Archive for the ‘carbon tax’ Category

Wind Turbine Conference in Owen Sound and Walkerton

September 26, 2009

Editor:

Plan to attend one or both meetings and listen to the Propaganda from various Ministries as they attempt to explain the lies that the wind industry is built upon.

Come and listen to Dr. Copes who Hazel Lynn (Medical Officer of Health) describes as a world- renown expert in the field.

A search of google turns up no information connecting Dr. Copes to any information about wind turbines and health.

I have called and left a message for Dr. Copes to provide me with information that would verify that he is an expert on wind turbines and health.

No Reply yet.

I will update when and if I get the information requested.

The entire wind industry is based on smoke and mirrors just like any other well delivered con.

Your community is at risk, as is your health, if you are unlucky enough to end up living near an Industrial Wind Turbine

Note- Shortly after posting this I received an interesting e-mail from a reader regarding Dr. Copes

This Doctor who will be giving the presentation Dr. Ray Copes is nothing more than a Industrialists’ hack who backs up Industry that is accused of pollution….he’s an expert on lead in lipstick…………he’s an expert on noxious fumes from smokestacks………………..all in favour of the Industry who pollutes…..so in essence he is perfect for Smitherman and company who hire nothing but the best “lap dogs” in their smoke and mirrors propaganda run on TV and publicly called “information meetings”……………..every single WCO member down that way should welcome this idiot to their township on behalf of Hazel Lynn who is touting that he is an “expert”…………..he is an expert in BS!

read his press comments form B.C. http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=68973884&lastName=Copes&firstName=Ray&searchSource=page&page=2

Please take the time to attend these meetings.


Grey Bruce
by Ken Hashizume

The health effects from wind turbines will be discussed at an upcoming forum.

The Grey Bruce Health Unit is organizing two conferences — one on October 1st in Owen Sound and another at Walkerton’s Jubilee Hall on October 6th.

Medical Officer of Health Doctor Hazel Lynn says they will have Ray Copes — Head of the environmental division of the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion — to speak at the conferences.

She says Copes held a similar position in British Columbia where he collected evidence on wind turbines and is a world-renown expert in that field.

She says Copes is a medical doctor with an environmental background in public health.

Doctor Lynn says they will also have someone from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure at the conference.

She says they will talk about the Certificates of Approval that are required before construction and the government’s Green Energy Act.

Doctor Lynn says the forum will be set up where they will be a panel of experts delivering the information on their topic.

She says it won’t be a debate — rather an information session for municipal officials and residents.

Doctor Lynn says the health unit has no position on the wind turbine debate.

She says some people are more sensitive to environmental impacts than others.

She says she is not in a position to say whether wind turbines cause health problems because there hasn’t been a lot of scientific evidence that can prove it.

News Center

Enbridge Wind Farm Kincardine

Enbridge Wind Farm Kincardine

Energy Policy 'Too Wind Focused'

July 12, 2009

Editor:  The UK is calling for more coal and nuclear.

But here in Ontario,  Dalton McGuinty and George Smitherman just keep on jambing up the wind farms even though anyone with an ounce of sense  should know better.

Listen up Dalton and George, it’s over, everyone but you two seen to get the picture.

Quit wasting the taxpayers money!  CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

Get your act together or resign!

.

The UK must invest more in nuclear and clean coal energy and put less emphasis on wind power if it wants a secure low-carbon future, business leaders say.

The CBI says government energy policy is “disjointed” and it is urging a “more balanced” energy mix.

The current approach means the UK might miss climate change targets, it added.

The government said putting in place a balanced mix of renewables, new nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels was at the heart of its energy policy.

But the CBI is calling for more action.

“The government’s disjointed approach is deterring the private sector investment needed to get our energy system up to scratch, bolster security and cut emissions,” said CBI deputy director general John Cridland.

“While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants.

“If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket.”

Full story at the BBC

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Children die in harsh Peru winter

July 12, 2009

Editor:

Let me get this straight. The  global warming nonsense started as a fight against CO2 emissions which left unchecked would cause the earth to warm to the point of threatening the very existence of man. The ice caps would melt and the oceans would rise. The fertile farm lands would become parched from lack of rain and the top soil would blow away. People would starve to death.

