FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Stanley Johnson - manipulative fraud and UK PM's father

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2989
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2020 8:45 am    Post subject: Stanley Johnson - manipulative fraud and UK PM's father Reply with quote

Since it seems like we may have hit a nerve with Stanley Johnson, we thought we'd continue exploring the bizarre web of connections between him, his children, and other Tory Establishment families that play prominent roles in both political and environmental 'narratives' (as seen on TV). Stanley Johnson's time as Conservative Member of the European Parliament was during Margaret Thatcher's reign as PM, and followed directly on from his previous position as a senior official in the EU Commission.

We've already noted his first wife's connection to Sir Crispin Tickell, the UN diplomat that persuaded Thatcher to give her speech to the Royal Society on the effects of CO2 on the climate in 1988. Thatcher later gave a similar speech at the UN in 1989, which happened to be during Tickell's stint as Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN.
Now, here's where it gets weird! After leaving that post in 1990, Tickell became Warden of Green College, Oxford; it was here, that in 1993 he offered a Visiting Fellowship (at the College's Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding) to the nephew of Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson - a certain George Monbiot, whose father Sir Raymond Monbiot CBE was also a deputy chairman of the Conservative party.

George Monbiot has made an embarrassment of himself in recent years after doggedly defending the UK/US intelligence operation in Syria known as the White Helmets - a position that he shared with then Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, who provided some £32 million in funding to the group. The White Helmets were supported by a UK company called Mayday Rescue. "In October 2016 a young man left Oxford University and walked straight into a position as Operations manager at Mayday Rescue. His name is Archie Gilmour." He is the son of Andrew Gilmour the "Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and Head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in New York.” Archie Gilmour is Boris Johnson's godson.

Tickell and Lawson have been friends since school. Both were friendly with the late financier James Goldsmith; and both Nigel Lawson and his son Dominic were editors of the Conservative Spectator magazine, a post later filled by Boris Johnson. Dominic is married to Rosa Monckton, sister of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He served as an advisor to Thatcher and was a founding member of James Goldsmith's Referendum Party - the precursor to UKIP. Meanwhile, James' brother Edward was one of the founders of the UK Green Party, as well as the Ecologist magazine, where an editorial position was also held by his nephew Zac Goldsmith, who is currently Conservative Minister of State for Environment & International
Development, and married to Alice Rothschild. Amusingly, Nigel Lawson and Christopher Monckton are the among the most prominent British 'climate deniers' that Monbiot frequently rails against in his polemics for the Guardian. As it happens, Stanley Johnson also had a weekly column for the G2 section of The Guardian back in 2005, while Amelia Gentleman, the wife of Boris' brother Jo (another Tory MP) also writes for the Guardian.

Let's remind ourselves that it was in fact Stanley Johnson who wrote the introduction and commentary to the official text of the UN's 1993 Rio Earth Summit, wherein the Agenda 21 policy was articulated. Johnson is not the only UN acolyte to publicly align themselves with the demands of XR; Farhana Yamin led their delegation to meet with UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove earlier this year. Shortly after which, Gail Bradbrook was filmed in an interview with Sky News stating that senior advisors to Theresa May had informed XR representatives that they needed XR 'to give them the social permission to do the necessary' - i.e. to enact Climate Emergency legislation, which the UK government promptly did following XR's London protests.

Meanwhile Boris Johnson recently delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly in which he acknowledged the threats presented by modern technology, but then committed the UK to its further development, whilst declaring a "need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology." He also spoke of the necessity of adopting 'green tech' in "our common struggle against climate change."

While these links don't present anything concrete, they nonetheless show us just how interconnected the people who find their way into the media spotlight really are.

Food for thought-crimes.

