March 10, 2023 JV


The ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent eating its own tail. The ouroboros entered Western tradition via ancient Egyptian iconography and the Greek magical tradition.  It was adopted as a symbol in Gnosticism and Hermeticism and most notably in alchemy.  The ouroboros is often interpreted as a symbol for eternal cyclic renewal or a cycle of life, death, and rebirth.

I’ve been working in and around the resources industry (mainly coal) for over 40 years. I moved to BHP Minerals in New Mexico in late 1989.  Safety was a big deal with goals like “Zero Harm” to our people.  By the mid-90’s, “Safety and the Environment” emerged as the new catch-phrase.  That made perfect sense.  Every miner I ever worked with was keen, not only for people to return home safely after a day’s work, but also to leave the environment in good condition once operations had ceased. Since the early 1970’s, legislation in Western countries was focused on ensuring people worked safely, the air and water systems were not polluted and the land was rehabilitated.  Over these past 50 years, significant efforts have been made in all of these areas.

Things are trending in the right direction overall.  Data from the US and Australia show air, water and land quality outcomes have shown steady improvement.

Then around 2015, the UN Agenda 2030 / WEF labels: “Sustainability” and “Circular Economy” began appearing, although they have really been “hiding and biding” for decades.

As I’d left BHP in 2007 to establish my consulting business, I only saw the change from “Safety and Environment” to “Sustainability” from afar, and did not perceive the hiss of the ouroboros.


Inigo Montoya – The Princess Bride (1987)

After 2015, Safety, the Environment and various other priorities were beginning to be “eaten up” by “Sustainability.”  Did anyone bother to check what this word meant?  Where did it come from?

For almost a decade, I paid no attention to this.  I assumed, like everyone else, that it was OK.  Then things started getting weird, so I decided to investigate.

It’s not OK.  Here’s what I learnt.

Back to the 1950’s.

Marcuse’s World

Herbert Marcuse was the leading Critical Marxist Theorist from the 50’s through the 70’s.

Dr. James Lindsay makes the claim that “we live in Herbert Marcuse’s world…” (1:20 mark)

What does he mean by that? Let’s look more closely at some of Marcuse’s major works:

  • Eros and Civilization (1955)
  • One-Dimensional Man (1964)
  • An Essay on Liberation (1969)
  • Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972)

Marcuse regarded the realisation of man’s erotic nature as the true liberation of humanity.

He also saw the “domination of nature” as instrumental to the repressive capitalist order and he saw the liberation of man and nature as the same struggle.

In the late 50’s, the world was overpopulated (with less than 3 Billion people) according to Marcuse and his fellow Marxists.

Two major themes emerged from Marcuse’s works:

  1. Sexual Liberation giving rise to Queer Theory and “Inclusion.”
  2. Nature’s Liberation or an emancipatory, harmonious relationship between man and nature, giving rise to “Sustainability.”

Dr. James Lindsay went on to state that (1:24 mark) “… reading his major works of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s you get a real sense that somebody picked this up, meaning mostly the new left that followed him but also certain characters picked this up and saw it as a template for building the world that we live in now.”  Who could these characters have been?

Attentive readers may recall an article I wrote in October 2021 titled: Idle Hands are the Devil’s Playground, wherein I wrote about the Malthusian roots of UNESCO.

“In 1948, in an article titled UNESCO: Its Purpose and its Philosophy, Sir Julian Huxley, the President of the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) showed how much Malthusianism had invaded the ranks of UN leaders, when he explained that:

‘Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much [that] is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.’”

Sir Julian Huxley


In 1948 there were 2.5 Billion people.  Huxley and other Eugenicists within the ranks of global elites were keen to change the Overton Window on population control, even in those early days.

There is no doubt the motive existed. 

However, what they lacked was an effective means and the right opportunity to commit the crime.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published its Limits to Growth report (1972), warning of a coming apocalypse due to overpopulation and destruction of the earth’s eco-systems by 2000. When it did not occur, the date was revised to 2100.

The Global 2000 Report (1980), commissioned by the US Government under President Jimmy Carter warned of a similar outcome.

A cabal of globalists, eugenicists and over-population theorists were all beginning to influence the narrative, so everything cannot be pinned on just a few. 

It’s likely that several unseen puppet masters were scheming to

make the Unthinkable … Thinkable.

