.)
Residents of the state of Washington should remember all too well the facts when it comes to the politics of Messrs, Evans and Lowry. Dan Evans has been a political lackey for Rockefeller interests for over 25 years. He was such a faithful lapdog of the Establishment, in fact, that he was invited to the founding meeting of the Trilateral Commission in 1973.
Mike Lowry’s politics are so far to the Left that his senatorial aspirations were rejected by the voters of Washington State — at the very same time 53% of them voted for another left-wing Democrat named Mike who was running for president. The voters may have been fooled by Dukakis, because they didn’t know him as well. But they knew all they needed to about Mike Lowry.
Two weeks after the Evans/Lowry announcement, Elliot Marks, vice president of the Nature Conservancy and its Washington State director, announced that he was assuming the presidency of the coalition. Marks said the Washington group “was following the lead of California and other states that recently approved bond issues for wildlife…California to the tune of $976 million.” Some of the other states he mentioned were Minnesota, Maine, Rhode Island and New Mexico.
I would venture to say that some form of this scam is being launched in virtually every state in the Union. Not long ago, I received a call from a reader worried because in her state of Missouri the Sierra Club was pushing a land lockup called the Natural Streams Act.
It’s happening in my backyard, too. On April 4, 1990, the spotted owl was given “imperiled” status by the U.S. Forest Service, the Parks Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Department. What this means is that 2.5 million acres of forest land in Washington, Oregon and Northern California will no longer be available to selective logging. Estimates of what this will cost in the way of jobs to the independent timber industry range from 9,000 to 60,000. The costs are almost incalculable in that this action has a domino effect. Not only will jobs be lost, but now the senators and congressmen in the affected areas are rushing to the federal government with so-called “job retraining” legislation, plus special packages of aid to the cities and counties losing tax revenues due to these actions.
What or how real is the danger to the spotted owl? Nobody really knows. “Independent surveys” by the environmentalists, especially the Sierra Club, have determined that there are 1,460 pairs of spotted owls residing in the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. They also “estimate” that over the next 100 years this population of owls will stabilize and then increase to the whopping number of 1,760 pairs. That’s a net increase of 600 owls over the next 100 years.
Considering the lost revenue on production and the related job losses, Ted La Doux, Director of Forestry Affairs for the Northwest Independent Forest Manufacturers Association, estimates the cost at $95 million per pair of owls. The bottom line is: Tens of thousands of jobs are lost, countless families are tossed into turmoil, millions of taxpayers’ money is questionably spent, and each spotted owl is given a calculated worth of $47.5 million.
From Europe to Australia, from Madagascar to California, and from Maine to Brazil, the most massive transfer of natural resources in the history of the world rolls merrily along. And unless we are willing to drag this incredible situation into the spotlight of public scrutiny, we’re going to sit back and watch while one area after another falls into the waiting arms of the men who would “be as gods.”
Never before in my lifetime have the Insiders and their allies moved so boldly (or so successfully) on a worldwide scale to begin implementing this part of the Communist Manifesto. Let me remind you that the abolition of private property, and the application of all rents of land to public purposes, comprise Plank One of the Marxist blueprint.
Chapter 5 – “Necessittie” the Tyrant’s Plea
Let me share a quotation with you from the Insiders’ favorite pop-intellectual, Bill Moyers. This comes from the November 15, 1989, program of his PBS television series, “The Public Mind.”
“The basic text of our political system, The Federalist Papers, anticipated a government of reflection and choice. Forget it. Fifty years ago, Dale Carnage wrote a new bible for American politics and called it How to Win Friends and Influence People. In it he said,
“When dealing with people, we are dealing with creatures of emotions, creatures bristling with prejudice and motivated by pride and vanity.’ This famous evangelist of persuasion went on to say that the Art of Human Engineering, as he called it, requires an ongoing appeal to the emotions. The opinion industry lives by the gospel that it’s easier to motivate the heart than the mind, easier to stir up our feelings than our thoughts. Vanity, love, anxiety, hope –these sell cake mix and tooth-paste…and foreign policy, too.”
One side of the eco-discussion claims that disaster is just around the corner or has already arrived; the other, hardly ever heard or quoted, says there is no scientific basis for these catastrophe claims. Doesn’t it seem that a fair-minded press, in the interests of ascertaining the truth in public discussions, might report both sides of the story?
Chapter 6 – A Legal End Run
Although one could rightly argue that no treaty can abrogate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, nevertheless governments’ past approach, both here and abroad, have been to introduce under treaties laws which would never be approved by the national legislatures. Thus, we can look for international treaties, especially United Nations’ treaties, to be put forth as the basis for the legal attack on private property rights and the building of the ecological super- state.
“While one might quibble over the costs of protecting the environment, almost no one is overly in favor of destroying it… Hence, the environment provides an almost perfect arena for East-West cooperation.”
But how will the actual constitutional abrogation be done? The answer, or one of them, appeared in The New York Times, November 9, 1989: “Warning that global warming could cause devastating floods and food shortages in wide areas, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of Britain called on the United Nations today to complete by 1992 a treaty that would require action toward stabilizing the world’s climate. Mrs. Thatcher told the United Nations General Assembly that the treaty should be supplemented by specific, binding agreements regulating the production of gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere…Mrs. Thatcher said the restrictions would have to be obligatory and their application carefully monitored.” [Emphasis added]
Continuing, “This year’s United Nations General Assembly is expected to approve a resolution next month setting up a negotiating body to draft a climate-stabilization treaty for approval by the second World Environment Conference, which is to meet in Brazil in 1992.”
A ready institutional framework already exists at the UN in the form of a horde of agencies and treaties. One prototypical forerunner is the 1972 United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) “Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage,” or World Heritage Treaty.
The Treaty set up a World Heritage Committee within UNESCO, allocated funding, and established procedures for listing cultural and national “heritage” sites worldwide. And doesn’t this pique your interest: The convention calls for cooperation with “international and national governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).” The structure is very similar to that called for in the American Heritage Trust Act — not accidentally, since it is the UNESCO World Heritage Treaty that prescribes such national heritage trusts.
Under the World Heritage Organization, signatory nations have listed official “heritage” areas around the globe. In New Zealand almost half the South Island is slated for World Heritage listing. In Australia the result of World Heritage listing has been to run farmers, loggers and ranchers off land they have used for generations. Looking at what has actually taken place, and what has been planned in Australia, it appears that UNESCO may eventually assume governmental sovereignty over the area, i.e., that the assignment of “heritage” status could be construed as a cession of National sovereignty over the areas in question.
But as I pointed out earlier in this report, the World Heritage Organization isn’t the only existing UN environmental agency or treaty. In 1982 the UN created the UN Commission on Environment and Development, chaired by none other than the Globe ’90 star speaker, Norwegian socialist Gro Harlem Brundtland. The Commission published a report, “Our Common Future,” which is the typical “humanity is running out of resources and ruining the globe” fare. As Franklin Sanders of The Moneychanger argued, “The Brundtland Report is nothing less than a scheme for a socialist world order, managed world economy, and massive redistribution of the world’s wealth.” (The Moneychanger, P.0. Box 341753, Memphis, Tennessee 38184-1753, December 1988.) I agree, totally!
Then there is also the previously cited United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), whose executive director, Mostafa Tolba, oversees a worldwide staff of 600 with an annual budget of $50 million. “He played a pivotal role in negotiating the world’s first international agreement to protect the ozone layer. He persuaded 100 nations to agree to stop dumping toxic wastes in the Third World. Now he is laying groundwork for a treaty to stave off potentially disastrous climate changes.” ( Atlanta Journal, July 14, 1989) And if that were not enough, there is the United Nations Tropical Forest Action Plan – – and the UN-sponsored Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.
When all of this bears its rotten fruit, American citizens will wake up to realize that many of their Constitutional protections have been transferred to an international body and in the process, we will all become “citizens of the world.”
[Here i should point out that U.S. sovereignty has already been threatened by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), though current president Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the latter. See: WTO Ruling Blasts U.S. Sovereignty; TPP Threatens More of Same.]
The Atlanta Journal for July 10, 1989 reported that the “South Coast Air Quality Management District has developed a sweeping 3-stage plan to bring the region’s air up to federal standards by 2007.” Stage One, to be implemented by 1994, calls for pollution reduction gear on outboard and inboard motor boats, requiring the use of radial rather than bias-ply tires, ethanol emission controls for bakeries, more efficient exhaust hoods in restaurants, limitations on vehicle registrations, elimination of deodorants using certain propellants, higher parking lot fees, forced installation of perchloroethylene recovery devices at dry cleaners, staggering of work hours, a ban on gasoline lawn mowers, and — no, I am not making this up — banning barbecues that use starter fluid.
While all this might sound ridiculous, it is very serious when combined with the surveillance capability of modern technology. The December 1988 Moneychanger reported that
“United Nations agencies, multilateral aid agencies, and private non-governmental environmental organizations (NGOs) have already put together a massive worldwide surveillance database. This was unveiled at the Fourth World Wilderness Congress in September 1988 as the ‘World Wilderness Inventory’, prepared by the Sierra Club at the behest of the Fourth World Wilderness Congress. ‘Only areas of at least 400 square kilometers (1 million acres) were inventoried, because the constraints of this particular study did not allow identification of smaller wilderness areas, though they, too, are of interest.'”
It isn’t just an unjustified paranoia which makes this vast information- gathering project stink of dictatorial ambitions. The architect of this Wilderness Inventory, Sierra Club researcher J. Michael McCloskey, was quoted in the same Moneychanger piece: “It is from this inventory that reservations of major new protected areas can be made. This Land will no Longer be anonymous back country and bush which is nibbled away with impunity.”
Editor Franklin Sanders asks, “Impunity? Impunity means unpunished. Who is planning the punishing here, and what is the crime? Is it a crime to use your own property as you see fit? This statement well displays the frightening totalitarian implications of satellite/computer technology surveillance such as this GRID (Global Resources Information Database) system. It also reveals an unhealthy coercive bent in Mr. McCloskey.” As I reported in the March 1990 Insider Report, Mr. McCloskey isn’t the only one looking to provide a method for “environmental crimes.” Professor Robert Woetzel brags that he has a “done deal” for a new World Court system which will transcend national laws.
The already snowballing problem of maintaining personal privacy in an age of massive commercial and governmental databases becomes even more threatening when one considers that present satellite technology allows the identification and viewing of areas as small as ten square feet! It is bad enough to have a bureaucratic Peeping Tom peering over your shoulder at every credit application you fill out. But what if the bureaucrat, like Mr. McCloskey, possesses an “unhealthy coercive bent?”
A comic nightmare vision of the future looms before us. The guests are assembled in the back yard, relaxing with cool drinks. It’s a sultry summer afternoon. The host comes out of the patio door with a plate full of raw hamburgers. He reaches the barbecue grill, puts down the burgers, pulls out his starter fluid, douses the charcoal, and lights it.
Hundreds of miles out in space, a red light blinks in the Environmental Strike Force Satellite of the Pollution Enforcement Agency. Alarms sound in the local PEA office, and the eco-cops jump on their non-polluting ten-speed bicycles, turn on their flashing lights and sirens, and pedal over to Mr. Suburban’s back yard. With machine guns and fire hoses at the ready, they break down the backyard gate, douse the offending fire, and haul our host off to an environmental re-education camp for 30 years of planting crocuses.
[I wonder if the author imagined how completely invasive government surveillance would become a mere 20 years later.]
In this same vein, an incredible article appeared in the Santa Barbara News on April 9, 1989. It shows how far the planning has already gone to eliminate our constitutional protections and grant frightening new powers to an international tribunal. The article is based on an extensive interview with Robert Woetzel, whom the reporter describes as “an Oxford-trained scholar, a lecturer at UCLA and director of the University of Santa Barbara’s International Studies Program.”
The article describes Woetzel’s efforts thusly: “For 25 years he has taken the lead in bringing to life an idealistic pet project that finally appears to be a done deal: The establishment of an international criminal court.”
“Despite the legalistic and diplomatic hurdles it still must surmount, the international criminal court is heading toward the bricks-and- mortar phase. Woetzel is embarked upon a $50 million fund-raising project to finance the court system –most of it through private donations. To avoid the threat of political patronage, governments are prohibited from making monetary donations.”
In George Orwell’s nightmare novel of the totalitarian world of the future, 1984, Winston Smith is arrested and tortured by Inner Party man O’Brien. In the process of Smith’s “re-education” O’Brien calmly explains:
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
Chapter 7 – The Most Endangered Species
In the building of the great one-world plan, the future holds the corporate state: Corporate Fascism. And fascism, as any careful reader knows, is nothing but corporate socialism. But if socialism is a discredited economic disaster, how is it to be made palatable? Simple. Call it something else. While socialism supposedly wheezes out its last outdated breath in Eastern Europe, Greenies worldwide are preparing the way for a new, improved, and more potent version under the name of “environmental consciousness.”
Invariably, the “solutions” offered to the various environmental threats are only more socialism: centralized planning; price controls; fascist “partnership” between industry, government and environmental elitists; and an end to private property. “Global environmentalism requires global planning, global regulation, and, inevitably, jobs for global bureaucrats,” observed the Wall Street Journal on November 8, 1989.
The chief distinction of fascism is the “partnership” between business and government. In practice this amounts to a government-sanctioned price-fixing scheme, with a side benefit of locking out competition forever.
As evidenced by the 600 corporate exhibitors at Globe ’90 in Vancouver, the environmental movement thrives on “partnerships.” Within the corporate socialist state of the future will be added a new partner: NGOs, or non-governmental organizations. These NGOs are private, un-elected environmental groups. While many people with a sincere and well-founded concern for stewardship of the environment may be connected with these organizations, they are also the major supplier of radical environmentalists. From the UNESCO Heritage Treaty to the Fourth World Wilderness Congress, environmentalist declarations and official documents call for the participation of these un-elected NGO’s in the planning and administration of national environmental policies. This is a bit like giving a kleptomaniac the keys to Macy’s.