[originally posted 5th Nov, and subsequently purged from facespook]

https://nowhere.news/index.php/2019/04/01/astroturfing-the-way-for-the -fourth-industrial-revolution/






NEWS FROM NOWHERE
MEDIA FROM THE MARGINS
Primary Menu
Search for:
HOME2019APRIL1ASTROTURFING THE WAY FOR THE FOURTH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

ARTICLES ECOLOGY NEWS POLITICS TECHNOCRACY & TECHNE
Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
By UN Extinction 11 months ago
This is an introduction to a series of articles entitled ‘Astroturfing the way for the Fourth Industrial Revolution’.
Here are the links to the other parts:

1) Dr Gail Marie Bradbrook: Compassionate Revolutionary… for hire?
2) Political Charities and the Brave New World of Professional Activism
3) Green Gail and the Technocratic Industrialists: Citizens Online’s Digitopian Nightmare
4) Extinction Rebellion and the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism
5) #XRSpaceJunk 5G & Citizens Online: Industry Agents, Digital Acolytes and State Agitators

For a current update on our research, read our latest article here:
6) UN-Extinction: A Guide for the Perplexed

Some Inconvenient Truths about Extinction Rebellion and the Climate Mobilisation movement

A message in a bottle…
Dear Reader,

We’d guess that you were drawn to open this link for one of two reasons:

You’re sympathetic to the goals of Extinction Rebellion and the broader ‘climate mobilisation’ movement, and want to know why we’re criticising it.
You’re suspicious of or opposed to the same, and are looking for evidence to bolster your sentiments.
Before going any further, know that our motivation for producing this piece of research is as follows:

We’ve been involved in environmental activism for some years, are personally acquainted with people in the networks we’re discussing, and fully support their goal of protecting our planet’s ability to sustain complex life. With that said, we’ve felt for some time that the groups that make up the ‘climate activism movement’ are majorly amiss in how they’ve been going about achieving said goal, which led us into doing in-depth research into their activities. We’ve been consistently amazed by what we’ve been finding, and as a result feel obliged to share this with others.

We have put hundreds of hours into creating this presentation, without the prospect or expectation of financial reward; our only hope is that it serves as a wake-up call to the many well-meaning people who’ve accepted what they’ve been told at face value about what stands behind these groups. We appreciate that those of you who’ve found a sense of shared purpose and camaraderie through participating in them will likely find it difficult to engage with what we’re presenting. We can only assure you that our intent in doing this is not malevolent, and suggest that you suspend any initial judgment, examine the material thoroughly, and try not to allow your discernment to be clouded by a sense of group allegiance.

And to those who are reading this because they aren’t aligned with these groups: we believe that much-needed criticism of the environmental movement in no way negates the basic premise of environmentalism: that humans cannot go on destroying and polluting the soil, water and air of our home indefinitely. Human beings, like all life forms, are inextricably linked to our environment, and what we do to it, we do to ourselves. If for some reason you’ve been led to believe otherwise, we’d suggest looking into the subject more deeply.


The Investigation

What we’re presenting here is a complex ecosystem, so before we can arrive at a big picture, we’ll need to look at various aspects in turn. Let’s not beat around the bush: there’s a fair bit of material here. If you want to appraise it properly and understand how we’re being misdirected, then you’ll need to set aside some time to do so. After all, the ‘educational’ system and mass media have been drip-feeding us with pernicious lies for all of our lives; hence it takes a certain amount of commitment to deconstruct and then re-examine those truths we hold as self-evident. (Please note, we have used hyperlinks to provide further background for our claims.)

The greedy b****** who are, ultimately, the subject of our investigation, have in many cases been in this game for multiple generations; and their forebears took care [1] to capture the press, schools and academia a long time ago. In recent years, things have decentralised somewhat with the advent of the internet, but the simultaneous erosion of people’s attention spans has compensated for this, and serves these parties very well. You are of course welcome to close this window and go back to checking your Facebook feed, watching Netflix, or whatever else it was you were doing before you came here; but for those prepared to take a walk with us through this perplexing landscape, there’s work to be done.

