The Marxist Roots of the Global Warming Scare

Wes Vernonby Wes Vernon

The late Natalie Grant Wraga once wrote, “Protection of the environment has become the principal tool for attack against the West and all it stands for. Protection of the environment may be used as a pretext to adopt a series of measures designed to undermine the industrial base of developed nations. It may also serve to introduce malaise by lowering their standard of living and implanting communist values.”

And who was this person?

Natalie Grant Wraga (who died in 2002 at age 101) was an internationally-recognized expert on the art of disinformation. In her Washington Post obituary, Herbert Romerstein — veteran intelligence expert in the legislative and executive branches of government — described Grant/Wraga as “one of our leading authorities” on Soviet deceit.

In a 1998 article appearing in Investors Business Daily (IBD), reporter John Berlau wrote that some of the most respected scholars on Soviet Intelligence have credited this woman with teaching them how to penetrate desinformatzia, Moscow’s term for its ongoing operation to deceive foreign governments.

John Dziak — onetime senior intelligence officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) — is quoted by IBD as saying were it not “for someone like Natalie, we would have had more failures, and the Soviets would have had more successes.”

Which leads us where?

In many of her writings, she dropped her last name and wrote under the byline Natalie Grant. That takes us to the spring 1998 issue of The Register. Therein, Grant identified Green Cross International (GCI) as a Non-Government Organization (NGO) founded by Mikhail Gorbachev, the last communist dictator of the Soviet Union. The aim of GCI was worldwide enforcement of a rigid environmental agenda.

Concurrent with the advancement of GCI, there was the birth of yet another NGO called the Earth Council, chaired by Maurice Strong, a key environmentalist mover and shaker at the United Nations. According to Wikipedia, Strong — a Canadian — describes himself as “a socialist in ideology and a capitalist in methodology.” The bio also notes that “some consider Strong a frightening power seeker.” And then this: “He shares the views of the most radical environmentalist street protester, but instead of shouting himself hoarse at a police barricade at a global conference, he’s the secretary general inside, wielding the gavel.”

Meanwhile, about a dozen people participated in the organizing meeting of Gorbachev’s GCI, including then-U.S. Rep. James Scheuer (D-N.Y.). The congressman had publicly stated that regardless of whether the allegation of man-made “global warming” was valid or exaggerated, the U.S. should proceed to take the steps required to fight it because those steps supposedly would benefit the planet. (As explained in last week’s column, the Cap and Trade — “Tax and Rob” — legislation aimed at carrying out the radical enviro agenda at a steep cost to American consumers and taxpayers was dropped like a hot potato in the U.S. Senate June 6, lest the great unwashed arise in anger and deliver an unwelcome verdict at the polls. It will be back in 2009. Connecting these dots is relevant. But I digress.)

The main organizing events

Other GCI meetings were to follow, including what Grant called “The Big Event — the Moscow Conference,” in January 1990. Then-Senator Al Gore was among the speakers. Only two years before, he had conducted hearings on Capitol Hill where the “global warming” theory was showcased.

 As the Moscow conference got underway, the Soviet Union was then on its last legs — down, but not yet out, you might say. Gorbachev, still the Soviet leader, voiced his government’s demand that the nations push for a nuclear test ban, an international environmental monitoring system, a covenant to protect “unique environmental zones” (a mindset that has since led to an international fight over UN efforts to disallow snowmobiles in Yellowstone Park on American soil), support for United Nations environmental programs, and a follow-up conference in June 1992 in Brazil.

Grant writes that while Gorbachev was expressing the “views” and “suggestions” of the Soviet Communist Party, those suggestions did not fall on deaf ears. “Before long, the activities of the movement began to reflect the communist ‘recommendations.'”

Now, why all this background?

On May 28, here in Washington, the featured speaker at the annual dinner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) was The Honorable Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic.

Klaus’s book Blue Planet in Green Shackles had just been released. As the Czech head of state put it at the dinner, the purpose of the book was to outline his firm belief that much of organized environmentalism is “an ideology I consider the most dangerous threat to freedom and prosperity in the current era.”

Read the rest of this article at Renew America.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Capitalism depends on credit, cheap natural resources, and cheap exploitable labor to create an economic model that is based on continual, perpetual expansion. Given natural resource limits in the planet, which we are beginning to bump against, this continued “growth” will not be possible. Hallucinated paper wealth and derivatives/hedge funds are an attempt by the elites to create something completely separate from any tangible objects or the surrounding environment, a last bubble divorced from the reality of the environment.

