Part One: Things Sure Are Hotting Up....
Some time ago I was engaged in conversation with a friend about politics, parapolitics, personal freedom, that kind of thing. All of a sudden my friend blurted out the question: 'But why windfarms?' I was slightly taken aback by the directness and immediacy of the enquiry. You see, although he now lives in southern England, my friend was not, unlike me, born there. He actually comes from far, far away. So, if he wishes to communicate, he doesn't beat about the bush for days, weeks, months on end, being abstruse and indirect, the way that a certain type of southern Englander might. No. If he wants to say something, he does so. If he's got a question, he asks it.
Nowadays, I far prefer the approach of my friend. As Buddha, Castaneda, and others have pointed out, life is short, and we have little idea when our last dance on Earth will take place. So live every moment to the full, and stop faffing about.
So, why windfarms? I told my friend that there are bits and pieces scattered throughout posts on Pale Green Vortex: put them together and a pretty good picture will emerge. Furthermore, I might provide further clues shortly. As time has passed, I have reconsidered. Why not try to put things together into a coherent piece? It's a subject that I approach with a heavy heart, but tough luck! Don't be lazy, Pale Green Vortex Man. The result is something of a summary: potted and incomplete, no doubt, but covering the main points, to the best of my knowledge so far. It's a bit long, so make yourself comfortable with a cup of tea (brewed with water most likely not boiled by wind-generated electricity), and go....
During the 1970s, when I was studying climatology as part of my degree course at Oxford University (we bring you only the best on Pale Green Vortex....), passing reference was made to the theoretical possibility of increasing atmospheric CO2 having some warming effect. However, there was far more fear those days about the Earth becoming colder as we prepared to enter another Ice Age or mini-Ice Age.
Fast forward twenty years to the early 1990s, when what has become the modern environmental movement, fuelled in good part by now fully-formulated global warming theory, began to go mainstream. In 1989 the Berlin Wall had come down, followed in 1991 by the final demise of the Soviet Union. A certain kind of global conflict was coming to an end, ushering in an era when a new level of globalisation appeared more than just an idle pipedream (OK, Vlad Putin has come along and spoiled the party for now. But hey, you can't win them all).
In 1991 the Club of Rome published their document 'The First Global Revolution'. There are some oft-quoted passages that are telling. Here is a bit: 'It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organise and act together..... The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor...... Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented (my italics) for the purpose.... In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. The real enemy then is humanity itself.'
It's worth taking a peek at who and what the Club of Rome is. There's nothing hugely esoteric about some, at least, of what think-tanks such as the Club of Rome gets up to. Anyone with a search engine and an ability to join up the dots can get an idea. But, while not all hush-hush, the activities of such think-tanks will not be confined to a chat about the weather over tea and scones. The Club of Rome's membership has included such luminaries as Al Gore, Mikhail Gorbachev, Maurice Strong (head of the UN Environmental Programme), David Rockefeller, and our old buddie Henry Kissinger. This group has had a significant influence on the birth of the modern environmental movement; along with its 'sister clubs', of Rome and Vienna, it boasts a galaxy of international heavyweights - people who make the running, or do the running for other people.
This was followed swiftly by the Rio Earth Sumit in 1992 (there is a strong message in the choice of venue here), including the birth of Agenda 21, and addressing the issue of alternative energy sources to replace fossil fuels, which delegates linked to climate change. In 1997 the Kyoto Protocol was designed to try and pin it all down.
I think we can note the flow of dates and events in this unfolding scenario. Twenty years ago much of the theory and mechanics had been put into place that is creating part of our world today. Approach quotes as supporting 'proof' for these carefully, I suggest, since you can find something to back up anything if you look hard enough. Having put down this proviso, however, I recommend checking out some quotations which are scattered across the internet supporting my thesis (Red Ice is a good source for stimulating quotes generally). Here are just a couple:
'We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.' (Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, and former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs in the Clinton admin). And....
'We need to get some broad based support to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the balance is between being effective and being honest.' (Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, and lead author of many IPCC reports)
To be effective, globalisation, whatever its motivation, requires global issues; and in human-made global warming it had found the perfect global threat.
Part Two: Here They Come
The invasion of the windfarms can only be comprehended, I submit, if seen in this light. The modern wind turbine is a technological 'response' to the perceived universal peril. With the Soviets dead and buried, we needed, and found, a new enemy: human-generated carbon dioxide. Soon the mantra was out: 'Renewables good, fossil fuels bad', bleated by the masses in an echo of the sheep of 'Animal Farm' with their 'Four legs good, two legs bad' (there is plenty that is Orwellian in our story). No mind that, as an energy source, wind is totally unreliable, depending on the vicissitudes of the weather. No mind that wind turbines and farms are not particularly friendly ecologically, their construction requiring materials whose mining causes much pollution; their building destroying huge peatlands, the temperate climate carbon sinks equivalent to the Amazon forest; the destruction of forests to make way for windfarms, the destruction of wildlife, their noise and flicker affecting the health of humans who live nearby. Etc etc etc. All this is irrelevant: 'Renewables good, fossil fuels bad' is the thing.
It is no accident that wind energy has been foisted onto the public largely in the form of large windfarms, rather than smaller and more truly local initiatives. This keeps power and capital moving through the same few hands as run oil, coal, nuclear and the rest. Energy production remains centralised, and the System of Control, if you will, stays,er, in control.
That wind energy is expensive and unreliable in a world where we 'can no longer use coal' is again no accident. Perceptions of scarcity are an important weapon in the armoury of control. Perceived scarcity keeps people in fear, and easy to manipulate and control. Imagine how 'the whole shithouse would go up in flames' (to paraphrase Jim Morrison) if we could all produce our own energy cheaply or for free. 'OK, political dudes, super-rich energy companies, we don't need your services anymore. Goodbye.' This is a state of affairs that, irrespective of the real state of technological knowledge, cannot be allowed to happen. And imagine the geopolitical implications. Our friends and allies in Saudi Arabia would not be pleased that their resources are no longer needed, their source of wealth irrelevant. What would they make of it? The barrier to local production of cheap or free domestic energy is not, at root, primarily scientific and technological: it is political/a matter of global control.
Windfarms will never do what they are publicised as doing. Instead, they are part of a kind of synthetic simulation, as discussed in a previous post. They dupe large numbers of people by pretending to be something they are not. The deception can be seen through easily, if only you try; but it is good enough to take in a critical mass of people to be able to get the job done.
In reality, they achieve the opposite of what they purport to do, in classic simulation style. They prolong scarcity while claiming to relieve it. They destroy the planet while pretending to save it. Stand on top of any number of mountains in northern Scotland nowadays and take a look. The notion that this industrial carnage is planet-friendly is clearly ludicrous.
And all the while rather complex forms of subsidies are in place, ensuring that the flow of money is moving smoothly in the right direction.
Part Three: Further Benefits
So, to recap: windfarms keep money and control in the hands of the few; they maintain scarcity; they do the opposite to what they are officially supposed to do.
There is another brilliant move that the global warming/ windfarm story has facilitated. It has enabled literally millions of people who might consider themselves to be 'against the system' to be seamlessly brought on board. 'We don't like men in suits. We don't like petrolheads, gas-guzzlers, Jeremy Clarkson. We take a stand against bankers, capitalists, greed, excess profits. We are decent people - of the people and for the people. We like the planet.' All these people, once considered, and still considering themselves to be, against the System of Control, are now - without even realising it - central to the fabric of Empire. Green Party people are every bit a part of the System of Control as is David Cameron. Every bit. It is indeed a move most brilliant.
Related to this is the increasing role played in the game by organisations such as charities and global institutions such as the UN. With the credibility of orthodox, old-style politicians at an all-time low, the moment has come to pass the baton, in part at least, to organisations that are held in higher regard by the general public. Windfarms are promoted relentlessly by charities like the WWF, the 'story' being that they are necessary if we want to save polar bears and dolphins, it seems. The popular perception of the UN as a grouping of great people intent on ironing out international problems and bringing peace to humankind works in its favour. Some UN folk are well-intentioned, I suggest; others less so. It's worth taking a few minutes out to check the profiles and histories of some of the movers and shakers in the UN. There you will find some members of the Big Happy Family, using the global perspective of the UN as an ideal vessel for furthering wet dreams of greater global control.
Mention of the UN inevitably brings us to Agenda 21. Rolled out at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, this document is regarded by some as one of the sneakiest, most sinister things produced in modern times. I have not investigated Agenda 21 in detail, and it is a tricky one. I actually agree with some of the document's aims, and some of the people involved are, I suspect, well-intentioned. It is, however, another case of twisting a noble ideal with the use of simulation, 'Think globally, act locally' is a motto that seems to make fantastic sense; and it can. However, Agenda 21 takes it up, and distorts into 'We have a global programme; what's more, we have figured out a plan as to how to implement it down to the smallest, most local, detail.' Agenda 21 is a top-to-bottom programme. Its impact on windfarm promotion comes, according to some commentators at least, in its apparent intent to get people off the land and into the big cities. Rural living is untidy, while people crowded in huge conurbations are far more easily managed and controlled. While this may sound like a far-fetched fantasy of paranoid people, it is given credence by the direct experience of visiting a large city when you normally live outside. There is the unmistakeable sense of sheep squashed together in a confining pen. So, one way to get people out of the countryside is to make rural living more unattractive. Spoil the quiet, destroy the views, bring in the metal and concrete, the migraines and depressions created by the subliminal noise and flicker from windfarm activity.
It's been a bit of a long trip to get this far. But, as a former work colleague used to say when about to engage in some slightly dodgy personal project, it needs to be done.....
Photos: The graph I include, not as a final demonstration of 'the truth', but as a reminder that we need to get out there and discover for ourselves what's really happening, rather than relying on propaganda in the papers and on the television.
For the other image: Peter de Vink on thinkscotland (thank goodness there are at least a few people here in Scotland who are thinking...)
