In Part 1 we looked at some of the reasons to doubt the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW.) Part 2 discussed the financiers of a global network of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO’s) who have created the prominent environmentalist group Extinction rebellion and propelled Greta Thunberg to the world’s stage. We also looked at the reasons why the so called global elite, herein referred to as the ‘parasite class,’ want to create fear to bring about global economic change.
Maurice Strong
If environmental activists’ concerns come from any single source it’s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.) It is not a scientific organisation. It was formed by governments with the full backing and support of multinational corporations and the parasite class. All the data it uses to make its alarming predictions come from government funded bodies.
Its remit was designed with one purpose in mind. To provide the scientific justification to convince the planet’s population to accept fundamental economic change and to usher in a global governance to manage all of the Earth’s resources. Its methodology was carefully constructed to deliver behavior changing propaganda. Objective science has little to do with it.
The IPCC were formed thanks largely to the efforts of Maurice Strong. Strong was an oil tycoon and senior executive for various multinationals including stints as the Vice President of Power Corporation of Canada, CEO of Petro Canada, head of Ontario Hydro, chairman of the Canada Development Investment Corporation and many more. These were just a few of his numerous executive positions across a dizzying array of global corporations.
Equally copious were his political roles. At various times he was Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General, Senior Advisor to World Bank, Chairman of the Earth Council, Chairman of the World Resources Institute, Co-Chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum, Commissioner for the World Commission on Environment and Development, President of the Council of the University for Peace, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and many more.
Maurice Strong was one of the founders, and the first Executive Director, of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1972. This created an entirely new branch of United Nations global governance. He gave up this role in 1975 and moved from his leading environmentalist position back into the oil industry to become head of the Canadian state oil enterprise Petro Canada.
Strong never had any problems moving back and forth between the world of the ‘big polluters’ and environmentalism. Seemingly, without a flicker of irony or any uncomfortable questions being asked. To be fair, the majority of the public didn’t know who he was, so he was able to operate without too much public scrutiny.
Despite being honoured as the ‘world’s leading environmentalist’ his career ended ignominiously when he was caught syphoning $1M into his private account in the midst of the U.N oil for food scandal. Though Strong denied any involvement, contrary to the evidence, he fled to China anyway. It seems his humanist compassion didn’t extend to starving children in war torn Iraq.
Of course one human being can’t really bring due diligence to bear upon such a bewildering number of global leadership roles. Mastering one would present a challenge, even to the most gifted of bureaucrats. Fortunately for Maurice, he wasn’t really required to know what he was doing. He was simply required to do as he was told.
This isn’t to say he wasn’t talented. His was a gifted diplomat and networker. Backed by the financial might of the Rockefellers, Strong was able to build an extensive international framework connecting influential political, financial, industrial, scientific and academic figures. This made him perfect for his role of building the consensus for a new economic model. Strong’s was tasked to commission the right people, enact the right policy, sign the right declarations, convene the right conferences and set the right terms of reference. ‘Right’ being defined by the chain of multinational venture capitalists who made sure Maurice was in the right job at the right time.
Strong’s aunt was Anna Louise Strong, an ardent communist and associate of Lenin, Trotsky and Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai. In 1947, having dropped out of school in 1943 with no qualifications, 18 years old Maurice was living with the Treasurer of the United Nations Noah Monod. Monod introduced him to David Rockefeller and from that point onward Strong was a Rockefeller man. At the time, the Rockerfeller’s were still very much ‘big polluters.’ Their global Standard Oil empire, that would spawn Exxon-Mobil, Chevron and others, was dominant in the Seven Sisters oil cartel which, by 1973, controlled 85% of global oil trade.
As a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, in 1972 Strong commissioned the Only One Earth report which created the concept of ‘sustainable development’ as a stepping stone to the centralised, global control of all resources. He convened the 1972 Stockholm summit which established UNEP with himself as its leader. The start of the movement towards seizing control of the Earth’s natural resources coincided with the first publication from the globalist policy think tank the Club of Rome entitled ‘ The Limits To Growth.’ This argued that continual economic growth could not be sustained in conjunction with population growth. The problem was that there were just too many of us. Something needed to be done.
The Club of Rome
The Club of Rome first convened at David Rockefeller’s private estate in Bellagio, Italy in 1968. According to their official history they were invited by the Swiss government to stage their first formal meeting in Berne in 1970. ‘The Limits To Growth’ sprang from that meeting. Prominent members have included David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates, Al Gore and Maurice Strong.
In 1974 Henry Kissinger commissioned and contributed to a report by the U.S National Security Council called the National Security Study Memorandum or NSSM-200, often referred to as the Kissinger Report. They argued that maintaining access to the mineral wealth in least developed countries (LDC’s) was essential for continued U.S economic expansion. The population growth in these poor nations was therefore a problem which needed to be managed.
Seeking to distance themselves from the dirty work, Kissinger recommended that the U.N should be the instigator of population control policies. This resulted in all manner of atrocities. It led to the horror of China’s ‘one child’ policy, the forced sterilisation of Peruvian women, an increase in the Ugandan AIDS epidemic and effectively female euthanasia in India, among other humanitarian disasters.
In 1987 the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future) was released by the U.N. Gro Harland Brundlandt was by then the Prime Minister of Norway, but had previously been appointed chair of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. Both Javier Pérez and Gro Harland Brundlandt were members of the Rockefellers’ Club of Rome.
The Report Stated:
“Excessive population growth diffuses the fruits of development over increasing numbers instead of improving living standards in many developing countries; a reduction of current growth rates is an imperative for sustainable development….. a nation proceeds towards the goals of sustainable development and lower fertility levels, the two are intimately linked and mutually reinforcing.”
In 1987, off the back of the Brundtland Report, David Rockefeller was among the delegates of another conference organized by Strong. The 4th World Wilderness Conference, in Colorado. The Conference gave birth to the Rothschild backed Bank the Global Environment Facility (GEF – named in 1991,) initially as a subsidiary of the World Bank, who became a trustee partner in 1992, giving the GEF more independence. Announcing his idea, which had been kicking around in globalist think tanks for some time, following a glowing introduction from Strong, chairman of Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild stated:
“The concept of an international conservation banking program involves all sectors of the human community. Governmental and intergovernmental agencies, the public and private agencies, large charitable foundations, as well as ordinary individuals worldwide. By thinking forward as to how to reach out to the public at large, to every corporate entity throughout the world, to put aside, hopefully tax free, a part of their profits to fund our ecological and environmental protection. This international conservation bank must know no frontiers, no boundaries.”
Driven by their zeal to create a new global economic order, based upon sustainable development goals (SDG’s,) meaning population control, the conference was concerned with how to roll out this paradigm shift. Another delegate, Montreal banker David Lang, suggested the following approach:
“I suggest therefore that this be sold, not through a democratic process, that would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition.”
Despite the fact that Mr Lang couldn’t form a coherent statement, his elite sensibilities enabled him to empathise with the sentiments of those gathered. The cannon fodder’s (human beings’) existence was unfortunate. While the temptation may be to write Lang’s outburst off as the aberration of an idiot, treating people like vermin appears consistent with the GEF’s investment strategy. Which you largely pay for through taxation.
A primary function of the GEF is to establish protected areas (PA’s) rich in biodiversity and maintain the geographical connections between them called ‘biological corridors.’ Cannon fodder live in these places, so if you intend to protect the environment the people have got to go. Coincidentally many of these regions also happen to be rich in mineral wealth and other natural resources. Which, unsurprisingly, is often the reason why people live in them. Perhaps it is purely by chance that the GEF backed projects frequently dovetail neatly with the objectives outlined in the Kissinger Report.
