Letter to the Editor

Tomorrow’s Grim, Green, Global Masters

quill pen

7th March 2018


Greens hate individual freedom and private property. They dream of a centralised, unelected global government, financed by taxes on developed nations and controlled by all the tentacles of the UN. No longer is real pollution of our environment the main Green concern. The key slogan of the Green religion is “sustainable development,” with them defining what is sustainable.

Greens hate miners. They use nationalised parks, heritage areas, flora/fauna reserves, green bans, locked gates and land rights to close as much land as possible to explorers and miners — apparently resources should be locked away for some lucky generation of the distant future. If some persistent explorer manages to prove a mineral deposit, greens will then strangle it in the approvals process using “death by delay.”

Greens hate farmers with their ploughs, fertilisers, crops and grazing animals. They want Aussie grazing land turned back to kangaroos and woody weeds. They plan to expel farmers and graziers from most land areas, with food produced in concentrated feedlots, factory farms, communal gardens and hydroponics.

Greens hate professional fishermen with their nets, lines and harpoons. Using the Great Barrier Reef as their poster-child, they plan to control the Coral Sea using marine parks, fishing quotas, bans and licences, leaving us to get seafood from factory fish farms.

Greens hate foresters and grass-farmers. They want every tree protected, even woody weeds taking over ancient treeless grasslands. Red meat and forest timber are “unsustainable.” Apparently they want us to live in houses made of recycled cardboard and plastic and eating fake steak and protein powder made from methane generated from decomposing rubbish dumps.

Greens despise the suburbs with their SUVs, lawns, pools, manicured parks, ponies and golf courses. They prefer concentrated accommodation with people stacked-and-packed in high-rise cubic apartments, with state-controlled kindies in the basement, and with ring-roads of electric trams and driverless cars connecting apartments, schools, offices and shops.

Greens hate reliable grid power from coal, nuclear, oil, gas or hydro generators. Their “sustainable” option is part-time power from wind and solar with the inevitable blackouts and shortages needing more rules and rationing.

Greens lead the war on fracking and pipelines. The victims are energy consumers. The beneficiaries are Russian gas and Middle-east oil.

Greens think it is “sustainable” to uglify scenic hills with whining turbine blades, power poles, transmission lines and access roads, and to clutter pleasant estuaries and shallow seas with more bird-slicing turbines. They think it is “sustainable” to keep smothering sunny flatlands under solar panels and filling the suburbs with extra power lines and batteries of toxic metals.

Greens think it is “sustainable” to clear forests to feed large bio-mass power stations, or for establishing biofuel plantations. They think it is “sustainable” to keep converting croplands from producing food for humans to producing ethanol for cars.

Greens hate free markets where prices are used to signal changing supply and demand. There is no room for fun, frills or luxuries in their “sustainable” world. They want to limit demand by imposing rationing on us wastrels — carbon ration cards, electricity rationing meters, water rationing, meat-free days, diet cops and bans on fast foods and fizzy drinks.

They also favour compulsory recycling of everything, no matter what that process costs in energy or resources. Surveillance cameras will keep watch on our “wasteful” habits.

None of this vast green religious agenda is compatible with individual freedom, constitutional rights or private property — and none of it makes any economic or climate sense.

The Despotic Green New World is coming. Climate alarm is the stalking horse, “sustainable development” the war cry and global government the goal.


Viv Forbes
Washpool Qld Australia
vforbes [at] bigpond [dot] com


Further Reading:


“Sustainable Development” is the UN code for total reorganisation of human society:

Climate policies governed by groupthink:

The UN Plan Itself:

Keep it in the Ground:

Russia’s secret energy campaigns against western energy:





Leave a Reply

18 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of

Green comes in many hues and Viv seems to ranting against an extreme militant and socialist version not represented in Australian politics. Maybe Viv could instead comment on the donations given my coal companies to Queensland politicians…..

Simon, that’s just snarky. Though I suppose it avoids having to defend the greens, who are guilty of every one of the anti-human hatreds and campaigns Viv lists. You attempt to divert Viv’s criticism by characterising his targets as unrepresentative, but Greens really are extremely socialist and militant.

To balance what you claim are political bribes, would you care to discuss the millions of dollars handed out in grants to green NGOs like Greenpeace and WWF, not only in Australia, but around the world? Add them up, tell us who gives more. It’s public knowledge where the bulk of Greenpeace International’s vast wealth comes from: it comes from taxes. The amount granted by governments to climate sceptics? Zero.


Greenpeace does not accept money from governments, intergovernmental organizations, political parties or corporations. WWF receives about 20% of its funding from aid agencies and the World Bank.

Yes, that’s true, according to Greenpeace; my apologies. Instead, you might like to talk about grants to WWF (which you somehow overlooked), FOE, Worldwatch Institute, Earthwatch or any of these others from Wikipedia. Grants to sceptics are still zero; wanna change that?

Mike Jowsey

Send the blighters to Cuba or Venezuela or some other bankrupt socialist regime. The are no affluent socialist regimes.

As for free elections and democracy, Winston Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

“no affluent socialist regimes”: true.
What Churchill said: true.
Two true.