Fascism is, by its very nature and practice, elitism and this tendency is reinforced by the appointment of these un-elected radical environmentalists to positions of great power over the destiny of national economies. Of course, this is sold under the guise of “scientific or professional expertise,” but the threatening result is a world governed by persons unaccountable to the public.
It’s not the spotted owl or elephant which is the endangered species: it’s man and his liberty.
There is no satisfying the appetite of the environmentalist land grab. In a plaintive letter to the editor of Agri View, a threatened Wisconsin farmer pleads his case:
“For three years, myself and others have been trying to get the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the legislature to listen to our concerns as landowners and to treat us as the Constitution guarantees. Sadly, we are finding out that because our numbers are small in comparison to the environmentalists and others with great political pull, we have few, if any, rights. With the proposed legislation now being pushed, people…will lose local control…Did you know that 5,300,000 acres of our state is now owned by the DNR, U.S. government, and county and local governments? Did you know that DNR is working on 137 more projects that will involve buying land?
“Think about what’s been happening to our rights as Americans and then ask yourself: Am I really free? The free landowner is becoming an endangered species.”
[Enter here the thoroughly disgusting treatment and murder of rancher LaVoy Finicum by the U.S. government and law enforcement over a dispute with the Bureau of Land Management regarding their unconstitutional encroachment upon his rights as a land owner.]
There is a real partnership between government and NGOs in the eco-land grab. “The National Park Service has secretively surveyed the entire U.S., territories and possessions, sorting through millions of properties, public and private, without the knowledge or consent of private owners.”
This is from a frightening expose in the highly reliable Daily News Digest on January 4, 1990: “The program is called the National Natural Landmark Program. It has no organic basis in legislation.
Daily News Digest editorializes, “What it amounts to is the National Park Service has been caught dead to rights in a corrupt process of swindling private owners out of property rights…presented as innocuous, the National Landmark Program is tied into every conceivable form of land use regulation. It is the foundation of de facto federal zoning, but not exclusively, enforced by other jurisdictions (state, county, municipal). If your property appears in a Theme Study survey (33 regions; 6 volumes, each the size of a metropolitan phone directory), then the Environmental Mafia (federal, state, and local agencies, the Nature Conservancy, the National Parks and Conservation Association, etc.) feel entitled to develop plans for your property which you know nothing about…
“If your property is geologically, ecologically, or scenically remarkable, this Program, working in tandem with the environmental consortium, is out to stick it to you…Theft of rights by bureaucratic means is a well-oiled process, and the Environmental Mafia owns the system like a lynch mob owns the courthouse…Functionally, their maxim is that if you cannot hold onto your property rights, you deserve to lose them.”
What we are witnessing on an international level threatens the end of private ownership of property with control and title in private hands, and the beginning of a new feudalism under government and corporate landlords.
Chapter 8 – The Greening’s New Religion
We agree with the Australian Financial Review, which wrote in June 1989, “It is difficult to generate a balanced discussion about the greenhouse effect, indeed about almost any other environmental issue. It has been removed from the rational sphere into the religious dimension. The environmental movement has developed a thoroughgoing theology, with its own demons and deities and, most significantly, its intense sense of guilt.”
Whether by Robespierre, Hitler, Stalin, or the Ayatollah Khomeni, the millennial dream has often been used to justify lawlessness and in humanity — always in the name of some “greater good.” In fact, as one listens to some of these “religious” leaders, we are struck by the fever of their rhetoric. It is taking on the characteristics of an Islamic Jihad or “Holy War.” As it develops, the new eco-cult will drive its devotees to greater and greater zeal, perhaps even to violent means “justified” by the great good of their “ends.”
Slowly, very slowly, some voices of reason are starting to be heard. Some of the truth is fighting its way into the debate. “Debate” is actually a misnomer. The eco-maniacs don’t debate. Any contrary evidence, no matter how well it’s supported by fact and documentation, is ignored and treated as if it didn’t exist.
Every petty-fogging demagogue and Big Brother promoter I can think of has gotten into the Earth Day act. Jesse Jackson trumpets “Pollution, Now A Bigger Threat Than Red Army.” Senator Al Gore calls for SEI – Strategic Environment Initiative — as a counterpart to SDI, and says, “The need is urgent; no longer is the threat of nuclear war at the top of the world agenda…it is imperative that we approach environmental protection…as we approached SDI and with comparable or greater funding.”
Please make no mistake about it: what is being proposed and promulgated, in the name of “protecting our environment,” is nothing less than the most comprehensive assault on liberty, private property, and limited government in all human history.