Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Welcome to my prophetic nightmare — the one that didn’t come true.
Like most of “you guys,” I shall never forget Election Night, November 8th, 2016 — albeit for a different reason. It was memorable not for the unexpected excitement over the unforeseen unfolding and shocking final defeat of Satanic Witch Killary Clinton (not a metaphor, seriously, the bitch worships Satan). I didn’t even stay up to watch the historic event. No, the permanent memory was the sense of foreboding, despair and despondence I keenly felt when going to bed early that night. You see, none of us knew about Q and the White Hats acting as Trump’s invisible “guardian angels” back then.
My partner at the time was surprised to see me turn in so early and asked why I wasn’t going to stay up to watch some of the results. I told her that both the polls and the vote itself were rigged, and that there was no way that (((the powers that be))) would ever allow her to lose. Imagine my shock the following morning!
I had truly believed that it was over before it began, and that publication on my Blog and articles would in due time be branded as illegal “hate speech” by Killary’s wicked regime. Indeed, months prior to the election, Killary herself openly spoke about the importance of working with “our friends in the technology world” to “deny online space“ to “terrorists.”
“You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, ‘freedom of speech,’ etc., but if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating.”
Now, once one understands that “Islamic Terrorism” was created and controlled by the very same “usual suspects” who created and controlled the Clinton Crime Syndicate, the question arises: Who would be the real targets of Killary’s internet censorship proposal? Hmmm? Look in mirror. Hell’s Bells of “terrorist” censorship were tolling for thee, boys and girls! No doubt about it, the horrible harridan, the loony lesbian, the crooked communist was fixin’ to close down the “digital army” of truthers once and for all.
But even such a personal disappointment I could bear because it would have been nothing compared to the Hell-on-Earth that she — in service to her dark lord — was plotting to visit upon humanity. For the benefit of the “black-pilled” holdouts who still refuse to acknowledge what the rise of Trump saved us all from, let us pretend that ‘Madam President” is now in the 7th year of her 24/7 glorified crisis-presidency, and review her “accomplishments.” As you go through these points, understand that very little, if any, of this is conjecture or retroactive “prophecy.” This is basic “if-then” flowchart stuff.
1. Me on Election Night, 2016 — expecting Killary to win and being declared a “far right terrorist” in the near future. // 2. Trump “Ditched the Witch” and shocked the world. // 3. Simple flowchart logic reveals where we’d all be by now in the 7th year of our sainted and untouchable “Madam President.”
A basic knowledge the power players behind that Satanic Witch and an understanding of the history of the Clinton Crime Family are all one needs to logically infer the points of this “what if” scenario with near certainty. If Killary was in Year 7, then most or all of the following would likely have happened by now:
As of 2020, American ATM’s would have been churning out the $20 bill with Harriet Tubman face on them — not Andrew Jackson’s. All of the other bills were set for “diversity” modification on the backs as well. In your face, White Man! But it was Trump who ignored the pressure and reversed Obama’s order.
Race tension and riots, stirred up by Al Charlatan and the BLM operatives — with Killary tacitly encouraging the mayhem and capitalizing upon it.
The ISIS proxy war with Syria would either have toppled Assad or led to war with Russia, Iran and China in the Middle East.
The Korean Cold War — with potential to bring the US into war against China — would still be a trigger point.
Ukraine would have been a member of NATO by now — another World War 3 trigger point.
The Supreme Court would have a young 6 out of 9 Marxist majority, with one compromised “centrist” and isolated conservative justices Thomas and Alito both in their 70’s.
The record number of satisfactory to excellent Federal judges appointed by Trump would not be there today — their positions held by vicious Marxist Jews and nasty lesbians instead.
The U.S. would be fully implementing the economically destructive policies of the Paris Climate Accords — including the colossal carbon credit scam and both seen and hidden taxes.
The U.S. would have joined the sovereignty-killing TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership)
The enormous blackmail operation that was Epstein-Maxwell-Wexner Mossad Island would still be in business with no end in sight. Bill Clinton himself was a regular at Epstein-Mossad Island!
With Epstein Island still in business and the US still fully engaged in the Middle East, Israeli warmongering toward Lebanon and Iran would have reached new levels of intensity and insanity.
The US would still be in Afghanistan.
Murderous drone bombings would still be happening all over the Central Asia and Africa.
The CIA-Mossad international proxy army known as ISIS would still be stirring up chaos in as many as 30 different nations.
CIA “Color Revolutions” would still be destabilizing nationalist governments the world over.
“Obama Care” — which was planned to fail — would have been replaced by the total communistic system which Killary, as First Lady, wanted to impose (along with a European-style 22% VAT tax) on the United States in 1993.
Roe vs Wade / unlimited abortion would still be in effect.
“Hate Speech” and “Holocaust Denial” laws — prompted by false flag vandalism attacks — would have been imposed by now along with total Internet censorship.
There would be no border wall (Trump’s was mostly completed and will be totally completed upon his return).
The EPA would be exercising its authority to control CO2 “emissions” and cripple the energy sector.
The Demonrats would have rigged permanent majority control of the House and Senate by now.
The GOP “opposition” would be led by weak traitors such as Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, the Cheneys, the Bushes et al. (all of whom were publicly humiliated and then disempowered by Trump).
People like Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Andrew Cuomo and so many other Deep State villains who “fell into the Trump Quicksand” would still be prominent.
The Killary administration would have been packed with angry abusive lesbians at all levels.
The Communist John Brennan — or someone even worse — would still be heading the CIA.
The Congressional Freedom Caucus would have remained marginalized as “far right kooks” — instead of now running Congress.
There would NOT currently be an unfolding investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden’s corruption — a trail of fraud that is ultimately going to lead to Obama, Clinton herself and above.
Voter fraud would have been expanded and protected to such an extent that any challenge to the Establishment would have been mathematically impossible by now.
The vast, secret, international child abduction, torture, rape and murder industry would have expanded massively with one of its chief practitioners in the White House.
School shootings (which were all CIA hoaxes) would still be going on and semi-automatic rifles probably banned by now.
The Covid Hoax would still have been launched(probably after 2020). The lockdowns, I-phone “contact tracing,” “stimulus” payments, “variants” and mandatory “self quarantines” would have lasted up to 5 years as the broken world anxiously waited for the magic vaccine.
