Jeremy Beck 1999 Essay on Eco-Fascism


by Jeremy Beck, BE, (Hons), Political Analyst

27th September 1999

Some people are now starting to wake up that in the game of politics, a label is just that… merely a label. Whether the label represents the accompanying ideology, policy direction or individual character is a matter often overlooked. Moreover, when we consider environmentalism, the disparities in question should ring alarm bells. As we shall see, contemporary environmentalism takes on an altogether different meaning behind this label.

Our mainstream media would have us believe in environmental doomsday. Although we do have some environmental problems, success stories rarely if ever rate a mention. Consider that in the United States, forest growth exceeds harvest by 37% and there was 30 percent more standing timber volume in 1992 than in 1952.(1)

If you live in the suburbs of a large city as most Australians do, have a walk outside on a nice sunny day. You may be in a suburban park or even your backyard. Take a deep breath of air and look at the clear blue sky. Depending where you live, the chances are you will not smell even a whiff of pollution. In fact, you are more likely to smell the redolent perfume of flowers. Now, consider the vastness of our nation with suburbia occupying only mere pinpricks on the map. Consider that since industrialisation, life expectancy has been continually rising. At this moment, juxtapose the media’s hype of a toxic wasteland and environmental doomsday with your immediate perceptions of reality. You now probably realise these extremists are simply, just wrong. This is not to say we do not have environmental problems, but let us get things in proportion and deal with these problems in a rational and scientific manner.

After the so-called fall of Communism, the people within the movement did not simply disappear overnight. They merely moved into other political circles from “gay right” groups to the Green Movement. These groups are now flourishing with the assistance from corporate money, the mainstream media and massive grants from organisations such as the Rockefeller Foundation. Mr and Mrs Average may be under the impression environmentalism has arisen from grassroots community concern. In fact, the contrary is true: the Green Movement is elite driven by elite financial support. Moreover, we are talking BIG dollars. In 1990 there were at least forty-eight underdeveloped nations whose Gross National Product was less than the total annual revenues of US environmental groups.(2)

The environmental leadership no doubt has a strong public relations campaign. Naturally, political leaders strive for a strong following and in doing so, endeavour to create a charismatic, positive and constructive image. Now, who would argue against clean air and water, preserving forests and maintaining a climate providing hospitable living conditions for all? These are very noble goals. However, once we look behind this “positive” and “constructive” facade, we delve into the world of political manipulation, pseudoscience eco-terrorism and an agenda of control. To put it simply, the current brand of environmentalism is Communism through the back door.

One of the main political players in the Green Movement is none other than Mikhail Gorbachev, the ex-leader of communist USSR. Now considering the USSR’s environmental record would put most communists to shame, one may wonder why we are walking down the same authoritarian path. History has already shown the failures of excessive governmental control associated with Communism and its variants of Fascism and Socialism.

History has also shown extremists will time and time again, construct a propaganda campaign to convince the masses of their “noble” goals. Few people may be aware that Adolf Hitler was also an environmental propagandist. Consider Hitler’s quote here from: “Hitler, Memoirs of a Confidant“:

The mission of the Hitler Youth is neither religious nor radical, nor is it philosophical, political or economic. It is entirely natural: the young people should be led back to nature, they should recognise nature as the giver of life and energy. And they should strengthen and develop their bodies outdoors, making themselves well and keeping themselves well. For a healthy mind can develop only in a healthy body and it is only in the freedom of nature that a human being can also open himself to a higher morality and a higher ethic.“(3) (Bold emphasis added)

Does this sound like something out of a Green biocentric handbook?

Moreover, many Germans believed these “noble” goals. As Alfons Heck, a Hitler Youth Leader said, “I never once during the Hitler years thought of myself as anything but a decent, honourable young German, blessed with a glorious future…”(4)

Just as the National Socialists of the Third Reich sought to control children’s minds, so too we are now repeating history with the Green Movement. Schoolteachers routinely condition students with false environmental theories and other so-called contemporary social values and at the same time increasing numbers of students fail to meet the basic three R’s. And we wonder, why?

