How climate protection became a thing and what you should know before voting for a climate bill
By Kirsten Juel
Once upon a time we thought differently about ourselves as human beings than we do today, and likewise we potentially face a future of transformed ideas in which we will have renewed our ways of thinking about ourselves and the world – and the climate.
In the 1970s, when my father was studying to become a biodynamic farmer, he learned how to drain swamps and how to best supply water to dried-out spots. In general, he learned how to turn all kinds of abandoned areas on the edges of farms into fertile land – and, on the other hand, how to leave certain areas to nature at certain times, all in order to promote fertility and food production as much and best as possible. It was a time generally inspired by the mood and question: How can I cultivate as much soil as possible into fertile farmland, in order to ensure that there will always be enough food for a growing human population?
The Zero-Child-Policy Of 20 Minuten
Today – on the other hand – the Swiss newspaper 20 Minuten provides us with the response of a young woman who, when asked whether she desires to have kids answers that having children is immoral. Immoral not because she grew up in some old arch-Catholic, dogmatic sect that brainwashed her into believing that all pleasures in life are immoral – but immoral because in the new «sect», in which we are all currently living, apparently every newborn child on earth is considered a danger to the planet, being one human too many in an already overpopulated world allegedly driving mother earth all the faster into an unavoidable, imminent heat death.
Now, that is not only – from a mere scientific point of view – total nonsense, but also plainly the most anti-human worldview that one could even possibly imagine, yet one that threatens to take possession of how present humanity thinks about itself.
Take notice just for a few days or weeks of the numerous constant small and larger «drops» occurring in newspapers, on TV-channels, on radio broadcasts, in commercials, on trucks, all the way down to the unnoticeable little messages on grocery bags, or on single products in supermarkets, pharmacies, and organic food stores – yes, even in the top 10 Netflix series for children. Constant little «drops» which, with every day that goes by, one by one hollow out the stone of public opinion, spinning a pseudo-scientific spook in the heads and souls of humans which, in the meantime – as emeritus climate researcher Prof. Dr. Johannes Krüger of the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management of the University of Copenhagen says: «has taken on a religious character».
Now – does a growing humanity and its CO2 emissions actually lead to a planetary heat death? Are the resources that our earth potentially holds really as scarce as claimed? Does every further human soul on earth inevitably cause the death of another due to the so-called Darwinian struggle for existence? Is it indeed true that our growing humanity can do no other than drive the planet into the chaos of a Malthusian catastrophe? Meanwhile, such questions are considered heretical in the poisoned intellectual climate of our Western world, hijacked by these beliefs.
Thus mankind’s mind is currently mainly stuck in what one can safely call an «occult prison». Occult means «unseen», «secret», «hidden»; and the life-blood of an «occult power» subsists in this power’s ability to remain unrecognized. Which is why we – within our thinking – always carry the very weapon in mind needed to battle the powers and forces that seek to invade our existence through bypassing our consciousness. With this weapon, it lies in our hands to recognize the source of the «drops» – the «ones» and «zeros» – and tear down the prison walls.
«Under the present circumstances, many things are coming to light, even for public eyes. [English politics is] entirely influenced […] by what […] lies behind it. There, it is all about finding ways to transport the relevant people into the right positions. Occultistic people, standing in the background, are often mere 1s and don’t mean anything significant on their own; they need something else to accompany them: they need zeros. Zeros are not ones, but then they become a ten. If one adds further zeros, then, since the one is sticking around somewhere, it soon becomes all kinds of things, for example a thousand, even though every zero is just a zero; and if the one is covered, then only the zeros are visible. So it is all about combining the zeros with the ones in a fitting manner, whereby the zeros do not even necessarily need to know much about the way in which they are combined with the ones.»
