Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

I'm Enraged: ECO92 NWO Progrom

Skip to first unread message

Jul 21, 1992, 5:24:42 PM7/21/92
No spelling error there. And you ask, just what does this have to do with us?
What does the loss of national sovreignity have to do with singular citizen
autonomy and it's attendant civil rights? What happens when areas of land
are privatized and sold to a foreign entity? What would happen if that land
was land upon which businesses were founded and built? Businesses such as
mining, oil, more importantly: Farming. Think about it. Where would your jobs


----- Begin Included Message -----
----------begin included article-----------------------------------------

Schiller Institute White Paper

`Eco 92' Must Be Stopped!



In June 1992, representatives of the 166 governments of
the world--including numerous heads of state--will be brought
together in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, for the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Also known as
the ``Earth Summit'' or ``Eco 92,'' the gathering is expected to
formulate a so-called ``Earth Charter'' and a parallel action
program, dubbed ``Agenda 21,'' intended to subject the
development aspirations, especially of developing sector nations,
to global environmental controls.
But the truth is that ``Eco 92'' is a giant fraud and hoax,
whose real objective is to consolidate the Malthusian New World
Order promoted by the Anglo-American financial elite, a New World
Order premised on:
* the continued looting of the developing sector by the
international financial community;
* the end of national sovereignty; and
* the final destruction of any hope for industrial
development in the nations of the South.
The Schiller Institute is issuing this White Paper to expose
the true intentions of the oligarchical architects of Eco 92; to
debunk the pseudo-scientific myths upon which it is premised; to
explain the historial roots of the Malthusian policies now
repackaged as ``sustainable development;'' and to urge the
international community to stop the ``Eco 92'' conference from
ever occuring.


The premises of the proposed ``Earth Charter'' and ``Agenda
21'' are that the world is faced with an imminent ecological
catastrophe, unbridled population growth, and disappearing food
supplies and natural resources. Development, they argue, must
therefore be sharply curtailed, and {legally binding } ``green
conditionalities'' must be imposed on the nations of the world.
The philosophical outlook underlying these points is the pagan
world view represented by the Gaia cult, to which many of Eco
92's organizers adhere, and which places man on a par with lower
life forms such as microbes, and defines ``Mother Earth,'' not
man, as a sacred being, to be preserved at any and all cost.
With this foundation, ``Eco 92'' has the following principal

1) An End to National Sovereignty
The one-world concept of a {Global Commons} would replace
the concept of a ``community of principle'' based upon inviolable
national sovereignty. No longer would a nation's forests, rivers,
mineral and other biological resources, be viewed as a part of
their national patrimony, to be harnessed for the well-being and
development of its population. Instead, they would be considered
mankind's ``heritage,'' warranting legally binding global
regulation, perhaps under the auspices of a new ``United Nations
Environmental Security Council.'' The ongoing drive to
``internationalize'' the Brazilian Amazon is the first major test
of this concept.

2) Depopulation
The UNCED Secretariat argues in its document on population
that the earth's ``biological systems ... are in danger of losing
their capacity to sustain the rising tide of population and meet
resource demands.'' Developing sector nations are held
responsible for this ``runaway population growth,'' which soaks
up resources that could otherwise go to environmental controls,
and which furthermore ``needlessly exposes many millions of women
to the physical hardships of pregnancy and childbirth in parts of
the world where adequate medical care is unavailable.''
Their proposed solution is that methods of population
reduction, including involuntary abortion and sterilization such
as already practiced in China, Brazil, and elsewhere, should
become globally enforceable.
An early precedent for this kind of global population
control strategy was adopted secretly by the U.S. government
during the period 1974-77, under U.S. National Security directors
Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. A series of memoranda was
issued by the U.S. National Security Council, arguing that U.S.
control over developing sector natural resources was being
threatened by the growth of population in those nations, and that
this constituted a ``security threat'' to the U.S. The most
explicit of those documents, National Security Study Memorandum
200, targeted 13 strategically important Third World nations for
radical depopulation programs, and recommended means to foist
such programs on those target nations. NSSM 200 pointedly
complained about Third World ``wishful thinking that economic
development will solve the problem'' of supposed overpopulation.