At this point it’d be worth giving a brief insight into what led us to embark on this journey ourselves. Having been actively involved in environmental and land rights campaign groups whose membership directly overlapped with that of the Climate Camp, Occupy and related movements – which in many ways prepared the ground for the current groups – we already had a bad taste in our mouths from what we’d witnessed in those circles. Which is to say, that what was passing itself off as ‘horizontal non-hierarchical consensus-based decisionmaking’ was in our experience anything but; leading us to ask ourselves further questions, and pay attention to what the rare dissenting voices that dared to speak up had to say. Hence, when the buzz around Extinction Rebellion began to circulate through our networks, we were already on the lookout for signs of it being (yet another) controlled opposition group. And find them we did.

The first major clue came in the form of a presentation [2] given by Gail Bradbrook, one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion (XR for short – the main British group advocating for Climate Mobilisation) at Off-Grid Festival a number of years ago, promoting her Compassionate Revolution/ Rising Up! concepts/brands. In it, she referred to Otpor!, the ostensibly ‘grass-roots’ instigators of the Serbian ‘Bulldozer Revolution’ of 2000, as ‘just a bunch of kids’. She also spoke glowingly of Gene Sharp, whose strategies were applied in that and each of the so-called ‘colour revolutions’ that subsequently swept through various parts of the globe, culminating in the Arab Spring, which in turn inspired many to participate in the Occupy movement.


Notice a pattern?
What she failed to disclose to her audience is the fact that Otpor!, the groups it subsequently spawned in other countries, and Gene Sharp, were all funded by the National Endowment for Democracy: an American NGO whose activities run parallel to the regime-change objectives of the US government, widely considered [3] to be a ‘plausibly deniable’ above-ground arm for CIA meddling. Another notable oversight from her talk was any mention of what replaced the corrupt governments that these activist movements toppled: slick neoliberals, passing ‘reforms’ that enabled the rapid re-organisation of their economies to suit western multinationals; and in the case of Egypt, the coming of the Muslim Brotherhood to power – later to be replaced by the military dictatorship of al-Sisi, which persists to this day.

Furthermore, it is now known (by way of Wikileaks’ ‘Global Intelligence Files’) that one of the leaders of Otpor!, Srdja Popovic (who after his success in Serbia went on to found CANVAS, a ‘revolution consultancy’ and receive substantial funding from NED for organising groups in other countries) is well-connected to STRATFOR [4], a private intelligence firm “that gathers intelligence on geopolitical events and activists for clients ranging from the American Petroleum Institute and Archer Daniels Midland to Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Northrop Grumman, Intel and Coca-Cola.”


STRATFOR is widely considered to be the private security division of the American intelligence services. Founded in 1996, STRATFOR came to prominence during the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 when its ‘cutting-edge analysis’ provided everything that the mainstream news networks needed to know. The company’s geopolitical analysis on the ‘war on terror’ is head-lined by the likes of the Associated Press, Reuters and the BBC. Without going into great detail (that we’ll do later), an influential figure within STRATFOR named Ronald Duchin promulgated a formula for incapacitating anti-corporate activist movements, which Max Wilbert, in his book ‘We Choose to Speak & other essays’, describes as follows:

“STRATFOR advocates are dividing movements into four character types: radicals, idealists, realists, and opportunists. These camps can then be dealt with summarily: First, isolate the radicals. Second, “cultivate” the idealists and “educate” them into becoming realists. And finally, co-opt the realists into agreeing with industry. This is how movements are neutralized: those who should be allies are divided, infighting becomes rampant, and paranoia rules the roost. To combat these strategies, we must understand the danger they represent and how to counter them.”
As unlikely as this may sound to some of you, we would contend that isolating the radicals, educating the idealists into becoming realists, and co-opting the realists into agreeing with industry is precisely what the Climate Mobilisation movement is engaged in doing. Fear not – we’ll be providing ample evidence for our accusation below, and in the articles to follow.