Mike Jowsey

OK, RT, you seem to imply a definitive question by your “Two True” response. I guess I may have seemed a little obscure. Let me explain. No, that will take too long. Let me sum up. (A joke from The Princess Bride – one of the great movies). Everything Viv cited, with copious reference by the way, is too true. Simon won’t even respond to these, but instead posits that there are many hues of “Green”, which is exactly what Viv warns us against. Simon may be a little disturbed by Viv’s revelations and I hope he is. But then he deflects to an outlier argument whereby the copious examples Viv describes are not that to which he adheres. This is an example of an echo-chamber bubble argument. Viv has taken painstaking due diligence to back his arguments and yet Simon can only whine about Viv “ranting”, yet provides no substantive argument to refute Viv’s assertions other than he, Simon, has not experience in his bubble-chamber of such machinations. Wake Up Mister. Be careful for what you wish. Viv’s warnings are too true. Just read “Agenda 21” , one of Viv’s links, as… Read more »

Thanks, Mike. There was no implied question, yet you explain, no, summarise brilliantly.


Well maybe this sums up where the greens want us all to go …..
so it’s back to the future then…


Mike Jowsey

You are quite right, RT, “There was no implied question”. I was projecting my own implied question. Anyhoo, I hope I provided some fodder for Simon to chew upon and come back with something of interest. I do like his perseverance in spite of his bubble. Evolution is a time-consuming process.

Interesting. I was never enamoured of the global warming hype and its train of political machinations. I soon deduced it was a scam. I used to call myself an environmentalist, a Greenie even, at some stage. I now stick to ecologist for a description is one is called for. Viv Forbes’ letter is a reaction to the faux Green political machinations. It barely addresses the problems which gave the political Greens so much support all these years. What that letter indicates, if somewhat obliquely, is the fact that certain kinds of citizens of the western democracies, certain sections of these countries’ electorates, have been asleep politically for, well, four decades, at least. The genuine socialists and social democrats, the genuine middle-of-the-road reasonably honest citizen, the conservative Right, the real unionists(not the ones who supported the sell-out of the unionist cause, their citizenship, the rights of mankind, the sovereignty of the individual [upon which the sovereignty of the nation-state is based, not the other way around] the nation-state itself, democracy and European civilisation’s values{yes, I’m still on about what has been sold down the drain by careerist unionists, almost the entire top of the… Read more »


I was loathe to approve your rambling, discursive comment but decided on balance that you may have the ability to think, which is always welcome. But please speak to the topic. Future ramblings like this will be declined. Welcome aboard.

Dear Richard, my topic was in response to Viv’s letter. I have no need to go daggers drawn at your response to my response to Viv’s letter to the Editor. I re-read both Viv’s letter and my rambling response. You’re in my court, Richard. Maybe you’ll wake up some day. All is connected. Thanks, however, for being so gracious to allow me on board, in the first instance, at least.


After approving your comment, I glanced through Viv’s letter again and the thought occurred to me: “that’s a wide-ranging letter, isn’t it?” I was hasty, apologies. I’m pressed for time again. Cheers.

Mike Jowsey

RT – don’t be so hard on yourself mate. Jacob was on a rant-roll and deserved to be brought to account. Maybe we will all “wake up some day” but not by rambling rants which put us all in a comatose bewilderment.

Jacob – pithy and accurate, one point at a time, is better for us who have short fuses (and yet take the time and patience to read such). Please be brief!

Mike Jowsey

Jacob, your comment has merit but it will take most readers too long to drill down and comprehend in detail. Your broad points are noted: Whereas you were a Greenie, you now prefer “ecologist” as a label; you think government is a necessary evil; unionists suck; we have genetic predisposition to social feeling; malignant vulturist paternalism is a thing; corporate conspiracies are rampant; and all of that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Welcome to the discussion.

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

In reply to Mike Jowsey’s most insightful analysis… one small point. CAGW is a falsifiable hypothesis, by several avenues. It cannot be called a theory… it has no empirical substantiation. We should be hammering on these points incessantly… the warmists cannot argue the science (they’ve tacitly admitted their logical flaws… see below), they can only engage in alarmism to sway people to their side… which collapses if it’s proven their side is at odds with the science. ———- For one example, one of the underlying premises of CAGW is that CO2 is absorbing radiation and causing increased heat retention. The work of Niels Henrik David Bohr (1922 Nobel prize winner) proved that when a gas absorbs electromagnetic radiation it does not heat the gas, it causes the electron(s) in the molecule to gain energy and move to a higher orbital radius (higher potential energy, which is released (when the electron(s) subsequently drop(s) to a lower orbital radius) in the form of photon(s) of the same wavelength as that which was absorbed to excite the electron(s)). And since the photon emitted is the same wavelength as the photon absorbed, there is no extra energy… Read more »

LOL at klimate k kooks. If it’s falsifiable, it’s scientific, but it’s political science. People get sucked trying to disprove the pseudoscientific hype. In the meantime the political game of robbing the taxpayers and hapless consumers continues. Government in the democratic West has been hijacked. Anyway, I’ll keep it short.

Mike Jowsey

My limited understanding of an hypothesis is that it should state why it may be true and what observation would make it untrue. The CAGW hypothesis does not have any test or observation within it’s scope which defines what would disprove the hypothesis, ergo it is non-scientific.

But thank you, LOL, for careful and important explanation of what things disprove it regardless of the inherently fallacious hypothesis itself.

Post Navigation