“The best way to predict the future is to create it”-Abraham Lincoln
While much propaganda has gone into convincing the world that eugenics disappeared with the defeat of Hitler in 1945, the reality, as I discussed in my previous article The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits, is far removed from this popular fantasy.
In that piece, I reviewed the origins of cybernetics as a new “science of control” created during World War II by a nest of followers of Lord Bertrand Russell who had one mission in mind. This mission was to shape the thinking of both the public as well as a new managerial elite class who would serve as instruments for a power they were incapable of understanding. 1
We also explored the science of limits that was infused into the scientific community at the turn of the 20th century with the imposition of the assumption that humanity, the biosphere, and even the universe itself were closed systems, defined by the second law of thermodynamics (aka: entropy) and thus governed by the tendency towards decay, heat death and ever-decreasing potential for creative change. The field of cybernetics would also become the instrument used to advance a new global eugenics movement that later gave rise to transhumanism, an ideology which today sits at the heart of the 4thindustrial revolution as well as the “Great Reset.”
In this article, we will evaluate how this sleight of hand occurred and how the minds of the population and governing class alike have been induced to participate in our own annihilation. Hopefully, in the course of this exercise, we will better appreciate what modes of thinking can still be revived in order to ensure a better future more becoming of a species of dignity.
Neil Ferguson’s Sleight of Hand
In May 2020, Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson was forced to resign from his post as the head of the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). The public reason given was Neil’s sexual escapades with a married woman during a draconian lockdown in the UK at the height of the first wave of hysterics. Neil should have also been removed from all his positions at the UN, WHO and Imperial College (most of which he continues to hold) and probably jailed for his role in knowingly committing fraud for two decades.
After all, Neil was not only personally responsible for the lockdowns that were imposed onto the people of the UK, Canada, much of Europe and the USA2, but as the world’s most celebrated mathematical modeller, he had been the innovator of models used to justify crisis management and pandemic forecasting since at least December 2000.
It was at this time that Neil joined Imperial College after spending years at Oxford. He soon found himself advising the UK government on the new “foot and mouth” outbreak of 2001.
Neil went to work producing statistical models extrapolating linear trend lines into the future and came to the conclusion that over 150,000 people would be dead by the disease unless 11 million sheep and cattle were killed. Farms were promptly decimated by government decree and Neil was awarded an Order of the British Empire for his service to the cause by creating scarcity through a manufactured health crisis.
In 2002, Neil used his mathematical models to predict that 50,000 people would die of Mad Cow Disease which ended up seeing a total of only 177 deaths.
In 2005, Neil again aimed for the sky and predicted 150 million people would die of Bird Flu. His computer models missed the mark by 149,999,718 deaths when only 282 people died of the disease between 2003-2008.
In 2009, Neil’s models were used again by the UK government to predict 65,000 deaths due to Swine flu, which ended up killing about 457 people.
Despite his track record of embarrassing failures, Neil continued to find his star rising ever further into the stratosphere of science stardom. He soon became the Vice Dean of Imperial College’s Faculty of Medicine and a global expert of infectious diseases.
In 2019, he was assigned to head the World Health Organization’s Collaboration Center for Infectious Disease Modelling, a position he continues to hold to this day. It was at this time that his outdated models were used to “predict” 500,000 COVID deaths in the UK and two million deaths in the USA unless total lockdowns were imposed in short order. Under the thin veneer of “science”, his word became law and much of the world fell into lockstep chanting “two weeks to flatten the curve.”
When Neil was pressed to make the code used to generate his models available to the public for scrutiny in late 2020 (after it was discovered that the code was over 13 years old), he refused to budge, eventually releasing a heavily redacted version which was all but useless for analysis.
A Google software engineer with 30 years experience writing (under a pseudonym) for The Daily Skeptic analyzed the redacted code and had this to say:
“It isn’t the code Ferguson ran to produce his famous Report 9. What’s been released on GitHub is a heavily modified derivative of it, after having been upgraded for over a month by a team from Microsoft and others. This revised codebase is split into multiple files for legibility and written in C++, whereas the original program was “a single 15,000 line file that had been worked on for a decade” (this is considered extremely poor practice). A request for the original code was made 8 days ago but ignored, and it will probably take some kind of legal compulsion to make them release it. Clearly, Imperial are too embarrassed by the state of it ever to release it of their own free will, which is unacceptable given that it was paid for by the taxpayer and belongs to them.”
Besides tax-payers, the author should have also included Bill Gates, as his foundation donated millions of dollars to Imperial College and Neil directly over the course of two decades, but we’ll forgive her for leaving that one out.