And lest you feel that we’re placing undue emphasis on Gail Bradbrook’s reference to the events in Serbia, we’d like to point out that Gene Sharps’s long-time employee Jamila Raqib (who has now become the Executive Director of Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institute, following his death) just so happens to sit on the Advisory Board of ‘The Climate Mobilization’ – a group set up by Extinction Rebellion’s ‘Director of Fundraising’, Margaret Klein Salamon.

https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/advisory-board


Jamila Raqib.
In addition, if we look at the references/further reading list in XR co-founder ‘Roger’ Hallam’s ‘How to Win’ [5] (on which much of XR’s strategy appears to be based) he names Popvic’s ‘Blueprint for Revolution’ as “the KEY TEXT!”:

“A must read on how good organisation and a determination to have fun are the key to mass participatory action to bring down autocratic regimes – from the people who have done it, so you can’t argue with that! Again note that the context is taking on dictators – but as the subtitle implies – these mechanisms and techniques enable you to “change the world” – and increasingly they apply to the political realities of the western “democracies”.”
Well, they certainly ‘did it’, we’ll give you that much. Given that XR are promoting the ‘colour revolution’ model, it stands to reason that an essential component of this model would be (as it was with the ‘colour revolutions’) the financial backing of those who stand to benefit from the changes brought about by such ‘activism’; as well as the collusion of the bought-and-paid-for media that serve those interests. And yes, that very much includes The Guardian – those charming cheerleaders [6] for ‘liberal’ imperialism. As it happens, it appears that this very same model is about to be rolled out in Venezuela [7], as America tries to install its puppet, Juan Guaidó, to enable more efficient extraction of Venezuela’s oil resources

In 2011, Journeyman Pictures released a 27-minute documentary called ‘The Revolution Business’, which provides a rare view behind the facade of the manufactured ‘colour revolutions’. Considering how closely XR appears to be following their lead, we reckon that you might do well to take a look at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8
As far as we’re concerned, there’s nothing whatsoever spontaneous or grass-roots about the ‘climate mobilisation’ that’s currently being promoted all over the mass media. Mirroring what happened with the ‘colour revolutions’, idealistic youth are simply being herded into pre-approved movements, to create the illusion of a popular mandate for what the ruling classes have already determined to be the best course of action for preserving their dominance and control: carbon taxation, ‘smart’ cities, the 5G/ internet of things surveillance grid, AI, depopulation, and new investment opportunities in what’s being called the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ (‘renewable technologies’, dependent on very limited rare earth minerals and heavily polluting mining operations, combined with health-damaging microwave technologies), as well as ‘carbon capture’/trading scams.


If any of this is either new or doubtful to you, then an essential piece of preliminary reading is Cory Morningstar’s The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent [8] series. Her website contains a wealth of research into the collusion between NGOs and the agents of empire. While one may not share all of the author’s political convictions, this is irrelevant, since we can find no fault in her detailed indictment of contemporary environmentalists’ collusion with the ruling classes. Speed-read if you must, but if you want to be in with a chance of understanding this mess, then don’t neglect to look at her work.

Here it would serve to underline the following point, as expressed by a certain Gavin Nascimento: “The problem is not that there is a lack of money, food, water, or land. The problem is we’ve given control of these resources to psychopaths.” Colluding in the schemes of those who have dispossessed you, which they’ve specifically designed to bestow upon themselves an aura of benevolence, is unlikely to yield much in the way of meaningful results. While climate groups make some token gestures towards serious economic reform, it’s clear that these points are low in their list of priorities, and will be the first to be jettisoned for the sake of ‘the greater good’. The dichotomy between ‘nationalist chauvinist imperialism’ and ‘benevolent globalist imperialism’ is an entirely false one; what neither of them challenges is the dominance of the rigged financial system that continues to concentrate the world’s wealth into the hands of an extremely small number of people.


Captain Monobot and the Planeteers

Our own research has as its focus groups based in Britain, since that’s where we’re from, and in particular the group known as ‘Extinction Rebellion’. Riding on the back of extensive publicity in The Guardian, courtesy of everyone’s favourite attack-dog [9] ‘ethical’ imperialist journo George Monbiot, as well as on BBC News, social media platforms and within activist networks, the movement launched itself very publicly on November 12th 2018 with activists glueing themselves to the doors of the Department of Energy offices in London, and spray-painting slogans on the windows.