    We must use the last of our wealth to put the brakes on this unsustainable model, redistribute a good portion of the wealth of the top .02 percent of the population, and create a steady state economy based on renewable resources, an end to human population growth, local self-reliance, and durable long-lasting goods and equipment built not for planned obsolescence and death-dating, but to be handed down through the generations. A lopsided maldistribution of wealth under the current neocon/neoliberal capitalist model is incompatible with a long-standing sustainable ecomomy and if maintained, will exacerbate the effects of global collapse. It will be Easter Island, writ large.

    Environmentalists warn us that “the Earth is threatened.” Not so. The planet will survive for a few billion years more, whatever we might do to it. The urgent questions before us are whether and for how long our species and our civilization will continue to be a part of it, and what kind of a legacy we will leave to the generations that follow us.

    Right-wing rose-colored optimism regarding environmental issues are constantly reiterated in such free-market think tanks as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of which are generously funded by the energy conglomerates. The dogma of technological optimism – “don’t worry, be happy, we can grow forever for ‘human ingenuity’ will solve all our problems” – has been repeated so often by the mass media that most Americans believe it implicitly. It is woven into the fabric of our culture.

  • KuhnKat

    Rob N Hood,

    I guess you don’t want us to “leave the nest” and “Go Where No Man Has Gone Before” huh??

    Yes earth is limited and we can eventually really mess it up. That is one of the best reasons for us to leave the cradle!! We aren’t gonna get there on Socialist hope for change and limiting ourselves to basic agrarian starvation.

  • Rob N. Hood

    I don’t know what you are talking about… do you know something about cities on the moon or Mars that have cheap rent that I don’t?

  • Homer Horgan

    Socialist views make me laugh. How many countries have to fail and crumble like the Soviet Union, proving socialism does NOT work, before people finally get it? Socialists have such a whacked out perception of how things should work that I can only thank God more people like this are not in charge. Left-wing wild eyed doom and gloomers should live in a communist country and find out what life is really like there.

    Optimism, you bet. I am optimistic about the future of this great nation called America. Unfortunately too many leftists have reached positions of authority and have begun to shackle our freedoms and ruin the economy and all that is good in the country. But as I said, I am optimistic. I am certain that people of wacked out leftist views will be seen for what they are by the majority and will these socialist ways will never rule.

  • Rob N. Hood

    You are deluded. Fascists run America, not socialists. And the Soviet Union was a communist country, not socialist. The true socialist countries in existance today, such at the Scandinavian countries, are doing quite well for themselves, and their peoples rates of happiness, and satisfaction with their governments, are much higher than the U.S.’s, not to mention their health care. Oh, but I know you won’t believe that, or will deny it. But it’s fact, not delusion. Conservatives have always run America and probably always will. You are in denial.

  • Union of Soviet Socialists Republic. Socalism leads to communism. It’s just a half-way point. The notion that conservatives run America right now is so far beyond reason, I can’t even begin to fathom where someone would get such an idea unless they, themselves were left of Stalin.

    Fascism and the Nazi ideology, by the way, are closely linked to socalism. Nazi means “national-socialist.” Yes, there are some people operating in the US with fascist ideas and tactics, but they aren’t on the right. They’re on the left.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Say what?! C’mon, give it a rest. I know you are saying that because that is THE crux of your propaganda. People who aren’t too clever, or just plain lazy, or both, just believe what people like you tell them- because it suits their current belief systems. The Right (conservatives) are “not running this country.” From what country and/or planet are you from? Are you saying Bush and Cheney are not of the Right and conservatives? That our military is not of the Right? That industry and business is not of the Right? To deny all that is truly laughable and mind-blowing. But only if you don’t understand it for what it is: PROPAGANDA. You can fool some of the people… but Dan, that’s hilarious!

  • There are totalitarians on both sides of the aisle. Persoanlly, I don’t like any of them. Don’t confuse “neo-conservatism” with actual conservatism. It’s a mistake, and it’s misleading.

    Business is largely shifting left. The big business conglomerates, any how. Small business remains pretty conservative, but the big boys have seen the money and power to be accrued through socialist-style private-public “partnerships” and increasingly turn to government to regluate profitibility into their product or service lines. Expanding government while diminishing individual freedoms is OK with Wall Street and large corporations as long as it benefits their bottom line. All the corporations chomping at the bit to get going with carbon trading schemes are a prime example of this.