The Killary-Gates vaccine would have been MANDATORY, genocidal for 10-15% of humanity, and contained tracking chips to monitor and control us in Orwellian fashion.
Covid dissenters would have been subjected to forced isolation in detention camps which Killary once joked about as “fun camps for adults.” (Satanists love to telegraph their evil intentions by joking about them.)
Total demoralization and neutralizing of conservatives with no means of communicating or spreading truth online — Jack Dorsey still at Twitter and no Gab, BitChute, Rumble, Minds, Sovren, Q posts or Truth Social either.
The epic mass misery, war, death, disease, poverty, pessimism, fear and hunger would have positioned the normies of the world up for an easy and accepted transition into “The Great Reset” — a glorious One World Order in which we would “own nothing” and “be happy” packed into storage-unit-sized apartments in herded urban areas and eating fried insects.
And there are more, many more, horrors that we can add to the list — as well as the ‘X-factor” nasty surprises we would not have been able to foresee.
The hate-filled nasty witch glows in the presence of evil Globalist billionaires — all of whom have been attacked and taken down under Trump. (Weinstein is in prison and I believe that Soros and Gates are also in Gitmo — Killary as well.)
1. Totally in league with Klaus Schwab. // 2. The wretched race-hustler / vote fraudster Al Charlatan would have had the ear of “Madam President.” // 3. Imagine the Queen of child-sex-trafficking in the White House!
Do the points of the retroactive forecast not constitute an accurate and objective picture of where the world would be right now with that Satanic, child killing, blood-drinking, lesbian bitch from Hell lording over us and, by extension, the world? Is this in any way an exaggeration of the scope of this Hellish Hag’s evil intent, or that of her NWO bosses?
Did not her first reign as co-president (1993-2001) — during which she and her tranny Attorney General, Janet Reno, roasted and suffocated 76 innocent American men, women and children alive at Waco, Texas — reveal what she was capable of? Did not the likes of George Soros, Mike Bloomberg and Klaus Schwab, in essence, say — both in spoken word and in writing for the consumption of their fellow “elites” — that this was their plan for the world? Is this not what that infamous mural image at the creepy Denver Airport depicts? Do any of the “never-Trumpers” of the “far right” care to dispute the “if-then” validity of the points from the above-listed retroactive forecast?
Donald Trump — who also speaks in code — was NOT exaggerating when he talked about “saving the world” from an “invisible enemy” and “saving 100 million lives.” Actually, his tireless peacemaking and early Covid-lockdown-busting may have saved BILLIONS of lives.
And yet, hearing some of the “black-pilled” among our ranks continue to make inadvertently careless common cause with the Council on Foreign Relations, the US Communist party, the Church of Satan, Soros, Rothschild, the New York Slimes, Hollyweird and Jewish Quackademia by viciously dumping on Trump — whose epic, extremely difficult, dangerous, strategic and time-consuming task isn’t even finished yet — is as astonishing as it is disappointing.
1. Very early in Satanist Killary’s first term as co-president, in 1993, the Feds attacked a harmlessly eccentric Christian sect with tanks and mass-murdered 76 of them (17 of them little children) for no reason at all. // 2. Long before Big Mike Obama, 6′ 2″ strong-jawed, broad-shouldered AG Janet Reno stood eye to eye with Al Gore and Bill Clinton, both 6′ 2″ as well.
Madam President’s Program(thwarted by Donald Trump) World War III + widespread fear and poverty + MANDATORY Gates vaccine (after 5-year lockdown) with pure poison and injected microchips = New World Order.
But but Batman… I read online that Trump is a Globalist. Why didn’t he get rid of the Deep State when he was president? And what about muh bump stocks, and muh Israel, and…… SMACK! — “A vast, deeply-rooted, centuries-old global Mafia is not legally dismantled, by the letter of the law, in a day!”
Many people worldwide are concerned about climate change and believe there is a climate emergency. For decades we have been told by the United Nations that Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activity are causing disastrous climate change. In 2018, a UN IPCC report even warned that ‘we have 12 years to save the Earth’, thus sending millions of people worldwide into a frenzy.
Thirty-five years ago, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the (World Meteorological Organization) WMO established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific advice on the complex topic of climate change. The panel was asked to prepare, based on available scientific information, a report on all aspects relevant to climate change and its impacts and to formulate realistic response strategies. The first assessment report of the IPCC served as the basis for negotiating the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Governments worldwide have signed this convention, thereby, significantly impacting the lives of the people of the world.
However, many scientists dispute with the UN-promoted man-made climate change theory, and many people worldwide are confused by the subject, or are unaware of the full facts. Please allow me to provide some information you may not be aware of.
1. Very few people actually dig into the data, they simply accept the UN IPPC reports. Yet many highly respectable and distinguished scientists have done exactly that and found that the UN-promoted manmade climate change theory is seriously flawed. Are you aware that 1500 of the world’s leading climate scientists and professionals in over 30 countries have signed a declaration that there is no climate emergency and have refuted the United Nations claims in relation to man-made climate change? See this
2. I have also signed this declaration. How can I make such an assertion? I have experience in the field as a former scientist at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, UK Government; and as former staff member at the United Nations Environment Division, where I was responsible for servicing the Pollution Release and Transfer Register Protocol, a Multinational Environmental Agreement, involving the monitoring of pollutants to land, air, and water worldwide. Real pollution exists, but the problem is not CO2. Industrial globalisation has produced many substances that are registered as pollutants, including thousands of new man-made chemical compounds, toxins, nano-particles and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are in violation of the scientific pre-cautionary principle.
A book I published recently also provides ample evidence and testimony from renowned scientists that there is no Climate emergency. The book titled ‘Transcending the Climate Change Deception Toward Real Sustainability’ is available here on amazon.COM
3. Next, I will mention the Irish Climate Science Forum (ICSF) website, a valuable resource founded by Jim O’Brien. I am grateful to the ICSF for their excellent work in highlighting the scientific flaws in the UN climate narrative. The ICSF provides a comprehensive lecture series from renowned international scientists providing much evidence, analysis, and data that contradicts the UN assertions. The lectures are available here.
The ICSF scientific view coincides with those of the Climate Intelligence (CLINTEL) foundation that operates in the fields of climate change and climate policy. CLINTEL was founded in 2019 by emeritus professor of geophysics Guus Berkhout and science journalist Marcel Crok. Based on this common conviction, 20 Irish scientists and several ICSF members have co-signed the CLINTEL World Climate Declaration “There is No Climate Emergency” (see this).