They have since convened numerous nonviolent ‘swarming protests’ all over Britain, employing tactics designed to maximise visibility and media exposure such as the blockading of roads and bridges, and the resultant arrests of participants. They are demanding that “the UK government immediately declares a climate and ecological emergency; reduces to zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, and creates a citizens’ assembly to oversee these changes”. They have also encouraged people in other countries to take up their cause; the hope appears to be that the movement will ‘catch on’ in a similar manner to how the Arab Spring or ‘colour revolutions’ did, bringing nations to a standstill and thus forcing politicians’ hands.

Their website [10] states that from April 15th, they intend to take their activities to the next level: “thousands of rebels will peacefully block streets in Central London – where the UK’s politicians, media, people and money are concentrated – until the government agrees to meet and seriously discuss the crisis with us.”

“At 11am on Monday 15 April we are inviting you to gather in Parliament Square. We will take our message to the British Parliament and the Government asking for a meeting to seriously discuss our demands for emergency action. If there is no response we will set up camp in Parliament Square and several other key locations in Central London. Please bring a tent and food. (…) If there is still no agreement to meet we will split into groups and sit down in numerous roads going into central London, effectively blocking road access into the centre of the city.”
There are a number of players involved in XR. To try and understand where this group has come from, and where it might be going, we’ve looked into their biographies and who they associate with, then branched out into related areas. The research will be released in a number of strands, beginning with our investigation into XR co-founder Gail Bradbrook.

Given that you’ll very likely be hearing a lot more about XR in the weeks to come, we cordially invite you to our next article, where you’ll be able to learn many things about them you’ll quite likely not be hearing anywhere else.

[Click here for part 1]: Dr Gail Marie Bradbrook: Compassionate Revolutionary… for hire?

Please note that we also have a page on Facespook, which you can ‘like’ or ‘follow’ to be kept up to date on new articles (assuming that the Al-Gore-rithims permit it): https://www.facebook.com/UNExtinction/

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2989
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2020 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Prime Minister's father Stanley Johnson's theatre of deception

Trust others have seen the patterns between this and Winston Churchill's monthly visits to The Savoy for Chatham House rule chin wags with Oswald Moseley?

The Other Club has always been a fascinating, yet little publicized institution. Some of the best-known names in the land are always among its members. Of the forty men who were its original members in 1911 in addition to Churchill and F. E. Smith, there were names like Bonar Law, Admiral Lord Charles Beresford, who never spoke to Churchill anywhere else but at the Other Club dinners, in the course of a bitter feud, Lloyd George, Lord Kitchener, Beerbohm Tree, W. H. Massingham, who had been the editor of the Daily Chronicle until he lost his position because of his opposition to the South African War, and J. L. Garvin, editor of the Observer for some years until he resigned in 1942.
The long list of former members bears such names as Lord Asquith, Viscount Astor, Arnold Bennett, Viscount Camrose, the Duke of Devonshire, General Lord Gort, Henry Irving, Frederick Lonsdale, Sir Edwin Lutyens, Sir Desmond MacCarthy, Sir Oswald Mosley, Field Marshal Smuts, Lord Tweedsmuir and Brendan Bracken.

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=23239

TG

Since it seems like we may have hit a nerve with Stanley Johnson, we thought we'd continue exploring the bizarre web of connections between him, his children, and other Tory Establishment families that play prominent roles in both political and environmental 'narratives' (as seen on TV). Stanley Johnson's time as Conservative Member of the European Parliament was during Margaret Thatcher's reign as PM, and followed directly on from his previous position as a senior official in the EU Commission.

We've already noted his first wife's connection to Sir Crispin Tickell, the UN diplomat that persuaded Thatcher to give her speech to the Royal Society on the effects of CO2 on the climate in 1988. Thatcher later gave a similar speech at the UN in 1989, which happened to be during Tickell's stint as Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom to the UN.
Now, here's where it gets weird! After leaving that post in 1990, Tickell became Warden of Green College, Oxford; it was here, that in 1993 he offered a Visiting Fellowship (at the College's Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding) to the nephew of Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson - a certain George Monbiot, whose father Sir Raymond Monbiot CBE was also a deputy chairman of the Conservative party.