Monte Carlo Methods: How the Universe Became a Casino
The Daily Skeptic author went further to strike at the heart of Neil’s fraud when she nailed the underlying stochastic function at the heart of Neil’s predictive models. She writes:
“‘Stochastic’ is just a scientific-sounding word for ‘random.’ That’s not a problem if the randomness is intentional pseudo-randomness, i.e. the randomness is derived from a starting ‘seed’ which is iterated to produce the random numbers. Such randomness is often used in Monte Carlo techniques. It’s safe because the seed can be recorded and the same (pseudo-)random numbers produced from it in future.”
The author is right to identify the stochastic (aka; random) probability function at the heart of Neil’s models, and also correctly zeroes in on the blatant fudging of data and code to generate widely irrational outcomes that have zero connection to reality. However, being a Google programmer who had herself been processed in an “information theory” environment, which presumes randomness to be at the heart of all reality, the author makes a blundering error by presuming that Monte Carlo techniques would somehow be useful in making predictions of future crises. As we will soon see, Monte Carlo techniques are a core problem across all aspects of human thought and policy making.
The Monte Carlo technique itself got its name from Information Theorist John von Neumann and his colleague Stanlislaw Ulam who saw in the chance rolling of dice at casino roulette tables the key to analyze literally every non-linear system in existence- from atomic decay, to economic behavior, neuroscience, climatology, biology, and even theories of galaxy-formation. The Monte Carlo Casino in Morocco was the role model selected by von Neumann and Ulam to be used as the ideal blueprint that was assumed to shape all creation.
According to the official website for The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences(INFORM), it didn’t take long for Monte Carlo Methods to be adopted by the RAND Corporation and the U.S. Air force. The INFORM site states:
“Although not invented at RAND, the powerful mathematical technique known as the Monte Carlo method received much of its early development at RAND in the course of research on a variety of Air Force and atomic weapon problems. RAND’s main contributions to Monte Carlo lie in the early development of two tools: generating random numbers, and the systematic development of variance-reduction techniques.”
As discussed in my previous segment, RAND Corporation was the driving force for the adoption of Cybernetics as the science of control within US foreign policy circles during the Cold War.
The person assigned to impose cybernetics and its associated “systems” planning into political practice was Lord President of the British Empire’s Scientific Secretariat Alexander King- acting here as Director General of Scientific Affairs of the Organization for Economic Coordination and Development (OECD) and advisor to NATO. His post 1968 role as co-founder of the Club of Rome will be discussed shortly.
Whereas selling end-times scenarios to a gullible populace took the form of such Gates-funded stochastic models utilizing Monte Carlo techniques like those deployed by Neil Ferguson, the selling of end-times scenarios in the form of global warming have also used the exact same techniques, albeit for a slightly longer time frame. As Dr. Tim Ball proved in his successful lawsuits against the IPCC’s Michael Mann of “Hockey Stick” fame, those end-times global warming models have also used stochastic formulas (aka randomness functions) along with Monte Carlo techniques to consistently generate irrationally high heating curves in all climate models.
In an October 2004 article on Technology Review, author Richard Muller described how two Canadian scientists proved that this fraud underlies Mann’s Hockey Stick model, writing:
“Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick… This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!”
Not coincidentally, these same stochastic models utilizing Monte Carlo techniques were also used in crafting economic models justifying the high-frequency trading ridden casino economy of the post-1971 era of myopic consumerism and deregulation.3
The Club of Rome and World Problematique
The age of “predictive doomsday models” was given its most powerful appearance of “scientific respectability” through the efforts of an innocuous sounding organization called The Club of Rome.
Historian F. William Engdahl wrote of the Club’s origins:
“In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Pecceiand Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat’s Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO.”
The think tank was founded by two self-professed Malthusians named Aurelio Peccei and OECD Director General for Scientific Affairs Sir Alexander King who promulgated a new gospel to the world: The age of scientific progress and industrial growth must stop in order for the world to reset its values under a new paradigm of zero-technological growth.
Both Peccei and King were also advocates of a new pseudoscience dubbed “World Problematique,” which was developed in the early 1960s and can simply described as “the science of global problems.” Unlike other branches of science, solving problems facing humanity was not the concern for followers of Problematique. Its adherents asserted that the future could be known by first analyzing the infinite array of “problems” which humanity creates in modifying the environment.
To illustrate an example: Thinking people desire to mitigate flood damage in a given area, so they build a dam. But then damage is done to the biodiversity of that region. Problem.
Another example: Thinking people wish to have better forms of energy and discover the structure of the atom, leading to nuclear power. Then, new problems arise like atomic bombs and nuclear waste. Problem.
A final example: A cure for malaria is discovered for a poor nation. Mortality rates drop but now population levels rise, putting stress on the environment.
This list can go on literally forever.