4. The reality is that the climate changes naturally and slowly in its own cycle, and solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2. We can conclude that carbon emissions or methane from livestock, such as cows, are not the dominant factors in climate change. In essence, therefore, the incessant UN, government, and corporate-media-produced climate hysteria in relation to carbon emissions and methane from cows has no scientific basis.
Please note that I have no commercial interest in stating that climate change is not caused by CO2. In truth I am against ‘real’ pollution, and the reality is that the CO2 component is not a pollutant. Unfortunately, many misinformed environmentalists are driving around in electric cars, the battery production for which has caused vast amounts of ‘real’ pollution via the industrial mining and processing of rare earth metals, and the consequent pollution to land, air and water systems. Note that the UN does not focus on the thousands of real pollutants that corporate industrial globalisation creates.
5. The conclusions of the Climate Intelligence foundation include the following
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming: The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted: The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models: Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth: CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters: There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent.
6. In the above book I reference the relevant work and scientific presentations of some of the world’s leading climate scientists. Let us examine some of the work and testimonies of these scientists:
“deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that Co2 from human industry was a dangerous plant destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that Co2 the life of plants was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.” – Professor Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT.
Dr Nils-Axel Mörner was a former Committee Chairman at the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He was an expert involved in reviewing the first IPPC documents. He says the UN IPPC is misleading humanity about climate change. He tried to warn that the IPPC were publishing lies and false information that would inevitably be discredited. In an interview, he stated: “This is the most dangerous and frightening part of it. How a lobbyist group, such as the IPPC, has been able to fool the whole world. These organised and deceitful forces are dangerous” and expressed shock “that the UN and governments would parade children around the place at UN Climate summits as propaganda props”. The following is his testimony as detailed
“solar activity is the dominant factor in climate and not Co2… something is basically sick in the blame Co2 hypothesis… It was launched more than 100 years ago and almost immediately excellent physicists demonstrated that the hypothesis did not work.
I was the chairman of the only international committee on sea levels changes and as such a person I was elected to be the expert reviewer on the (UN IPPC) sea levels chapter. It was written by 38 persons and not a single one was a sea level specialist… I was shocked by the low quality it was like a student paper… I went through it and showed them that it was wrong and wrong and wrong…
The scientific truth is on the side of the sceptics… I have thousands of high ranked scientists all over the world who agree that NO, CO2 is not the driving mechanism and that everything is exaggerated. In the field of physics 80 to 90% of physicists know that the Co2 hypothesis is wrong… Of course, metrologists they believe in this because that is their own profession – they live on it.… I suspect that behind-the-scenes promoters… have an ulterior motive… It’s a wonderful way of controlling taxation controlling people” – Dr Nils-Axel Mörner, a former Committee Chairman at the UN IPPC, and former head of the Paleo Geo-physics and Geo-dynamics department in Stockholm
Another climate scientist with impeccable credentials that has broken rank is Dr Mototaka Nakamura. He asserts: “Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world”. Dr Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from MIT, and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University. Dr Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on and that:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data”.
Professor John R. Christy, Director of Atmospheric and Earth Sciences, University of Alabama, has provided detailed analysis of climate data, see Endnote [i]. I summarise the main points from his analysis below:
“The established global warming theory significantly misrepresents the impact of extra greenhouse gases; the weather that affects people the most is not becoming more extreme or more dangerous; temperatures were higher in the 1930s than today; between 1895 and 2015, 14 of the top 15 years with the highest heat records occurred before 1960; the temperatures we are experiencing now in 2021 were the same as 120 years ago…
the number of major tornadoes between 1954 and 1986 averaged 56/year, but between 1987 and 2020 the average was only 34/year; between 1895 and 2015 on average there has been no change in the number of very wet days per month, and no change in the number of very dry days per month, and the 20 driest months were before 1988. Between 1950 and 2019 the percentage of land area experiencing droughts has not increased globally – the trend is flat; the incidence of wildfires in North America between 1600 and 2000 has decreased substantially. Sea levels rose 12.5 cm per decade for 8,000 years and then it levelled off, now it rising only 2.5 cm per decade… worrying about 30 cm rise in sea level in a decade is ridiculous, in a hurricane the east coast of the U.S. gets a 20 foot rise in 6 hours, so a 30 cm rise will be easily handled!”
In a lecture titled The imaginary climate crisis – how can we change the message? Available on the Irish Climate Science Forum website, see Endnote [ii]. Richard L Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT summarises the battle against the climate hysteria as follows:
“in the long history of the earth there has been almost no correlation between climate and co2… the paleoclimate record shows unambiguously that Co2 is not a control knob… the narrative is absurd… it gives governments the power to control the energy sector… for about 33 years, many of us have been battling against the climate hysteria… There were more important leading people who were objecting to it, they were unfortunately older and by now most of them dead…
Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert their authority. They believe they are entitled to view science as a source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.”
“CO2… it’s not a pollutant… it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis… if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.” – Prof. Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT
Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, and President of Greenpeace in Canada for seven years, states:
“the whole climate crisis is not only fake news its fake science… of course climate change is real it’s been happening since the beginning of time, but it’s not dangerous and it’s not caused by people… climate change is a perfectly natural phenomenon and this modern warming period actually began about 300 years ago when the little ice age began to come to an end. There is nothing to be afraid of and all they are doing is instilling fear. Most of the scientists who are saying it’s a crisis are on perpetual government grants.
I was one of the (Greenpeace) founders… by the mid-80s… we were hijacked by the extreme left who basically took Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to an organisation based on sensationalism, misinformation and fear… you don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossils fuels or get the food into the cities…” – Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace
Professor William Happer, Princeton University, Former Director of Science at the US Department of Energy, is also a strong voice against the myth of man-made global warming. He states: “More CO2 benefits the Earth”.
7. The UN IPCC cherry picks data, uses flawed modelling and scenarios not remotely related to the real world
The UN climate crisis predictions are not based on physical evidence, rather they are based on complex computer modelling. One has to decode and analyse the modelling process to ascertain whether or not the models are valid and accurate or whether they have obvious flaws. The vast majority of scientists, economists, politicians and the general public have simply assumed that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models are accurate. Very few people have the time or skills to analyse these models, not to mention actually dispute them. Nonetheless, there were many senior and highly distinguished scientists that did exactly that – they claimed the UN narrative was incorrect and that there was no climate emergency. Their voices have been drowned out by a vast money-driven political and media establishment of the globalised ‘system’. The vitally important work of some of these renowned scientists is referenced in the above book.