3) Technological Apartheid
Under the pretext of prohibiting environmentally unsound
technologies, developing nations would be subjected to
{technological apartheid,} denying them the right to develop
advanced technologies in the nuclear, aerospace, chemical,
biological and other fields. This would not only destroy their
chances for high technology-based growth to overcome
underdevelopment, but in many areas would send them back to
pre-industrial times. In fact, the UNCED proposals on technology
transfer explicitly argue for employment of ``appropriate
technologies'' (that is, backward ones) and ``indigenous
capacity building.''
For example, under the fiction of the ``Ozone Depletion
Theory'' (see below), underdeveloped nations would be denied the
technology for large-scale refrigeration so critical to solving
their population's food needs. Because of the nuclear waste
scare, nations would be denied access to nuclear energy, forcing
them to fall back on burning nonrenewable resources such as oil,
gas, coal, and wood--ironically, the greatest pollutants!
And the economies of the advanced sector would also be
gradually stripped of ``offending technologies,'' leading to the
dismantling of such vital industries as nuclear energy, medical
research, and so on.

4) Zero Economic Growth
People like UNCED Secretary General Maurice Strong argue
that they are not really against development, per se; it's just
that environmental concerns must also be considered--thus the new
catch-word, ``sustainable development.'' This argument is an
utter fraud, meaning in practice that development must cease in
order to ``save the environment.'' The false premise behind
``sustainable development'' is that mankind faces unsolvable
problems of ``resource scarcity'' and ``population pressures,''
exactly as described in the Club of Rome's 1972 report ``Limits
to Growth.'' But resources are permanently scarce, and population
growth inexorably outstrips production <only if technological
progress is banned from the planet>--which is precisely ``Eco
92's'' goal! Only if one denies mankind's unique capacity to
employ science and technology to create new resources, can one
accept the environmentalist/Malthusian premise of a dying,
overpopulated planet.

5) Enforced Backwardness
Under the banner of defending ``indigenous rights,'' Eco '92
would encourage developing nations to return to the
``environmentally sustainable'' days of the Stone Age. Consider
the arguments of Brazilian Environment Secretary Jose
Lutzenberger, an ``indigenous rights'' fanatic, Gaia worshipper,
and host of Eco '92:
``For about two million years, maybe 99% of its history, the
human species practiced a [hunting-and-gathering] lifestyle.
Within this lifestyle, living from hunting and gathering, man
finds himself perfectly integrated into his natural environment,
he does not have the means nor, what is more important, the
desire to destroy the natural world of which he considers himself
merely a part.... This lifestyle is perfectly sustainable, which
is proven by its longevity. There is no population explosion and
no degradation of the environment.''
What Lutzenberger fails to report is that a hunting and
gathering-based society could not support a global population
greater than 10 million people. Does Minister Lutzenberger
propose to simply kill off the remaining 5 1/2 billion people?
UNCED is preparing a special charter of ``indigenous
rights'' to be codified at Eco '92, which would erect a legal
barrier between these people and the rest of human civilization,
in order to ``preserve'' them in glorified Stone Age misery.

