On occasion, you find what appears to be a document of minor influence, which… actually ties the room together.
Here is one such example.
In August, 1978, the Turning Point newsletter released its bi-annual update1. And it chronologically places a document, somewhat opening the door for even more interesting documents in a way… somewhat surprising. And no - it’s not the otherwise noteworthy inclusion of Edward Goldsmith, the psychotic General Systems Theorist, who penned ‘Limits in Growth’. It’s the ‘One Europe, One Environment’2 reference which catches my eye.
You see, that particular document sheds light upon initiatives which were to eventually unfold in European capacity - and with extraordinary levels of foresight.
‘Recognising that we have "One Environment" of necessity and that we are building “One Europe" by choice, we have prepared this manifesto as our contribution to the task of ensuring that a united Europe is not built at the expense of our "One Environment". The new European Parliament, with directly elected representatives, will exert an increasing influence over the development of European policies.‘
At the stage of writing, only 9 nations were members of the European Community - and with two having only recently joined (United Kingdom, Denmark). Yet, they knew ‘One Europe’ were to be built, that its focus would centre around the environment, and that this concept would exert a growing influence over future European political direction. It’s a remarkably good call, all things considered.
‘Central to our view of the future development of Europe is the need to reth!nk the concept of economic growth‘
Again, very close to contemporary context, though we tend to call this ‘de-growth’.
‘Europe should invent a new industrialism, a mature pattern of growth, that will enable its own great population, and those of other regions, to live more fully, yet press more lightly on the planet.‘
Again - 1978. The fraudulent ‘carbon consensus’ hadn’t yet been agreed upon!
‘the European environment belongs to all Europeans… the European environment is part of the global environment‘
There’s that ‘interdependence’ again. The fate of European nations are intertwined through the environment, and Europe with the World in general.
‘Therefore, Europe should adopt as a long-range goal the achievement of a society in which materials are used and reused to maximum advantage with a minimum of resource depletion.‘
And there’s the indirect call for a Circular Economy, but also touching upon the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference calls.
‘The Community should :
- devise fiscal incentives to encourage the use of recycled raw materials
- invent mechanisms to promote durability in all consumer goods
- encourage the substitution of.renewable for non-renewable resources
- develop public awareness of the flow of resources through the economy and the environmental impact of such flows.‘
It amasingly just keep hitting all the narrative points. We even continue with mention of a ‘maintenance economy’, and 'no advocation of policy which encourage population growth’, even going as far as suggesting a ‘mandatory shortening of the working week’, only to follow with ‘a more environmentally desireable agriculture‘ which should ‘use less energy’, which further - allegedly - will have ‘beneficial effects on health‘, before going on to explicitly mention ‘chemicals with damage to the soil’, before casually lobbing in that ‘the traditional farmer was both food-producer and caretaker and conserver of the landscape‘, before going all out, expressing -
‘Industrialization of agriculture generally now works against landscape conservation. Since generally financial considerations govern the decision towards a more industrial and intensive agriculture, a financial remuneration for the conservational function in less-favoured areas should be seriously considered. Payments of this kind should be available for the conservation of particular landscape features, such as wild moorlands, downlands and hedgerows, where appropriate. This would mean a switch in the subsidizing policy from subsidizing products to subsidizing producers. This would include reforestation in order to control soil erosion‘.
… and all of that in 1978. Pretty incredible, no? The entire script is right there.
‘It is already the policy of the Community to secure a reliable, flexible supply of energy. This should evolve to make more efficient use of nonrenewable coal, oil and gas, and also such renewable sources as solar energy, while harnessing Europe's technological and commercial expertise to do so. A Common Energy Policy must evolve, not by a rigid blueprint, but by a series of sensible measures taken in common.‘
‘The idea that economic growth and the growth of energy consumption are inevitably linked together must be challanged.‘
But that’s not quite all. In terms of energy policy they seek to dismantle nuclear energy in order to reach a ‘low energy, non-nuclear future’, restrain ‘car traffic in towns’, and even seek to charge ‘users of transport the full social and environmental costs‘. And next up - ‘plan the use of land’, as -
‘The tendency of populations to leave rural areas and to concentrate in increasing numbers is threatening human well-being by forming a megalopolis. Special attention should therefore be paid to the human settlements and their quality. The policy of the Community should be aimed at effective but balanced decentralization and regionalization. Moreover, the regional policy of the Community should not be viewed only as an agent of industrial expansion. It must evolve to a new concept of land use planning where environmental and social criteria are taken into account as well as the economic constraints.‘
And that, of course, requires top-down control, because those pesky land owners simply cannot be allowed rights of their property. Straight down the middle of UN Habitat only two years prior, and the eventual Ecosystem Approach.