As a result of the first «European Management Symposium» initiated by Klaus Schwab in Davos from January 24 to February 7, 1971 – on the topic Ze Challenge of ze Future – the construct later renamed World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded on February 8, 1971. Today, the WEF headquarters is located in Cologny, in the Canton of Geneva in Switzerland. Alongside media and politics, the World Economic Forum is not only one of the most excessive, but also one of the earliest propagandists of the Climate Change agenda. «I worked on climate-change since 73! Because I was the person who gave the Club of Rome the first big platform»,
2 said Klaus Schwab in an interview with Greenpeace. And with the Forum’s ability to influence not only the natural climate, but especially the climate of public opinion, it is no wonder that basically no one anymore doubts that there is a crisis of man-made global warming. Yet where do the data on which this assumption is based actually originate? How did they come about and are they true?
The Data-Providing «Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change» and Its Origin
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, is considered the «gold standard» of climate research. This so-called «World Climate Council» was created in cooperation with the UN-World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in November 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme» (UNEP). The stated goal of the IPCC is:
«To provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies. IPCC reports are also a key input into international climate change negotiations.»
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change thus provides the data bible upon which powers such as politics, media, and the WEF lay their hand while swearing upon an inevitable man-made climate catastrophe, only surmountable – sounds like magic – by shutting down industry, cancelling culture, switching to runaway solar and wind energies, developing cow burp-fart-catchers, and – oh yeah, that’s right: turning worn-out wind turbines, too harmful to be handed over to nature, into yummy gummy bears to be enjoyed by our immorally-born children
My fellow countryman, the retired Danish climate scientist from the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management of the University of Copenhagen, Prof. Dr. Johannes Krüger5 , does not swear on that IPCC climate bible. And, I’ve got to say, Krüger and his colleagues have more than a few reasons to doubt the data of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
«The fathers of the climate crisis: Maurice Strong and Bert Bolin.» Prof. Dr. Joh. Krüger with PowerPoint during lecture.
In 2009 Julian Assange’s «Wikileaks» published the so-called «Climategate»6 a leak consisting of 60MB of data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), founded in 1972. The revelations include emails from the now former head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, packed with astonishing statements such as:
«The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has.» Or: «I’ve just completed Mike’s nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.»
Today, according to its own website, the UEA is still considered the main data provider to the IPCC which8, in return – as already mentioned – is granted the status of «gold standard» in matters of climate.
But that is far from all. Krüger explains what he also proves in his book Thirty-two Climate Myths You Shouldn’t Fall For: Read if You Dare, which has so far only been published in Danish:
«Today’s ‹climate-change› question is more controversial than the UN-World-Climate-Council, IPCC, and media want to admit. Solid observational facts show that the real climate behaves differently from the theoretical climate in the flawed computer-based climate models that even the IPCC itself in its own technical reports calls ‹useless for predictions of future climate›. […] Politicians and the public blindly trust the IPCC Climate Monopoly and considers it an oracle representing the world’s scientific expertise in the realm of climate.»
«Both media and politicians emphasize the ‹catastrophe› and speak of ‹saving the world and the climate›, while the general public is left behind with the impression that the planet has only a short time left before everything is over. This has created a popular mood and mass hysteria that has taken on a religious character […]. The bias of the climate debate is intensified by the constant repetition of the claim that 97% of scientists agree that most global warming is caused by human beings. As we will see, this claim is 100% false, but is nevertheless used to dismiss so-called skeptics – who are supposedly an extremely small minority – and to avoid any serious climate debate, but also to provide a scientific alibi for policy decision-making that increasingly interferes with societal activities at a high human and economic cost. On May 9, 2007, former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland proclaimed from the UN-podium, ‹It is immoral to doubt.› Ms. Brundtland apparently believes that when it comes to the climate issue, everyone must walk in lockstep and equates climate criticism with Holocaust denial. She only forgets both that it is legitimate to doubt and that the right to ask critical questions is the gold standard of actual science – anti-skepticism being pseudoscience.»
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) – which, as we know, founded the so influential Geneva-based Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – was itself established in 1972 by its later director, the Canadian Maurice Strong. And if it wouldn’t sound downright inbred, we could fittingly call Mister Strong both «grandpa» and «daddy» of the «Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change». Maurice Strong’s United Nations Environment Programme sees itself as
«the leading global authority on the environment. […] For over 50 years, UNEP has worked with governments, civil society, the private sector, and UN entities to address humanity’s most pressing environmental challenges […] promoting a green, inclusive economy.»