6) Debt Collection
With ``sustainable development'' (i.e., zero economic
growth) legally enforceable under Eco '92, the banks and
financial institutions which heavily fund the environmentalist
movement will be the big beneficiaries: rather than producing for
their own development, developing sector nations will be forced
to channel even more of their resources into debt repayment. One
brand-new mechanism for enforcing this is the so-called ``debt
for nature'' swap, under which developing sector nations are
pressured to hand over territory for internationally-supervised
``environmental protection,'' in exchange for (minuscule) debt
According to a UNCED briefing paper, ``Although established
on a very small scale, these (debt-for-nature) swaps have
provided badly needed new resources for conservation. They could,
however, be `scaled up' as part of a broader approach to the debt
question... There is even some indication that despite their
dislike of the conditionality attached to structural adjustment
programmes, a number of Latin American countries would be willing
to have debt relief tied to their adoption of detailed national
plans for sustainable development.''
It is no accident that such institutions as the World Bank
and International Monetary Fund are in on the ground floor of the
planning for Eco-92, promoting the notion of ``environmental
protection exchange programs'' which would force debtor countries
to reduce population growth, abandon allegedly unsound
technologies and industrial processes, and swap debt for nature.
There is similarly much talk about creating a Global
Environmental Facility, administered by the World Bank, and of an
Earth Fund administered by former International Monetary Fund
directors, which would control a large portion of the funds
available for the ``sustainable development'' projects such debt
swaps would require.
The head of the U.S. delegation to the UNCED preparatory
meetings, Assistant Secretary of State Curtis Bohlen, summed up
the blackmail content of this approach when he declared in
Geneva: ``I would hope that we would never fund projects that do
not promote environmentally sustainable development.''

7) Paganism
In one sense, the most important objective of ``Eco 92'' is
to consolidate a ``New Age'' cultural paradigm shift which has
been underway for two decades: to destroy the idea of ``man in
the living image of God,'' and thus capable of infinite
development, and replace it with pagan beliefs that equate man
with each and every other animal species.
Thus, UNCED head Maurice Strong has described Eco-92 as ``a
whole new vision'' and as a ``sea change in relations between
countries and people.''
The outlook of Brazil's Environment Secretary, Jose
Lutzenberger, is exemplary of this ``new vision.'' Lutzenberger
heads the Gaia Society in Brazil, and claims that ``ecology has
never been a technical question, but a religious one.''
Lutzenberger explains: ``For the nature worshipper, nature is not
merely the object of study and manipulation, she is much more.
She is divine ... she is sacred, and we humans are merely a part
of her.... In the body of Gaia, we individual humans are just the
cells of one of her tissues, a tissue which today seems to be
cancerous... Industrial society is significantly interfering,
opposing the trends of Gaia.''
In his book entitled ``The Human Avalanche,'' Lutzenberger
writes: ``In the living world, in its infinite complexity,
population growth is always controlled. Among more primitive
beings, [demographic control] is blind, intermittent and brutal.
A population of bacteria, provided with an appropriate
environment, will grow exponentially, but long before it fully
achieves its designs, before consuming its resources, it destroys
itself through its own toxins. Equilibrium is reestablished....
How ironic, Man, the `king of creation,' who, because of his
cerebral complexity, now finds himself at the apex of the Pyramid
of Life, with all his intellectual capacity, his science, his
technology, is readying himself to again submit to blind and
inexorable forces, is readying himself to return to the level of
the bacteria.''
Lutzenberger won his appointment to the Brazilian cabinet
through the influence of Prince Charles of England, a fellow
earth worshipper. In fact, many leaders of the Gaia Foundation in
England are closely tied to the British royal family, whose
Prince Philip--the Queen's consort--is head of the Worldwide Fund
for Nature, a leading sponsor of Eco-92. Prince Philip, too,
shares a fascination for the lowly microbe, and has publicly
expressed a desire to be reincarnated as a ``deadly virus'' so
that he could help eliminate the world's excess human population.
In a May 18, 1990 address to the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C., Prince Philip asserted: ``it is now apparent
that the ecological pragmatism of the so-called pagan religions,
such as that of the American Indians, the Polynesians, and the
Australian Aborigines, was a great deal more realistic in terms
of conservation ethics than the more intellectual monotheistic
philosophies of the revealed religions.''


