The vast left-wing conspiracy 11

Yes, unlike the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ that Hillary Clinton invented, such a thing really does exist.

As we have been on the topic of Greenpeace, we’ll start with them. They’re a prominent player in the plot. At its website, under ‘Training’, it has this:

Do we have a reading list?

To encourage students to become more analytical and strategic campaigners, students will read books and articles on topics including campaign strategy, strategic messaging, the theory of organizing, and issue-specific reports and documents. Students are expected to complete daily reading assignments and fully participate in regular book club discussions. Past readings have included:

Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul D. Alinsky, 1971.

So Saul Alinsky – Hillary Clinton’s Marxist mentor and an inspiration to Barack Obama – is an acknowledged Greenpeace teacher. Here is his prescription for change:

An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.


You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

What the international Left has, and is doing what it can with, is the ‘scientific’ claim that industrial activity is causing the planet to overheat.

It ‘s a Chicken Little kind of panic, yet multitudes have been persuaded to believe it. Huge commercial enterprises have been launched by it. Governmental programs have been established to deal with it.

How do we know that the Chicken Little sponsors are using this issue  – some credulously , some cynically – to achieve their collectivist ends?

It is no secret. The Club of Rome (for instance), a leftist conspiracy if ever there was one, openly aimed for world socialist government, and admitted in a 1974 publication titled Mankind at the Turning Point, that they intended to use global warming as a grand pretext to achieve their aim.

The tactic is this. A problem has to be chosen that can be presented as so urgent that it obviously must take priority over other considerations. It has to be something so big, so overwhelmingly dangerous, that ‘the masses’ will be prepared to make huge sacrificies to save themselves. It has to be an Uberthreat (to venture a bilingual coinage). Nothing less than the survival of the planet as a life-sustaining environment will do. Rather than see all life on earth being snuffed out, they – the masses –  will accept poorer lives, more constricted lives, even totally unfree lives, anything rather than extinction. They must be made to feel confused, uncertain, at a loss. Then they will voluntarily turn to those who offer solutions. They will accept being told what to do, and they will do it.

And there is more. If enough people can be made to believe that the calamity looming up has been caused by themselves, they will be desperate not only for a cure but for absolution and redemption from guilt. The panic-rousers rub in the guilt by calling the crisis ‘Manmade Global Warming’. Panic and guilt and a mood for groveling obedience among the masses world-wide! What a gift to the would-be Controllers, the World Community Organizers! They, the panic-rousers, are ready with their solution, their golden panacea: centralized control of all human activity – World Government.

They came damn near to achieving it too at Copenhagen in December 2009.

Thanks to one of the great heroes of history, one who can truly to be said to have saved mankind, but whose name is not yet known, who simply published the email evidence of the conspiracy and the fraud, the plot failed.

(Now we await diagnoses of paranoia from those innocent humanitarians of the Left.)

  • check out the dead man musings conspiracy forum!

  • Jillian Becker

    guest – the earth has warmed, the earth has cooled; the earth will warm, the earth will cool.

    Only collectivists – who arrogantly think they know that human behavior can affect ice ages and warming periods – want to make all human beings behave in particular ways that they, the knowing collectivists, prescribe.

    If 'co-operation' is forced, and involves everybody, it is collectivist. Only the authoritarian – indeed, the fascist – mind, whether of the Left or the Right, desires this. Their aim is not – cannot be – saving the planet from ice or heat; it is obviously, and can only be, political.

    My only 'ideology' is individual liberty. (Atheism is not an ideology, it is the absence of a belief in the supernatural.) That means I want everybody to be free to think and act as he likes within the limits of the law – including you and your fellow warmists, as long as you don't try to force me to behave as you think I should. Is that 'fundamentalist'? I don't know what you mean by my seeing 'the world and the universe' in black and white terms.

    I do know a real threat when I see one, and I do not see the earth's climate as a threat to earthlings who have evolved to live on it through millennia of slow adaptation. And nothing you have said persuades me to see it as you do. In fact, you've made no case at all. Yes, glaciers melt. (I read recently that a big fuss was made about some glaciers melting in 1815.) Yes, species migrate. Whether the oceans are becoming more acid is a question much disputed. You are concerned with these things. By all means worry about them to your heart's content, sir or madam, but do not demand that I change my ways to suit your convictions.

    Now the political moves of collectivists – greens, communists, Islam – to redistribute wealth in the name of their religion, and set up world government to hold us under their control – that is a real threat. When it comes to real threats, yes I see things 'black and white' in the sense that 'between the fire and the fire-engine you cannot be neutral'.

  • Thank you, Nick Gretener for the link. I have read the Selected Reading section. Sorry, but I am not impressed. It seems to be a shallow book. Here is my verdict:

    The author may be a good geologist, but as a thinker, not so good.

    I am struck – as often by people of his persuasion – by his puritanism (chapter 43).

    I'm glad he doesn't think that the planet is endangered (chapter 43), and that he concedes that climate has never been constant (chapter 44) – we all know that.

    But he does think that the earth is endangered by overpopulation (chapter 44). This is a collectivist way of thinking. People are not things to be planned for. Or let me put it this way: of all the things in the universe human beings are least thingy. Each of us is a world.

    Now this may shock you, but I don't believe there is a sin of greed (as he does). I do believe there is a sin of envy, and that only in the eyes of the envious is there a sin of greed. (Leftism is the politics of envy.) If a person comes honestly by what he gets, good luck to him say I, how ever much it is. Contrary to top-of-the-head economic theory, people in a free society do not become rich by making others poor, or poor because others become rich. Again to the contrary: wherever the rich are richest, the poor are least poor. Wealth is not a fixed 'pie'. Wealth is created.

    No disaster is threatened by civilized people living comfortably. It is only when many people have extra time and extra money, and are not living hand-to-mouth on bare necessities, that life is made better for everybody. With time and money to spare some invent yet more things to comfort and improve our lives – computers for instance, and the glorious internet, and more productive ears of wheat.

    The real threat comes from people who would destroy freedom and its consequent prosperity, in the name of saving the planet, or the human species. It comes from the collectivists – Reds, Greens, and Islam. Religions all. Ideologies that hold captive first the minds of some and eventually, if they are not defeated, the lives of all.

    The earth may be safely left to look after itself. Our business is to safeguard freedom and civilization.

    • guest

      Wow…It seems even atheist conservatives have the “disease” of denial and apathy toward responsibility toward anything greater than the “it's all about me philosophy”

      I consider myself a agnostic for in the context of a 14 billion year old universe of incomprehensible proportions, I am precluded from knowing anything with certainty because it is physically impossible for me to personally experience all of the universe.

      The earth may “look after itself” because it will exist with or without us, but for our own welfare, the relevant issue is that we have a responsibility to help maintain a healthy, viable biology now that we are the dominant species on this planet.

      Randian cultists and conservatives(and sadly many liberals) seem to have a profound ignorance (by choice) of the reality of and foundational importance of ecology.

      Humans are inevitably connected to nature no matter how technologically sophisticated we become.(unless maybe we eventually become machines, as some might wish for our future…not me however) All life exists here because the environment has been conducive to it's origin and evolution. We inevitably depend on the proper functioning of this life support system no matter how seemingly comfortable and disconnected to nature our lives have become.

      It is our species, who now is obligated(out of logical, self-evident reason) to take a mature responsibility for helping to maintain the environment, so that will it continue to be robust and diverse because that is what sustains life.

      Safeguarding freedom and civilization will be increasingly problematic and a moot point if we don't protect and nuture healthy ecosystems. If resources continue to be wasted, destroyed and depleted, if key species go extinct(for instance like bees which provide us important pollination to keep us fed) and biological systems are compromised, our civilized world will become more chaotic, less free, more barbaruous and unjust.

      It's not always the case, but sometimes when I hear conservatives and libertarians whining about their so-called loss of freedoms; and their paranoia about so-called socialism and world governments,;my sense of what they are really saying, is they just don't want to have to grow up and take responsibility for much of anything beyond their insular and self-absorbed lives.

      • Jillian Becker

        guest – Of course we all like clean air and clean water. We hope everyone will keep their own back yard clean. We don't want to lose bees. My garden is full of them. We should all be good housekeepers in the space we are responsible for. But to reduce our standard of living, to be colder, to do without our private cars; to make impoverishing changes to our national economies; to take drastic and coercive methods to limit the growth of population; to submit to world government; all for the sake of reducing CO2( which nobody has proved is a pollutant, and which we know to be the food of green plants) by a tiny fraction over decades – no, no, no. Our vast planet and the immeasurable forces that play upon it cannot be much affected by what human beings do. The sun and the moon, the stars and the planets get on with what they're at. On earth there have been and probably will be ice ages. There have been and probably will be warm periods. We are a highly adaptable species. It's not sensible to worry about the climate except insofar as we need to protect ourselves in the familiar ways, season by season, day by day. Thirty to fifty years ago, the collectivists used to try to terrify us with scares about all species being wiped out by nuclear bombs. Now it's scares about all species being drowned or burnt up or rained on by acid or some such Chicken Little fantasy. Meanwhile we are faced by real threats that we can and ought to deal with. If we don't because we're too distracted with worry over what the temperature will be in fifty years' time we'll be in for some very nasty surprises.