An adherent to Problematique would fixate on every “problem” caused by humans naively attempting to solve problems. They would note that every human intervention leads to dis-equilibrium, and thus unpredictability. The Problematique-oriented mind would conclude that if the “problem that causes all problems” were eliminated, then a clean, pre-determined world of perfect stasis, and thus predictability, would ensue. Reporting on the growth of the Club of Rome’s World Problematique agenda in 1972, OECD Vice Chair, and Club of Rome member Hugo Thiemann told Europhysics News:
“In the past, research had been aimed at ‘understanding’ in the belief that it would help mankind. After a period of technological evolution based on this assumption, that belief was clearly not borne out by experience. Now, there was a serious conflict developing between planetary dimensions and population, so that physicists should change to consider future needs. Science policy should be guided by preservation of the biosphere.”
On page 118 of an autobiographical account of the Club of Rome entitled ‘The First Global Revolution’ published in 1991, Sir Alexander King echoed this philosophy most candidly when he wrote:
“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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
The Club of Rome quickly set up branches across the Western world with members ranging from select ideologues in the political, business, and scientific community who all agreed that society’s best form of governance was a scientific dictatorship. The Canadian branch of the organization was co-founded by the hyperactive Maurice Strong himself in 1970 alongside a nest of Fabians and Rhodes Scholars including Club of Rome devotee Pierre Trudeau. More on this will be said below.
One particularly interesting 1973 propaganda film was produced by ABC News and showcases the Club of Rome-MIT “innovation” on computer modelling. Describing the new modelling technology unveiled by MIT and the Club of Rome, the video’s narrator states:
“What it does for the first time in man’s history on the planet is to look at the world as one system. It shows that Earth cannot sustain present population and industrial growth for much more than a few decades.”
The 1001 Nature Trust
In order to finance this paradigm shift, the 1001 Nature Trust was founded in 1970 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.
Bernhard (card carrying Nazi and founder of the Bilderberg Group in 1954) had worked alongside his close misanthropic associates Prince Philip Mountbatten, and Sir Julian Huxley to create the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961. The WWF was itself created to raise funds for the previously created International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which was founded by Sir Julian Huxley in 1947. Huxley had been a busy bee, having established UNESCO the year prior with a mandate to revive eugenics and promote world government under new names. When he co-founded the WWF, Huxley was also acting President of the British Eugenics Society.
The plan was simple: each of the 1001 founding members simply put $10,000 into the trust which was then directed towards the green paradigm shift that sought to replace the old paradigm of “saving humanity from empire” towards the new paradigm of “saving nature from humanity” as outlined by Sir King above.
Prominent 1001 Nature Trust members included international royalty, billionaires, and technocratic sociopaths who wanted nothing more than to manage this promised Brave New World as part of the “alpha” caste.
Many of these figures were simultaneously founding members of the Club of Rome, including Canada’s Maurice Strong, who later became Vice President of the WWF under Prince Philip’s presidency.
When Strong became WWF Vice President in 1978, the man he replaced was Maj. Gen. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield. Bloomfield was another 1001 Club founding member whom New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison discovered to be implicated in the Montreal-based assassination of the anti-Malthusian President John F. Kennedy in 1963 via his involvement with Permindex. This same Swiss-based organization served as a cover for various Gladio-connected assassinations including several efforts to kill JFK ally Charles de Gaulle, resulting in that organization’s expulsion from France soon thereafter.
A Word on Maurice Strong
One of Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip’s most powerful lackeys was a man named Maurice Strong, a 1001 Trust founding member who also happened to co-found the World Economic Forum and served as WWF vice-president under Philip from 1976-78. In a 1990 interview with West Magazine, Strong let the cat out of the bag, asking rhetorically:
“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal 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? 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?”
It is important to recall that Maurice Strong’s remarks took place in the context of a “fictional book” he wished to write that would take place at the World Economic Forum- a group he and Kissinger led in co-founding 20 years earlier using a German cardboard cut out named Klaus Schwab. In 2015, Klaus eulogized Strong by calling him “my mentor.”
While some apologists dismiss the sociopath’s remarks as simple musings over a work of fiction, it is worth considering what Maurice himself announced at the keynote address to the 1992 UN Conference on Population and the Environment in Rio De Janeiro. Strong had been tapped to head this second Earth Summit (the first having been the 1972 Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment which he also chaired). At this 1992 summit, Strong said:
“Industrialized countries have developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing- are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”
The Rio Summit had established a new era in the consolidation of NGOs and corporations under the “green” agenda. This doctrine was formalized with Agenda 21 (later renamed Agenda 2030) and the Earth Charter, co-authored by Mikhail Gorbachev, Jim MacNeill and Strong between 1996-2000. The International Earth Charter drafting Committee was chaired by none-other than transhumanist billionaire Steven Rockefeller.