We were told we must shut down fossil fuel generation of electricity and replace it with intermittent, expensive renewable energy. If we did not do this right away man would surely be doomed.

For the last three years I have said  global warming was just another fraud by the elite to push their  NEW WORLD ORDER SCAM  on the unsuspecting public.

Since I first wrote about the Global Warming Scam, it has been renamed Climate Change.

Welcome to reality folks. The CO2 emissions have continued to rise while at the same time temperatures have continued to  fall.

Read the story below and then start asking some hard questions. I put some links at the end to help you understand the fraud and who is behind it.

Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.

Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes.

But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual.

Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March.

Winter in the region does not usually begin until June.

The extreme cold, which has brought snow, hail, freezing temperatures and strong winds, has killed more children than recorded annually for the past four years.

Full Story at  the BBC

Below are a few links to posts on my blog. Please look around as there are many other stories on global warming to be found here.

Global Warming the Big LIE!

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Playing politics with global warming

I Was Fired by Al Gore!


Canada dead last on climate change

July 12, 2009

Editor: Read this post and then please leave a comment explaining it’s importance and the ramifications for Canada

Canada dead last on climate change

We can no longer use the U.S. as an excuse for inaction

By GERALD BUTTS, FreelanceJuly 8, 2009

Here is a sobering thought to consider as Canada prepares to assume the presidency of the G8 following this week’s meeting in Italy: Canada has for the first time replaced the United States as the worst performer on tackling climate change among G8 nations. This was revealed in the recent G8 Climate Scorecard, released jointly by WWF, the global conservation organization, and the global insurance company Allianz.

The report confirms recent events in North America: There is a new worldview in the U.S. as it rejoins the global community, while Canada continues with the “No, we can’t” approach adopted by successive Canadian governments.

The fact that the U.S. is rapidly leaving Canada in its wake on climate change is particularly important, as Canada’s political leaders have repeatedly claimed that Canada couldn’t afford to move faster or further than our major trading partner.

If that argument ever had merit, it certainly doesn’t now as we see the difference that political leadership can make.

More has been done in the U.S. in the last six months than in the last 30 years. We have seen tough new standards for greenhouse-gas emissions from cars introduced by the Obama administration. There have been massive investments in energy efficiency, green power and public transit. A renewed respect for science, backed by new funding. Climate legislation that would cap emissions from large industrial polluters has been passed by the House of Representatives, and could become law before the international negotiations over a new global deal on climate action in Copenhagen later this year.

As we prepare to participate in the Copenhagen climate summit in December and to play host to next year’s G8 meeting in Huntsville, Ont., we should be taking the longer view and building a legacy of a green economy that will make Canadians proud. The good news is that progress in the U.S. shows how much can change, and how quickly, with a simple change in mindset, from “No we can’t” to “Yes we can.”

Full Story at the Gazette

Al Gore Global Governance London July 7 2009

July 11, 2009

Al Gore speaking in London on July 7 2009 talks about the need for Global Governance.

Enron was the start point for the carbon scam  along with the UN Global Warming Scam

Maurice Strong and Al Gore

Find the typo and get a free carbon credit- LOL! Al makes his own maybe he’ll send you one

David Suzuki Speaks in 1972 People = Maggots

July 3, 2009

Suzuki has been spinning the same crap for a very long time.  The man makes his living by instilling fear, mostly in young minds. Global warming is a fraud and Suzuki knows it. Or, he’s a complete fool and should be banned from the media. Meet David Suzuki – 1972 at the age of 32

Playing politics with global warming

June 12, 2009

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen

Video Report – What to Expect From Renewable Energy

May 15, 2009

The Ontario govt. has passed Bill 150/Green Energy Act. The act not only removes the rights of Municipal govt., it also puts the economy of Ont. in real jeopardy.