        By the way, accusing people who don't agree with you of being childish, insular and self-absorbed is not a good way to reason with them. The whining is coming from the warmists, not the anti-warmists. Those who are aware that in the name of the AGW myth leftists are plotting to deprive us of freedom are not whining; we're gathering, we're protesting, we're voting leftists out, we're reading the Climategate emails, we're turning to honest scientists for honest science. If you think that it is mere paranoia to dread living under socialism, try reading the testimony of those who have experienced it.

        • guest

          So it is reasonable then to zealously infer that all climate scientists, environmentalists, ecological scientists, conservationists and many other scientists from diverse fields and interested laypersons are involved in a vast conspiracy to take away our freedoms and make you live in sacrificial servitude?

          I am a amateur naturalist and thoroughly enjoy learning about science in general. The environmental and land conservation organizations I am part of have no desire to take away or surpress freedom. What these groups are trying to do is educate the public about our individual and yes, to repeat your evil term “collective” (actually it implies cooperative)role is in making less impact upon already overly stressed ecosytems and promote wiser technological use of our limited resources.

          On a planet with almost 7 billion people and growing, it is vitually impossible NOT to have an effect on someone or something else. To me the fallacy of some forms of conservatism and libertarian thought is to overly compartmenatlize the world into seemingly isolated bubbles of individual actions(or nations, religions, ideologies etc.) that somehow “magically” will NOT HAVE impacts upon others or the health of the whole system. That is my reference to insularity and to be self-absorbed. I see the overt whining about “my rights” as a immature character trait, which tries to conveniently deny or be apathetic about our responsibilities as citizens and basic obligations as humans willfully living together in organized societies.

          Like much of religion it is based upon a myth of the so-called “free market”, excessive, almost pathological individualism and the illogical idea of unlimited growth. Nothing is free of consequences and costs. All our actions have effects, good or bad and are interelated even more so now than at any time in human history.

          Jillian from your reply it appears that you only have a simplistic understanding of ecology and of climate science especially in reference to your mis-understnding of the implications of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. Please see these links:

          There are many more competent sources of scientific information on the net that will explain the science of climate change and ecology. But even if climate science is still in flux and has has it's unethical lapses, my main point is that the earth's life support systems that nutured our existence and have made our lives reasonably comfortable, are under serious threat. The undeniable facts are that humans are responsible for most of these threats, through our willful ignorance, misuse or apathy or out of unfortunate necessity because of poverty or bad politics. It does not have to be this way.

          Our species is intelligent, innovative and technologically capable to do much better than this. The ecological problems facing our species will not go magically go away just by changing our political representatives or by just living in comfortable settings, being mindlessly entertained by the newest pop culture, or living in complacent apathy.

          The way forward out of our mire, will ask that all of us take up our share of responsibility in cleaning up our own messes, because we all have had a part in making them.

      • Jillian Becker

        guest – Please read 'Green roots: the origin of ecology' posted on our front page today, January 22, 2010.

        We have posted quite a lot of information about climate change. I am not ignorant of the case for AGW.

        You refer me to the IPCC report! The very thing that has been proved to be utterly fallacious!

        • guest


          I am sorry, but your attempts to implicate the modern day science of ecology, climate change, environmentalism and conservation with the extremes of some individuals involved with the evils of Nazism, Fascism etc. only illustrates your lack of knowledge of the basics of biology and ecology. The errors of some individuals in the climate science community, recently does not change the reality of global climate change and what is happening to glaciers, species migration, increasing ocean acidity etc. You have let your conservative fanaticism cloud your ability to be an objective learner and open to facts. An entrenched ideology like yours can be just as misguided and counter-productive as any of the evils you associate with the extremes of socialism,liberalism, environmentalism etc. Just because you are an atheist does not mean that you have escaped the pitfalls of fundamentalism. The world and the universe is hardly as black and white as you imagine it.

  • For a different take on the challenges facing us today, and there are such challenges, see:

  • maxblaushild

    Any Greenpeace organizer would JUMP on an opportunity to even talk to Hillary Clinton. I can personally assure you that there is no correspondence between the twos. You do absolutely nothing in this post to prove the presence of a left-wing conspiracy beyond make one really far flung inference that doesn't get you anywhere.The only reasons why I keep responding to your shitty and widely ignored blog (I'm the only person commenting) is that I don't one anyone who is mistakingly directed here from google alerts as I was to support the mildest feasibility of your claims.

    • You miss the point of the article completely, max. I'd advise reading it again; it is about the left's plan to use global warming to push their agenda, not about the existence of a left-wing conspiracy. You can read other posts for that.

      I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your readership, and to direct you to the left-hand sidebar of this site where you will find a list of recent comments as well as our current feed-readership numbers. I'll leave it up to you to decide if we're widely ignored, but if a man such as yourself takes time out of his day to “protect” people from us showing up in Google Alerts then we must have at least some impact.

      Good day sir!