A Mother’s Concern; Promise Of A Green Future Is More Than A White Lie.

by Dr. Tim Ball on January 28, 2013

in Government,History,Legal,Philosophy,Political,Politics,Theory

 

A paradigm shift is a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions. Any new paradigm creates necessary changes, but also problems and victims. Feminism and environmentalism are two major new 20th century paradigms. Sadly the major victims of both are mothers and housewives, the two most important, but denigrated and ignored jobs in society. Home based, they are vulnerable to the propaganda and exploitation of their emotions by extreme advocates for the new paradigms. They are the most concerned group about the environment and future for their children.

Children and their mothers are victims of green propaganda, particularly through the schools. Sadly, few people, including mothers, have any idea what is taught in the schools. It is where the emotional blackmail of environmentalism is inculcated into society. The message preached is that industry and development are the cause of most environmental and social problems. Over dependence on fossil fuels and their byproduct, CO2, is causing planet threatening climate change.

The Club of Rome formulated the idea that CO2 is the culprit. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Agenda 21 created the political vehicle and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) created scientific ‘proof’. National governments used their propaganda to support programs to eliminate or dramatically reduce the threat by restriction or replacement of fossil fuels.

They could stop climate change, save the planet and secure the future. H.L Mencken confronted this delusion when he said,

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

They said the economy would benefit through green jobs to create a better future for the children. The reality is the opposite; there is no future with a green agenda. Countries and regions who tried a green agenda with green jobs and alternate energy suffered serious energy shortages and economic decay.

Mothers are naturally concerned about their children’s future. It is deplorable to exploit that concern using inaccurate, manipulated data and bad science. It is despicable when there is nothing wrong with the current methods and practices and they are the real solution. The world is not overpopulated and the proven, humane method of population reduction is economic development and the resulting demographic transition.

One mother and housewife, Charlene Adams, decided to check out the truth behind the push for a green future. Was it based on solid science? Charlene discovered, as anybody does who embarks on that journey, a frightening set of facts. They contradicted what the media reported and what her children learned in school.

I know of two similar stories. A farm wife who ran a dairy operation with her husband looked at her daughter’s High School text on agriculture one day. The inaccuracies and bias shocked her. As a result, she participated in the formation of the Manitoba chapter of Agriculture in the Classroom (AIC). This organization realized the bias of the curriculum and most teachers. They teach subjects despite general lack of knowledge or understanding, especially about scientific issue like climate change. Few people, including parents, know what children learn in school.

Elaine Dewar, an investigative journalist, made a similar disurbing discovery. She wanted to write a story in praise of Canadian environmentalists and their actions to protect the planet and the people. This included David Suzuki, Elizabeth May and Maurice Strong. The cover note says,

“Most concerned citizens trust environmental groups to fight on behalf of the public for sensible solutions to the worlds environmental problems. That was what Elaine Dewar believed when she started work on this story. But she discovered that our trust can sometimes be misplaced, as you will see in this revealing and disturbing book.”

Dewar only proved what her final sentence says,

“As always the Honourable Maurice Strong had been right – a new system of world governmence, a Better World, was not only possible, it was inevitable. In fact, it is upon us.”

That was in 1995. Since then the truth emerged. The illusory goal occurred because they ignored the facts and falsified the science. As Senator Timothy Wirth said in 1993,

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

A sentiment echoed by Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart,

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Destroying the existing energy and economic industrial structure results in greater inequality as the gap between rich and poor expands. Food production and distribution is devastated and people freeze as alternate energies are unable to meet the demand. This is the real future the world faces if we continue along the path advocated by the Club of Rome and facilitated by UNEP and Agenda 21. They have created a virtual reality world that bears no resemblance to reality. As Michael Crichton wrote in 2003,

“the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.”

A small powerful cabal used the UN to convince governments they knew what is wrong and have the solutions – they can stop climate change. They manufactured a false scenario that ignored nature and blamed humans. It didn’t take Charlene Adams long to understand the deception and the future dangers for her children. You can read about the voyage of discovery of one victim of two new paradigm shifts in her book The Skeptical Housewife.