Strong’s career as a Malthusian mercenary took a hit when it was discovered that he had endorsed a $988,885 check given to him by a South Korean businessman (and intelligence asset tied to sex blackmail operations in Washington DC) Tongsun Park in 2005 and which Strong had cashed in a Jordanian bank. The funds were part of the UN Oil for Food program and were intended to provide humanitarian relief to Iraq. That didn’t bother Strong, who was more than happy to line his own pockets with funds that never purchased any food for millions of starving Iraqis. After escaping arrest by fleeing from the USA to Canada, Strong then made his way to China where he spent the last decade of his life pushing decarbonization and global warming climate modelling into Asia. Strong was probably not the happiest oligarch in the world when China and India sabotaged the COP14 program for a green global government in 2009.
According to the World Economic Forum’s own website, Prince Bernhard was the primary patron of the infamous 1973 WEF Summit that announced the Davos Manifesto for the first time, laying the groundwork for the theory of technocratic feudalism with a loose capitalist veneer known as “Stakeholder Capitalism.” It was also at this 1973 Summit, that the Club of Rome was first introduced to the world scene in order to present a new program for population control.
Limits to Growth
The document which became the bible and blueprint of this new anti-humanist movement that birthed today’s Green New Deal agenda was titled Limits to Growth (1972) and today holds the record as the most widely read book on ecology, having sold 30 million copies published into 32 languages.
A recent article celebrating the book’s 40-year anniversary stated “it helped launch modern environmental computer modeling and began our current globally focused environmental debate. After Limits [To Growth], environmentalists, scientists and policy-makers increasingly thought of ecological problems in planetary terms and as dynamically interconnected… It is worth revisiting Limits today because, more than any other book, it introduced the concept of anthropocentric climate change to a mass audience.”
The book itself was the culmination of a two-year study undertaken by a team of MIT statisticians under the nominal heading of Jay Forrester and Dennis Meadows.
Here’s a February 2022 video of Dennis Meadows musing over his hopes that the coming inevitable genocide of 80% of the world population could be accomplished peacefully under a “benevolent” dictatorship.
The MIT study itself did not even begin in the USA, but rather in Montebello Quebec in 1971, when Club of Rome-backer Pierre Trudeau allocated tax payer money to initiate the project. A network of Rhodes Scholars and Privy Councillors centered around Alexander King, Maurice Strong, Maurice Lamontagne (founder of Environment Canada), Marc Lalonde (Rhodes Scholar, Trudeau advisor and head of the Prime Ministers Office), Michael Pitfield (Privy Council Clerk and founder of Canada’s CSIS) and Rhodes Scholar Governor General Roland Michener, among others, had presided over that meeting. When the Canadian funds had served their role, the project continued to receive its funding from the Aurelio Peccei’s Volkswagen Foundation, whose Nazi-supporting past should have made some of the MIT statisticians uncomfortable.
The Chaining of Prometheus
A long time, London-trained asset and close collaborator of Canada’s Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was Maurice Lamontagne, a Club of Rome member and former President of Canada’s Privy Council from 1964-65.
Of all of the Club of Rome’s members, Lamontagne was the most candid in identifying the Earth’s greatest enemy to be human creativity itself. Writing in his Senate Committee Reports of 1968-1972 which reformed science policy funding and planning, Lamontagne wrote:
“Nature imposes definite constraints on technology itself and if man persists in ignoring them the net effect of his action in the long run can be to reduce rather than to increase nature’s potential as a provider of resources and habitable space… But then, an obvious question arises: How can we stop man’s creativeness?”
Correctly recognizing that the yearning to discover the unknown is built into the human condition, Lamontagne answers his own question, writing:
“How can we proclaim a moratorium on technology? It is impossible to destroy existing knowledge; impossible to paralyze man’s inborn desire to learn, to invent and to innovate… In the final analysis we find that technology is merely a tool created by man in pursuit of his infinite aspirations and is not the significant element invading the natural environment. It is material growth itself that is the source of conflict between man and nature.”
Thus, creativity and its fruits of technological progress are acceptable only IF they reduce the assumed conflict between man and nature posited by Lamontagne. “Bad” technology in Lamontagne’s formulation, has the effect of increasing humanity’s material growth (i.e.: powers of productivity). If, on the other hand, we promote technologies of a low energy flux density form, such as windmills, solar panels and biofuels, which reduce the energy available and thus the amount of economic activity in which man can engage, then technology can be defined as a “good” thing” according to this twisted logic.
This concept was echoed by another Club of Rome member and collaborator with Lamontagne on his Senate Report named Omond Solandt. Solandt made his career as the science advisor to Lord Louis Mountbatten (Prince Philip’s pedophile mentor) during WWII and headed Canada’s Defense Research Board until 1957, where he collaborated on MK Ultra alongside the infamous Ewan Cameron at McGill University. Testifying to the Lamontagne Senate Commission in 1970 Solandt said: “There is no longer any need to advance science. The need is rather to understand, guide and use science effectively for the welfare of mankind.”