“The computer models are making systematic dramatic errors… they are all parametrised… fudged… the models really don’t work” – Patrick J. Michaels, Director, Cato Institute Center for the Study of Science
Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado, has conducted a detailed scientific review and analysis of the UN IPCC AR6 report, see Endnote [iii]. He describes that in relation to climate modelling, the IPCC detached the models from socio-economic plausibility. In creating the models, instead of first completing integrative assessment models (IAMs), the IPCC skipped this essential step and jumped straight to radiative forcing scenarios and thus these scenarios are not based on competed IAMs. This led much of climate modelling down the wrong track. I quote points from Dr Pielke’s analysis as follows:
“The four IPCC scenarios came from a large family of models so instead of splitting modelling from socio-economic assumptions the models already had the assumptions faked and baked in to them, because they had to have those assumptions to produce the required radiative forcing (to produce a desired climate ‘crisis scenario’ outcome).
In another fateful decision the 4 representative concentration pathways (RCPs) came from 4 different IAMs, which was a huge mistake. These models are completely unrelated to each other, but the impression has been given that they are of a common set, only differing in their radiative forcing, this was a huge mistake. Furthermore, no-one has responsibility for determining whether these scenarios are plausible. The climate community decided which scenario to prioritise and they chose the two most implausible scenarios! There are thousands of climate assumptions, but only 8 to 12 of them are available currently for climate research. The IPCC report even states that “no likelihood is attached to the scenarios in this report”. The likelihood is considered low they admit – This is an incredible admission by the IPCC.
These extreme unlikely scenarios dominate the literature and the IPCC report; therefore, the IPCC report is biased. Bottom line is that there is massive confusion. The IPCCs’ Richard Moss warned that RCP 8.5 was not to be used as a reference for the other RCPs, but 5,800 scientific papers worldwide misuse it like that… The whole process is seriously flawed… Nothing close to the real world is represented by the IPCC scenarios. Climate science has a huge problem! The IPCC currently uses RCP 8.5 as the ‘business as usual’ scenario, but RCP 8.5 is wild fantasy land and not remotely related to current reality at all… climate science has a scientific integrity crisis.” – Dr Roger Pielke Jr, University of Colorado,
8. Financialization of the entire world economy is now based on a life-killing ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions strategy.
The UN Agenda 2030 plan and the Paris Agreement goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 7% per annum until 2030 is in effect a plan that would disable the current resource mechanisms of the industrial economy for the food, energy and goods that enable human life and survival. This is being implemented before humanity has transitioned away from the flawed polluting trans-national industrial economy toward self-sufficient local/regional economies.
Zero carbon emissions, in essence, means pulling the plug on current systems of industrial agriculture, transport, goods production, electricity production, etc., and many millions of people reliant on these systems worldwide could be faced with a lack of electricity, food, goods, etc. This could have terrible consequences, particularly in locations and countries, that are currently unable to produce much food.
It should be noted that for decades, these same political, government, and corporate powers have rampantly promoted corporate economic globalization and fossil fuel dependency. Whilst, at the same time actively hindering the funding, creation, or government support of, more self-sufficient local communities/regions, and local co-operatives. Most of the world population thus became reliant on the globalized fossil-fuel dependent system.
9. Central bankers are entirely funding / controlling the advancement of the worldwide climate change ‘project’
The decision to drastically reduce CO2, one of the most essential compounds to sustain all life, is no co-incidence. It should be noted that it is the world’s central bankers that are behind this decision and are entirely funding and controlling the advancement of the worldwide project of combatting man-made climate-change.
This project involves an attempt to de-carbonise the activities of the entire world population. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), which represents $118 trillion of assets globally, see Endnote [iv]. In essence this means that the financialization of the entire world economy is based on meeting nonsensical aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions”. The TCFD includes key people from the world’s mega-banks and asset management companies, including JP Morgan Chase; BlackRock; Barclays Bank; HSBC; China’s ICBC bank; Tata Steel, ENI oil, Dow Chemical, and more.
The fact that the world’s largest banks and asset management corporations, including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS, have all linked to push a vague, mathematically nonsensical ‘green’ economy, is no coincidence. There is another agenda at play that has nothing to do with environmentalism. The green economy along with UN Agenda 2030 is an agenda of world control, and will also develop trillions of dollars for the behind-the-scenes mega-banks. When the world largest banks, corporations, and institutions, all align to push a climate change agenda that has zero evidence, one can see there is another major agenda going on behind the scenes. This agenda tries to convince the common people of the world to make huge sacrifices under the emotive guise of “saving our planet.”. While all the time the corporations and banks make vast profits, and political institutions implement worldwide technocratic control systems under the banner of combatting, and adapting to, so-called man-made climate change.
“The links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live. Rather it is an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be… “ – F. William Engdahl, strategic risk consultant and lecturer
Back in 2010, the head of Working Group 3 of the UN IPCC, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer,
“…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
To better perceive what is ‘behind the curtain’ of the Climate hoax and the UN/WEF agenda it also helps to examine what has happened in the decades beforehand. It is important to perceive the implications of the worldwide fractional-reserve debt-money banking scam and the subtle system of debt-slavery that has existed for decades. If you look at the World Bank website you will see that virtually every nation on Earth is in vast debt. In debt to who you may ask? The answer is to privately owned mega-banks. For many decades the so-called banking and corporate elites have had full control of the source of money creation and its allocation, via the debt-money system, and have therefore, by default, been able to fund, and increasingly control and manipulate the entire world spectrum of industry, media, government, education, ideological supremacy and war to their own design, agenda and benefit. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (banker) is widely reported to have said:
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not who makes its laws.”
10. Central bankers hijacked the real environmental movement in 1992 creating the fake climate change agenda
Psychopaths can utilise any ideology and, change it from within to something that may eventually be entirely different to its original purpose. Meanwhile, the original followers and advocates continue to pursue what they believe is the original ideology, but gradually become mere pawns in the agenda of a self-serving elite. Unfortunately, over the past decades, this is exactly what has happened in the environmental movement.