    The military is neither right nor left. They follow the orders of whoever we elect President, and hopefully, by extension execute the will of the people. Doesn’t always go perfectly, I’ll grant you, but it’s certainly not a strictly “right” institution.

    I think most of our readers would find your remarks offensive that they just follow what we tell them. If they came upon our organization, or our websites, it is because they are actively looking for information and alternative viewpoints not spoon-fed them by the mainstream media, which is compelling evidence that they are free-thinkers that are motivated to get to the truth.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Your response sounds reasonable and mature, and all that. But it really doesn’t address the assertion you made convincingly. For example, I agree that there is a difference between how big business is treated vs. small, and is out of control. This country has set up socialism for the rich and powerful, but that leaves out 99% of the rest of us basically. So to continually target Liberals and Progressives, who defintiely DO NOT support the policies that only help big business and the wealthy as socialist, is simply wrong and doesn’t do anything to help any of us regular schmucks on either side. So why do you seem tp perpetuate that stereo-type? You point out the difference between neo-conservative and conservative. Sure I get that, but in reality at this point in our hsitory it is basically one and the same- where are your “compassionate conservatives” ? Where are your old timey conservatives? Why aren’t they out there protesting the crooks running things like us progressives have been? That’s what I’d like to know. It’s been oddly quiet (since 1980 actually- a very long time now) from those good old fashioned mystical conservatives of yours.

  • Socialism IS for the rich! Only the “elite” fare well and retain any semblance of freedom under socialist or communist systems. The little guy is just a cog.

    Socialism is the antithesis of freedom. Sure, some among the “downtrodden” think it’ll be great. They’ve been promised a “fair share” of wealth. Steal from the rich, give to the poor, right? Specious. Those of us who work for a living and don’t want any “help” from big government see that the more involved government gets in the economy, the less free we are, the less independent we are and the more we become chattel. Under socialism, the people are little more than herds of workers for the state (and it’s partner corporations). Slaves who will get what the government allows us. I’d rather do it myself, thank you, and remain free.

    Leave us alone, and we’ll do fine.

  • Rob N. Hood

    Gee Dan, then we agree fairly completely. Where you go wrong is believing that liberals are the big bad boogey men/women. When in fact we are scapegoats for the rich elite and you’ve swallowed their bullcrap hool, line and sinker. It is the rich elite CAPITALISTS, who are in reality a combination of socialists (for themselves) and fascists for the rest of the world. wORD!

  • Ed Hinton

    I don’t let the Rob N Hood types bother me. Our country was founded after we got fed up with oppressive rules and unfair taxation. Many factors affected it, but bottom line our forefathers tired of unreasonable controls over their lives and they acted. The same will happen again someday if our government goes too far. 100 million will rise up, and of the other 200 million, many won’t consider it worth fighting over. Any much of the military being conservative, this split will happen there too and so the weapons won’t be one-sided either. It doesn’t have to happen ever if they don’t go too far, but if they ever do, in 15 years or in 105 years, revolution will divide the country into multiple – like India, Pakistan, and East Pakistan did (and geographically analogous too – with the center of the US being one nation, and the left coast and northeast the other(s). And the information age will make it easier than ever. So I am not worried about it. Freedom in the end will triumph. Hopefully, the politicians will think better than to risk all out revolution, or the voters will revolt at the polls before then during the next 10 years. But armed revolution is always available if not.

  • Rob N. Hood

    This government HAS already gone too far. I will join you in your revolutionary activities if and when the time comes. “Types” like us need to band together, we actually dislike many of the same things- although of course we are not going to agree on everything, but so what? Mature reality based reasoning should allow for some tolerance both ways, right? I want freedom as much as you do- I just don’t believe that the lack of “regulations” is the answer. In fact a civilized society needs them, as even some more intelligent business and corporate types are again realizing. Our definition of “freedom” may differ. I want as much personal freedom as possible- not corporate freedome, such as we’ve had since the Reagan revolution… that has only gotten us into the troubles we now face. Many people seem to be only too ready to trade their personal freedoms for corporate freedoms, why they can’t understand the differences between these two very different things I will never understand.

  • Pop Quiz
    From which side of the political spectrum do these ideas originate?

    – Speech Codes
    – Political Speech Limitations (campaign “finance” reform)
    – Mandatory Motorcycle helmet and seatbelt laws
    – Banning smoking on private property
    – Forcing an unwilling market to purchase one kind of lightbulb by banning the alternative
    – Banning gun ownership, and the right to self-defense
    – Punishing achievement and confiscating the fruits of ones personal success
    – Punishing thoughts (hate crimes, for example)
    – employment race quotas

    Sound like freedom-oriented ideas? Let’s not get into the dirty business of redefining freedom. We all know what freedom means.

