Tag: One World Government

The Dentith Files – Peter J. Morgan and the “Flat White Magazine”

Next time we’re taking a break from Conspiracy Theories to talk about the Paranormal.

The Dentith Files

This week Matthew Dentith looks at Peter J. Morgan and a piece he wrote which was placed in `The Flat White Magazine.’ In what appears to be an ad for the NZ Science Climate Science Coalition Matthew finds this:

Further, there is a hidden agenda, in that “human-caused global warming” is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a “one world government” controlled by the world’s power elite.

Matthew has a look at the relationship between the NZCSC and Morgan. He also looks at how movements can hold within themselves people whose views are probably contradictory to the main group but who are tolerated to a certain extent.

Some notes

In what appeared to be an ad for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, written by Peter J. Morgan and placed in `The Flat White Magazine’ the following piece of prose was found:

Further, there is a hidden agenda, in that “human-caused global warming” is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a “one world government” controlled by the world’s power elite.

[If you’d like to read more, then go here. It starts on page 3 but the juicy material is to be found on page 6.]

This is a clear statement of a Conspiracy Theory and probably would be quite damaging to the NZCSC if it were to appear on their official website. Whilst members of the NZCSC (and those sympathetic to it) may be seen to believe in these kinds of Conspiracy Theories they are not something a group, trying desparately to present themselves as the sensible scientific approach to dealing with claims about anthropogenic climate change, would like to be associated with.

Or so you would think. The NZCSC states their aims as:

To represent accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate change.

Now, I’ve been to the NZCSC website (link) and undertaken a search for terms such as ‘one world government’ and ‘new world order’ and these terms are strikingly absent. So is Peter J. Morgan; an ardent supporter he would appear to be but he does not appear to be one of the select few seen fit to write for the NZCSC.

I contacted the NZCSC for comment on Morgan’s article. The secretary for the NZCSC, Terry Dunleavy (former co-ordinator of the Bluegreens, National’s attempt to get on the Green bandwagon), said that Morgan is not a member of the organisation but is entitled to his opinion. He then directed me to read Nigel Lawson’s An Appeal to Reason,' arguing that Morgan's view is not so wacky after all (Lawson thinks the modern environmentalist movement is redressed Communism). It's hard to know whether Dunleavy agrees with Lawson or just accepts that this is just part of the standard discourse on his side of the debate. He doesn't oppose people having opinions like that of Morgan's, even though I would, personally, be very concerned that someone advertising my organisation specifically links its opponents with theNew World Order/One World Government’ Conspiracy Theory.

There are a few points worth raising here. The first is that Dunleavy says that Morgan is entitled to his opinion. This somewhat suggests more than `We should respect the beliefs of others, no matter how wacky’ because I am sure Dunleavy does not think I am entitled to my belief that anthropogenic climate change is real, poses a serious threat to our continued existence, et al. Dunleavy, being the secretary for an organisation that proudly reproduces press releases that tell us everything is okay and that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax would hardly say that my beliefs are warranted (and note that I’m not imputing here a conspiracy theory that says that Dunleavy knows the errors of his ways and yet still seeks to pervert natural justice; I think Dunleavy really believes in his cause, even though the evidence is against him). So it seems by saying Morgan is entitled to his opinion Dunleavy is making the strong claim that Morgan’s view has some merit. The fact that Dunleavy then pointed me to the Lawson book seems to confirm that.

A second point here is that Dunleavy might well understand why people like Morgan have the views they do, even if people like Dunleavy aren’t convinced by them. If you spend any time examining the 9/11 Truth Movement (like I have) you will notice that there are a lot of mutually contradictory Conspiracy Theories under that umbrella term, and people within the community have quite loud arguments about which is the most likely account of what happened in September 2001. Some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement don’t like the notion that they represent a general set of Conspiracy Theories rather than one major conspiratorial alternative to the official story, but other members do. They see the different intersecting, contrary, even contradictory Conspiracy Theories as a route to getting the truth out there. Sure, some of these theories will get thrown out, disproved or become unpopular, but the more rigourous debate the better.

Of course, one of the suspected malign reasons why people might support such `rigorous’ debating is the more noise your group makes the better the chances that the other side won’t get heard over the noise. If you can make the 9/11 Truth Movement loud maybe the official story will get drowned out.

Sometimes I think that is the real goal of Climate Change Inactivists…

Dunleavy passed my concerns over the article to Morgan himself, which was either good or bad of Dunleavy, depending on your view of the situation. Dunleavy claims that I mischaracterised his words (he chastised me for a lack of critical reading skills), saying that my claim:

Morgan suggests a plot by environmentalists to create a one world government

is different from his claim (which I repeat):

[T]here is a hidden agenda, in that “human-caused global warming” is merely a subterfuge for global governance, by which powerful forces are hard at work behind the scenes to forge a “one world government” controlled by the world’s power elite.

Now, I think that I made a clear inference from what he wrote; he suggests an agenda, on the part of those supporting the science behind anthropogenic climate change, to create a one world government.' Given that he then directs readers to view the videoGlobal Warming or Global Governance,’ a video that identifies the modern enviromentalist movement (and its leaders) as being behind the push towards global governance, it is not a step too far to paraphrase his argument in the way that I did. It is a clear and logical inference to take from the article. He may want to deny said inference, in part by arguing that this is not what he meant, but given what he wrote I say that this is a fair assessment of his words.

Now let me give Morgan his due; he may well have written in haste, because in correspondence he described his position as more a belief that, somewhere in the background, there lurks a power elite seeking governance. Thus they can be seen to using the controversy rather than orchestrating it. Still, that isn’t what he said in `The Flat White Magazine’ article.

Which brings me to a piece of complete folk psychology; I’m beginning to think that a lot of inactivists oppose the notion of anthropogenic climate change precisely because it is their generation that caused it, their generation that will not have to really suffer the consequences of it and their generation who take very little responsibility for their actions. They know, implicitly, that they are going to get away with doing nothing.

I’d like to think I’m wrong, but, then again, it’s also nice to have a Conspiracy Theory I can call my own.

Further reading

The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

The Flat White issue containing the article in question.