Whistleblower George Hunt served as an official host at a key environmental meeting in Denver, Colorado in 1987, and states that David Rockefeller; Baron Edmund De Rothschild; US Secretary of State Baker; Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts; EPA administrator William Ruccleshaus; UN Secretary General in Geneva MacNeill, along with World Bank and IMF officials were at this meeting. Hunt was surprised to see all these rich elite bankers at the meeting and questioned what they were doing there at an environmental congress.
In a video recording, Hunt later provided important evidence from the documents of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992. This conference was the well-known UN ’92 Earth Summit and was run by UNCED. According to Hunt, via the Earth summit, the UN was setting a net, an agenda, to place the power over the Earth and its peoples into their own hands. The world private banking cartel are the same ultra-rich banking families that had been instrumental in the setting up of the World Bank, the UN, and other international institutions, after WW2. Their political cohorts included Stalin (the leader of a brutal communist regime in the USSR that committed genocide of millions of people), UK Prime minister Churchill, and US President Roosevelt. Hunt refers to these banking families and their financial and international institutional networks as:
“The same world order that tricked third world countries to borrow funds and rack up enormous debts… and purposely creating war and debt to bring societies into their control. The world order crowd are not a nice group of people…”– George Hunt, Whistleblower speaking about the UN Earth summit of 1992
As a consequence of the UN Earth Summit, the honest, genuine environment movement that actually cared about real pollution to land, air and water, was politically hi-jacked by powerful political and financial interests with a different agenda.
Maurice Strong, a UN official and an employee of the Rockefeller and Rothschild trusts, had convened the first UNCED congress in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. Then, 20 years later he was the convenor and secretary general of UNCED. Hunt also provided video evidence from the Fourth UNCED World Congress meeting in 1987 of an international investment banker, stating that:
“I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process that would take too long and require far too much funds to educate the cannon-fodder, unfortunately, which populates the Earth. We have to take almost an elitist program…”
Thus, the decrees leading to the 1992 UN Earth summit were dictated without debate or opportunity for dissent and would supersede national laws. The decrees were dictated into existence by the banker Edmund de Rothschild, who got these major decrees into the ’92 UN resolutions without debate or challenge. Hunt asserts that he was denied the opportunity to openly challenge Rothschild’s remarks by the meeting Chairman.
Is it any surprise that the Rothschild bank of Geneva is the nucleus of the World Conservation bank and the wealthy elite are integrated into the bank via the Rothschilds private offering of shares. The banks assumes control of world conservation and decides and controls how these resources are allocated or utilized.
11. Despite the deceptive and fake environmental facade, it has adopted, the vast institutional entity of the UN has fully endorsed environmentally destructive industrial globalisation for the past 70 years. The UN climate change, sustainable development and green economy policies over the past 30 years are little more than worldwide marketing tricks that have tragically brainwashed two generations of young people who do not understand what the UN actually is, and who is it is really designed to serve.
This current globalised system involves the promotion of beliefs and fake science that claim to be unchallengeable truths, but are, in fact, ideologies in which evidence is manipulated, twisted, and distorted to prove the ‘governing idea’, and thus promote its worldwide dissemination. They start with the conclusion they want and then wrench and manipulate what scant evidence they can to fit that conclusion. Man-made climate change due to anthropogenic carbon emission is a major example of this.
Institutions, including the UN, the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the World Health Organisation (WHO), are privately-motivated unelected unaccountable organisations controlled by the source of debt-money creation, i.e., the world private-banking cartel; and are just clever marketing tools and political mechanisms for implementing and maintaining a corrupt worldwide system, under the clever guise of ‘fixing the problems of the world’.
These powerful special interests have been promoting certain ‘ideologies’ for decades to advance their corporate and political aims. The word “sustainable” was hijacked decades ago, and it is now deceptively used to advance the agendas of globalist mega-corporate interests who couldn’t care less about the environment. The aim is to catapult humanity into the arms of UN Agenda 2030 and the WEF ‘reset’ plan, which are clever marketing plans entirely designed by the so-called elite mega-corporate interests of the WEF Davos group.
12. Furthermore, the current green energy/renewable technologies being promoted by the UN and WEF, are not a viable solution for the world’s energy supply. Although these technologies have some limited viability in certain locations and scenarios, the fact remains that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested is much too low – in essence the entire process is mathematically flawed. This is evidenced by the work of scientists, including Professor David MacKay, former Regius Professor of Engineering at Cambridge University and former Chief Scientific Advisor at the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
In summary, CO2 reduction is the main focus of the UN-promoted climate-change-hysteria that has been rampant among the world’s population. However, the proclaimed climate crisis exists in computer models only. The cult of ‘manmade climate change’ is a media and UN politically-promoted ‘ideology’, that is used for a wider political and corporate agenda. Manmade climate change is not based in fact, and has hijacked real environmental concerns.
The world’s central bankers are fully funding the worldwide climate change ‘project’. The truism ‘follow the money’ springs to mind – and by doing so, one quickly discovers who runs the corporate, political, and media world.
Due to incessant UN, government, and corporate-promoted climate change propaganda, many people are, thus, in a media-induced state of confusion, and, thus, blindly assume their pre-determined role in society under this ‘dictatorship of words’ without even being aware of it. For example, we now have millions of so-called climate change warriors blind to the fact that climate change is not actually caused by carbon emissions. This is all to scare people into accepting totalitarian authority and limitations to their freedom and personal wellbeing.
The unpalatable reality is that people’s access to energy and resources is being intentionally reduced via bogus climate change policies, high inflation, ongoing geo-political theatre and intentionally instigated war.
We cannot understand how to create a truly resilient society unless we correctly perceive the current society we live in and how it came to exist. So, who are the architects of the current paradigm. The above book is designed to help in that regard. Unless we recognize the untruths of the current paradigm, even if it is not ‘politically correct’ to do so, then we will not be able to make the correct adjustments to our current communities and local/regional networks, or create a truly resilient thriving society in Ireland. In this spirit of truth, new networks are emerging worldwide.
[i] Source: Irish Climate Science Forum lecture titled Testing Climate Claims 2021 Update available at http://www.icsf.ie
A series of email exchanges between Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore and South Korean Professor Seok-soon Park shows him saying that climate change is based on false narratives and that it has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement.
