Chapter 6


World Federalists believe that the environmental crisis facing planet earth is a global problem and therefore calls for a "global" solution — a worldwide United Nations Environmental Agency with the power to make its decisions stick.1

— World Association of World Federalists, 1972

[T]he great enemy is not the Soviet Union but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life.2
— George F. Kennan (CFR), Washington Post column, November 12, 1989

Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation and overpopulation are the four horsemen of a looming 21st century apocalypse. As the cold war recedes, the environment is becoming the No. 1 international security concern.
— Michael Oppenheimer (CFR), New York Times, March 27, 1990

We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.4
— Timothy Wirth (CFR), former U.S. Senator and Under Secretary of State, now head of Ted Turner's UN Foundation

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention.... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.5
— The Council of the Club of Rome, 1991

The [UN] Security Council recently expanded the concept of threats to peace to include economic, social and ecological instability.6
— "The New World Army," New York Times editorial, March 6, 1992

Global warming, ozone depletion, deforestation, species extinction, wildlife habitat destruction, resource exhaustion, overpopulation.


Since the 1960s, these and a host of other supposed environmental "crises" have exploded onto the world scene, mobilizing millions of people in a global crusade to "save the planet." This writer was involved as a true believer in the early period of this global movement, and, as a high school senior and student body secretary, helped plan and organize a 1970 school ceremony for the first Earth Day: a demonstration in which students donned gas masks, as a "consciousness-raising" protest against air pollution, and symbolically buried an automobile carburetor.

In the three decades since that time, the environmental movement has grown into a global green juggernaut involving millions of activists and wielding enormous political, social, and economic power. Contrary to popular misconceptions, this has not been a healthy development for "Mother Earth" or her human inhabitants.


As my colleague William Norman Grigg has rightly noted,

"the environmental movement is animated by a desire to regiment human society rather than 'save the planet.' The movement's economic outlook is socialist, its political ambitions are totalitarian, and its religious affinities are unmistakably pagan."7

The Big Green agenda is about power and control, not clean air and saving whales.


While the vast majority of pedestrian-level environmentalists may genuinely care about local ecology issues and really believe in the apocalyptic scenarios regarding the so-called "ozone hole" and the alleged dangers from greenhouse gases, clearly the elites guiding these concerned cadres know such threats are bogus or vastly exaggerated. Certainly, the scientific evidence does not support the charges that these alleged "crises" are so imminent and of such planet-threatening magnitude as to justify totalitarian solutions.

In fact, the overwhelming weight of real science and the bulk of honest scientists argue that genuine environmental problems are best solved not by draconian governmental fiat but by market forces and the enforcement of private property rights. Conversely, it is also true that the worst environmental degradation on the planet has taken place under those Communist and socialist regimes where free markets and property rights have been most ruthlessly suppressed.

It is not the purpose of this study to address or refute the myriad absurd claims of the enviro-extremists; that has already been done by many eminent scientists and scholars.*


* See, for instance, Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns, edited by Jay H. Lehr (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1992); The State of Humanity, edited by Julian L. Simon (Blackwell, 1995); Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet, edited by Ronald Bailey (McGraw-Hill, 2000); Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance, edited by John A. Baden (Pacific Research Institute, 1994); Ecology, Liberty and Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader, edited by Jonathan H. Adler (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000); Trashing the Planet, by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery, 1990); Environmental Overkill, by Dixy Lee Ray (Regnery, 1993); Science Under Siege: How the Environmental Misinformation Campaign Is Affecting Our Laws, Taxes, and Our Daily Lives, by Michael Fumento (New York: W. Morrow, 1996); Polluted Science: The EPA's Campaign to Expand Clean Air Regulations, by Michael Fumento (Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1998); Sound And Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels (Cato Institute, 1992); The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air About Global Warming, by Patrick J. Michaels and Robert C. Balling (Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2000); The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality, by Robert Balling (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992); Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, by S. Fred Singer (The Independent Institute, 1997); The Ultimate Resource 2, by Julian L. Simon (Princeton University Press, 1998); Hoodwinking the Nation, by Julian L. Simon (Transaction Publishers, 1999); Free Market Environmentalism, by Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal (St. Martin's Press, 2001); Ecocide In the USSR: Health and Nature Under Siege, by Murray Feshbach and Alfred Friendly, Jr. (Basic Books, 1992); "East Europe's Dark Dawn," National Geographic, June 1991; Environmental Politics: Public Costs, Private Rewards, by Michael S. Greve and Fred L. Smith, Jr. (Praeger, 1992); and Undue Influence, by Ron Arnold (The Free Enterprise Press, 1999)


It is, instead, our purpose here to show why the Establishment opinion cartel insists on ignoring the clear verdicts of science and enshrines as oracles the charlatans whose eco-science has been repeatedly exposed as error-ridden or completely fraudulent.


Earth Summit Eyewitness

This blatant deception and censorship by the "ruling class journalists" was especially crucial to the "success" of the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the so-called Earth Summit, in Rio de Janeiro. This writer can claim the dubious distinction of being, perhaps, the only "non-greenie" journalist amongst the thousands of reporters and media personalities who converged on this global orgy of environmental extremism.

Providentially, I met up with one of the few other "contrarian" souls attending the Summit almost immediately upon exiting my plane onto the sweltering tarmac of the Rio airport. As the long passenger lines from the various airliners converged under the airport's shade cover for the two-hour Customs process, I had the good fortune to "converge" with Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who had just deplaned from another aircraft. Dr. Ray, who died in 1993, was one of my heroes: a genuine, eminent scientist who boldly challenged the absurd claims and dangerous proposals of the environmental fanatics and calmly disregarded the vicious, personal attacks that she received in return.

As a distinguished professor of zoology, author and commentator, former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, former governor of the state of Washington, and recipient of many awards (including the United Nations Peace Prize), one might be forgiven for naively assuming that this woman would be mobbed by reporters seeking her learned opinion on the weighty matters under discussion at the Summit. Hardly!


Dr. Ray was virtually ignored, as were other noted scientists and scholars, while the CFR Establishment press drooled over every sacred syllable uttered by the likes of Fidel Castro, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jerry "Governor Moonbeam" Brown, then-Senator Al "I invented the Internet" Gore, Jacques Cousteau, and Maurice Strong.

During the course of the Summit, I had the opportunity to meet with, interview, and compare notes with Dr. Ray several times. I noted that with her background in zoology she should be better prepared than most for the profusion of weird specimens populating the conference. "I've never seen a bigger zoo," the feisty scientist responded, in a comment intended to convey both the absurdity and seriousness of what was transpiring at the UN confab.

Although ignored by most of the media (and even pointedly censored and rebuked by some) at Rio, Dr. Ray did successfully expose some of the dangerous UNCED policies and proposals. Through her columns and live talk-radio interviews from the Earth Summit, and by her speeches and explosive book expose following the event, she alerted many Americans to the perils of the global green agenda.


In Environmental Overkill, she wrote:

"First, we must recognize that the environmental movement is not about facts or logic. More and more it is becoming clear that those who support the so-called 'New World Order' or World Government under the United Nations have adopted global environmentalism as a basis for the dissolution of independent nations and the international realignment of power." 8

The opinions of other prominent scientists were also censored or suppressed by the Insider-run media. Shortly before the convening of the Earth Summit, a group of more than 250 distinguished scientists, including 27 Nobel Laureates, released a statement called the Heidelberg Appeal to Heads of States and Governments.


The statement, which was subsequently signed by hundreds of additional scientists worldwide, said, in part:

"We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development."9

This private ad hoc group appealed to govern-merit officials to base ecological proscriptions,

"on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions," and carried a warning "to the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and non-relevant data."10

Forgive the political naοvetι of these well-meaning scientists. But appealing to venal politicians and the prostitute press on the basis of facts is almost like trying to sell compassion to Mafia thugs or morality to the studio execs of Hollywood Babylon. What was the reaction of the CFR media cartel to the Heidelberg Appeal? Predictable: They ignored it.

The same blackout occurred later when an even larger group of scientists signed a petition opposing the half-baked "science" undergirding the incredibly dangerous UN Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Headed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, the petition was signed by more than 18,000 scientists, including thousands of meteorologists, climatologists and atmospheric scientists.


The scientists' statement said, in part:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind....

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.


Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.11

Nonstop Propaganda and Censorship
But the "ruling class journalists" are more than willing to play the scientist numbers game when it suits the one-world agenda. Before, during, and after Rio, the media mavens trumpeted the supposed findings of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).12


Then-Senator Al Gore, who led the U.S. Senate delegation to Rio, repeatedly cited the "authoritative" IPCC report in his fervent pleas of support for the global warming treaty. At his major press conference at the Rio Hilton, this writer challenged his citation of the IPCC report and his repeated ludicrous claim that 98 percent of the scientific community endorsed the global warming idea as fact.


The IPCC report had been fraudulently altered, I pointed out, and many of the scientists who had worked on the project had publicly disavowed its political agenda disguised as science. This easily verified fact had been reported (albeit in "small print") in the "mainstream" press.


Gore evaded the tough question like a true politician, stating:

"I don't want to open a debate on this, but let me say that I will stay after [the press conference] if you like...."

Thanks to Senator Steve Symms (R-Idaho), who took the microphone following Al Gore, I was able to ask Gore a follow-up question, zeroing in on the well-documented IPCC fraud and pointing out that the Gallup poll of climatologists and meteorologists taken a few months earlier found that only 19 percent, not 98 percent, believed in global warming.13


Again Gore evaded, snidely remarking that there are a lot of people who "still argue that NASA staged the moon landing in a movie lot." I replied that the poll I had just cited was not a survey of wild-eyed cranks, but, on the contrary, represented the vast majority of climatic scientists, including internationally recognized authorities like Hugh Ellsaesser at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, William Reifsnyder at Yale, Nathaniel Guttman at the National Climatic Data Center, Robert Balling, director of the Arizona Climatology Laboratory, and many others.


Senator Gore, who otherwise never missed an opportunity to pontificate on his favorite subject, was suddenly under great pressure to leave.

"Well, we've really got to go," he said.

Although Gore's evasiveness and slippery exit were frustrating, they were not surprising; it was precisely what one would have expected of him.


What was harder to take (though not totally unexpected) was the reaction of the press corps. It was obvious to this correspondent — and should have been, as well, to all others present — that my questions had caught him off balance. I had refuted his claims with fact, backed up with citations and sources. I had even challenged one of his prized documents as fraudulent.


He was caught in a lie and was clearly uncomfortable. This is the kind of "blood in the water" situation that normally sets off the shark sensors of journalists and sends them into a "feeding frenzy." If Senator Symms, a conservative, had been similarly caught, you can be sure the shark pack would have been all over him in a split second. That didn't happen with Gore, of course, because the horde of "journalists" in attendance had come not as news reporters but as advocates and propagandists.


They were there to regurgitate and retail as gospel whatever globaloney the UN and its proponents dished out.

Allow us to provide a few more examples. One of the major scare stories that had received a major buildup prior to Rio, and was a key focal point of the Summit, concerned the alleged massive destruction of the Amazon rain forest. According to the militant enviro-lobby and its media allies, we could expect cataclysmic global environmental consequences unless UN authority over the world's forests was established.


So, again, one might naively think that the man of the hour would be Professor Evaristo Eduardo de Miranda, the world's leading expert on Amazon deforestation. Dr. Miranda, an ecologist at the University of Sao Paulo, is a former consultant to the UN who heads Brazil's center for monitoring the Amazon region by satellite. His laboratory was the only source for complete satellite data on the status of Amazon deforestation.

But to the U.S. media, Dr. Miranda and his fellow scientists didn't exist. Small wonder: His data did not support the apocalyptic paradigm the Insider-managed media were selling. In fact, Dr. Miranda's data showed that the studies sponsored by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Bank, World Wildlife Fund, and the Conservation Foundation were exaggerating the rate of deforestation by 300 to 400 percent and grossly misrepresenting other data.14

Moreover, much of the destructive deforestation decried by the green extremists was the result of the socialist policies of Brazil's socialist government. The solution, Dr. Miranda pointed out, would not be found in international socialist policies implemented by the UN's bureaucracy. Moreover, he noted, not all deforestation is bad; converting some of the massive jungle for farming, livestock, timber harvest, and other productive uses is a good thing and necessary for food, jobs, and economic progress.15

Another expert "pariah" at Rio was Dr. Alexander Bonilla of Costa Rica. A world-famous ecologist and former recipient of the United Nations' top environmental honor, the GLOBAL 500 Award, Dr. Bonilla was a natural to respond to questions about "biodiversity" and "sustainable development," which were major watchwords at the Summit.


However, as with Drs. Ray and Miranda, Dr. Bonilla's science did not fit the reigning paradigm. The outspoken scientist urgently warned of the danger posed by the "greening of the Reds." Even more than in the U.S. and Europe, he noted, the Communists and "former" Communists in Latin America had poured into the environmental movement, where they exploited environmental issues to promote Marxist ideology and "class struggle."16

Dr. Bonilla was angry and disturbed over the usurpation of science by those who would use it for purely political purposes.

"We have many poor people with very substandard living conditions," he explained. "They need jobs, decent housing, clothes, food, drinkable water, things that can be provided in a manner compatible with sound economic and ecological practices."17

But the environmental leftists, he said, want to stop all economic development, in the name of environmental protection. This will consign many people to lives of grinding poverty, sickness, illiteracy, and early death.

"The knowledge and technology is available to enable a stewardship of natural resources that allows both pros-perity and environmental integrity," Bonilla asserted.18

As expected, Dr. Bonilla's message was deemed unimportant by the "ruling class journalists"; instead, the American people needed to hear and see and read the blatherings of "experts" like Castro, Gorbachev, and Gore.

The New York-Moscow Green Axis

As in the other areas we have examined, the one-world Insiders, both in New York and in Moscow, have been working hand in hand to excite and exploit environmental fears in the service of building world government. Over and over again, we see these supposedly opposing forces supporting the same subversive, totalitarian programs and agenda.

Environmentalism offers the would-be global dictators unparalleled opportunities to exercise their statist ambitions.


Three of the broad primary objectives they expect to realize through their environmental agenda are:

  • Abolition of private property, the keystone of every socialist political-economic system (see next chapter).

  • Global regimentation, with draconian regulation, in minute detail, of (in the words of one of their favorite eco-programs) "every person on earth."

  • World government, with legislative, executive, and judicial powers, including military and police to enforce "world law."

The internationalist elite of the New York-Moscow Axis have been working in tandem to convince the peoples of the world that, in the words of the World Federalist Association, "Global Problems Require Global Governance."


Through the influence of their symbiotic power networks, this one-world slogan has become universally adopted by Communists, socialists, feminists, environmentalists, human rights activists, disarmament advocates, and others worldwide. As usual, the coordinating brain center is Pratt House, the CFR.

Previously we noted that CFR brain-truster Lincoln P. Bloomfield, in his 1962 study for the CFR-dominated Kennedy State Department, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations, had conceded that it would be difficult to bring about a merger between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. Obviously, Americans would not go for union with a murderous, totalitarian system.


That is why the threat of nuclear annihilation, "mutually assured destruction," had to be built into a credible threat more to be feared than Communism itself. Then, at the critical point, the Soviets would come to their senses and realize that only "collective security," under which national armaments were transferred to UN authority, offered a viable future.


The Kremlin would mellow and democratize. However, Bloomfield saw that this scheme posed a major problem.


He wrote:

"if the communist dynamic were greatly abated, the West might lose whatever incentive it has for world government."19

Indeed, if the nasty, blood-soaked Reds convincingly demonstrate that they are "mellowing," then much of the pressure for surrendering our arms evaporates. Obviously another sufficiently grave threat (or threats) must be found to substitute for, or augment the nuclear holocaust fear.


As Bloomfield saw it, the drive for world government would require,

"a crisis, a war, or a brink-of-war situation so grave or commonly menacing that deeply rooted attitudes and practices are sufficiently shaken to open the possibility of a revolution in world political arrangements."20

Dr. Bloomfield is not alone in recognizing the utility of war and crisis in the service of totalitarianism. Another Insider strategist who has expounded on this subject is the late Herman Kahn (CFR), physicist/futurist founder of the Hudson Institute. In his essay, "World Federal Government," co-authored with Anthony J. Wiener, Kahn acknowledges that building world government requires "intense external dangers."21


Echoing Bloomfield, Kahn stated that,

"a world government could only be created out of war or crisis — an emergency that provided an appropriate combination of the motivations of fear and opportunity."22

The Kahn/Wiener essay so impressed the leaders of the World Federalist Association that they have reprinted and promoted it.23

Still another voice in the crisis choir is Brian Urquhart, a former UN under secretary-general and now a full-time UN propagandist at the Ford Foundation. Urquhart has lamented,

"There are moments when I feel that only an invasion from outer space will reintroduce into the Security Council that unanimity and spirit which the founders of the Charter were talking about."24

Mr. Urquhart's one-world colleagues have actually considered the feasibility of creating such a unifying extra-terrestrial "threat." That was one of the considerations pondered by the "Special Study Group" (SSG) convened in 1963 by the same Pratt House gang in the Kennedy administration who commissioned Bloomfield's study.25 The SSG produced a secret report that created a storm of controversy when it was anonymously released in 1967 as the Report From Iron Mountain.26 *


* The available evidence indicates that Herman Kahn and his CFR-laden Hudson Institute may have formed the core of the SSG, or that the SSG may have been entirely a Kahn/Hudson operation. See Gary Allen's articles "Think Tanks: Where the Revolution Is Being Planned" and "Making Plans: For a Dictatorship in America" in American Opinion magazine, March and April 1971, respectively.

According to the Iron Mountain report, the SSG considered whether,

"such a menace would offer the 'last, best hope of peace,' etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by 'creatures' from other planets or from outer space."27

But the group decided such far-out scenarios lacked "credibility." Ditto for most other contrived "menaces."


However, they decided,

"the environmental-pollution model" offered hopeful potential.28


"It may be," said the Report, "... 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." 29

The line adopted by the CFR Establishment press was that the Report From Iron Mountain was a hoax, a "brilliant satire."


But was it?


At the very time that they were dismissing the report as a delightful joke, the Pratt House illuminati were implementing the game plan it proposed. Through their power and influence in government, academe, the media, tax-exempt foundations, and Wall Street, they were furiously building the threat of environmental destruction into,

"a credible substitute for war capable of directing human behavior patterns in behalf of social organization."30

Three years after the publication of Iron Mountain the first Earth Day was held, launching a global crusade that has had a dramatic impact on our world — politically, economically, socially, philosophically, morally, and religiously.

Recall that according to Dr. Bloomfield (see Chapter 2), "the order we examine may be brought into existence as a result of a series of sudden, nasty, and traumatic shocks."31 The Iron Mountain gang concurred, noting that the new "war substitute" must provide an "immediate, tangible, and directly felt threat of destruction."32


Thus, a nonstop series of nasty and traumatic shocks has been provided by the Insider-financed and -directed environmental movement. Those shocks have been aimed at convincing a significant share of the population of the Western countries that our planet faces imminent, cataclysmic consequences unless immediate, global action is taken — action that includes global regulation of environmental "menaces."

For three decades we have been assaulted with an incessant bombardment of environmental doomsday propaganda.


At every turn, eco-destruction awaits us:

  • the oceans are dying

  • the rain forests are disappearing

  • the deserts are growing

  • species are being driven to extinction

  • critical resources are being depleted

  • CO2 is increasing

  • the earth is warming

  • the polar ice caps are melting

  • carcinogens are everywhere

  • pesticides are killing us....

Crises! Crises! Crises!

We Are All One

But mere crises are not enough; they must be GLOBAL CRISES!


Traditionally, war has been the ultimate crisis for mankind. During war the people yield vast powers to the government for the welfare and survival of the tribe, city, or nation. The environmental "crises" we face, say the one-world eco-saviors, are global crises, presenting a global threat as deadly as war.


Obviously, handling this threat is beyond the capabilities of individual nation states. Ergo, we must have global government with global powers.

This was the theme of Mikhail Gorbachev's celebrated "End of the Cold War" speech in Fulton, Missouri, in 1992.

"The prospect of catastrophic climatic changes, more frequent droughts, floods, hunger, epidemics, national-ethnic conflicts, and other similar catastrophes compels governments to adopt a world perspective and seek generally applicable solutions," he declared.

This could only be accomplished, said Gorbachev, through "some kind of global government."

"I believe," said the CFR-approved "former" Communist, "that the new world order will not be fully realized unless the United Nations and its Security Council create structures ... which are authorized to impose sanctions and make use of other measures of compulsion."33

Gorbachev's Fulton speech (which perfectly reflected the CFR line - and was probably written by Pratt House wordsmiths) signaled a new stepped-up phase in the drive for global "interdependence" and "convergence."


That drive includes an enormous propaganda campaign saturating the American public with the idea that our environmental problems are too immense to be dealt with by our present system of independent, sovereign nation states. Thus we increasingly find ourselves confronting such prefabricated slogans as "Global Problems Require Global Solutions," "Global Problems Require Global Governance," and "Think Globally, Act Locally."

Amongst environmentalists and many other one-world "grievance" agitators, these slogans have become incessant mantras.

"The first law of ecology tells us that 'everything is connected to everything else,'" proclaims environmental radical Jeremy Rifkin in his book Entropy: Into the Greenhouse World.34

This thesis of global "interconnectedness," "unity," and "oneness" — a new "paradigm shift" — now permeates all discussion of things economic, political, social, environmental, moral, and spiritual — thanks to the promotion it has received from the Insider elite. School children are inculcated with this message from their textbooks. Children and adults receive daily doses of interdependence from television "news" and "nature" programs. This is a conscious, subversive effort to reorient the public to a "one-world" view.

Professor of international law and one-world architect Benjamin Ferencz asserts that,

"antiquated notions of absolute sovereignty are absolutely obsolete in the interconnected and interdependent global world of the 21st century."35

This is also the message of New Age political activists Corinne McLaughlin and Gordon Davidson. In Spiritual Politics: Changing the World From the Inside Out, they write:

"A systems approach is needed, as all our problems are interconnected and interdependent, facets of one single crisis — essentially a crisis of perception. This crisis is part of a cultural shift from a mechanistic world-view to a holistic and ecological view, from a value system based on domination to partnership, from quantity to quality, from expansion to conservation, from efficiency to sustainability."36

In the same vein, New Age futurist and best-selling author Alvin Toffler approvingly notes that the "Third Wave" era, in which we are now living,

"gives rise to groups with larger than nationalist interests. These form the base of the emerging globalist ideology sometimes called 'planetary consciousness.'"37

Fellow globalists Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps develop this thesis in their book Networking.


In this emerging world view, they say,

"nature's ecological orchestra is revered as one unified instrument, inner development is valued as a correlate to social involvement, and the planet is understood to be an interconnected whole."38

But this is not "nature's" orchestra we are hearing; it's the same Pratt House-orchestrated choir singing the same anti-national sovereignty, pro-world government refrain — with a decidedly neo-pagan spiritual twist added. (This "spiritual" dimension of the globalist agenda will be more closely examined in Chapter 12).

If we "follow the money," we quickly see that the funding for the groups and individuals singing this tune comes from the usual sources: the big CFR-dominated tax-exempt foundations and corporations.39 The tune is amplified in the political realm by CFR politicians like Senators John Kerry, Charles Schumer, John D. Rockefeller, John Chafee, and Joseph Lieberman, and Representatives Richard Gephardt, Lee Hamilton, Barney Frank, Jim Leach, Sam Gejdenson, and Charles Rangel.


Newt Gingrich, the CFR's prize "conservative," invites Alvin Toffler (repeatedly) to address the House of Representatives and even pens a glowing introduction to one of the futurist's works of Marxoid flummery.40

And the CFR media cartel dutifully publicizes the apocalyptic scenarios of the doomsayers and praises them as courageous "prophets." Fright peddlers and one-world apostles such as Gorbachev, Rifkin, Toffler, Ferencz, et al., are favorably reviewed, sympathetically quoted, and provided with national media platforms to trumpet their nonsense and disinformation. Their twaddle is assigned as required reading to millions of students as though it is gospel.


As at Rio, genuine scientists and scholars representing the authentic voice of scientific consensus are ignored or even vilified when they refute the hysterical nonsense and claptrap of the environmental gurus.


Because of this blatant bias of the controlled media, these lunatic ravings and New Age mystic musings are no longer relegated to the wacky fringes of society, where they belong; they are expounded by supposedly "serious" think tanks, "respected" journals, and "mainstream" politicians, and form the basis for international treaties and federal policies and law.


The Work of Decades

This "cultural shift," as McLaughlin and Davidson put it in Spiritual Politics,41 has not happened overnight; it has been the patient work of more than a generation.


Earth Day 1970 marked the launch of an ongoing offensive by an "ecology movement" that the Insiders had been building for years. 1972 marked another major watershed. In that year, the Club of Rome, an international coterie of one-world elitists (including many of the usual CFR regulars) came out with a much-heralded study, The Limits to Growth.


This eco-socialist jeremiad proclaimed:

"Entirely new approaches are required to redirect society toward goals of equilibrium rather than growth."42 In order to save the earth, said the Club report, "joint long-term planning will be necessary on a scale and scope without precedent."43


A "supreme effort" by all would be required "to organize more equitable distribution of wealth and income worldwide."44

The authority of The Limits to Growth was presented as beyond question. After all, it was produced by researchers using "sophisticated" computer models at the "prestigious" Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Added to this was the stature of the scientific, intellectual, political, and corporate celebrities associated with the esteemed Club of Rome.


These "impressive" cachets notwithstanding, the Limits study was about as "scientific" as Chicken Little's claims that "the sky is falling."


The main difference is that Chicken Little was a poor fool who actually believed her own hysterical alarms. The Club of Rome Insiders are peddling Chicken Little hysteria in order to panic and stampede all the barnyard animals into their New World Order corral.

Interestingly, that same year, 1972, Gus Hall, National Chairman of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), released a book entitled Ecology with a similar message.

"Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism," said Comrade Hall.45


"Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."46

He continued:

"Socialism corrects the basic flaw of capitalism. It sets human society on a new path. The means of production, factories, mines and mills become the property of the people. They operate and produce only to fulfill human needs.... This is the foundation for a new set of priorities, for new values.... What is involved is a 'conflict of values.'"47

1972 was also the year of the first "Earth Summit," the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden. Serving as secretary-general of that event was Canadian billionaire-socialist Maurice Strong (whom we will see, later on, become a high-level Insider).


The conference was hosted by Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, one of the many leaders of the Socialist International in attendance. An immediate outcome of that summit was the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), with Mr. Strong as its first executive director. Other summit results included a socialist-environmentalist manifesto called the Stockholm Declaration,48 consisting of 26 principles, and the Stockholm Plan of Action,49 a set of 109 (mostly Marxist) recommendations.


One of the key intellectuals advising the conference and helping write its reports was Rockefeller University microbiologist Rene Dubos.*


* Dubos coined the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally."

That same year, Dubos came out with the celebrated book Only One Earth, which was co-authored with the British Fabian Socialist Barbara Ward (Lady Jackson).50

Thus, in 1972, the same eco-socialist "marching orders" were given to the hard-core Communist cadres, the worldwide socialist parties, and the great global mainstream of environmentalists and concerned citizens. In the years since those reports by the Club of Rome, the Communist Party, the UN, and Dubos/Ward, a deluge of similar and increasingly militant reports and books appeared from the Communist-socialist left paralleling, and at times converging with, the themes espoused in reports, articles, and books by the CFR "capitalist" elites.


Although these "opposing sides" may attack each other rhetorically, what's important is the bottom line: Both sides are advocating central planning (socialism) and internationalism (world government). The Red-Green orchestra was playing furiously.

By the mid-1980s, we see U.S.-Soviet "convergence" in full swing, with Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. leaders engaged in large-scale cooperative propaganda efforts to push the same global environmental agenda. Gorbachev's subsequent replacement by Boris Yeltsin, and then Vladimir Putin, did not derail the CFR-Kremlin cooperation in this ongoing venture; in fact, it accelerated the agenda.


Comrade Gorbachev, acting ostensibly as a private citizen, launched his "global brain trust" (his words), the Gorbachev Foundation, staffed in Moscow with 150 "former" Communist apparatchiks, and with affiliated institutes in the U.S. and other nations. During the 1990s, which leading world-order theorist Professor Richard Falk (CFR) said would be the "decade of transformation,"51 Gorbachev was in constant motion, along with the leading lights of Pratt House, pushing the CFR-Kremlin one-world line.

In his 1992 book Voting Green, Rifkin wrote:

"[T]he new Green vision places the environment at the center of public life, making it the context for both the formulation of economic policies and political decisions."52

That was penned to coincide with the UN's Earth Summit. And the CFR media orchestra made sure that that message was delivered repeatedly to the American public, to opinion molders, and to policy makers and legislators by a gaggle of different messengers. This kind of orchestrated saturation is essential if you are going to effect a real "cultural shift" or "paradigm shift."

A cascade of enviro-Marxist offerings mushroomed out of nowhere with the same theme. On the plane to Rio de Janeiro and at the Earth Summit itself, everywhere I looked, delegates, activists, and reporters were ravenously devouring (and later parroting) the contents of a host of new books and reports. The State of the World, an annual environmental fright report put out by the Worldwatch Institute (WI), was everywhere cited as holy writ.53


Worldwatch is headed by Lester Brown (CFR), whom the Washington Post has admiringly described as "one of the world's most influential thinkers."54 His website notes that he founded WI in 1974 "with support of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund."55


And the WI annual reports acknowledge that "the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Winthrop Rockefeller Trust provide core funding for the State of the World series."56

Another tome that excited the Earth Summit greenies, while garnering rave reviews from the Establishment media, was Changing Course, by Stephen Schmidheiny and the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD).57 The BCSD is loaded with corporate-socialist one-worlders, such as Maurice R. Greenberg, chairman of American International Group, Inc. Mr. Greenberg is vice-chairman of the CFR and his AIG is a CFR corporate member.

One of the most celebrated books to come out at the time of the Summit was produced by then-Senator Al Gore. In Earth In The Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Gore insisted that,

"the effort to save the global environment" must become the "single shared goal [and] the central organizing principle for every institution in society." 58

The book is a perfervid piece of socialist ecopropaganda larded with an incredible number of errors, ludicrous claims, and blatant misrepresentations. But it was exactly what the Pratt House globalists wanted, and it was a relatively easy matter for them to provide the hype necessary to turn it into a bestseller. Gore, a protege of Communist billionaire Armand Hammer,59 led the U.S. Senate delegation to Rio and was launched on his way to becoming Vice President of the United States.

Trilateral Road to Rio More important than the Gore book, though read by a far smaller, elite audience, was the revealing Trilateral Commission book Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology, by Canada's Jim MacNeill, Holland's Pieter Winsemius, and Japan's Taizo Yakushiji.60


David Rockefeller (then head of the CFR and Trilateral Commission) and Maurice Strong teamed up to write, respectively, the foreword and introduction to the Trilateral book.

"...I have been privileged to work closely with the principal author, Jim MacNeill, for over two decades," wrote Strong. "He was one of my advisors when I was secretary general of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972. We were both members of the World Commission on Environment and Development and, as secretary general, he played a fundamental role in shaping and writing its landmark report, Our Common Future [a socialist/environmentalist manifesto also known as The Brundtland Report]."61

What's more, revealed Strong, MacNeill "is now advising me on the road to Rio,"62 where Strong served a dual role, as the UN impresario and the Insiders' on-site manager.

Beyond Interdependence served as the Trilateral game plan for Rio, and it had Strong's full endorsement.

"This book couldn't appear at a better time, with the preparations for the Earth Summit moving into high gear," said Strong.63 To stress its importance, he said it would help guide "decisions that will literally determine the fate of the earth."64

According to this head summiteer, the Rio gathering would,

"have the political capacity to produce the basic changes needed in our national and international economic agendas and in our institutions of governance...."65

In his estimation,

"Beyond Interdependence provides the most compelling economic as well as environmental case for such reform that I have read."66

MacNeill and his co-authors advocated,

"a new global partnership expressed in a revitalized international system in which an Earth Council, perhaps the Security Council with a broader mandate, maintains the interlocked environmental and economic security of the planet."67


"The Earth Summit," wrote MacNeill and his cohorts, "will likely be the last chance for the world, in this century at least, to seriously address and arrest the accelerating environmental threats to economic development, national security, and human survival."68

Of course, all of the official preparatory meetings and negotiations leading up to the Earth Summit were really just so much spectacle for public consumption.


And the Rio gathering itself was additional "consensus" sideshow to provide an aura of planetary "democracy" for a program that was already worked out in detail by the one-worlders, with their CFR brain trusts at the World Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, World Order Models Project, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, etc., long before.


The objective?


The obvious one was to give impetus to the global environmentalist agenda. But an important additional objective was to prepare the world to accept a broad new UN mandate (without rewriting its charter): The UN was not just about peacekeeping anymore.

Ronald I. Spiers (CFR) was one of many globalist agents who prepped public opinion and policy makers for what was to come, when he wrote, in the March 13, 1992 New York Times:

"The [United Nations] Trusteeship Council should be changed from a body dealing with the vestiges of colonialism to one dealing with the environment, becoming in effect the trustee of the health of the planet."69



That's precisely what happened at Rio.

An earlier purveyor of this line, the venerable CFR "wise man" George F. Kennan, explained in a Washington Post column appearing on November 12, 1989 that we now live "in an age where the great enemy is not the Soviet Union but the rapid deterioration of our planet as a supporting structure for civilized life."70 Kennan, a Princeton University professor and former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, was the author of our nation's phony Cold War policy of "containment" of Communism.

Jessica Tuchman Mathews (CFR, TC), then vice president of the World Resources Institute, followed with an article in the July/August 1990 EPA Journal asserting that "environmental imperatives are changing the concept of national sovereignty," and "multipolarity [is] replacing the bipolar U.S.-U.S.S.R. axis around which nations used to array themselves."71


Moreover, she wrote,

"it is likely that international problem-solving in the decades ahead will for the first time depend on collective management, not hegemony. And it is to precisely this form of governance that global environmental problems will yield."72

Gorbachev's Toxic Globaloney Mikhail Gorbachev, who is the darling of new world order promoters, and was one of the superstars of the Earth Summit, had also been thumping this theme for a couple of years. Addressing the 1990 Global Forum in Moscow, he called for "ecologizing" society and said:

"The ecological crisis we are experiencing today — from ozone depletion to deforestation and disastrous air pollution - is tragic but convincing proof that the world we all live in is interrelated and interdependent."73


"This means," Gorbachev continued, "that we need an appropriate international policy in the field of ecology. Only if we formulate such a policy shall we be able to avert catastrophe. True, the elaboration of such a policy poses unconventional and difficult problems that will affect the sovereignty of states." 74

In a 1994 interview with the significant title, "From Red to Green," in the Insider-funded Audubon magazine, Gorbachev stated:

"We must change all our values.... What we are talking about is creating new forms of life on the basis of new values."75

In a 1995 interview with the environmental magazine Grassroots, Gorbachev insisted that the only hope for saving our planet lay in,

"the development and implementation of an Earth Charter, a body of international ecological laws that would guide the actions of individuals, corporations and governments ... the time has come for a code of ethical and moral principles that will govern the conduct of nations and people with respect to the environment." 76

But what are these "new values" and "moral principles" that Mr. Gorbachev insists that all humanity must embrace? That is an important question to answer, since he is playing such a key leadership role in this process. Besides heading up his Gorbachev Foundation and State of the World Forum, Mr. Gorbachev (Nobel Laureate, Time magazine's "Man of the Decade" 77) is also head of Green Cross International, of which Global Green USA is the American affiliate.


And he was chosen at Rio by his good buddy Maurice Strong to lead the drafting of the Earth Charter.

Let's take a look at the values and principles of the "Prophet of Perestroika."


This is the same Gorbachev who, in November 1987, proclaimed:

"In October 1917, we parted with the Old World, rejecting it once and for all. We are moving toward a new world, the world of Communism. We shall never turn off that road."78 (Emphasis added.)


"Perestroika," he said then, "is a continuation of the October Revolution." 79

By which he means V. I.


Lenin's bloody, murderous Bolshevik Revolution

As we will see below, Gorbachev is an unrepentant, unregenerate, militant, atheist Communist. (And, as we will see in Chapter 12, that has not hindered in the least his ascent into the ranks of the UN's premier spiritual leaders who are confecting the diabolical new Global Ethic, or world religion.)

In 1989, Gorbachev declared:

"I am a Communist, a convinced Communist, For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal." 80

The following year, even as he was being hailed as the "man who ended Communism," he reiterated this conviction, stating, "I am now, just as I've always been, a convinced Communist."81


He has never repudiated these or his many other similar statements. And a close examination of his speeches and statements that appear to show a "new" Gorbachev actually show him to be still a hardcore Leninist. Just as Hitler revealed his real self in Mein Kampf, for all who were willing to see, Gorbachev has made quite clear where he stands, and for what he stands.

Are the CFR cognoscenti promoting Gorby illiterates? Are they unaware that his "ex-Communist" act is a ruse?


Of course not; they are fully aware of the deception involved here. It is the Pratt House plutocracy that has been his main sponsor and the primary force assisting his deception.*


* In his famous book Perestroika, he plainly admitted: "We are not going to change Soviet power, of course, or abandon its fundamental principles, but we acknowledge the need for changes that will strengthen socialism." 82 (Emphasis added.) In the same revered text he explained that "according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible," and the "essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice." 83 (Emphasis in original.) Thus, when he declares for "democracy," he means "democracy" within the Leninist conception and definition of the term, something quite the opposite of that which most Americans assume he is talking about.

Given his unrepentant convictions, it is a simple matter to see why Gorbachev so enthusiastically supports the global enviro-Leninist regimens emanating from the UN. Such as Agenda 21.

Agenda 21's Terrifying Agenda

This mammoth program for global social engineering and ecotyranny is a massive blueprint for regimenting all life on Planet Earth in the 21st century — in the name of protecting the environment.


Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save the Planet (1993), one of the UN-approved editions of the program, makes this brazen assertion:

Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.84

With breathtaking audacity, the document continues:

There are specific actions which are intended to be undertaken by multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, by financial institutions and individual investors, by high-tech companies and indigenous people, by workers and labor unions, by farmers and consumers, by students and schools, by governments and legislators, by scientists, by women, by children — in short, by every person on Earth.85

If Gorbachev is a "socialist," a "Communist," a "Leninist" — which he says he is, and vindicates that claim with many actions — it is perfectly understandable that he would be very pleased with the direction that the United States is going with the UN environmental agenda. As a Leninist, he is comfortable with long-term strategy, and, as his idolizing biographer, Gail Sheehy, noted, he has long been known for "his emulation of Lenin's policy of two steps forward, one step backward." 86

But Comrade Mikhail, as we've noted, is getting plenty of help from "our" side.


He and his Russian colleagues are provided with continuous tutoring and infusions of cash from world order heavyweights such as George Soros (CFR), Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR, TC), George Shultz (CFR, TC), Henry Kissinger (CFR, TC), David Rockefeller (CFR, TC), and Richard N. Gardner* (CFR, TC).87


* Gardner also tutored then-Governor Jimmy Carter in foreign policy "issues" for two years to prepare him for the presidency.90

It was Professor Gardner who penned the now-famous article, "The Hard Road to World Order," in the April 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs. One of the boldest calls for world government ever to appear in the CFR's journal, it proposed building the "house of world order" through "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece." 88 What's more, it set out the CFR Insider plans for exploiting fears about environmental calamity as a vehicle for expanding the UN's power.


In this 1974 article, Gardner wrote:

The next few years should see a continued strengthening of the new global and regional agencies charged with protecting the world's environment. In addition to comprehensive monitoring of the earth's air, water and soil and of the effects of pollutants on human health, we can look forward to new procedures to implement the principle of state responsibility for national actions that have transnational environmental consequences, probably including some kind of "international environmental impact statement"....89 [Emphasis in original.]

Together with Gorbachev and his "former" Communist cronies in the Kremlin, the Pratt House one-worlders intend to fasten a global enviro-Leninist world government upon the planet Earth.


And they are far along the way to accomplishing this.

Back to Contents