“The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.”

This comment, from newly-elected Democratic Party Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez from New York, exemplifies the problem facing her party in its efforts to remove President Trump, or stop him from breaking out of the containment imposed on him by the fake Russiagate scandal.  Party leaders have invested their hopes for containing or removing Trump in the Russiagate investigation of legal hitman Robert Mueller, which has failed to uncover any impeachable acts by Trump.  The top Democrat in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, publicly stated this week that, barring some unexpected finding, she opposes proceeding with a drive for impeachment.  For the moment, most party officials, including Select Intelligence Committee chairman Schiff—who has been fanatically pursuing an impeachment track—are backing Pelosi.  The rationale given, besides the absence of an impeachable offense, is that a failed impeachment drive would evoke sympathy for Trump, and make him unbeatable in the 2020 election.

But instead of taking up Trump’s offer to cooperate on necessary projects, such as rebuilding the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, fix the broken health care system and strengthen border security, Democrats will continue with committee hearings into “collusion” and “obstruction”,  which he characterized as “presidential harassment”, while joining with neocon Republicans to oppose his strategic orientation of intensified cooperation with Russia and China, an orientation which is designed to reverse the geopolitical strategy responsible for provoking dangerous global crises.

In this context, the Democrats are promoting Ocasio Cortez (known as AOC) and her gaggle of freshmen Jacobins in the House to present an alternative strategy, the “Green New Deal” (GND), which combines fake science and radical depopulation policy with apocalyptic assertions, as in the quote above, to carry out an “economic transformation.”  Were they to succeed, this transformation would destroy the energy production system of the U.S., turning the nation into a backward, ungovernable hellhole, unable to sustain anything close to its present population.

The twelve year deadline given by AOC comes from a forecast made last October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which said that the world has twelve years to prevent a rise in world temperature which would make civilization unsustainable.  The Green Jacobins have introduced resolutions in both Houses of Congress, H. Res. 109 and S. Res. 59, which call for phasing out fossil fuel use completely by the 2030s, and replacing their use with “renewables”, based on the fraudulent science which underlies the IPCC forecast.  There is, of course, no scientific evidence that doing this will reverse “climate change”.  There is, however, ample evidence that doing so would crash the U.S. economy, which requires a system-wide upgrading of energy production, to overcome the disastrous, cumulative effects of the anti-nuclear, anti-fossil fuel mob.  Though the resolutions state that the GND will create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, increase prosperity, etc., in addition to ending the threat of climate change, they contain no specific proposals on how to do this, especially if their proposal to eliminate the use of fossil fuels is adopted.

FROM EUGENICS TO “ECOLOGY”

As the LaRouche movement has insisted, ever since Lyndon LaRouche’s ground-breaking demolition of the 1960s Meadows and Forrester “Limits to Growth” hoax, the so-called Green movement was created at the top by financial oligarchs who had no intention to act for “clean air and water”.  They launched the Green movement to attack the commitment to science and technology embedded in the U.S. Constitution, to prevent the discovery and deployment of new technologies which would allow for population growth at a constantly-improved standard of living.  Historically, this progress has occurred through increasing the overall energy-flux density of the system, a process characterized by the successive development of new, increasingly efficient energy sources, from wood and charcoal, to coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear.  Such progress is a natural condition of mankind, as humans are inherently creative beings.  However, this represents a threat to a colonial system, which requires maintaining a substantial portion of humanity living in poverty, so consumed by a struggle to survive that they are unable to rise up against their imperial overlords.  In the modern era, the strategy to prevent such development originated with the British Empire, typified by today’s royal family, which openly promotes depopulation.  Since the 1960s, this movement has been lavishly funded by anti-human oligarchical family funds.  AOC’s “movement”, for example, receives funding from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, the Rockefeller Family Fund and the Sierra Club, among others.