One of the central arguments used by the organizers of Eco
92 is that, unless the nations of the world act to stop
environmental destruction, there will be giant catastrophes that
will wipe out the planet. Since the probability of these
catastrophes has supposedly already been proven by the constant
barrage of articles in the news media reporting on such
"scientific" predictions, the negotiators for the Earth Summit
have dismissed the science, and are now only negotiating the
But the fact is that every one of these environmental
doomsday theories is a scientific fraud. Dozens, if not hundreds,
of the world's leading scientists have debunked these theories in
great detail in the scientific literature and at scientific
forums. The news media, however, has an explicit policy
of not reporting on the work of these scientists.
The so-called scientific meetings that were called by the
UNCED-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other
pseudo-scientific bodies deliberately excluded any scientists
who have challenged the doomsday theories, establishing a
"scientific consensus" based on flawed or deliberately fraudulent
data. Before Christopher Columbus sailed to the new world, the
"scientific consensus" was that the Earth was flat.
Sometimes all it takes is one individual to stand up for the
truth to overturn entire sets of beliefs in science. In the case
of environmental doomsday theories, it is the world's most
renowned scientists who are challenging the claims of junior
scientists who have risen to fame and wealth through their
environmental catastrophe theories.
Here are some of the salient scientific facts that refute
the media hysteria.

1) Ozone Depletion
The basis of the ozone depletion theory is that chlorine
molecules from the alleged breakup of man-made chlorfluorocarbons
(CFCs) in the stratosphere (a phenomenon that has never been
observed to happen in real life), break up ozone molecules,
thereby increasing the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching
the surface of the Earth. Never mentioned is the fact that the
amount of chlorine in CFCs is absolutely insignificant in
comparison to natural sources of chlorine: The total amount of
chlorine contained in a year's production of CFCs is 750,000 tons
(of which only 1%, or about 7,500 tons makes it to the
stratosphere, according to the theory). In contrast, natural
sources (the oceans, volcanoes, etc.) pump more than 650 million
tons of chlorine into the atmosphere every year. The comparison
is even more shocking when one takes into account that only a
very small percentage of CFCs is actually broken up in the
stratosphere (according to the theory).
Just since the month of June, for example, the volcanic
eruptions of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, Mt. Unzen in Japan,
and Mt. Hudson in Chile have injected more than 8 million tons of
chlorine into the atmosphere, a large percentage of which was
injected directly into the stratosphere, where it is now circling
the Earth.
The Antarctic ozone hole that is the subject of scare
headlines is actually a natural and seasonal phenomenon discovered
by ozone research pioneer Gordon Dobson and his collaborators in
1956. Furthermore, recently reexamined data from France's
Antartic scientific station at Dumont D'Urville, shows that the
Antarctic Ozone Hole was actully deeper in 1958 than at any time
in the past two decades.

2) Global Warming
The Global Warming scare is based entirely on the prediction
of computer models that claim a rise in worldwide temperatures
of several degrees caused by an increase in the concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The public is never told that
these computer models have proven themselves to be completely
incapable of predicting future climate. These models have to
deal with thousands of variables, most of which are still
unknown. The change of just <one> variable in these models, that
of cloud feedback, makes the exact same models predict an Ice
Age, with kilometer-thick glaciers over New York City in 50
years, instead of global warming.
Despite the claims that the Earth has been warming for the
past 100 years, neither the data nor the methods used to analyze
this data are very reliable. Furthermore, even looking at the
alleged global warming chart, one immediately notices that most
of the warming ocurred by 1940, after which there was a
pronounced cooling which lasted until 1976, when many of the
present proponents of global warming were predicting an Ice Age.
This pattern completely contradicts the global warming theory,
since less than one fifth of all emissions of carbon dioxide
had occurred by 1940.