What defines “the welfare of mankind” in the mind of an MK Ultra proponent should give one chills.
In preparation for the “post-industrial order” that was unleashed with the 1971 floating of the US dollar and the destruction of the Bretton Woods monetary system, Lamontagne prescribed that the “new wisdom” should no longer aim at discoveries in atomic, medical and space sciences, in order to focus on more “practical” engineering endeavors. He also proposed that funding to advanced science be diminished by widening the definition of “science” itself to embrace the humanities, monetary economics and social sciences. Those programs then began absorbing the funding that had formerly been directed to research on pure science. Lamontagne stated this in volume one of his report:
“The new wisdom prescribes that the additional R&D effort be devoted to the life sciences and social sciences rather than the physical sciences… to economic and social objectives rather than curiosity and discovery.”
In Defense of Prometheus
One leading Canadian scientist took an early stand against this Club of Rome-driven transformation. Ronald Hayes, professor of environmental science at Dalhousie University and Canadian civil servant wrote his 1973 book “The Chaining of Prometheus: The Evolution of a Power Structure for Canadian Science”, where he identified Lamontagne as a minion of the god Zeus as portrayed in Aeschylus’ famous drama Prometheus Bound. The ancient Greek drama told the story of the demi-god Prometheus who was punished for 10,000 years for the defiant act of teaching humanity how to use the Fire which Zeus had monopolized for himself.
Attacking the call to deconstruct the entire 1938-1971 science funding structure and rebuild it under a new technocratic regime, Professor Hayes called out the concerted attack on the National Research Council of Canada which had been the driving force of technological progress since WWII saying:
“Lamontagne wants to destroy the National Research Council, the body that has nurtured and launched much of the government research and got the graduate programs going in our universities. It is a fault of the Trudeau administration which Lamontagne echoes.”
Hayes attacked the newly-formed powers of the Treasury Board which were now given exceptional control of science policy under a new scientific dictatorship when he said:
“The most subtle exercise of power, which obviates the necessity of close control, is infiltration by reliable people- the creation of a ruling elite…These Englishmen became known the world over as the rulers of the British Empire… With somewhat similar aims, the Public Service Commission is grooming future Canadian government managers to follow the general policies and precepts of the Treasury Board.”
Predictive Models Take Over Actual Thinking
Although Professor Hayes was right to attack the terrible fraud that was being committed under the helm of Senator Lamontagne’s reform of Canadian science funding in 1973, he neglected the global changes which the Club of Rome’s predictive modelling revolution had set into motion.
The Club of Rome’s 1972 Limits to Growth was the first of its kind to fuse together global temperature with economic variables like population growth, resource loss, and the under-defined category of “pollution”. By utilizing linear equations to extrapolate trends into the future, the Club of Rome had set the stage for two major fallacies:
Fallacy #1 – The fabric of physical space time shaping the discoverable universe is intrinsically non-linear and thus not expressible by any form of linear equations regardless of the computing power involved. Human creative mentation is most explicitly non-linear as it is tied to non-formalizable states of existence like inspiration, love of truth, dignity, and beauty which no binary system can approximate. The Club of Rome programmers ignored these facts and assumed the universe was as binary as their software.
Fallacy #2 – The data sets themselves could easily be skewed and re-framed according to the controllers of the computer programmers who aspired to shape government policy. We have already seen how this technique was used to drive fallacious results of future scenarios under the hand of Imperial College’s Neil Ferguson and the same technique has been applied in ecological modelling as well.
This use of skewed, under-defined statistics, projected into the future in order to “act preventatively on future crises” became a hegemonic practice for the next 40 years and has been used by neo-Malthusians ever since to justify the increased rates of war, poverty and disease across the world.
With the Limits to Growth computer models, a scientific veneer was given to the cultish efforts of fringe neo-Malthusians like Stanford University’s Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book The Population Bomb tried to forecast an inevitable global planetary crisis where oil would dry up, arable lands would dry away and resources would disappear by the year 2000. Ehrlich’s cynical thesis won over a cult following but due to its airy generalizations, it didn’t win many converts among policy making or scientific circles. The club of Rome changed all of that, making Ehrlich’s book a best seller by 1972.
To get a sense of the roots of Ehrlich’s Malthusian outlook, it is worth appreciating his hateful concept of human nature as little more than thoughtless cancer cells growing at geometric rates and slowly killing its host. In his 1968 book, he wrote:
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people… We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
Ehrlich’s protégé John Holdren, who helped lead the shutdown of NASAs manned space systems and slashed what little remained of an American fusion program as Obama’s science Czar from 2009-2017, added his voice to this new Malthusian priesthood in his 1977 book Ecoscience (co-authored with Ehrlich).