However, as I wrote in Pedigree, in the late 1960’s certain characters appeared on the scene, wielding enormous power at a critical time in history.  Their contribution?  A new sensibility: Sustainability and the controls necessary to achieve it.


“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

“Depopulation should be highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world.”

“The elderly are useless eaters.”


“Today it is infinitely easier to kill one million people than to control one million people.”

“Persisting social crisis, the emergence of a charismatic personality, and the exploitation of mass media to obtain public confidence would be the steppingstones in the piecemeal transformation of the United States into a highly controlled society.”

Kissinger and Brzezinski were instrumental in Communist China entering the World Trade Organisation, despite the death of 50 Million Chinese at the hands of Communist dictators during their “Great Leap.”  What did these characters see in Communist China that prompted such a move?  Was lucre for global elites the motive?  Or could they have understood a connection between Marcuse’s ideas and Marx’s “Riddle of History”?

“Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.”

– Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

Dr. James Lindsay wrote an essay in October 2022 – The Riddle of History, Solved.  Then in February 2023, he released a podcast where he read through his article and provided additional information.  If you have the time, please listen to the entire podcast to understand this concept fully.

In the podcast intro, Lindsay writes:

“In 1844, Karl Marx explained that Communism, ‘as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement’ is …

‘the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.’  In 2016, 172 years later, Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum put forth a bold future-casting video proclaiming that by the year 2030 ‘you will own nothing, and you will be happy.’  These, of course, are the same assertion.

Flashing back, in 1964, in the book One-dimensional Man, Herbert Marcuse explained that to move forward with the Marxist project, socialism had to figure out how to become productive without abandoning its core values and capitalism had to be reined in to curb its inherent unsustainability.  That is, Marcuse reframed the riddle of history and pointed in the direction of a way to solve it.

This year, in 2023, just weeks ago in an interview resulting from the Davos meeting, Klaus Schwab articulated his vision for this solution: state capitalism on the one hand and shareholder capitalism on the other have to be reconsidered into a new model he calls “stakeholder capitalism” that incorporates certain aspects of “social responsibility.” Yet again, these are the same assertions.

I’ll include just a few quotes from James Lindsay’s essay below:

“The problem that early Marxists faced had was that of ‘reproduction.’  Capitalist society raised young adults with free market values.  This added to the dismal failure of previous attempts to implement Communism meant that it was running on fumes. 

Marcuse blamed Socialism for being non-Productive and Capitalism for being wasteful.  He then synthesised them into a dialectic pair. … Where sustainable capitalism is the solution to the so-called riddle of history, stakeholder capitalism is little more than its mechanism of implementation. Phrased more historically … to riff from Karl Marx, stakeholder capitalism is the supranationalist Leninist-style vanguard program that will implement it for us—rather, on us. …

Though we can only speculate, this might be why Klaus Schwab, alleged father of the stakeholder capitalism model, has a bust of none other than Vladimir Lenin on the bookshelf in his office. …

In other words, stakeholder capitalism being offered as the vehicle to sustainable capitalism is just further proof that this whole giant socioeconomic Ponzi scheme is going to fail catastrophically. It actually gives away the game that they’ve tucked away and hidden inside of a fancy new Western techno-futurist box.”

I believe, way back in the 70’s, that Schwab’s mentor, Henry Kissinger considered the Communist China experiment as a broader strategy than simply one of extracting maximum financial wealth.

“[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.”

Henry Kissinger

James Lindsay goes on to write:

“I believe ‘sustainable (and inclusive) capitalism’ is little more than the capitalist-side solution to this false riddle of history posed in 1964 by Herbert Marcuse, and that it knows—rather, believes—itself to be this solution. The “productive socialism” of China under the hybrid system currently run by the CCP is the socialist-side solution to the same, and, in fact, these two are not significantly different in any noteworthy way.

These two, sustainable capitalism and productive socialism, are the two great systems dialectically reframed as part of a greater whole: the impending s&#thole world of the New World Order.

So, I think I’ve made my case. … While ‘productive socialism’ is not a term in the common use, its Western brand name, ‘sustainable capitalism’ is. These are not different, however.  They’re both approximately the same new iteration of Communism, an Enviro-Communo-Fascism based on Marcusian Neo-Marxism instead of Marxian Marxism.”