No future for wind in Ontario

March 2, 2009
Editor:
Received this story from a reader this morning. I had to rub my eyes several times before I could believe what I was reading and in the Toronto Star no less.
Someone that understands electrical generation writing the truth about wind generation. Wow!
I and thousands of others have been saying the same thing for years. All the articles until the last few days seem to be written by one “green group” or another pushing wind and telling us about their vision.
All I can say is try heating your home or running your business on a vision.
Put the scrubbers on the coal plants and build a nuke- cost 10 billion and it will provide clean reliable energy for the Province. (C02 is not a pollutant)
The vision 60-80 billion ( money that is not going to health care, education, agriculture or many other places the money would be better used)  and the air won’t be any cleaner.
The truth is getting out but will this be enough to stop the madness presently found at Queens’ Park. Don’t forget both the Conservatives and the NDP have bought into and have been promoting this same “MAD” vision.
I have included the emails for all MPP’s in this Province at the end of the article. Take a minute and send them your thoughts.
Remember between 50 and 70 billion will wasted on the “Mad Vision” That doesn’t count the millions or billions wasted to date in the massive promotion of this “Mad Vision”
Wind is and always was about the creation of carbon credits. Not cleaner air.
The “Green sales pitch” has run out of Air, Wind and Gas
.
No future for wind in Ontario

PATRICK CORRIGAN/TORONTO STAR

Need for support from gas-powered plants means it’s also not even very green
Mar 02, 2009 04:30 AM



The Ontario government says its new Green Energy Act, if passed, will help Ontario become “North America’s leader in renewable energy.”

But since most of this new renewable energy will be from wind, it may not be the smartest move for Ontario because its large hydro and nuclear capacity is not compatible with wind generation. Wind requires natural gas-fired generation for support and natural gas will be a most precarious fuel for Ontario.

The future of industrial wind power in Ontario is tied to natural gas-fired electricity generation and that, as will be seen, is unsustainable. The Ontario power grid needs flexible support to keep supply and demand in balance, and providing this support will be made more difficult when we add the vagaries of wind.

Although nuclear units can handle the daily and weekend changes in electricity demand, they have limited capability for the kind of frequent power-up and power-down requirements that would be needed for this support. Furthermore, hydroelectric plants may not always be available due to fluctuations in water supply and water management agreements.

Even without restrictions on nuclear and hydro, it makes little economic sense to run reliable suppliers of steady power, with high fixed costs and low operating costs, at reduced output to support the expensive, intermittent and varying output from wind farms.

So, with coal being phased out by 2014, natural gas-fired generation will have to be used to support wind. Due to the simultaneous demands of home heating and electricity generation in the winter, that may lead to gas shortages. So some of these plants may be dual fuelled with gas and oil, which is not a pleasant thought.

The Ontario government is putting too much faith in natural gas for electricity generation, as the United Kingdom did with its “dash for gas” from the North Sea in the 1990s when gas was cheap. Now the U.K. is in terrible shape with its gas running out and the threat of power shortages in the next decade.

There is no long-term future for gas-fired generation in Ontario because of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, rising costs, the demands on gas for other uses (in the tar sands, the chemical industry, home heating, exports to the United States), declining reserves, the questionable security of foreign supplies or, in short, the waste of a premium non-renewable resource just to generate electricity.

Since Ontario’s wind generators require natural-gas-fired generation for support, this creates an uncertain future for wind turbines and their transmission infrastructure that one day will not be compatible with a nuclear/hydro powered grid. Nor is there an environmental benefit to adding wind to a clean nuclear/hydro grid.

There is an alternative to building more natural gas-fired power plants in the Greater Toronto Area and other locations to replace the coal-fired stations. That is to increase the arbitrary limit on nuclear from the 14,000 megawatts imposed by the government. Bruce Power showed its willingness to build new nuclear power plants last October when it asked the nuclear safety regulator for a licence to prepare a site at Nanticoke, in addition to new units at the Bruce site.

The government’s power plan envisages nuclear supplying 40 per cent of electricity demand by 2027. This should be raised to more than 70 per cent, with hydro supplying most of the remainder. If there is no market for nuclear-generated electricity during off-peak and overnight hours (for power exports, recharging electric cars, producing hydrogen and/or compressed air for generating clean peaking power and other uses), the plants can reduce their output to meet the demand. This means that even if practical wind energy storage were available, wind still would not be needed on a future all nuclear/hydro grid.

The demand on the grid from recharging electric cars should not be underestimated. The president and CEO of French nuclear giant Areva said that it would take an additional 6,400 megawatts of electricity if just 10 per cent of France’s cars were electrically powered. That translates into about 1,700 megawatts (two Darlington-size units) for Ontario.