We then continue with cultural heritage, where we find -
‘Apart from its priceless cultural value, Europe’s architectural heritage gives to her peoples the consciousness of their common history and common future. Its preservation is, therefore, a matter of vital importance. The architectural heritage includes not only individual buildings of exceptional quality and their surroundings, but also all areas of tow~and viilages of historic, cultural or social interest, together with their contents‘
… oh hello, UNESCO World Heritage Sites3. And guess what’s next -
‘Conservation of the natural environment‘
… yeah, that’ll no doubt be the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves4 -
‘The natural environment is severely threatened by the industrial and urban expansion and the impact of increasing transport and leisure. It is vital to protect efficiently wetlands‘
… oh I do stand corrected - this is the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands5 -
‘Hunting and fishing, zoological parks and the commerce of animals should be strictly controlled. There is a need for immediate action on products based on wildlife (i.e. whales) and against the deliberate destruction of species necessary to the biological equilibrium (foxes, predators, etc…)‘
… there we have CITES6…
‘The marine environment should not be forgotten. The European seas contain natural resources, renewable or not, of the greatest importance for the future of our populations. These resources should be used taking into account a good management which guarantees their survival.‘
… but that one’s early. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea7 was not adopted until 1982 - incidentally, same year as the World Charter for Nature.
Pollution is up next -
‘Transfrontier pollution and pollution from traded products - e.g. motor cars - give a particular justification for action at a Community level. But the Coromunity should determine to what extent it is necessary to proceed by common action - e.g. by setting Europe-wide uniform emission standards‘
… and there we are - seeking to set Europe-wide emission standards… in 1978! And this in the year before the political ‘carbon consensus’ agreement was agreed upon, at the ICSU-arranged invite-only confenrence.
Oh, and not to forget about health -
‘Health is much more than the absence of illness.‘
Yeah, that’s about the Determinants of Health, which in short is a number of indicators, a range of weight which determine… who’s an oppressor, and who’s oppressed.
‘In fact the industrialisation of agriculture has ied to the production of food often lacking in nutritive quality and in which the long-term effects on health are unknown (additives, pesticides, etc.)‘
Dutch farmers use elevated co2 levels to accelerate growth, and as for claimed ‘long term effects’ - well, those very same people were certainly quick to self-congratulate, as average life expectancy kept increasing over those following decades, no?
Onto lying about the environment next -
‘Man made changes of the environment and careless use of resources are generally irreversible. A detailed knowledge of the environmental consequences of an action is an absolute condition before a decision to realise the action can be taken.‘
The former is a straight up lie, and the latter in short makes it impossible to do… well… anything. Because it is quite literally impossible to predict chaos, and nature is certainly that.
‘The Environmental Impact Statement procedure should become the heart of environmental decision-making‘
… first introduced in the United States, of course, by the Rockefeller dominated Council on Environmental Quality (through the Conservation Foundation)…
‘This is especially true for any project or programme which may reasonably be expected to cause transfrontier pollution or to have an adverse effect on the environment in a global common area‘
… but to judge this, you need some commissar, judging your case.
‘We are citizens from the nine countries of the Community. We differ widely in political opinion, in religion and in cultural experience. But we share a common hope and a common belief. Our hope is that a “One Europe" will provide a new impetus to the care and protection of the environment.‘
Yeah, I’m calling BS. There’s no way that some alleged ‘concerned citizens’ would be able to systemically hit every - single - narrative - talking - point with such pinpoint accuracy. This… ‘Manifesto‘… was nothing short of an attack on fundamental liberties, with a long-term view which you presently see unfold around you.
So what’s the backstory here? Well, let’s have a quick look at Wiki8. Well, it’s the usual story. Boy meets girl. Girl works for Julian Huxley’s IUCN. Boy joins the UNECE, and creates censorious ‘information clearinghouse’, which systematically prunes all information counter to the narrative.
In the event you’re unaware of how ‘Information Clearinghouses’ work, they’ve been central to the scam for decades. Here’s an example relating to UNEP and GEMS - INFOTERRA, though it originally was titled the ‘International Referral System’. There is absolutely nothing democratic about these organisations, and they need to be thoroughly investigated, because they absolutely, positively filter information for political purpose. The Aarhus Convention is outlined in the below as well.
And this is akin to how the Rockefeller sponsored ‘Good Government’ PACH ‘1313’ operated back in the late 1920s9. And in that regard, my golden rule is that any organisation which has to insert ‘independent’ in its title tends to be anything but - never mind those who have to include the phrase ‘good government’.
In short, they insert themselves as middle-men, seeking to be the ‘facilitators’ of ‘credible information’ - only, of course, they tend to expressly push through ‘research’ bought and paid for by the same ‘philanthropic’ organisations we’ve all come to love so much - for political purpose.
And now - let me show you what they discussed in 1979, at the ICSU invite-only conference, during which they established the ‘carbon consensus’10.
We have agriculture, human health, human activities which affect - well - the environment, we have public policy, land use & planning, marine & fisheries, pollution, conservation, soil erosion, population growth, and a number of papers, contemplating the future role of economic growth, and - of course - restricting the emissions of carbon dioxide!
Now, I could make a big song and dance about what an extraordinary coincidence this all is, but it clearly is not. It was all a highly coordinated, systematic attack on fundamental civil liberties, by representatives of the world’s governments, none of whom appear to have genuinely represented their voters.
But there’s another document from 1972 which shows how incredibly coordinated this all was - and amazingly penned, prior to UNCED 1972 in Stockholm.
That’s up next.
Great work.
Wow thanks so much for your research. I apologise for not being able to support you financially.