That the UNEP doesn’t just develop solutions to problems, but also problems to fit its solutions, is no secret. In 1989 – according to AP 12 – it predicted the likelihood of entire nations disappearing from the face of the earth by the year 2000 due to sea-level rising caused by global warming. And in 2005, Der Spiegel13 published UNEP’s prediction that up to 50 million people would become environmental refugees before the year 2010 due to climate change.
Father of Many Evils: Strong and the Origin of the WEF
Not only were the IPCC and the UNEP founded by the main propagandist of the CO2 theory, but even the climate-euphoric World Economic Forum itself was largely promoted to its rank by none other than Mr. Maurice Strong.
As Strong died in 2015, his pupil Klaus Schwab dedicated the following lines to him:
«I am deeply saddened that Maurice Strong passed away yesterday at the age of 86. He was one of the most extraordinary personalities I ever met. He deeply incorporated the World Economic Forum’s mission of improving the state of the world into everything he did. He was a great visionary, always ahead of our times in his thinking. He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board. Without him, the Forum would not have achieved its present significance. I am grateful to him for his guidance and partnership. I will always remember the hundreds of hours where we exchanged ideas.»
Facsimile of an illustration from the «Club of Rome» Report, 1991Facsimile of a WEF web page Illustration. Original: see www.weforum.org
The Club of Rome Ideology of Maurice Strong
Strong, however, had yet another more secret, but favorite, «child» – namely the Club of Rome, whose Canadian branch he founded.15 He was a convinced follower of the Neo-Malthusian worldview of this club, a view which Oxford University explains as follows:
«A pessimist view of the relationship between population, economic growth, and resources, based on the ideas of Thomas Malthus, who argued that population growth and economic growth would eventually be checked by absolute limits on resources such as food, energy, or water. […] This school of thinking was widely promoted through books such as ‹Limits to Growth›.»
The founders of the Club of Rome themselves however summed up their mission somewhat more drastically:
«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. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviors that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.»
The founders of the Club of Rome were not the first brains to be attracted to Malthus’ ideas like bugs to a streetlight. Already a century in advance, Charles Darwin believed himself to have glimpsed therein the wisdom of the world. He describes how his idea of the struggle for existence was indeed inspired by Thomas Robert Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population, initially published anonymously in 1798 … which he happened to read for amusement:
«In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement ‹Malthus on Population›, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work.»
So what exactly did this Malthusian doctrine imply, which first inspired Darwin and later Strong alongside other disciples of the Club of Rome. Let’s allow Malthus to explain himself:
«It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. […] To act consistently therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction which we compel nature to use. […] In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.* But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to one in 18 or 20, we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved. If however we all marry at this age and yet still continue our exertions to impede the operations of nature, we may rest assured that all our efforts will be vain. Nature will not, nor cannot, be defeated in her purposes. The necessary mortality must come in some form or other; and the extirpation of one disease will only be the signal for the birth of another perhaps more fatal. […] Political evils would probably be added to physical. A people goaded by constant distress, and visited by frequent returns of famine, could not be kept down but by a cruel despotism.»
Although the world would look different with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King’s founding of the main branch of the Club of Rome 50 years later, in 1916 Rudolf Steiner could still make the following remark regarding the ideas of Malthus:
«Out of those emerged a principle which, I would say, thank God, only blinded a few for a short period of time, […] the principle of social Malthusianism.»