In France, the nuclear energy share of electricity production is about 78 per cent from its 58 reactors, with the balance divided nearly equally between hydro and fossil, and with the nuclear units able to meet daily changes in electricity demand. Sweden has a grid the same size as Ontario’s but with almost all nuclear/hydro generation.

Wind has no long-term future in Ontario and will be more of a hindrance than a help to the grid’s reliability. The Ontario Energy Board should take a good hard look at the government’s Integrated Power System Plan, eliminate wind and promote cleaned-up coal-fired stations operating past 2014 until sufficient nuclear is online to avoid the building of anymore unsustainable gas-fired plants.

The technical, economic and environmental issues associated with wind power have not been fully explored. Let’s hope the Ontario Energy Board will give them due consideration when it reconvenes so that money can be put where it will do Ontario the most long-term good.

Donald Jones is a professional engineer, now retired after 35 years of CANDU system design.

Comments on this story are moderated

From the Toronto Star
Liberals MPP’s
saggelonitis.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
lalbanese.mpp@liberal.ola.org
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
warthurs.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bbalkissoon.mpp@liberal.ola.org
rbartolucci.mpp@liberal.ola.org
cbentley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lberardinetti.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mbest.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jbradley.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lbroten.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
mbrown.mpp.co@liberal.ola.orgjbrownell.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
mbryant.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dcansfield.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dcaplan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
acarroll.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mchan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mcolle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kcraitor.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
bcrozier.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
bdelaney.mpp@liberal.ola.org
vdhillon.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jdickson.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bduguid.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dduncan.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kflynn.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pfonseca.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
jgerretsen.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mgravelle.mpp@liberal.ola.org
phoy.mpp@liberal.ola.org
hjaczek.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ljeffrey.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
kkular.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mkwinter.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jmlalonde.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jleal.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org
amangat.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dmatthews.mpp@liberal.ola.org
bmauro.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
tmcmeekin.mpp@liberal.ola.org
pmcneely.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mmeilleur.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jmilloy.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
cmitchell.mpp@liberal.ola.org
rmoridi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
dorazietti.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lpendergast.mpp@liberal.ola.org
speters.mpp@liberal.ola.org
gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org
spupatello.mpp@liberal.ola.org
sqaadri.mpp@liberal.ola.org
kramal.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lrinaldi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
truprecht.mpp@liberal.ola.org
lsandals.mpp@liberal.ola.org
msergio.mpp@liberal.ola.org
msmith.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gsmitherman.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
gsorbara.mpp@liberal.ola.org
csousa.mpp@liberal.ola.org
htakhar.mpp@liberal.ola.org
mvanbommel.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jwatson.mpp@liberal.ola.org
jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
kwynne.mpp@liberal.ola.org
dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Opposition MPP’s
ted.arnott@pc.ola.org,
bob.bailey@pc.ola.org,
toby.barrett@pc.ola.org,
dinovoc-@ndp.on.ca,
garfield.dunlopco@pc.ola.org,
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org,
fgelinas-qp@ndp.on.ca,
hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca,
ernie.hardeman@pc.ola.org,
randy.hillierco@pc.ola.org,
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca,
tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org,
sylvia.jones@pc.ola.org,
frank.klees@pc.ola.org,
pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca,
lisa.macleod@pc.ola.org,
rmarchese-co@ndp.on.ca,
gerry.martiniuk@pc.ola.org,
norm.millerco@pc.ola.org,
pmiller-qp@ndp.on.ca,
julia.munro@pc.ola.org,
bill.murdoch@pc.ola.org,
john.otooleco@pc.ola.org,
jerry.ouellette@pc.ola.org,
mprue-qp@ndp.on.ca,
bob.runciman@pc.ola.org,
joyce.savoline@pc.ola.org,
laurie.scott@pc.ola.org,
peter.shurman@pc.ola.org,
norm.sterling@pc.ola.org,
tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca,
jim.wilson@pc.ola.org,
elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org,
john.yakabuski@pc.ola.org

Word of the Day – Eugenics

January 21, 2009

Eugenics


Editor
I hope this helps you understand the WWF and the ‘green movement’ in general. The people and groups below fund and use NGO’s to convince you that ‘global warming’ is both real and a threat to the very survival of the human race. Global warming is neither real nor a threat.