Lyndon LaRouche, the foremost physical economist for the last fifty years, wrote many books and papers outlining how real economic and social progress occurs.  (See “There Are No Limits to Growth”, 1982, or “Earth’s Next Fifty Years”, among others.)  “Mankind must always progress,” he wrote, “We must always learn from the animals and apply the [physical] principles the animals don’t know how to do…Rise to a higher energy-flux density,” by making “new physical discoveries,” and apply them to the production and distribution of energy.

He added, “Without the increase in energy-flux density expressed in terms of technology and pure power as such, there is no future for mankind on this planet.”  By making such new discoveries of physical principles, humanity can change its behavior and its productive capabilities, giving civilization new powers in and over nature.

The reversal of this process, by launching a Green movement, represents a shift in tactics.  In the 1920s and 30s, proponents of the imperial system of cheap (or slave) labor and cheap raw materials, opposed the physical development of society based on principles first employed by Alexander Hamilton’s American System economic policies.  Instead, they promoted eugenics, as a “scientific” theory for evolution, asserting that some populations are not genetically worthy of survival.  As this theory was applied, on a large scale, by the Nazis, with an outcome that horrified the world, the anti-development faction adopted a “softer” approach after the Nuremberg Trials,  which insisted that there are “limits to growth”, and that populations must either be reduced by catastrophes, such as war, disease and famine, or by binding agreements to reduce populations.  The most recent of these is the Paris Climate Accord, with its fraudulent attack on CO2 and “greenhouse gasses” as the excuse for imposing population reduction.

Though it is unlikely that AOC and her Jacobin gang fully understand this, her recent statements show that she is fully on board with reducing the size of the population on the planet.  On February 24, she attacked Democrats who are not supporting the GND, accusing them of “introducing watered-down proposals that are frankly going to kill us.”  Citing the lie that there is a “scientific consensus” for the theory of man-made climate change, she stated that this consensus shows “that the lives of children are going to be very difficult.  And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question, ‘Is it still okay to have children?'”

CHALLENGING THE PHONY “CONSENSUS”

AOC’s initiative has met with opposition within the Democratic Party.  While welcoming her “enthusiasm,” Speaker Pelosi referred to the plan derisively as the “Green Dream”, saying there should be no rush to push it through, throwing cold water on it.  The AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest union confederation, was more direct, charging that the GND “will cause immediate harm to millions of our members and families,” correctly stating that it is a threat to jobs and living standards.  Many members of the AFL-CIO, who traditionally vote for Democrats, voted for Trump in 2016, rejecting the arrogant elitism of the Obama-Clinton Democrats, who supported policies such as “free trade” deals and environmental regulations which robbed them of their jobs and destroyed their communities.

An even sharper response came from Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, which had been one of the early supporters of the radical ecology movement.  Moore pointed out that 85% of the energy used in creating electricity in the U.S. comes from coal, oil and natural gas.  If you add in that produced by nuclear and hydro power, which the Greens also oppose, you would eliminate 98.5% of the electricity we consume.  If applied globally, this plan would eradicate 80% of humanity, he told Fox News.  Further, he said, there would not be a tree left on the planet, as they would be cut for burning wood.

President Trump, who has been under attack for his courageous decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord, announced this week the formation of a Presidential Committee on Climate Security, to be headed by noted scientist Dr. William Happer, of Princeton University.  Though those in both parties who claim the “science is settled” regarding “man-made climate change,” and there is no longer room for discussion—after all, the world may end in twelve years!—Trump’s decision has been welcomed by real scientists who recognize the danger of adopting apocalyptic assumptions to push ahead radical transformations.  Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, and author of “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power-Black Death”, wrote an op ed defending Trump’s move.

He writes that reports used by federal agencies insisting that “man-made climate change” is valid are being used “to disrupt and dismantle the fossil fuels system that provides 82% of America’s energy, to control our lives and to send our living standards backwards.  Yet, these alarmist studies and assertions have never been subjected to any critical independent review.”

With the new Presidential Committee, that will change.  At least in the U.S., a significant section of the population is not willing to give up a scientific approach to resolving problems, nor giving up hamburgers and pick-up trucks, to satisfy the narcistic ravings of the likes of AOC.

Source: Harley Schlanger/ Larouchepac.com