The origin of many of the stratagems in this plan can be traced to a government-sponsored think-tank study released in 1966 called the Report From Iron Mountain. The purpose of the study was to analyze methods by which a government can perpetuate itself in power--ways to control it's citizens and prevent them from rebelling. The conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. Under world government, however, war technically would be impossible. So the main purpose of the study was to explore other methods for controlling populations and keeping them loyal to their leaders. It was concluded that a suitable substitute for war would require a new enemy which posed a frightful threat to survival. Neither the threat nor the enemy had to be real. They merely had to be believable.
Several surrogates for war were considered, but the only one holding real promise was the environmental-pollution model. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because (1) it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution-- in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, believable--and (2) predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not inform.
While the followers of the current environmental movement are preoccupied with visions of planetary doom, the leaders have an entirely different agenda. It is world government.
The environmental movement was created by the CFR. It is a substitute for war that they hope will become the emotional and psychological foundation for world government.
More important, however, is the question of why end-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies - or not studies at all - are uncritically publicized by the CFR-controlled media; or why radical environmental groups advocating socialist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR-dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions.
As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters, It's what people can be made to believe that counts.
The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. [...]
Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. [...]
An invasion by aliens from outer space was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not "credible."
The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply "the price we must pay to save Mother Earth."