However, two years later, he warned that the Malthusian line of thought would draw future humanity into a state of social chaos:
«What exactly is the real purpose of the economy? – It is not, or at least it cannot simply be to distribute what is there, but also to ensure that something is there, that material goods are actually produced, that goods are being extracted from the earth. Malthus in some way was one of the first people to consciously reflect on the relation of mankind to resources. Thereby his thoughts went in a direction which should raise a great deal of concern. […] He said: If, on the one hand, we take the population increase into consideration – he was of the opinion, which many modern people are, that the human population on earth will always increase – and if, on the other hand, we take the increase of food production into consideration, […] then as a result we have a certain relation. And Malthus expresses it somewhat mathematically by saying: The increase of food proceeds in arithmetical, the increase of population in geometrical progression. […] Say for instance the ratio of food increase is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, then we would have the geometrical ratio: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16. In other words, in his view the population increases much faster than the production of food. His conclusion, therefore, is that human evolution will inevitably lead to a struggle for existence in an overpopulated world ruled by scarcity […]
Source: Chung/canadianpatriot.org
He comes to the conclusion, or at least his followers come to the conclusion, that it is counterproductive to strive to provide care for the poor and so on, because by doing so one is merely cultivating overpopulation, which is damaging to the future of mankind. He even goes so far as to say that those who are suffering in life should be left unsupported, in order to be weeded out. He then proceeds to other methods, which I do not want to elaborate on now – I will only touch on the surface of a few of them. He attempts to recommend the two-child system in order to prevent the natural tendency of overpopulation. He regards wars as something that must necessarily occur in the evolution of mankind in order to counteract the natural tendency of population increasing faster than the resources. Clearly, a rather pessimistic view on human economic development is entering the realm of history. […] Then, furthermore, he repeatedly refers to the social structure itself, the manner in which people should distribute what is there, so that the greatest possible prosperity is achieved – not how to extract as many resources as possible from the planet, but rather how to distribute what has already been extracted. Now, in this worldview, various things occur which are important to take notice of, because they prepare the social and socialistic thinking of our time, which has already and will to an even greater extent, lead humanity into a kind of social chaos in the future, out of which the right way must necessarily be found.»
Maurice Strong – Source: Canada Press/AP, via matthewehret.substack.com
At this point, I wouldn’t want to deprive the readers of the following, presumably infamous excerpt from a 1990 interview of Strong by journalist Daniel Wood, after which there should be no doubt left that such figures are «serious» about mankind:
«Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future. Each year, he explains as a background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says:
‹What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?›
And Strong, driving as I take notes, looks at me. Then his eyes go back to Highway 17. The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Brundtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth? Strong resumes his story.
‹The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders›, he continues, ‹form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…›
And Strong makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he is flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
‹I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this›,he says»
«Climate-Salvation», a Trojan Horse for a Post-Industrial Society
With all the above-discussed facts in mind and a quick glance at the climate-neutral milk package, there are indeed other and weightier reasons to reject the so-called climate policy of «world leaders» – exemplified for instance in the Swiss climate bill vote from June 18, 2023 – than being a nature hater, Holocaust denier, or money-grubbing oil company profiteer, as sadly, the course of events did prove Steiner’s prediction of 100 years ago correct, namely that the Malthusian strain of thought will
«lead humanity into a kind of social chaos in the future, out of which the right way must necessarily be found.»
It might not be meaningless, yet it is ultimately futile to talk of a solution to the social question of our time if not done on the basis of a sober and realistic evaluation of the role of Malthusianism in today’s social chaos. For as long as the Neo-Malthusian-infested reality in which we live remains unrecognized, my solution to the suffering of our time will remain a mere alien stereotypical attempt to solve a social question that I do not understand.
I can talk for decades about how the economic realm must ideally be arranged in the sense of brotherhood, compassion, love, but in order to arrange an economic realm in this sense, an economy must exist in the first place. And that is exactly what the invisible Neo-Malthusian hand in the background of all those above-mentioned institutions wants to erase from the face of the earth, with its global Great Reset. A «new start» after which nobody will be able to buy or sell who does not belong to a small secret brotherhood of «world leaders» – intending to set up its very own odd «brotherhoodly»economic order within their dualistic world of «twofolding the unsocial organism», in which they intend to rule over a depopulated, de-economized mankind.
That the so-called «climate protection» agenda with its «net zero» policy is being used as a Trojan horse to achieve this goal should be no surprise, for as Strong’s worldview-buddy – the co-author of the above-mentioned Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth – Dennis Meadows said:
I can talk for decades about how the economic realm must ideally be arranged in the sense of brotherhood, compassion, love, but in order to arrange an economic realm in this sense, an economy must exist in the first place. And that is exactly what the invisible Neo-Malthusian hand in the underground of all those above mentioned institutions wants to erase from the face of the earth, with its global «Great Reset». A «new start», after which nobody will be able to buy or sell, who does not belong to a small «secret brotherhood of world leaders» – to stick with Strong – intending to set up their very own odd «brotherhoodly» economic order, within their dualistic world where they intend to rule above a depopulated, de-economized mankind.