One of Greenpeace’s founding members, Patrick Moore, said in an email why he had quit the organisation:
“Greenpeace was ‘hijacked’ by the political left when they realised there was money and power in the environmental movement. [Left-leaning] political activists in North America and Europe changed Greenpeace from a science-based organisation to a political fundraising organization,” Moore said.
15 years after he co-founded Greenpeace, Moore left the organisation in 1986.
“The ‘environmental’ movement has become more of a political movement than an environmental movement,” he said. “They are primarily focused on creating narratives, stories, that are designed to instil fear and guilt into the public so the public will send them money.”
He claimed that they typically carry out their political operations behind closed doors with other operatives at the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and other organisations of a similar kind.
He asserted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] is “not a science organization.” The World Meteorological Entity and the United Nations Environment Program make up this political organisation.
“The IPCC hires scientists to provide them with ‘information’ that supports the ‘climate emergency’ narrative.
Their campaigns against fossil fuels, nuclear energy, CO2, plastic, etc., are misguided and designed to make people think the world will come to an end unless we cripple our civilization and destroy our economy. They are now a negative influence on the future of both the environment and human civilization.”
“Today, the left has adopted many policies that would be very destructive to civilization as they are not technically achievable. Only look at the looming energy crisis in Europe and the UK, which Putin is taking advantage of.
“But it is of their own making in refusing to develop their own natural gas resources, opposing nuclear energy, and adopting an impossible position on fossil fuels in general,” Moore wrote.
The Left ‘Hijacked’ Greenpeace
The organization’s basic values, according to him, were “green” for the environment and “peace” for the people, but peace had largely been forgotten and green had taken precedence.
“Many [so-called] ‘environmental’ leaders were now saying that ‘humans are the enemies of the Earth, the enemies of Nature.’ I could not accept that humans are the only evil species. This is too much like ‘original sin,’ that humans are born with evil, but all the other species are good, even cockroaches, mosquitos, and diseases,” Moore argued.
The idea that there should be fewer people in the world is the current dominant philosophy, according to him.
“But the people who said this were not volunteering to be the first to go away. They behave as if they are superior to others. This kind of ‘pride’ and ‘conceit’ is the worst of the Cardinal Sins,” Moore said.
False Narrative on Chlorine
“At the time I decided to leave Greenpeace, I was one of 6 Directors of Greenpeace International. I was the only one with formal science education, BSc Honors in Science and Forestry, and Ph.D. in Ecology. My fellow directors decided that Greenpeace should begin a campaign to ‘Ban Chlorine Worldwide.’”
Moore argued that although chlorine is one of the 94 [naturally-occurring] elements on the Periodic Table and plays many important roles in biology and human health, it is also true that elemental chlorine gas is very toxic and was employed as a weapon in World War I.
For instance, sodium chloride, also known as table salt, is a necessary nutrient for all animals and many plants. NaCl cannot be “banned.”
He emphasised that one of the most important developments in public health history in reducing the spread of water-borne communicable illnesses like cholera was the addition of chlorine to drinking water, swimming pools, and spas.
Additionally, roughly 25% of all of our medicines involve chlorine, and about 85% of pharmaceutical drugs are created using chemistry related to chlorine. Without halogens, such as chlorine, bromine, and iodine, medicine would not be the same. Halogens are all potent antibiotics.
“Greenpeace named chlorine ‘The Devil’s Element’ and calls PVC, polyvinyl chloride, or simply vinyl, ‘the Poison Plastic.’ All of this is fake [and] to scare the public. In addition, this misguided policy reinforces the attitude that humans are not a worthy species and that the world would be better off without them. I could not convince my fellow Greenpeace directors to abandon this misguided policy. This was the turning point for me,” Moore said.
False Narrative on Polar Bears
Moore responded when asked how Greenpeace used its big contributions, saying money was used to fund “a very large staff” (possibly numbering over 2,000), extensive advertising, and fundraising initiatives.
Additionally, almost all of the organization’s fundraising advertisements are founded on myths that he had thoroughly debunked in his books, with polar bears serving as one such example.
“The International Treaty on Polar Bears, signed by all polar countries in 1973, to ban unrestricted hunting of polar bears, is never mentioned in the media, Greenpeace, or politicians who say the polar bear is going extinct due to melting ice in the Arctic. In fact, the polar bear population has increased from 6,000 to 8,000 in 1973 to 30,000 to 50,000 today. This is not disputed,” Moore said.
“But now they say the polar bear will go extinct in 2100 as if they have a magic crystal ball that can predict the future. In fact, this past winter in the Arctic saw an expansion of ice from previous years, and Antarctica was colder during the last winter than in the past 50 years.”
Like many in the “climate emergency” sector, Moore said he does not pretend to be an expert or foresee the future with certainty.
The Goal of the ‘Environmental Apocalypse’ Theory
“I believe the human population has always been vulnerable to people who predict doom with false stories,” Moore said.
“The Aztecs threw virgins into volcanos, and the Europeans and Americans burned women as witches for 200 years claiming this would ‘save the world’ from evil people. This has been [referred to as] ‘herd mentality,’ ‘groupthink,’ and ‘cult behavior.’ Humans are social animals with a hierarchy, and it is easiest to gain a high position by using fear and control.”
Moore added that he is committed to proving to people that the situation is not as dire as they are led to believe that the environmental apocalypse hypothesis is really about “political power and control.”
“Today, in the richest countries, our descendants are making decisions that our grandchildren will have to pay for,” he said. “Predictions that the world is coming to an end have been made for thousands of years. Not once has this come true. Why should we believe it now?”
“People are naturally afraid of the future because it is unknown and full of risks and difficult decisions. I believe there is also an element of ‘self-loathing’ in this apocalypse movement.”
According to Moore, today’s youth are taught that people are unworthy and are destroying the planet. They now feel guilty and ashamed of themselves as a result of this indoctrination, which is the incorrect attitude to have in life.
The Demonization of Carbon Dioxide
“Very few people believe the world is not warming. The record is clear that the world has been warming since about the year 1700, 150 years before we were using fossil fuels. 1700 was the peak of the Little Ice Age, which was very cold and caused crop failures and starvation. Before that, around 1000 A.D. was the Medieval Warm period when Vikings farmed Greenland. [And] before that, around 500 A.D. were the Dark Ages, and before that, the Roman Warm Period when it was warmer than today, and the sea level was 1–2 meters higher than today,” Moore said.
“Even until about 1950, the amount of fossil fuel used and CO2 emitted were very small compared to today. We do not know the cause of these periodic fluctuations in temperature, but it was certainly not CO2.”
Moore made it clear that the “minority opinion” is not about the temperature history of the Earth; rather, the relationship between the temperature and CO2 is the subject of dispute.
“In this regard, I agree that many believe CO2 is the main cause of warming. CO2 is invisible, so no one can actually see what it is doing. And this ‘majority’ are mainly scientists paid by politicians and bureaucrats, media making headlines, or activists making money. [The rest are] the public who believe this story even though they can’t actually see what CO2 is doing,” Moore said.
Moore presented a graph showing the temperature in central England during a period of 350 years, from 1659 to 2009. He said that “If carbon dioxide was the main cause of warming, then there should be a rise in temperature along the carbon dioxide curve, but it doesn’t.”
In addition to stating that CO2 is the foundation of all life on Earth and that its concentration in the atmosphere is currently lower than it has been for a significant portion of life’s history, Moore called the demonization of CO2 “completely ridiculous.”
‘Wind and Solar Power Are Parasites on the Economy’
“Solar and wind power are both very expensive and very unreliable. It is almost like a mental illness that so many people have been brainwashed to think entire countries can be supported with these technologies,” Moore said.
“I believe wind and solar energy are parasites on the larger economy. In other words, they make the country poorer than if other more reliable and less costly technologies were used.”
According to Moore, companies that provide wind and solar energy heavily rely on government mandates, tax write-offs, and subsidies. Under these mandates, people are compelled to buy wind and solar energy, even if it is more expensive, under the guise that it is “environmentally friendly.”
“Millions of people pay more for wind and solar energy while a few people make millions of dollars, marks, pounds, etc. It is a bit like a Ponzi scheme in the stock markets,” Moore added.
“They require vast areas of land, are not available most of the time, and require reliable energy such as nuclear, hydroelectric, [coal, and natural] gas to be available when wind and solar are unavailable.”
According to Moore, the mining, transporting, and building of wind and solar farms need significant amounts of fossil fuels. In many places, they also don’t generate nearly as much energy during their lifetimes as is needed to construct and maintain them.
“Why not use reliable energy [such as nuclear, hydroelectricity, natural gas, etc.] as the primary source?” Moore questioned, adding if that were the case, “then wind and solar would be unnecessary.”
‘Plastic Is Not a Toxic Substance’
“Plastic is not a toxic substance. That is why we package and wrap our food in it, to prevent it from becoming contaminated. Plastic does not magically become toxic when it enters the ocean,” Moore said.
“Of course, they say on one hand that plastic will never break down, and then, on the other hand, they say it will quickly decay into ‘microplastics,’ which, of course, are conveniently invisible so no one can observe or verify this for themselves. How clever!”
Moore claims that our digestive system can distinguish between “food” and plastic or minute sand particles. No matter how minute the sand is, our body does not absorb it into our bloodstream.
He claimed that, like driftwood, floating plastic in the ocean is similar to a little floating reef. It gives marine organisms a surface to attach to, lay their eggs on, and eat things that are attached to it.
“Pollution is usually toxic or causes harm to life. Plastic is simply ‘litter’ beside the road. It is not hurting anything. One exception is discarded fishing nets, not because they are plastic but because they are shaped to catch fish.
“The environmental community should work with the fishing industry to stop throwing damaged nets in the sea and bring them back to the dock, where they can be recycled, used in a waste-to-energy plant, or discarded safely,” Moore added.
The despicable Nobel Prize Winning Fake Economist Paul Krugman is one of the most senior propagandists at the “paper of record” and a ubiquitous TV gadfly. The odious little rodent’s subtle condescending scorn and veiled hatred for White people. In this propaganda piece, the sneaky sniveling specimen of Satanic scum attempts to prop up the weakening Climate Con by utilizing every commie cliché and logical fallacy in his arsenal of asininity.
Rather than repeating my usual rebuttals to the usual lies of “climate science,” let’s focus on the deliberately deceptive logical fallacies / rhetorical devices which this master of mendacity — this juvenile joker — this heckling hyena vomits out for his legions of stupid and vapid groupies to gulp down like mother’s milk.
Krugman: Texas is often hot, but not like this. Analysis: This is Recency Bias. With far less asphalt than there is today — Waco, Texas reached 104 degrees in 1917, 1935 and 1978. During the heat wave of 1980, the Dallas/Fort Worth area recorded 42 consecutive days with temperatures above 100 ° F — with temperatures reaching 117 °F at Wichita Falls, Texas.
Krugman: Current forecasts have the temperature in Dallas hitting 109 degrees Tuesday, with highs in triple digits well into next week. Analysis: This is the Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence, aka “Cherry-Picking” data. On any given day, one can just as easily pick out places on Earth that are experiencing normal temps, or having an unusual cool spell.
Krugman: You have to be willfully blind — unfortunately, a fairly common ailment among politicians, not to see that — Analysis: This is the ad Hominem Attack Fallacy. He is essentially calling anyone who disputes the Climate Con stupid, dishonest, or both — without presenting any hard evidence to support his own case.
Krugman: — global warming has stopped being a debatable threat. Analysis: This is “The Science is Settled Fallacy“ — a variation of what I like to refer to as the “Case Closed Fallacy” — in which a fool or a liar (in this case, a liar) will declare in an authoritative tone that “There is no longer any debate.” — as if such pathetic posturing actually proves anything!
Krugman: Climate scientists — whose warnings …. Analysis: This is the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is intended to intimidate us mere mortals into bowing before the bought & paid for whore “scientists” without so much as even attempting to do our own research and use our own reasoning. This device also ignores the fact that there are many other scientists (all censored) who refute this garbage.
Krugman: …have been overwhelmingly vindicated … Analysis: They will often say that the evidence for this or that “latest thing” is “overwhelming” — yet they never actually produce any. The powerful-sounding word itself is intended to substitute for the lack of evidence. This is salesmanship, not scholarship. Let’s just call this trick “The Evidence is Overwhelming Trick.” (no link)
Krugman: (West Virginia Senator) Joe Manchin just pulled the plug on what may have been the Biden administration’s last chance to do something — anything — meaningful about climate change. Manchin represents a state that still thinks of itself as coal country. He gets more political contributions from the energy industry than any other member of Congress …. He has a large financial conflict of interest arising from his family’s ownership of a coal business. Analysis: This is the Appeal to Motive Fallacy. Senator Manchin’s perceived motives for opposing the Climate Con (from a coal state, donations from energy companies) is not at all relevant for establishing the veracity of the fundamental theory that man-made CO2 will cause catastrophic “Global Warming.”
