You are deluded if you expect that your side is going to win the climate debate in the same definitive way that, to use your example, the "Nutrasweet" debate has been won.
The debate will continue to rage, a highly successful "divide and rule" strategy, and how ingenious, to politicize such a complex subject.
The move away from reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels could have been effected through releasing onto the market the numerous "free energy" technologies whose development has been impeded through confiscating of patents under national security regulations.
Instead of doing that what has been generated is a state of permanent war between American Democrats and Republicans wearing the masks of different viewpoints on the subject of climate, and projected over the entire planet.
And this state of deadlock, as you rightly argue, makes it possible to turn the climate debate into an ever more profitable device for extracting revenue from taxpayers.
Edward Thompson and the non-aligned anti-nuclear-weapons movement had a similar analysis of how the US/USSR nuclear arms race was fed by the same type of inertial political deadlock. But then he and his movement failed to intervene at the time of the collapse of the USSR and demand abolition of all of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, which could have brought an end to the deadlock they had analysed, and prevent the nuclear arms race it being reconstituted, almost entirely due to American initiative, "behind new masks", as you like to say.
This failure of the anti-nuclear movement at this time adds credibility to analyses like yours which see them/us merely as stooges in the hands of New World Order manipulators.
But why weren't people like you demanding abolition of Soviet nuclear weapons?? In the non-aligned anti-nuclear movement there were some of us raising this demand. We were just too few and too weak. Were there ANY anti-Communist people like you saying that the Soviet nuclear arsenal should be destroyed?
Your notion that the USSR was not defeated but merely "changed its mask" has many similarities with the notion that the ETC Group people who cleverly worked for the moratorium on geoengineering, (dissembling on the subject of chemtrails for the purpose of achieving this specific goal), are merely corrupt in the same way that the prominent "climate change sceptics" are corrupt. It is symptomatic of a lack of respect for people who are after all objectively your allies. If I met Pat Mooney I would express sincere admiration for what he and his ETC group colleagues have achieved with the moratorium. If you met Linzen, Michaels or Singer would you condemn them to their face for being corrupt??? You would not, I suspect. Which is evidence that you are not pursuing politics that can get you out of the political underworld.
A failure to make distinctions between Russian Communists and Russian anti-Communists, or between people who are working to preserve the NWO status quo and cunning ETC-type manipulators who are working to undermine that status quo from within, is a bad political fault.
Your charge against me that I am "dependent" on insiders that you regard as corrupt is wrong. Having achieved the moratorium, ETC has done the groundwork enabling our side to take over, and as far as I am concerned it does not matter much what they do from this point on. It is useful having them around, I suppose, as resource people because of their scientific expertise, but as far as I am concerned they are not my political leadership, and they never have been.
http://www.enouranois.gr/english/indexenglish.htm(see [d]: "Open Letter to Hands off Mother Earth")
In the final analysis the objective course of events will show from this point onwards which of us, you or I, have a more useful and more effective analysis.
Mike Murphy and his mentor G. Edward Griffin have similar ideas to you and they have come up with a powerful, albeit not perfect, film, which we will certainly deploy without distancing ourselves from it publicly. But how are they themselves going to utilize this tool they have provided??? I don't see them making much use, if any, of the moratorium.
Other activists, such as Mauro Oliveira of Geoengineering Watch have since the moratorium moved from previous positions of uncritical identification with the ETC group, to a stance of virtually representing them as "traitors" because of their lack of frankness about chemtrails. But it is not the ETC group that has changed. It is Mauro. When the ETC group's strategy comes up with its first evidence of success, Mauro turns from a friend into an enemy.
In every country that is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity there is an official who went to Nagoya and signed the moratorium on geoengineering on behalf of his or her government. These people can be found and asked why their governments signed a moratorium that they are not respecting or observing.
This is something to be followed up, and it will produce results that will not require us to wait as long as we will have to wait for exposure of the "fraud of climate change" to be transformed into effective opposition to geoengineering and chemtrails.