In India the GEF funded the relocation 89,000 villagers to newly designated buffer zones outside the PA’s set up across rural India in the provinces of Nagarhole, Buxa, Gir and Pench. There’s was virtually no public consultation and the first thing the cannon fodder knew was when the military turned up and threw them out of their homes. Seizing ancestral lands, the local government further restricted access for nearly half a million people in the surrounding areas, devastating the local economy, forcing many to relocate to urban areas. The Indian Ecodevelopment Project (IEP) was strongly resisted by the Adivasi people in Nagarhole who had been living there for hundreds of years. Many of whom were beaten up when they protested. They launched legal actions but were blocked by the Indian Government. Almost identical stories have followed similar GEF land grabs in Thailand, Gabon, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Cameroon, Tanzania and many other countries.
This was entirely in keeping, necessarily, with David Rockefeller’s world view. Speaking to the Business Council of the United Nations in 1994 he recognized the advances that had reduced infant mortality and increased life expectancy. He then identified people being alive as a major problem:
“Ironically however, the very innovations that are making possible dramatic improvements in human wellbeing are also creating new problems which raise the specter of an alarming, and possibly catastrophic disaster to the biosphere we live in.…….The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident. The rapid and growing exploitation of the world’s supply of energy and water is a matter of deep concern……The United Nations can and should play an essential role in helping the world find a satisfactory way of stabalising the world population.”
David, father of six, had certainly done his bit to add to the population problem he had long considered a blight. As arguably the richest oil tycoon the world has ever seen, nor had he been shy about contributing towards the “rapid and growing exploitation of the world’s supply of energy and water.” The problems he had personally created were seen by him, and his fellow parasite class contributors, to be the fault of the unfortunate cannon fodder. Whose numbers, rather like the wild deer populations, needed to be stabalised (culled) in order to protect their planet.
The Overpopulation Myth
Just as the AGW hypothesis is supposedly a scientific certainty today so the Club of Rome’s publication the The Limits To Growth was rooted in the scientific certainty its time. In 1968 the biologist and ecologist Paul Ehrlich, and his wife Anne, published The Population Bomb. They warned that the growing global population could only lead to disaster. They predicted famine, economic collapse, war, pestilence and climate change as a consequence of uncontrolled population growth. The solution they suggested was a global government administered program of population control.
Celebrated the world over for his contribution to science, Paul Ehrlich’s post Population Bomb career has been marked by a never ending stream of scientific accolades, lofty advisory positions and academic leadership roles. His ideas, based purely in science of course, have presented some challenging concepts. For example, in an Interview with the New York Times in 1969, he said:
“Government might have to put sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries to limit human multiplication.”
Writing with his co-authors & wife, Club of Rome member Anne Ehrlich, in Ecoscience in 1977, the Ehrlichs and John Holden, while promoting forced abortion and the like, outlined how a global government must control all of the Earth’s resources, manage population and control global trade.
The only problem is that Ehrlichs, and all who agreed with them, were provably wrong about everything. Their predictions, that the 1980’s would see 4 Billion people starve to death or that England wouldn’t exist by 2000 for example, have all been rubbish. Not only are their prediction silly, but the academic and scientific basis for their various lunatic theories are complete drivel.
Today we see the same kind of spurious prophecies from those who are certain about the AGW hypothesis. For example the Maldives were supposed to have vanished by now; Al Gore was among the many alarmists who told us that forest fires would increase because of climate change, yet, during the period of the most intense ‘global warming,’ over the last few decades, the data shows that the total area of forest fires has decreased; we were told that Hurricane frequency would dramatically increase yet no marked trend is notable at all and U.S landfall hurricane frequency between 2005 and 2016 dropped sharply.
The climate alarmism pumped out by the MSM doesn’t bear scrutiny. Similar doomsday narratives were common in the wake of the Ehrlichs’ apocalyptic forecasts. Unlike the bulk of humanity, rather than just accept their pronouncements as fact, the experimental psychologist, business economist and statistician Julian Simon thought he would actually check the data to see if there was any basis for the Ehrlichs’ wild proselytising. What he discovered was that the Ehrlich’s view of human beings as little more than a drain on precious natural resources entirely overlooked an inconvenient truth (from an Ehrlich supporter’s perspective.)
Human ingenuity is the fountain of all scientific, technological and social advancement. The more people there are, the greater the talent pool. The more scientists, engineers, philosophers, teachers, doctors, academics, farmers, nurses and labourers that exist, the higher the productivity and efficiency. Population growth, far from being the harbinger of doom, has consistently been the catalyst for economic improvement and technological advancement.
The Ehrlichs’ work was based upon ideas first propounded by the 18th Century economist Thomas Malthus. He suggested that a growing population would inevitably outstrip global food production, leading to devastating famine. At the time the global population was approximately 800 million. Today it stands at 7 billion. Overpopulated by 5.5 billion people, according to the Ehrlichs. However food production has outstripped population growth, as predicted by the Danish economist Ester Boserup. Based upon empirical data, it is Boserup who appears to have been right.
For example, since 1970 the population of India has more than doubled, from 550 million to around 1.2 billion today. Yet famine has reduced, millions have been lifted out of poverty, the middle class has expanded significantly and life expectancy has increased from 49 to 65 in the same period. This trend has been reflected globally. Between 1960 and 2016 global population has more than doubled. Yet we see less hunger, less disease, less poverty, improved access to education, higher standards of public health, immense technological innovation and an expanding global economy.
Furthermore, the evidence clearly shows that while population has continued to grow the rate of that increase has been steadily in decline for decades. Bluntly, given the marked improvements in societal wellbeing, there is no evidence at all that fears of overpopulation are even remotely justified. By every measure, reality proves the theories of Ehrlich (and many others) almost perfectly wrong in every regard.
However, if you ask most people if global population and resource scarcity is a problem they will probably say yes. Simply because this is what they have been repeatedly and consistently told to believe. It is the underlying truth accepted by the vast majority, regardless of the fact that it is unmitigated nonsense.
The real demographic problem faced by humanity has largely been caused by policies based upon the overpopulation myth. In 1969, stemming from Ehrilch’s work, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities came into being. They have since disavowed themselves of any connection with China’s disastrous ‘one child policy’ despite being heavily involved.
Following the application of their brutal population control policy, wholeheartedly endorsed by the Ehrlichs and supported by the U.N, China are now faced with demographic nightmare. The male population far exceeds the female population, the working age populations has collapsed while the retirement age group ballooned by comparison. In 2014 the Chinese government were forced to acknowledge that their working age population is now in decline. The same problem is faced across Assia the U.S, Central & South America and Europe.
Global birth rates have dropped alarmingly, seemingly with no clear explanation. The problem is not the uncontrolled growth of populations, it never was, but rather the aging population. Primarily it seems, as a result of catastrophic attempts at population control.
Again coincidentally, just as the IPCC released their Summary For Policy makers and Extinction Rebellion formed, as Greta Thunberg was launched onto the global stage and the MSM started changing language from climate change to climate emergency, the Club of Rome released their ‘Climate Emergency Plan.’ Call To Action 9 is called “Ensure That Population Growth Is Kept Under Control.” Blind to all evidence, the Club of Rome’s obsession runs deep.
Despite the fact that the United Nations have been fully aware of population growth rate decline, since 2000 at the latest, we are still told that population growth is a problem. They insist that population control, which has already proven to be a genuine threat to humanity, is essential to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s.)
Why? Why are the Club of Rome, the U.N, IPCC, IPBES, WWF, World Economic Forum, World Bank, IMF, Greenpeace, Extinction Rebellion, Greta Thunberg and the vast majority of people who live in the developed world, determined to assert an unscientific, provably false claim that population is the problem? Where does this idea come from and how does it manifest within the climate emergency?
A Climate Emergency Fit For A Parasite Economy
As we have previously discussed, the climate emergency is really about the intentional transformation of the global economy. The current economic system is teetering on the brink of disaster. This threatens the powerbase of the parasite class and it is this which is unsustainable, not the planet. Their problem they faced was how to get the global population to accept a radical economic shift. One that would also mean the centralised control of everything.
Pondering this conundrum, in 1991 the Club of Rome published the First Global Revolution. In it they revealed how they resolved the sales pitch problem:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, 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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Three years prior, in 1988, Club of Rome member Maurice strong was instrumental in the creation of the IPCC. It reports to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) which sprang from the 1992 Rio Earth summit, also convened by Strong. The IPCC terms of reference, and its system of working groups, determine how it operates. It was not created to scientifically investigate the causes of climate change. Rather, it was formed with a specific, limited remit to promote one single hypothesis:
“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
The IPCC does not consider anything other than human induced climate change to be worthy of study. Solar Cycles, electromagnetism, atmospheric thermal gradients, ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, gamma waves, orbital variance, ion storms (space weather) and a whole range of possible climate controlling factors are of no interest at all to the IPCC.
IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) assesses the scientific aspects of climate change, but only if it relates to the AGW hypothesis. All the scientific evidence which question AGW is discarded. Working Group 2 (WG2) then use the science contained within WG1’s scientifically restricted Assessment Reports to determine global vulnerability to the assumed effects of the AGW hypothesis. Working Group 3 (WG3) then assess how they can reduce CO2 emissions, because they only consider AGW. This is called ‘cherry picking’ your data and is not usually a valued component of the scientific method.
Every 5 years or so WG1-3 submit full Assessment Reports. These are collated to form the Summary For Policy Makers (SPM’s.) The first draft of the SPM’s are submitted to governments for their approval before they are published. This is essentially a policy document issued by the governments, who fund the IPCC and provide all the data sets for it climate models. It was the IPCC’s fifth SPM which supposedly encouraged the formation of Extinction Rebellion, scared the wits out of Greta Thunberg and her followers, and caused the world to tremble with fear. As we only have 12 years left to save the Earth again.
According to the IPCC, based upon their single minded advocacy of the dodgy AGW hypothesis, the impending apocalypse is our fault. We just have to accept the new world economic order if we are to survive. “The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
James Corbett’s meticulous research in the two excellent documentaries, How and Why Big Oil Conquered the Earth, evidence the parasite class’ historical belief in the pseudoscience of Eugenics and the social engineering concept of Technocracy. Eugenics, the quasi fascist scientific certainty of the early 20th century, and Technocracy, a belief that global society should be managed by a global Technocratic elite, have been consistently supported by the parasite class for generations.
Population control, though dressed in the fake respectability of sustainable development goals, is a Eugenic concept. The Internet of Things, built upon a global 5G monitoring grid, enables the Technocratic dream of real time comprehensive energy surveillance, a continuous registry of the total net conversion of energy. Unsurprisingly, this too is a vital component of sustainable development goals.
The climate emergency is the claimed rationale for the largest global power grab in human history. It is a globalist construct, based upon highly questionable science, designed to steer the world towards a new global economic model based upon units of energy consumption. It is the perfect coalescence of the Eugenic and Technocratic belief systems deeply rooted in the global culture of the parasite class.
Climate Change activism, alarm and subsequent reactive policies are controlled by governments who are themselves beholding to the existing economic system controlled by the parasite class. It has been generations in the making and has incorporated all sectors of society. As prominent U.S propagandist Edward Bernays said:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power….”
We don’t have to search far to see what the new decarbonised global economy will look like. The Climate Bonds Initiative aims to create the largest capital market in history. A $100 trillion bond market to invest in sustainable development. Currently global interests rates are extremely low and yet, at the same time, the Climate Bond Initative is offering between an 8% – 12% yield on venture capital investment. How can this be possible?
The answer is the green initiatives it invests in are heavily subsidised by the tax paying cannon fodder. The system of environmental taxation is used to subsidise the inefficient green technologies and damaging projects the Climate Bond Initiative offers to investors. The tax payer is the commodity being traded.