On pg. 942 we find a clear blueprint for a system of green global governance which the duo saw as the only solution to the oncoming population bomb:
“Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime- sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market. The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”
Under this heartless logic, nation states simply had to be converted into tools for imposing depopulation programs rather than naively endeavoring to end colonialism, poverty and war as John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Charles de Gaulle, Daniel Johnson, Enrico Mattei or Martin Luther King had once attempted.
The Problem of Discoveries
Of course, if one did not wish to accept the “solutions” proposed by the neo-Malthusians then an alternative path would need to be adopted. This healthier outlook was contingent upon the cultivation and application of new pioneering discoveries without killing “useless eaters” but it would also increase the “unpredictability factor” which mathematical control freaks could never tolerate.
In the pro-growth cultural dynamic of the 1960s and 1970s, the master key to this new age of abundance was understood to be found in the domain of fusion energy. The processes of fusing atoms like helium and hydrogen isotopes in order to generate vast amounts of energy had been harnessed after WWII, but sadly the application of this technology had only known destructive ends via thermonuclear weapons. However, there was no reason to think that peaceful uses of this immense power could not be made available if moral national policies could encourage it. The heat and energy densities of atomic fusion were incredible with a spoonful of ocean water yielding greater energy availability than thousands of barrels of oil.
But for followers of “World Problematique” emerging into dominant positions of government within the Trilateral Commission and World Economic Forum, this “solution” was only the gateway to more problems.
In 1975, Ehrlich stated that in his view,humanity’s acquisition of fusion energy was “like giving an idiot child a machine gun.” In 1989, faced with the prospect of Cold fusion’s realization, John Holdren ruminated that developing fusion energy was undesirable because it would only enflame mankind’s “‘pave the planet and paint it green’ mentality.”
At that same time, Jeremy Rifkind, Third Industrial Revolution author and fringe activist-turned-international climate advisor to the UN, stated “the prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
In true Pygmalion fashion, the oligarchy was able to “scientifically justify” their misanthropic view of global governance by first breaking humanity’s kneecaps and then arguing that we were never meant to run.
Take, for instance, the fact that the slashing of fusion power research begun under the Trilateral Commission-controlled Presidency of Jimmy Carter, which has continued unabated until the present day.
Not only did actual funding fall far below the minimum requirements to build and activate prototypes of new designs, but starting in 1977 the funding was increasingly redirected towards “zero-technological growth” forms of energy like windmill and photovoltaic cell technology. Even conventional domains of nuclear energy research like the closing of the fuel cycle using fast breeder reactors which the USA once championed were killed by Executive Order and buried under moratoria during the 1970s. One of the key figures in this attack on fusion was a RAND Corp alum and former CIA director, James Schlesinger, then serving as Secretary of Energy under Carter. Schlesinger amplified regulatory laws and cut funding in fusion despite milestones being reached in Los Alamos and Princeton in 1976. Schlesinger’s worldview as a priest of doom was defined in a 1960 book where he said:
“Economics is the science of choice in a world of limited resources…. We have gone around the world spreading the ‘gospel of plenty’ raising the level of expectations … [but] in the nature of things, these rising expectations can never be satisfied…. We must in our strategic policy return to the days before the Industrial Revolution … [and] prepare to fight limited wars.”
Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200 (1974) outlined this new objective for American foreign policy stating: “Assistance for population moderation should give emphasis to the largest and fastest growing developing countries where there is a special US and strategic interest.” Among those developing nations targeted for population reduction, NSSM-200 listed birth control and the withholding of food as primary tools. Kissinger cynically wrote: “is the US prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can’t/won’t control their population growth?”
Throughout the 1970s, the Trilateral Commission/Council on Foreign Relations cabal under the direction of Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski completely took over American foreign policy and launched a new economic program which Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker called “the controlled disintegration of the economy.”
Upon attaining chairmanship of the Federal Reserve in 1979, Volcker put this policy to work by raising interest rates to 20% and keeping them there for another two years- destroying America’s small and medium agro-industries while only leaving a cartel of corporate behemoths capable of surviving such draconian rates. Real growth plummeted, long term planning was forgotten and deregulation ushered in vast speculation, which replaced the formerly dirigistic (nationally directed) forms of capitalism that made the west viable in previous ages.
The global transformation unleashed with Nixon-Schultz 1971 destruction of the gold reserve was always driven by an intention to replace national systems of economic planning with a new anti-nation state system driven by myopic speculation.