That so-called «climate protection» with its «net zero» policy is used as a Trojan horse to achieve this goal, should be no surprise, for as as Strong’s worldview buddy the co-author of the above-mentioned «Club of Rome» report «The Limits to Growth» Dennis Meadows said:
«We can – I mean the planet can – support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. […] But we want to have freedom and we want to have high standards, so we’re going to have a billion people and we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down. […] we need people to re imagine a lifestyle which requires much less energy and material […]. And then at the national level and the international level you need […] to bring companies and governments to really give importance to the long term. […] That would be a real revolution to start getting it so that a minister of let’s say agriculture would do something which actually makes the farming situation seem worse in the short term, but means five years from now you have less energy requirement, or less environmental damage or something like that. We need all of those kinds of things.»
Overcoming Limits to Growth: The Future of «Breaking Bread» and «Feeding the Multitude»
It is not difficult to identify the logic – as poor as it is – in the Neo-Malthusian strain of thought:
There are insurmountable limits to resources and therefore to food.
Hence, there are limits to population growth.
Once these limits are reached, it comes to a fight of all against all over food and therewith to chaotic, uncontrollable conditions.
To prevent that, humanity must be depopulated at an early stage, in a controlled manner.
Those who have recognized this and therefore occupy a higher rank in the world-hierarchy have the heavy duty to bring this about.
However, they can no longer – like Hitler, whom they financed – stick people in gas chambers, but must arrange for depopulation to happen in an indirect manner, for instance by gradually cutting off what enables the general population to survive (food, supply chains, heating in winter, etc.).
To keep humanity from resisting the suicide, the undertaking must be given a nice shell – such as «climate salvation».
Whoever with this great responsibility pursues the highest of world goals is, of course, not just raised above the rest of mankind, but also above the human legal order in general.
In reality, no one knows how many yet unknown resources our planet has in store for our future. And those who claim to know their limits are lying. Which is also why the pitiful growth models of the Club of Rome are not actual results of observation, but mere hypothesis-fed computer-simulation-constructs. That is, windmills set up by their Don Quixotes in order to be fought.
It is with resources as with freedom: Whether or not it is there cannot be answered abstractly. Man is free when he overcomes the limits to his spiritual growth which, until then, kept his mind imprisoned. And he has resources when he overcomes those limits to growth which, until then, paralyzed the capacity of his mind to make the discoveries and inventions necessary for resource-gain.
When our spiritual life – that is, our joy of discovery and invention – is no longer paralyzed by shame and fear created by the cult (or shall we say club?) of imminent heat death whose hypocrisy we now recognize, then we will naturally no longer submit to solar and wind power, disabling our future resource-extraction possibilities. We will no longer let ourselves be forced to cancel culture, to reduce our minds to the development of cow burp-fart-catchers, or to turn broken wind turbines, which are too harmful to be handed over to nature, into already-mentioned yummy gummy bears for our children.
What we will do, though, is make use of our free minds for the pursuit of real science, make discoveries, and create inventions in harmony with the God-given laws of nature in order to provide a growing humanity with ever increasing resources.
And off goes the entire Malthusian spook with its limits to growth …like flicking a cigarette butt out the window!
«But Jesus said, ‘You need not leave. You yourself shall feed them.’ They said, ‘We have nothing here but five loaves and two fishes.’ And he said, ‘Bring them to me.’ And he commanded the multitude to take seat on the grass. Then he took the five loaves and the two fishes, raised his soul to the spirit and spoke the words of blessing, broke the bread and gave it to the disciples. And the disciples gave it to the people. And all ate and were fed. And when the leftover pieces were gathered, there were twelve full baskets. Those who were fed were five thousand men, plus the women and the children.» ~ Matthew 14:16–21
