No More of This Green Hysteria! A Great Future Lies Before Us!

By Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane

Today’s climate-change hysteria goes back to Rev. Thomas Malthus of the British East India Company, and his Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). He wrote:

It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. …


To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations.

But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased … we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved”.

Rev. Malthus is alive today, not attacking only Africa with his lie about ‘limits to growth’, but attacking the whole world. Today the successors of Malthus are the financiers of the City of London and Wall Street who are funding poster-child Greta Thunberg and the whole zoo of green-extremist organisations and misleaders. They think that the world needs more AIDS and Ebola (by way of slow and bureaucratic responses to these diseases), and less scientific and technical education. They want de-industrialisation, so that the economy will not support very much human life. They want a maximum of about 1 billion people in the world, instead of the 7.7 billion we have now. They are making Hitler look like an amateur.

Africa today is seriously underpopulated. Once we get a new world financial system, so that governments can issue credits for large projects at 1 or 2 percent interest, Africa will need many more people to carry out these projects (infrastructure, manufacturing, scientific research, space travel). The Malthusians want more windmills and solar panels, and no efficient baseload energy from coal and nuclear. Coal and nuclear are the cheapest sources of energy today and provide continuous energy (‘baseload’ energy).

The Fraud

Carbon dioxide from burning coal and petroleum products is no threat. Earth’s atmosphere is only 0.04% (four-hundredths of one percent) carbon dioxide! The idea that somehow, an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to cause global warming, is not just hypothetical, it is a lie based on consciously manipulated statistics. This has been done by Dr. Michael Mann, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UK), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and many other individuals and institutions, and ‘bought’ wholesale by the mass media that the financiers control.

Dr. Mann sued one of his critics who had written that Mann did not belong at Penn State (university), that he belonged instead in the State Pen(itentiary). The case was tried in Canada and in August, Mann lost. He was ordered to pay all costs and was forbidden the right to appeal. But why did he lose? He lost because the court ordered him to submit the data from which he drew his conclusions—his conclusions that human activity leads to more carbon dioxide, and more carbon dioxide leads to climate change, and he refused to do so. He may possibly face criminal charges.

But did you see anything about that in the news? What you did see, or will see, is a deluded prophetess, a 17-year-old Swedish girl, Greta Thunberg, making speeches at the World Economic Forum, the Houses of Parliament in London, and at the end of September in New York at the UN General Assembly.

There has been much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at times in the past, than now. Crops grow more luxuriantly when there is increased carbon dioxide, in controlled greenhouse experiments!

The Alternative

The current climate-change hysteria must be understood as a manipulation to keep the world’s people in a state of bondage. The late Lyndon LaRouche, a scientist, economist and statesman, understood what changes are necessary for us to escape that horrible fate: Governments must (1) Protect legitimate investment from the speculators, (2) Institute true national banking, (3) Issue low-interest, long-term credits earmarked for great national projects, and (4) Invest in making fusion energy and space travel a reality—these are ‘science driver’ projects that will have powerful ripple effects uplifting the entire economy through increases in productivity, improvements in the technical competence of many workers, and a higher level of science-oriented culture. These powerful ideas of LaRouche are discussed by Jason Ross in this article: and this video:    

Show More

One Comment

  1. Ah, but you have cropped the pictures incorrectly! On the left, the grimy smokestacks are only part of a picture in which many pleasant and decent homes face on a park with lovely grass and trees. From those homes, the smokestacks are visible, but distant. On the right, the picture is actually wrong, because the trees will have been all cut down and burned as firewood, because electricity is too expensive and not abundant. And the larger, uncropped version of the right-hand picture shows RDP homes that are very run down, because SA is a poorer country. These are not arbitrary choices; this is the actual economics. And, if South Africa were to opt for nuclear power, you would have fewer and fewer smokestacks and more Koebergs. Nuclear power plants are not ugly! Go find a picture or two of Koeberg.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button

For As Little As A Monthly Donation or Subscription of R150,00 You can Keep UnCensored Alive

For those of you who read UnCensored regularly, we implore you to donate. For those who donate, we thank you greatly. 

Learn More
%d bloggers like this: