German BüSo Party Welcomes Crushing Defeat of Pro-Climate Referendum in Berlin

March 27, 2023, 2022 (EIRNS)—In Berlin, the Civil Rights Movement Solidarity party, or BüSo—founded and chaired nationally by Helga Zepp-LaRouche—issued the following statement today (in German) over the signature of Dr. Wolfgang Lillge, BüSo Regional Chairman, Berlin:

The Berlin “climate” referendum, in which oligarchic interests invested €1.2 million, including money from “philanthropic” environmental foundations in the United States, has failed, and failed very badly. The required quorum of 25% of all eligible voters in Berlin (607,518 votes) was far from reached; almost 170,000 votes were lacking.

Particularly striking—which had not been predicted—is the high number of 423,418 “no” votes against a narrow majority of 442,210 yes votes. Many “experts” had expected that the opponents of the referendum would rather stay at home than go to the polling stations. But in six of Berlin’s twelve districts, the “no” votes even had a clear majority.

In the two weeks leading up to the vote, it had already become apparent that there was growing dissatisfaction among the population with the completely exaggerated climate targets. It was calculated that the measures envisaged in the bill for building renovations, transport and energy conversions would have cost around €113 billion, which would have exceeded Berlin’s total budget (currently around €38 billion per year) many times over, not to mention the fact that it would have destroyed Berlin’s economic substance and social fabric.

The “Berlin 2030 climate neutral” referendum would have been legally binding on the Berlin Senate [the government of the city-state of Berlin], since it involved a vote on a specific bill, unlike previous referenda on other issues. This would have made Berlin’s “Climate Protection and Energy Transition” law, which in its previous version was based on “climate protection targets,” a binding provision. And the Berlin Senate would have had to establish a financial dictatorship to enforce this new Morgenthau Plan. Even some politicians in the Berlin Senate were obviously not prepared to do that.

An important element in the resistance was that, for the first time, it was also questioned who financed the campaign for the referendum, because after all, more than €1.2 million flowed into the campaign—a large part of which came from U.S. networks.

Quite obviously, these circles do not see the Berlin referendum as a local German affair, but as part of an international operation for referendums in many major cities around the world, in order to get their hands on leverage against the supposed hesitancy of elected national governments. That’s why money poured into the campaign’s coffers from the United States. Two of the major donors were Albert Wenger and his wife Susan Danziger of New York, who gave nearly $500,000. That’s ten times or more than the average donation they usually make. In addition to the Wengers, the highest levels of the climate lobby in the U.S. are getting involved in these activities, including Theodore Roosevelt IV, who is a direct associate of environmentalist guru and former Vice President Al Gore.

More and more people now understand what a Davos-style green financial dictatorship means, and they are beginning to show their opposition openly. This is the really good news of the vote. After the U.S. destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, the effects of the Ukraine war, and skyrocketing inflation, many people have had enough of the cuckolding by the German government, and especially by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

But now we have to go one step further, because the SPD, CDU and FDP rejected the petition for a referendum as “too radical,” but want to stay on the “climate course.” In the end, that means only delaying economic and social suicide a little. What can ensure our survival in the long run is the orientation toward higher energy flux densities (i.e., nuclear energy and thermonuclear fusion) instead of relying on medieval technology like wind and sun. Incidentally, that is already the orientation of countries of the Global South, including China and Russia, which are seeking a very different paradigm of cooperation and development in the world.