3) Nuclear Waste
Most of what we call nuclear waste is actually a valuable
resource. More than 96 percent of the so-called waste produced by
nuclear reactors can be reprocessed to be reused as uranium or
plutonium fuel for reactors; only about 4 percent is actually
high-level radioactive waste that requires disposal. Even this
high-level waste could be transformed into a resource: advanced
isotope separation technologies could separate and concentrate it
into its constitutent isotopes, thus providing costly and scarce
strategic metals like rhodium, ruthenium, and palladium. There
are nearly 500 radioactive isotopes that could be "mined" in this
way, many of which are used in medical procedures and in
providing fuel for themoelectric generators.
From the beginning of the nuclear age, scientists have been
convinced that the disposal of high-level waste is
technologically feasible and safe. The problems are not
scientific but political. All the nuclear nations reprocess their
spent fuel, except the United States. By treating as "waste" all
of the spent fuel produced by a single 1,000 megawatt nuclear
plant over 40 years, we are throwing away the equivalent of 130
million barrels of oil, or 37 million tons of coal.

4) Pesticides
Pesticides have played an important role in making possible
an abundant supply of food at reasonable prices and stopping the
spread of pest-transmitted diseases. They are essential for
mankind's well-being and survival.
Dr. J. Gordon Edwards, a well-known U.S. entomologist from
San Jose State University, has estimated that the antipesticide
activities of the environmentalist movement in the United States
are responsible, both directly and indirectly, for the death of
100 million people a year. As pesticides and insecticides were
restricted because of environmentalists' campaigns, insect-borne
diseases like malaria again became widespread and crop production
and agricultural productivity declined. Edwards states, "I can't
see any good reason for these actions except that the
environmentalists intend to cut the population in the poorer
nations of the world."

5) Carcinogens
In the 40 or so years that the use of synthetic chemicals in
food has been widespread, cancer rates--except for lung
cancer--have not risen in the United States. Dr. Bruce Ames,
chairman of the Departemnt of Biochemistry at the University of
California at Berkeley, has stated that exposure to man-made
carcinogens is not the kind of threat that enviornmentalists have
portrayed it as, because: a) the evidence is that these
carcinogens do not damage DNA; b) exposure to man-made
carcinogens is trivial compared to exposure to natural
carcinogens; and c) there is evidence that extrapolating the high
doses of carcinogens given to rats to low-dose human exposure is
not accurate.
Ames and others have shown that Americans today ingest about
10,000 times more of natural carcinogens than man-made

6) Deforestation
Deforestation is in fact a very serious ecological problem.
However, what is never mentioned to the public is that more than
60% of global deforestation is the result of the use of wood as a
fuel source. A study by the United Nations has documented that
83% of logs cut down are used as firewood. Another 20 to 25% of
deforestation is the result of slash-and-burn primitive
agriculture. In Central Africa, for example, IMF
conditionalities have forced most countries to use wood as a
fuel, since it doesn't require the use of foreign exchange, which
the IMF insists be used solely to pay the foreign debt. As a
result, most Central African countries obtain more than 90% of
their energy from burning firewood! Most shocking, this is
exactly the "sustainable energy" policy proposed by the
environmentalists, who call for "biomass burning" to replace
fossil fuels.
Although indiscriminate logging in certain parts of the
world has indeed caused severe damage, logging accounts for only
approximately 18% of deforestation. Given the massive forest
destruction resulting from existing "sustainable" energy and
agricultural policies, a stop to all logging will not
significantly stop deforestation. The solution is advanced energy
production, including nuclear energy, and modern agricultural
production methods--exactly the opposite of what the
environmentalists propose.