In this new system, being a good citizen meant only being a good consumer where the worship of short-term gains blinded corrupt fools to the reality that a hive of oligarchs were taking control of mainstream media, science, academia, corporate governance and the civil service of governments across the Trans Atlantic. Under this post 1971 paradigm, concepts like “growth” were increasingly defined by purely quantitative-monetaristic parameters and premised upon increased rates of debt and speculative activities.
All investments into authentic forms of scientific and technological progress of the sort that overcame humanity’s “carrying capacities” were increasingly shut down, while new categories of technological progress were created. “Technologies” and “innovations” that diminished humanity’s power to overcome its limits to growth were encouraged in the form of “appropriate technologies” like windmills and “biotechnology.” Information systems technologies were transformed from supportive components of productive economic activity, into the dominant forces of economic considerations as better computers were brought online. Under this new Malthusian ethos, “technology” would become merely a tool to enslave the masses, and would lose its traditional spirit of creative emancipation of humanity.
As already stated, fusion energy research was systematically destroyed. Investments into space exploration was slashed as NASA’s Apollo Program was officially cancelled in 1973, and NASA’s funding collapsed from 4% GDP in 1965 to less than 1% by 1975 (see graph). Infrastructure investments dried up and America’s age of nuclear power construction was shut down.
Keeping the world addicted to oil
Last but not least, the new rules of the “Great Game” unleashed by Kissinger and the Trilateral Commission was vectored around an oil-driven economic order.
As researcher William Engdahl demonstrated in his 1992 Century of Oil, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had more of a role in manufacturing this crisis from scratch by keeping hundreds of tankers replete with petrol from being unloaded in the USA and facilitating the 400% increase with the assistance of several high level oil ministers in the Middle East beholden to Kissinger. In recent years, Saudi Arabia’s former OPEC minister at the time corroborated Engdahl’s research, stating:
“I am 100 per cent sure that the Americans were behind the increase in the price of oil. The oil companies were in real trouble at that time, they had borrowed a lot of money and they needed a high oil price to save them.”
With this 1973 sleight of hand, the stage was set for a new takeover of the world as a new lie was launched that asserted that all ideas of “the future” could only be accessed by linear equations extrapolated into the future. Predictive computer modelling measuring the diminishing rates of oil, coal and natural gas as well as arable land for food production, a new age of scarcity could be imagined that involved a closed world of diminishing returns.
Predictive Modelling as Social Control
In today’s language, this practice of ‘predictive modelling’ is reflected in the central banking high priest (and UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance) Mark Carney’s calls for a new financial system to promote a decarbonized society by 2050. Carney’s professed urgency is based on “predictive models” that state that the world will heat 1.5 degrees according to a presumed connection to carbon dioxide emissions. Per Carney and his associates, this can only be corrected if we monetize carbon and make it profitable to shut down human industrial activity.
As it turns out, when compared to the real data, not only does one quickly find that the post 1977 warming trend ended in 1999, but the actual temperature falls well below all computer projections produced by the IPCC (which is to environmental policy what the WHO is to health policy).
This hysterical prediction is also seen in Prince (now King) Charles’ obsessive warnings that the world has 18 months to save itself before “predictive modelling” says that global warming becomes unstoppable and the earth burns in a dystopic inferno!
Charles, who inaugurated the Great Reset in June 2020 and acts as President of England’s World Wild Life Fund, is the son of the same late Prince Philip Montbatten who infamously revealed his wish to be reincarnated as a deadly virus “in order to solve overpopulation”. In a 1988 interview with Deutsche Press Agentur, Prince Philip said:
“The more people there are, the more resources they’ll consume, the more pollution they’ll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn’t controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war. …In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
One should not make the mistake of separating Philip’s misanthropic statements with his active role in co-founding the controlled opposition global “ecology” movement alongside Bilderberg group founder Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands.
The Great Reset: An Oligarch’s Wet Dream
When one reviews the nature of those reforms on the World Economic Forum’s websites which are intended to replace the policies of the pre-COVID era, it becomes crystal clear that this Great Reset (which combines full spectrum remedies to the dual crises of COVID and Global Warming), is merely another attempt to steer humanity into a techno-feudal, depopulated cage under a system of global governance managed by social engineers and their oligarchical patrons.4
Just as the deadly remedies proposed to solve those fake crises of pandemics have always been the objective of Imperial College’s fraud, so too has the remedy of “decarbonization” of industrial civilization been the deadly goal behind the war on global warming which computer models have convinced the world is the primary existential threat to humanity since 1972. Just like the WHO’s demands that national sovereignty be cancelled in order for “the greater good” to be defended by a supranational medical regime, the same argument for a world government has been championed by supporters of the man-made global warming thesis for over 50 years. For those unfamiliar with the facts of the computer generated chimera of “man-made global warming”, I refer you to my recent essay In Defense of CO2: Astro-Climatology, Climategate and Common Sense Revisited.
