The determinant institutions which are real force directing and controlling the staged “public outrage” at the policies of James Watt are the following:

-           THE CLUB OF ROME

-           THE WORLD WILDLIFE FUND

-           THE COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS

-           THE SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL

-           THE GERMAN MARSHALL FUND

-           THE ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES

   In the last two decades theses associations, which have heavily overlapping memberships, have used different guises and various ideological covers to call a halt to industrial, technological and economic growth. The Club of Rome promotes the concept of “limits to growth”; the Socialist International, using the United Nations and World Bank as its vehicle, heralds “appropriate (i.e. backward): technology”;  the Council on Foreign Relations preaches “controlled economic disintegration” (Paul Volcker’s purposefully-implemented depression) and the Aspen Institute applauds “humanistic not materialistic values”.

   IN REALITY EVERY ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS IS COMMITED TO THE SAME POLICY: THE ESTABLISTMENT OF A MONOPOLIZED CONTROL OF GLOBAL RESOURCES. RAW MATERIALS AND TECHNOLOGY BY A TINY ECONOMIC ARISTOCRACY. It is independent production, invention and ownership – the basics of the American System economy – that these institutions have deployed to crush. They rightly perceived Jim Watt to present a big problem for them.

   The Foundation Center on West 57^th Street in New York City has on file a record of transactions of all foundations that operate in the United States, which is available for public scrutiny. The source is called Comsearch Printouts and the volume entitled: ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS reports that in the year 1980 alone, the Atlantic Richfield and combined Ford, Mellon and Rockefeller Family Foundation interests contributed MORE THAN $18,000,000 TO WORLD ENVIRONMENTALIST ORGANIZATIONS. That means that every significant expenditure incurred in the training, media promotion, legal defense or any other activity of the no-growthers was covered by this consortium of funds. The very existence of the major environmentalist organizations depends to a large extent on the monies deployed every year by ARCO, Ford, Mellon, Rockefeller and related institutions.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE

   A rancher from Wyoming was golfing with a vice president of Mobil Oil recently and asked the oil executive “Why do the multis bankroll the no-growth environmentalists?” A bit on the defensive, the oil executive responded. “I guess you can’t lose if you play both sides.”

   Robert O. Anderson would certainly be pleased by that kind of answer. After all, it took a lot of expense and effort to set up the Aspen Institute. Maurice Guernier, Club of Rome policy planner and one of the authors of Reshaping the International Order (Report to the Club of Rome 1976), was a little more candid than the oil executive in a recent conversation: “Our key to power is the ecology movement, the environmentalist parties. The Club of Rome started these parties. The ecology movements, these parties, are very useful to us because they go across borders, because they encompass both the left and the right, and also the middle. People don’t trust politicians, but they do trust the environmentalists. If the ecology movement it well managed then you will see whole populations beginning to change their minds on many things, and then the chiefs of state will have to change their minds too.”

In 1949, Robert Maynard Hutchins, then Chancellor of the University of Chicago (and soon to become the first president of the re-organized Ford Foundation), along with Guiseppe and Elisabeth Mann Borgese, initiated the founding of the Aspen Institute. Hutchins’ personal education at Yale College and Yale University Law School had provided him a comprehensive schooling in both the theory and ideology of British global strategists like Cecil Rhodes, Lord Alfred Milner and Halford Mackinder. Young Hutchins learned that while serving as director of the London School Economics, Mackinder was the leading British economic theoretician of the early 1900’s and that his “geopolitical” strategy was designed to preserve secured looting rights for the British Empire through both resource domination and suppression of technological innovation. Upon assuming the presidency of the University of Chicago in 1929 (at the age of 29), Hutchins translated his tutoring in British philosophy into university programs, which under his direction, pioneered the creation of “liberal arts,” “humanities” and “sociology” in the United States. Indicative of Hutchins’ radical bent was his long-standing close association with Fabian socialist Bertrand Russell.

   During his tenure as president, Hutchins provided a teaching position for Russell at the University of Chicago, Russell used this podium to rally collaborators who would later work with him, Hutchins and the Huxleys (Aldous and Julian) to launch the World Federalists. The following is a quote from Russell’s 1962 book, Has a Man A Future? It pinpoints not merely Russell’s outlook, but identifies the determining outlook of the individuals that do not