The sponsors of Eco 92 promote the myth that environmental
issues first surfaced as a ``grass-roots movement,'' and that
only with great sacrifice on the part of many concerned
individuals everywhere were the governments of the world forced
to take up the fight. The fact is that Eco 92 is the culmination
of a several-decade Malthusian conspiracy which got its official
start in 1972, with the simultaneous publication of the Club of
Rome report ``Limits to Growth'' and the appointment of Canadian
Maurice Strong as secretary general of the U.N. Conference on
Human Environment, held in Stockholm, Sweden, that year. Club of
Rome member Strong is today also the secretary general of UNCED.
The so-called Stockholm Conference was key to launching
the global ecology movement in earnest. As Strong himself
describes it, ``The Stockholm Conference put environment on the
international agenda. The Earth Summit will move it into the
center of economic policy and decision making.''
According to a U.N. briefing paper on UNCED, Strong is to be
credited with the idea of assuaging developing sector
sensibilities on environmental and population matters by
``changing the political dynamic of the Conference preparations
to bring the concerns of the developing countries about natural
resource management, poverty, and the need for more equitable
patterns of development, to the fore.''
Strong, a Canadian oil millionaire with a long history of
involvement with numerous high-level and well-funded
environmental institutes, was also a commissioner for the World
Commission for Environment and Development, or ``Bruntland
Commission,'' set up by U.N. mandate in December 1983. The
Bruntland Commission's 1987 report ``Our Common Future,'' is
considered a blueprint for the ``Earth Charter'' to be formulated
during Eco '92. Its primary contribution, according to UNCED
reports, was its argument that the environment had to become ``a
mainstream economic issue.'' In fact, ``Our Common Future''
popularized the concept of ``sustainable development.''
Funding for this international Malthusian conspiracy comes
from the same place as its policy line: the blue-blood
``Establishment'' foundations in Great Britain, the United
States, and a handful of other countries. For example, the
London-based International Institute for Environment and
Development, which lent its name to UNCED and which is today
deeply involved in preparations for Eco 92, is funded by such
leading Anglo-American banks and companies as American Express
Foundation, Atlantic Richfield Foundation, Barclays Bank, Bankers
Trust Foundation, Citibank, Morgan Guaranty Trust, National
Westminster Bank, Security Pacific Foundation, Shell Companies
Foundation, Standard and Chartered Bank, Royal Dutch Shell, and
so forth. Its current chairman is Robert O. Anderson, a board
member of Kissinger Associates, former chairman of Atlantic
Richfield oil corporation, and a chief founder and patron of the
Aspen Institute.
The Geneva-based Center for Our Common Future, a
clearing-house for the world environmental movement and the
acknowledged ``private'' organizing body for Eco 92, is funded by
several governments, the City of Geneva, the Gro Harlem Bruntland
Environment Foundation, and the Chicago-headquartered John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The latter is also one of the
leading funders of environmentalist projects in the United
States, and played a central role--together with the Ford and
Rockefeller Foundations, among others--in setting up and/or
funding such organizations as the World Resources Institute, the
Natural Resources Defense Council, Worldwatch Institute,
Environmental Defense Fund, and so on.


But all is not proceeding as smoothly as Strong and his
blue-blood backers would like. There are growing signs that many
nations--especially among the developing sector--are balking at
the refurbished Malthusianism that is being peddled. For example,
Malaysian prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad announced Aug. 16
that his country might boycott the Eco '92 conference altogether,
on the grounds that it is a new form of imperialism. Similarly,
the Brazilian Armed Forces, along with a number of congressmen
and governors in that country, see Eco '92 as an explicit assault
on their national sovereignty, and have even threatened to go to
war to protect the Amazon from being ``internationalized.'' A
G-77 delegate to UNCED recently said the developing nations would
not negotiate away ``our permanent sovereignty over our natural
resources'' at Eco '92. And the Algerian delegate to UNCED warned
that Eco '92 might usher in a new era of ``green conditionality''
that would inhibit economic growth in the Third World.
But it is not enough to protest one or another aspect of Eco
92, to try to ``separate the good from the bad.'' The Eco 92
summit must be cancelled outright. Its underlying Malthusian
premises must be emphatically and explicitly rejected. And the
world community of nations should instead convoke an urgent
conference to discuss how to bring about a true Fourth
Development Decade, based on the inalienable right of all nations
to sovereignty and economic development.

---- EOF ----

"We have seen the enemy and he is us!" - Pogo/ Walt Kelly

Jeff Dauber

Jul 21, 1992, 5:45:10 PM7/21/92

Gee, this was your first contact with the Safe Use people,
huh? This particular paper is from a member of a group
who's purpose is to destroy the environmental movement.

The scary thing is that since this is a corporate interest,
their form of misinformation seems to win out.


0 new messages