George Monbiot has made an embarrassment of himself in recent years after doggedly defending the UK/US intelligence operation in Syria known as the White Helmets - a position that he shared with then Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, who provided some £32 million in funding to the group. The White Helmets were supported by a UK company called Mayday Rescue. "In October 2016 a young man left Oxford University and walked straight into a position as Operations manager at Mayday Rescue. His name is Archie Gilmour." He is the son of Andrew Gilmour the "Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights and Head of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in New York.” Archie Gilmour is Boris Johnson's godson.

Tickell and Lawson have been friends since school. Both were friendly with the late financier James Goldsmith; and both Nigel Lawson and his son Dominic were editors of the Conservative Spectator magazine, a post later filled by Boris Johnson. Dominic is married to Rosa Monckton, sister of Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He served as an advisor to Thatcher and was a founding member of James Goldsmith's Referendum Party - the precursor to UKIP. Meanwhile, James' brother Edward was one of the founders of the UK Green Party, as well as the Ecologist magazine, where an editorial position was also held by his nephew Zac Goldsmith, who is currently Conservative Minister of State for Environment & International
Development, and married to Alice Rothschild. Amusingly, Nigel Lawson and Christopher Monckton are the among the most prominent British 'climate deniers' that Monbiot frequently rails against in his polemics for the Guardian. As it happens, Stanley Johnson also had a weekly column for the G2 section of The Guardian back in 2005, while Amelia Gentleman, the wife of Boris' brother Jo (another Tory MP) also writes for the Guardian.

Let's remind ourselves that it was in fact Stanley Johnson who wrote the introduction and commentary to the official text of the UN's 1993 Rio Earth Summit, wherein the Agenda 21 policy was articulated. Johnson is not the only UN acolyte to publicly align themselves with the demands of XR; Farhana Yamin led their delegation to meet with UK Environment Secretary Michael Gove earlier this year. Shortly after which, Gail Bradbrook was filmed in an interview with Sky News stating that senior advisors to Theresa May had informed XR representatives that they needed XR 'to give them the social permission to do the necessary' - i.e. to enact Climate Emergency legislation, which the UK government promptly did following XR's London protests.

Meanwhile Boris Johnson recently delivered a speech to the UN General Assembly in which he acknowledged the threats presented by modern technology, but then committed the UK to its further development, whilst declaring a "need to agree a common set of global principles to shape the norms and standards that will guide the development of emerging technology." He also spoke of the necessity of adopting 'green tech' in "our common struggle against climate change."

While these links don't present anything concrete, they nonetheless show us just how interconnected the people who find their way into the media spotlight really are.

Food for thought-crimes.

[originally posted 5th Nov, and subsequently purged from facespook]

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whitehall_Bin_Men
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Jan 2007
Posts: 2989
Location: Westminster, LONDON, SW1A 2HB.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 08, 2020 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How Margaret Thatcher came to sound the climate alarm
https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound- climate-alarm

Brendan Montague | 21st August 2018

Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to put climate change at the top of the agenda. Lord Lawson, her chancellor then, is now a mouthpiece for climate denial. So how does he explain her political support for the scientific consensus? BRENDAN MONTAGUE investigates
Margaret Thatcher's contribution to the climate debate while British prime minister would cause her free market fellows considerable difficulty in the coming decades. They would spark speculation that the PM, in her prime, was 'taken in by environmentalists'.

Lord Lawson, then her chancellor, preferred to believe that Thatcher was engaged in a Machiavellian deception of the British public in order to justify her use of newly discovered North Sea gas to shut down most of the country's mining industry, with the loss of 100,000 jobs. But can this be true?

Sir Crispin Tickell went to the same school as Lawson, and both men then went on to Oxford, with Tickell eventually becoming a career diplomat. He is widely acknowledged as the man who persuaded Thatcher to adopt the climate cause, and was responsible for drafting much of her speech to the Royal Society.

The pioneering and brilliant Sir Crispin first heard of climate change during the Stockholm conference of scientists in 1972, and took a sabbatical from the civil service to study the subject at Harvard University.

He also happened to be among the advisors taken on an official visit to France with the Prime Minister shortly afterwards.

Washing dishes

During the short flight, one of Thatcher's aides indicated that she had a few spare minutes and would welcome any interesting suggestions for her contribution to the United Nations summit, to be held in London the following year.

Sir Crispin raised his hand and was taken to the front of the plane to brief the PM on his suggestion. Some weeks later, Sir Crispin found himself washing dishes with Thatcher after a meeting at the House of Commons.

“I took her through the whole story of climate change, how it worked, the importance of greenhouse gases, and what the temperature of the planet would be without them.” Thatcher said: “Alright, let's have a look into this.”

Sir Crispin told me: “She very much felt herself to be a scientist among non-scientists, and of course she certainly felt that, as a woman in a man-made world, she had to make her point.”

“People have attributed [her speech] to all kinds of manoeuvring to score advantage. But I think it was a much more genuine intellectual interest.”

Sir Crispin, who was 82 years old and as bright as a button when we met, remembered countering Lawson's scepticism even back then. The two men had known of each other since they both attended Westminster School as young boys.

“I remember an occasion with him and Jimmy Goldsmith; the three of us had a fight on the subject, but he was already dug in. The thing about Nigel is that he gets dug in on something and that means he can't get out again.”

Ignored majestically

He added: “He gradually got out of touch, out of tune, out of sync with Thatcher on quite a lot of issues...in the days when he was battling it out with Margaret Thatcher, he was ignored by her majestically.”

Thatcher met with the independent scientist, James Lovelock, in May 1984. Two years earlier, Lovelock had published his seminal book, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth, which introduced his controversial Gaia hypothesis, suggesting the earth was a single living organism.

He warned that climate change would ultimately mean that “most of the surface of the globe will change into desert. The survivors will gather around the Arctic. But there won't be enough room for everybody, so there will be wars raging populations, warlords.”

Lovelock later became patron of the Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE). The industry group was set up by Sir Bernard Ingham, Thatcher's friend and press secretary before becoming a lobbyist for British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL).

Lovelock's meeting would later resurface as evidence that she simply used climate change to promote her nuclear agenda.

Another significant influence on Thatcher's attitude towards the relationship between science and industry was Lord Rothschild, the one-time member of the MI5 anti-sabotage unit and then research director of Royal Dutch Shell Group.

Edward Health had hired him in February 1971 as part of the Central Policy Review Staff which was a think tank at the heart of government.

A financial motive

Prime Minister Heath had called the young Thatcher, then education minister, to his office at 10 Downing Street the following April to discuss the governmental funding of science.

Thatcher began the meeting defending the scientific community. “It was felt that the system was now working better than it had ever worked before”, an official noted her saying.

Her “main concern” was “to ensure that no change was made against the wishes of the scientists without having been consulted”. By the end of the meeting, the education secretary had reversed her position.

She agreed that funding would no longer support projects of general interest, but would be granted only when there was a demonstrable benefit to the industry.

This was a fundamental change in policy, agreed in private and without the consultation of scientists.

Jon Agar, publishing with the Royal Society, would state that: “Thatcher had changed her mind. She now embraced the relevance of the market in shaping key areas of government science, and had already moved into 'tactical' considerations of how to sell the conclusion. The lady had turned.” [PDF]

He added: “Science [was for Thatcher] even more of a test case for her developing views on economic liberalism. If markets could work for science policy, they could work anywhere.”

The man from Shell and MI5 had persuaded Thatcher that science, as with everything else, must have a financial motive.

But there is an even more curious and controversial version of events about Thatcher's road to Damascus…

This Article

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press). He tweets at @EcoMontague. This article first appeared at Desmog.uk.


Tags
Fakenomics Margaret Thatcher climate debate North sea gas United Nations summit Sir Crispin Tickell

_________________
--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com
http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group