Environmentalism  (for their purposes) has nothing to do with the environment and the sooner people understand this the better.

UNESCO has control of the education system which means these people have control of your child’s mind.

Are these the people your want to entrust your children to?

Meet the real threat to humanity!

.

.

Prince Philip’s principal collaborators in launching the WWF as a funding and worldwide operations arm of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, were Sir Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson, both ardent advocates of eugenics and racial purification. In fact, Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society when he co-founded the WWF. First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

The method Huxley and others devised for forcing people to “think the unthinkable,” was to replace the idea of eugenics with the idea of environmentalism. Huxley, Prince Philip, and the others, however, understood that, in their way of thinking, the two terms were interchangeable. During a 1960 tour of Africa, on the eve of the launching of the WWF, Huxley openly boasted that the ecology movement would be the principal weapon used by the British oligarchy to impose a Malthusian world order over the dead body of the nation-state system, and, most importantly, the United States.

It is no coincidence, in the context of Huxley’s remarks, that the man who helped found the Canadian branch of Prince Philip’s WWF, Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, would be implicated by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Bloomfield, the wartime liaison of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, ran the Montreal-based Permindex Corporation, the entity identified in the Garrison investigation as the hands-on controller of the Kennedy assassination plot.


The 1001 Club and Other Eco-Fascist Fronts

To further spread the work of the WWF, in 1970, Prince Philip teamed up with a former SS officer, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, already a prominent player in the WWF, to create a permanent funding mechanism for the growing number of ecology fronts being spawned, to scoop up the dregs of the late-1960s counterculture, and deploy them as the storm-troopers of the new “green” fascism. The 1001: A Nature Trust, known among its members as the “1001 Club,” was created as an adjunct to Prince Bernhard’s well-known Bilderberg Group, the Cold War-era secret society of leading North American and European oligarchical insiders–1,001 close personal associates of Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip were “invited” to join the 1001 Club at an initial fee of $10,000 per person.

The bulk of the members were drawn from the boards of directors of the leading Club of the Isles raw materials cartels, banks, insurance companies, and family trusts (the fondi). Typical of this caste were John Loudon, former CEO of Royal Dutch Shell and chairman of Shell Oil Co., who served from 1977 until his death as president of the WWF; Maurice Strong, head of the Canada-based Power Corporation, and one of the most important of the WWF operators; Baron Aubrey Buxton of Alsa, of Barclays Bank; Bertold Beitz, director of Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach Foundation; Conrad Black, chairman of Britain’s leading media cartel, the Hollinger Corporation; Peter Cadbury, of the George Cadbury Trust; Anton Rupert, of the South African Rembrandt tobacco interests; Sir Kenneth Kleinwort, owner of Kleinwort Benson, one of Britain’s oldest investment banks; and Henry Keswick, chairman of Jardine Matheson and brother of John Keswick, the chairman of Hambros Bank and a director of the Bank of England.

Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a 1001 Club charter member, as were a number of notorious scoundrels, including swindler-bankers Robert Vesco and Edmond Safra.

By the time Princes Philip and Bernhard had assembled the $10 million war-chest, the first of the leading eco-fascist front groups and think-tanks had already been launched. In 1969, a Sierra Club official, David Ross Brower, founded Friends of the Earth, which, several years later, would help spawn such overtly terrorist groups as Greenpeace and Earth First!. The same year, WWF Chairman Sir Peter Scott launched Survival International, originally known as the Primitive Peoples Fund, which, three years later, spawned Cultural Survival.

In 1968, Aurelio Peccei, a former executive of Fiat (Fiat President Gianni Agnelli was a charter member of the 1001 Club), founded the Club of Rome, another by-invitation-only organization, to peddle a new, computer-age brand of Malthusianism. In 1970, with a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation, Peccei hired Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer whiz-kid Jay Forrester, and a team of his students, to prepare a report on the world population crisis, which was published several years later under the title Limits to Growth. Using a fraudulent concept of “carrying capacity” that completely ruled out human scientific discovery, Forrester and his students, Dennis and Donella Meadows, claimed that a combination of overpopulation and resource depletion would wreck the planet. The Club of Rome became not only a leading “establishment” lobby for every wacky environmental hoax; it launched the zero population growth movement, which has now devolved into a demand for drastic world population reduction–i.e., genocide.

Source