    A distinction can’t be made between “corporate” freedom and individual freedom. Companies are composed of people. People own them to further their own individual wants and needs. If one isn’t free to labor in the occupation of one’s choice, and then to reap the benefits of that labor, how can you say that person is free? The freedom to toil for one’s own survival and comfort is among the most basic human rights.

  • Perry Scott

    While the exchange between Mr. McGrath and Mr. Hood (sic) is fascinating reading, it drifts off-topic. If one looks closely, Mr. Hood makes no attempt to rebut the link between Marxism and Environmentalism. Rather, an anti-capitalist screed is presented about corporations raping the planet’s resources. Yawn.

    The article by Mr. Vernon is about Marxism and Global Warming Scare Mongering. My own observation is that the Socialist agenda is always about group control (usually via government legislation) vs individual freedom. In that respect Mr. McGrath’s list of leftist ideas that reduce individual freedom rings true. Very well done, Mr. McGrath.

    While Mr Hood asserts corporations are fascist, as a corporate officer, I must disagree. Corporations are merely collections of individuals – in my case, five. Unless one is self-employed, the name on the upper left-hand corner of one’s paycheck is very likely to be a corporation. Corporations provide the idea of a product and typically employ other individuals to implement that idea.

    Thus, corporations are a non-government structure that produces value and provides meaningful work. Perhaps that is why the Left dislikes corporations so much – they prove the lie that government is the best way to achieve an optimal social agenda. Those hard-to-control corporations occasionally produce an iPod or the Internet, which upsets the Leftist vision of Utopia.

    While some regulation is the hallmark of any society (as Mr Hood asserts), the question becomes one of quantity. Currently, individuals and corporations (but I repeat myself) are not allowed to pursue initiatives which are likely to pull us toward true energy independence – namely drilling the Outer Continental Shelf, developing nuclear power plants, coal gasification, and creating alternate (carbon-based) energy sources – without the blessing of the Left in Congress. Even the Great Savior of energy sources – nuclear fusion – is not being seriously discussed or funded by the current do-nothing Congress led by Leftists Reid and Pelosi.

    Instead, the Left has chosen the winners – “renewable” energy resources such as wind and solar, which unfortunately also have some of the lowest energy densities available. We would have to pave the Great Plains in wind turbines as T. Boone Pickens suggests. Sorry, but the Great Plains has other development plans besides providing energy to the East and Left Coast elites.

    I must conclude that the Democratic agenda is to further society’s rights at the expense of individuals’ rights. While the result of shackling individual initiative through regulation and taxation will be non-optimal (especially for the poor who pay proportionally more for energy), I remain confident in Americans’ ability to eventually see through the smokescreen and vote their pocketbook. $4 gasoline is just the most recent symptom of the last 20 years of the Marxist/Environmentalist agenda.

  • Richie

    We wouldn’t require so much energy if we had population control. Is that not the enviroMENTAL way? That is one of the things robin hood brought up in his or her initial post. And, like communist China, that directive would originate from the government. So lets be more like China. Yep. If a family does not want a girl, just have an abortion. No biggie. Liberals love to use saving lives as a justification to pass all sorts of laws or even as an excuse to raise taxes (like here in minnesota after the bridge collapsed), but yet, they can’t give people enough lattitude to get an abortion in the name of “choice”. I guess that will be the only choice people will have eventually, the choice to kill a baby or not. Liberals/enviornmentalists keep taking away so many other choices. Light
    bulbs, drilling for energy supplies, low flow toilets, closing a damn in a drought ravaged Georgia, and so on.
    Global warming is not even called that anymore. Now it’s climate change. That way, anything that happens can be blamed on carbon dioxide that comes from our cars and homes and toys. Sure, an element that gets exchanged between the ocean and the atmosphere all the time, and makes up less than half a percent of said atmosphere is the cause of all our problems!

  • Rob N. Hood

    You are all afraid of the big bad Socialist wolf. Pretty funny. Especially since all other First-World countries use it one way or another to solve modern problems, etc. They did try amny other systems, and it works the best. AND they include some form of capitalism. You people are antiquated freaks, scared of something you obvious know little about, or don’t want to know about. America is already Second- world and becoming Third-world in many respects, first and foremost re: healthcare. But hey you don’t care, you just know you hate Socialism. Good for you! Bad for the country.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.