What’s fascinating is that in 1971, (before the Club of Rome published their Limits to Growth report), Charles Collier wrote an article entitled: The Marxist View of Overpopulation.  In it he wrote:

“Today’s ecologists focus on overpopulation as the key to understanding the environmental crisis.  In the voluminous literature on the subject, much is being written from a neo-Malthusian point of view, but almost completely unexamined is the Marxian view that the population problem is rooted in social and economic exploitation.  I want to argue that a synthesis of the neo-Malthusian and Marxist views brings us closer to the core of the problem.”

How prescient, Mr. Collier!

It is precisely this synthesis of neo-Malthusianism and Marxism that Marcuse and Kissinger instilled into Schwab and by proxy, into the WEF and UNESCO.  Note in this recent video how Schwab attempts to explain away the on-shoring that resulted after failed COVID lockdowns destroyed global supply chains.  He then states that the CCP is a fine role model for various countries within the New World Order (3:20 min mark). 

James Lindsay describes the other portion of the NWO as: “a new mirror-image supranational West governed by the United Nations.”

But what does it even mean?

Klaus Schwab’s “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” and UNESCO’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals both herald a “Sustainable and Inclusive” future, but we still haven’t really discussed what is meant by “Sustainability.”

In the publication: “Implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on Sustainable Development” we read (pg. 50):

“IUCN3,  UNEP4,  and  WWF5  representatives  agree  that  the  term  ‘Sustainable Development’ should  mean  the  improvement  of  the  quality  of  life  while  taking  into consideration the ecosystem’s regenerating capacity which is the maximal continuous load on the environment and the carrying capacity which is the highest number of population that can survive while the ecological balance is undisturbed (Ciegis et al. 2009).”

This quote includes some important and clarifying, yet disturbing phrases:

  • ecosystem’s regenerating capacity
  • maximal continuous load on the environment
  • [earth’s] carrying capacity
  • highest number of population that can survive while the ecological balance is undisturbed

As discussed in my article Holod Games, Marcuse and Kissinger are not alone in their desire to “manage” the world’s population down to a smaller size in line with a “sustainable and inclusive” future.  I’m not going to discuss how this may occur.  I’ll leave that to your imagination to ponder.

Fact Pattern

You must admit that I’ve assembled a stunning series of fact patterns, but it’s absolutely correct to challenge my theory. You may choose to describe it as a “Conspiracy” but I must remind you of an important quote:

There’s no need for conspiracy when interests converge.

George Carlin

The ordinary movements of the corrupt and powerful have enormous consequences.

Do these facts best explain what’s happening in the world around us or do you have a better explanation?  Perhaps one with a spiritual dimension?

I believe that if there was truly an existential threat (like Climate Change), then solid (unfiltered) evidence and rigorous debate is sufficient for people to make up their own minds and choose a correct course of action.  People are happy enough to curb the excesses of Capitalism and consumerism themselves.  We have minds.  We, ourselves can choose to buy less cheap Chinese plastic junk and to support our local farmers and artisans.   Packaging and other waste can be reduced by bringing manufacturing closer to home and by deciding to live more simply.  We don’t need any form of “Productive Socialism” forced down our throats.

There is no excuse for governments to bribe media and weaponise law-enforcement against their own people.  When free speech is banned and dissenting voices crushed, the populace see through the lies and corruption.  The emperor has no clothes and what’s worse – the body is ugly.

“The whole thing is a scam, and it will do incalculable damage if we allow it. We don’t have to allow it, though. We have a choice. We can understand what we’re dealing with beneath the jargon and slick branding, and we can say no. Marcuse said that overcoming the tyranny of the system he hated required what he called a Great Refusal — “the protest against that which is” — and to that much, I say yes. We can refuse this scam, whether we call it “sustainable capitalism” or “productive socialism” (which is an oxymoron) and get back to living history as it unfolds instead of falling on our faces by thinking it’s a riddle we can or should solve.”

Dr. James Lindsay

Having exposed its roots, I trust now that you can detect the Sustainability cult and resist drinking the Kool-Aid.

There is a great 25 minute “bullet” podcast that James Lindsay recently dropped called: “Lysenkoism.”

What’s great about this one is that he covers a lot of ground in a short time. James is becoming quite adept at summarising.

Leave a Reply