Environmentalism in its current form is extreme. Moreover, environmental leaders do not even bother hiding their radical views. Sadly, our mainstream media rarely takes them to task, but rather glorifies their meddling as “worthy activism.” If Australians were aware of the true Green agenda, they would be horrified. Consider Green leader and author, Jeremy Rifkin’s insane view that, “The elimination of beef and other meat from the human diet is now required if we are to have any hope of saving the planet and ensuring our children’s future.”(5) The Co-Founder of Earth First, David Foreman says, “my three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness with it’s full complement of species returning throughout the world.”(6) David Foreman has also been on the Sierra Club’s five member executive committee in 1995-6.(7) Prince Philip of Great Britain and Leader of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) said, “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”(8) Maurice Strong says, “Is it the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilisations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?(9) Maurice Strong may not be a household name, but he wields incredible power within the United Nations. Ironically, Strong made his fortune as an oil industrialist.

Ex-Greenpeace director Patrick Moore has realised the nature of eco-Fascism. Many environmentalists now consider Moore a traitor as he not only left Greenpeace, but now works for the forestry industry. However, by any objective standard, Moore is still an avid environmentalist. As Moore identifies, “The fall of the Berlin Wall and its aftermath also had an impact on this trend [movement to hard-line environmentalism]. Suddenly, pro-Soviet groups were discredited and the international peace movement was redundant. Many members of the left moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and anti-establishment sentiments.”(10)


One of the curious aspects of environmental pseudoscience lies in the stunning inconsistencies voiced. Prominent scientist and winner of the 1992 “Scientist of the Year Award“, Stephen Schneider now promotes global warming propaganda.(11) Now, the word propaganda is not used lightly here. Schneider is on record for asserting, when it comes to global warming it is “journalistically irresponsible to present both sides.” Does not this sound reminiscent of the heyday of the Soviet Union state controlled propagandists starting with the phrase, “As everyone knows…”?


The inconsistency arises when in the 1970s, Schneider argued that the real threat was global cooling: the production of aerosols screening earth from the sun could produce “a decrease of the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees centigrade,” which “if sustained over a period of several years could be sufficient to trigger an ice age.” Schneider also argued back then that even a tenfold increase in human production of carbon dioxide, “which at the present rate of input is not expected within the next several thousand years” is “unlikely to produce a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth.”(12)


One of the other inconsistencies lies in the quoted number of extinct species. According to Green groups, there is no exact number; one source quotes 165,000 a year, another 500,000 by the year 2000. Another researcher indicates that the United States has recorded only seven species, perhaps 13 in total that might have gone extinct since 1973.(13) The prominent environmentalist, Dr. Helen Caldicott cannot even present a consistency within her book, “If you love this planet: a plan to heal the earth“. The front jacket claims, “20 to 200 species become extinct each day in tropical forests“, and then on page 96, Caldicott claims, “Of the 30 million species estimated to be extant today, we may now be losing 17,500 each year.”(14) Simple division identifies this yearly rate to be about 48 species a day. Moreover, this is a total “extinction rate” – not just extinctions from tropical forests. One would assume the 5 in the 17,500 was intended to be a significant figure and if so let us take the least accurate case scenario: an estimate to the nearest 500 species. For this case, the daily extinction range in round figures would be 47 – 49. Now, if the total daily extinction rate were about 47 – 49, why would the tropical forest daily extinction rate be quoted as 20 – 200 species?


In 1996 the WWF reported that 50,000 species were now becoming extinct each year due to human activity. They claimed that the main cause of species extinction was “commercial logging”, that is, the forestry industry. They provided absolutely no evidence for this so-called fact about logging and the media asked no hard questions. The next day newspapers around the world proclaimed the forestry industry to be the main destroyer of species. Since that announcement Ex-Greenpeace director Patrick Moore has asked on numerous occasions for the name of a single species that has been rendered extinct due to forestry. The WWF has not even provided one Latin name of an “extinct” species.(15)

Australia’s greatest environmental threat is soil erosion and salinity. However when former Labor MP Graeme Campbell approached the Greens from the Labor party’s left wing, they replied: “No one ever goes out to look at salinity on the week-end. Go with the trees, that is where the power is.”(16) The Green Movement is not about the environment; it is about power.

This power propagates throughout the Green Movement, raising its ugly face treating decent citizens as criminals. In 1991, John Pozsgai purchased a fourteen-acre tract of land in the USA that had been used as a dump for twenty years. Pozsgai commenced a clean-up of 7,000 old tires along with an assortment of rusting car parts. He then intended to lay down some clean dirt and gravel. The property is not a marsh, swamp, or bog, and state officials informed Pozsgai he needed no permit. However, since a mostly dry streambed was adjacent to the clean-up in progress, and since skunk cabbage and sweet gum trees were present, Pozsgai’s land fell under the 1989 wetlands jurisdiction definition. The EPA obtained a restraining order to prevent the deposit of the fill. Pozsgai obliged, but due to poor communications, the contractors still dumped the fill while the EPA secretly videotaped the working contractors.

Now bankrupt, Pozsgai was fined $202,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. The court also ordered him to restore the land not to the previous dump, but to a pristine condition. The prosecuting attorney said, “A message must be sent to all landowners, the corporations [and] the developers of this country that light sentences for environmental crimes are a thing of the past.”(17) Any rational person would call Pozsgai’s sentence a gross travesty of justice. However, sadly his case is by no means unique. Numerous cases of absurd penalties including jailing are now increasingly passing through the courts. In many cases, no objective environmental damage occurred.

At least the Green Movement has its comical side. Recently numerous cities across Europe observed a “day without cars” Sixty-six French towns and cities along with parts of Switzerland and Italy observed the day. Paradoxically this caused traffic chaos in parts of Paris where vehicles were still allowed. The Mayor of Bordeaux boycotted the day, describing it as “gimmickry”.(18)

The whole illogicality of eco-Fascism arises in its failure to provide practical solutions to environmental problems. It also fails to recognise that economic growth and expanding technologies render sustainability theory to just that: a theory carrying little weight considering we are living in a dynamic and chaotic universe. If we were to have introduced a copper tax upon the onset of the electronics revolution, the rapid technological growth in computers and optical fibres would no doubt have been attenuated. The New Scientist publication reflects this reality in the latest predictions of greenhouse gas emissions on the 18th September 1999. The quoted scientists claim carbon dioxide emissions in 2100 may be five times greater than today’s emissions or even slightly lower than today’s emissions. They say, “Technology is at least as important a driving force of future greenhouse gas emissions as population and economic development.”(19) Since economic development or growth fuels technological growth, Green calls for an array of tight regulations and taxes will only hamper genuine environmental protection. Environmental regulations should be in place where science shows certain and significant harm will arise – not because an event just might happen.

However, what would we expect from twisted minds with the mentality to tree-spike, boat-scuttle and create a public nuisance of themselves as would a two year old dummy-spitter. Tragically, if these eco-Fascists have their way, civilisation and ironically the environment too will undergo immense degradation.


  1. Coffman, Michael S., Saviors of the Earth? (Northfield Publishing, Chicago, 1994), p., 162
  2. Maduro, Rogelio A., & Schauerhammer, Ralf, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, (21st Century Science Associates, 1992), p., 248
  3. Swanson, Holly, Set up & Sold Out, (C.I.N Publishing, White City, OR., 1998), p., 115
  4. Ibid., p., 125
  5. Ibid., p., 176
  6. Ibid., p., 181
  7. Ibid., p., 173
  8. Ibid., p., 230
  9. Australian Daily Issues Paper, @notd, 18th July, 1999
  11. Maduro & Schauerhammer, The Holes in the Ozone Scare, pp, 95-96
  13. Swanson, Set up & Sold Out, p., 162
  14. Caldicott, Helen, If you love this planet: a plan to heal the earth (Norton & Company, Inc., 1992), p., 96
  17. Coffman, Saviors of the Earth?, pp, 239-40
  18. (“The Age”, 24/09/99, WORLD, p., 11)

Discuss this issue with Jeremy Beck on the Greenhouse Hoax Bulletin Board

Return to the Greenhouse Hoax



About Global Citizen

Independent mind searching for the truth.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s