This will do nothing to affect climate change, as that is completely beyond human control. However, it will destroy small to medium size businesses, stifle innovations and limit human freedom. This is all good for the parasite class, as their new bond market continues the age old tradition of transferring wealth from the population to them. We only need look at the funders of the Climate Bond Initiative to see who benefits.
This is the new global economy of decarbonised sustainable development. It is what climate activists are actually campaigning for. They just don’t know it.
It is beyond ironic that one of the oft cited accusation against the “climate science deniers” is that they are in the pockets of the big polluters.
As usual, the truth is the exact opposite.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Hi Iain, I stumbled across a link to your website on Twitter and the information here is really fascinating and frightening. I am sceptical of everything and don’t really believe anything I hear from any “official” source. I gave up on the BBC and media a long time ago and go elsewhere searching for “the truth”. I was wondering what is your opinion on the story about Exxon and Shell ignoring its own research about climate change? In the 1980s, they carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels but apparently hid the findings so they could carry on doing what they do. Is this a fake story? (I am not a scientist either or anything remotely like it, so there is no chance of me ever really understanding climate change from a truly unbiased scientific perspective.)
I’d be very interested to hear your opinion
Thanks Julia, welcome to the site.
May I respectfully encourage you to object to anyone who belittles your opinion because they claim they are an expert and you’re not. If they can’t explain their concept in straightforward terms the chances are they either don’t understand it themselves or their position is nonsense. You are as entitled to an opinion as anyone else. The only question is how far are you willing to go to inform it.
A good explanation of the official narrative about the Exxon & Shell leaks (which were separate incidents) can be read here.
However, Exxon was a Rockefeller company in 1982 and Shell is owned by European Royalty. These are the same people who are behind the UNFCCC, IPCC, IPBES etc. where all the climate alarm comes from. An agenda they were promoting, via organisations like the Club of Rome & World Wilderness Conference at the time of these alleged studies.
So perhaps we should treat these suggested leaks with caution. To be clear, as stated in the article, it is the ‘big polluters’ who are pushing the climate change emergency agenda today.
That being said, I have no evidence that these studies weren’t genuinely ‘surpressed’, but given the directorships of the companies at the time, I suspect the guardian version may be nonsense.
Thanks for stopping by. If you like what you read here please share it.
Anna Louise String was not Maurice Strong’s mother!
Many thanks for the correction. You’re quite right, it was Mary. I’ll update the post.
Hello Iain, Well written and thoroughly informative.
This Climate Change-Warming-Extinction rubbish could quite possibly be one of, if not the biggest scam con jobs in history.
Thanks Bret, I’m glad you found it useful. Yep, could well be. I think the fact that asking any questions makes you a climate science denier is very revealing. Whenever dissent is crushed you can be fairly certain the narrative is a crock.
You are not going far enough back to find the root driver of the climate emergency story. You need to look at the OCED and especially the role of Alexander king. This is the guy who introduced DDT into Europe in the 1940s, and was working for the OCED in the 60s when they decided they needed a scheme to help push the concept of sustainability onto the public. He created the club of Rome, with the aim of creating models to predict what would happen if we had too much growth.
He died a few years ago with his final thoughts being about how what he has started becoming realised for the society of 2084. He was a real strategist with many contacts and a mindset of the end justifying the means. He effectively invented climate change for the purpose of convincing people that society shouldn’t grow beyond a nominal size. It’s just a shame that size was never scientifically tested.
Thanks Anon. Very interesting. I’ll check him out.
Gro Harlem Brundtland was a VP in socialistinternational dot org.
The current secretary general of the UN was president of the same organization.
And after we removed saddam from power, Iraq ‘elected’ Jalal Talabani as president of Iraq. He was also a VP in socialistinternational dot Org.
Thanks Kramer. Yes, “solidarity” in claimate change alarm dogma crops up time and time again.
Also, I believe Strong was part of the Rockefeller foundation.
And I’ve noticed the theme “our common future” shows up in a lot of elite orgs.
Thanks Kramer