Today, those “solutions” take the form of Agenda 2030, which pushes for the deconstruction of industrial civilization, the shutdown of agriculture, fossil fuels and the shackling of nations to inefficient forms of energy like windmills, solar panels and biofuels in order to ostensibly save nature from humanity.
In spite of all of the evidence to demonstrate that neither covid-19 nor man-made global warming have any existence beyond the predictive computer models programmed to scare us into believing they do, it is worth asking: How have so many seemingly educated people become persuaded that COVID-19 or climate change are so existentially dangerous that we must shut down the world economy to somehow save ourselves from their supposedly apocalyptic effects?
1 The ideological blueprint for this applied science of control was outlined decades earlier in the three volume piece co-written by Russell and his fellow Cambridge Apostle Sir Alfred North Whitehead dubbed “The Principia Mathematica” (in honor of Sir Isaac Newton’s plagiarism published three centuries earlier). Both Principias set the stage for systems of political economy that would be used by the British Empire to attempt to control their victims, with Newton’s concepts of mass, forces, attraction and empty space sitting at the heart of the political economic theories of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and John Maynard Keynes while Russell’s concepts created the ideological foundation for the cybernetics, information theory, systems analysis and the cult of Artificial Intelligence during the last century.
2 A March 25, 2020 edition of Business Insider described Neil’s role in shaping US COVID policy writing: “Dr Deborah Birx, coronavirus response coordinator to the Trump administration, told journalists at a March 16 press briefing that the Imperial paper [Ferguson’s computer projection] prompted the CDC’s new advice to work from home and avoid gatherings of 10 or more.”
3 One particularly notable example is the Merton-Scholes Formula for pricing oil stock prices and derivative contracts after 1973, which won its programmers Nobel Prizes in the 1990s. This “forecasting code” was great at demonstrating nearly infinite rates of monetary growth but was incompetent at identifying the real-world boundary conditions, which ultimately caused their predictions to fail every single occasion they were applied.
4 I say “merely another attempt” because this is not the first time a post-nation state transhuman world order has been attempted over the past century, and studying the REASONS for the failures of the previous three attempts would be a valuable exercise for anyone wishing to survive the current storm.
Thank you for connecting the dots for me.
Kudos…one of your better summations, Matthew…
Excellent article, tying together the persistent Malthusian beliefs of the psychopathic oligarchy. The research is impressive. However, I disagree with the evaluation of Monte Carlo simulation. Discrete event simulation methods, of which Monte Carlo simulation is one, have been used properly with sound data based on verified, observable variation to understand the behavior of complicated systems. For example, it would be difficult or maybe even impossible to identify and quantify the likely choke points on a circuit card repair line, and the consequent required optimal staffing, using any closed-form mathematical expression. In these situations, Monte Carlo simulation is a sound tool to solve the problem, and it’s been used successfully in industry for decades.
The key with Monte Carlo simulation is to make sure the ground rules, assumptions, constraints and probability distributions which govern the operation of the model are all based on objective, verified, sound data. When using good data, Monte Carlo simulations have yielded good results that assist in good decision-making. When it comes to the biased, corrupt decision-making you describe in the article, the input data likely was biased and corrupt, used to serve the ends of the ruling class. That servants of the oligarchs used legitimate tools like Monte Carlo simulation to further the agenda of the ruling class isn’t surprising, as it provides a fig leaf for their work. That doesn’t mean, however, Monte Carlo simulation should be disparaged as a result.
Again, the article was outstanding, showing a great deal of detailed research. My disagreement on how Monte Carlo simulation was portrayed in it doesn’t change the chilling message contained within it.
Great read thankyou
I know that the US Gov’t, and whomever it is that controls this beast and it’s monetary system, have been hard at work covering up new energy technologies that would alleviate the problems discussed in the article. Therefore I conclude that the stated objectives of saving the planet are merely a cover story for whatever it is that they are up too.
I agree with the previous comment on the Monte Carlo method. Vilifying it is a rather scientifically skewed and uninformed guess. In most cases of predictive modeling–nowadays published and disseminated by major analytical outlets–the research design, as well as the data, are both biased due to ideological contamination. In most cases, the models do not even fulfill the claim to be systemic either. Overall, Monte Carlo methods render the best results in terms of inference–NOT prediction. So maligning the method for its misuse is a blunder.
Real analysts exist and are out there. The public, however, still chooses to indulge in the misguided amateur nonsense of mainstream academia. Algorithms are neutral in and of themselves; we can use them for societal control or for wonderful insights into how to understand and improve our world. Both the demand and the appreciation for real analysis need to increase in the public, otherwise, nothing will change. Thank you for shedding a light on this!
Really solid, thorough, and eye opening. The interconnections are amazing.