Krugman: My guess is that Manchin’s act has as much to do with vanity as with money. His act has, after all, kept him in the political limelight month after month. Analysis: Let’s call this one the “Little Paulie is a Nasty Slandering Piece of Shit Human Being Fallacy.“(no link)
Krugman: Scientific consensus in favor of such policies doesn’t help. Analysis: This is theAppeal to the Popular Fallacy — truth is arrived at by research and analysis of facts and patterns — not by the “overwhelming consensus” of whore “scientists.”
Krugman: Emission taxes are the Econ 101 solution to pollution. Analysis: The unspoken reference to “emissions” (CO2) as “pollution” is an Assumptive Fallacybecause the casual mention of it as such leads the reader to accepting something that it actually false as being true. CO2 is no more of a “pollutant” than oxygen or water vapor are!
Krugman: The modern G.O.P. is hostile to science and scientists. Analysis: Not sure whether to file this doozie underad Hominem Attack Fallacy or escalate it to “Little Paulie is a Nasty Slandering Piece of Shit Human Being Fallacy.“ Probably the latter.
Krugman: Death rates since vaccines became widely available have been far higher in strongly Republican areas than in Democratic areas. Analysis: This is False Equivalence Fallacy and also Red Herring (Diversion) Fallacy. Even if we were to accept, purely for argument’s sake, that the Stupid-19 scamdemic was real; that vaccines saved millions of lives; and that anti-science Republicans got it all wrong — that would not prove the ludicrous theory which holds that manmade CO2 “emissions” will melt Antarctica and wash away our heavily populated coastal regions.
Krugman: Overwhelming scientific consensus…. Analysis: Wow! A “three-fer” of high-school-level debate team fallacies back-to-back-back — “overwhelming” (“The Overwhelming Trick,” again) “scientific” (Appeal to Authority, again) and “consensus”(Appeal to the Popular, again)
Krugman: That hostility is the fundamental reason we appear set to do nothing while the planet burns. Analysis: “While the planet burns, eh?” With that bit of drama, Paulie Propagandists closes with a classic example of the Appeal to Fear Fallacy.
********* So there it is. As usual, not one iota of hard data to support the Climate Con. Just one classic fallacy (lie) heaped upon another upon another. One could actually teach a college course on logic just by analyzing the seditious scribbling of this demented little “Nobel Prize winning” ™ demon.
Once one learns the tricks of the “intellectual” deceiver, his diversionary tactics become very easy to spot. For that reason, critical thinking skills are NOT something that Krugman’s quackademic comrades want their normie students to develop.
Supreme Court Decision Leaves Biden With Few Tools to Combat Climate Change * Supreme Court Strips Federal Government of Crucial Tool to Control Pollution * The Climate Math Just Got Harder * The Ruling’s Implications May Extend Beyond the Climate Fight
Oh the butt-hurt among the deranged denizens of Libtardia! Another day, and yet another delightful and revolutionary strike-down of a Marxist dictate previously thought to have been permanently engraved in stone. On guns, on abortion, on prayer — the fresh air of justice and liberty emanating from the military junta posing as “Clarence and the Supremes” is sending “the usual suspects” into a mental meltdown.
Now — and this is all just over the course of 8 days, mind you — comes a ruling on “West Virginia vs EPA” which is even more consequential than those recent shock 6-3 rulings. The Global Warming / Climate Change HOAX is dead. Perhaps not the religious belief itself, but for all practical purposes, the de-balling of the tyrannical EPA has put an end to the dangerous Globalist agenda which — in and of itself — had the potential to grind society down into mass poverty and force us into world government. Do “you guys” understand just how BIG this is – hence, the multiple scary stories in “the paper of record” today?
From one of the articles:
“The Supreme Court has issued one of the most important environmental rulings ever, which will make the battle against global warming even more difficult. It is a major setback to the U.S.’s ability to keep its promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The court was asked to consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to issue broad, aggressive regulations on climate-warming pollution from power plants that would force many of those plants to close. In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices ruled that the agency has no such authority.”
* So goes the USA, so goes the rest of the “international community”— in due time. Hail Clarence! Hail Trump!
Just imagine the demoralization of the New World Order bosses (if they are even still alive at this point). With tremendous wall-to-wall “flood-the-zone” fanfare, they had kicked-off the Green Scheme with the first “Earth Day” in 1970. It was an intense Covid-like event which was used to bully the Nixon administration into adding, on a small scale, a new department to the Executive Branch of government — the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and also signing “The Clean Air Act”(which was somewhat needed at the time) into law. About a decade later, in 1979 to be precise, came the first whispers of a “Greenhouse Effect” caused by CO2. If left uncontrolled, the hoaxsters claimed, “emissions” would so heat the planet that Antarctica’s 1-mile deep ice cover would melt and wipe us out.
By the mid-1980’s, the hideous HOAX – by then rebranded as “Global Warming”— had been declared to be “settled science.” By the time the criminal Clinton-Gore gang left office in 2001, the again rebranded crisis — now “Climate Change” — was subject to unilateral “regulation” by the super-powered EPA. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could “regulate” CO2. And by the time Obongo and his cross-dressing fag-hag were done raping the country in 2017, the EPA was aggressively hobbling industry and even killing coal companies at will.
That’s how long the Globalists have been at this dangerous game; and how vast the Green Power had become. But now, just like the striking down of the 49-year old Roe vs Wade ruling — and the striking down of the 21-year old ban on prayer at High School football games — the enforcement mechanism of the Climate Con has been deactivated. Wow.
Let us close today’s piece with the same words as we closed the one from just three days ago, and the one just three days before that:
“Let’s see what the next pleasant surprise from Papa Clarence and the “Supremes” will be.”
*Editor’s Note: The ongoing January 6th circus is having the effect of diverting the big guns of the Jurisprudence Armada to such an extent that the juiced-up “outrage” over these recent SC decisions has been significantly blunted. I wonder if Trump planned it that way?
What is happening in Northern Ireland is part of a larger push to wean humans off red meat, particularly beef, which humans consume to the tune of 350 millions tons each year.
On Earth Day, a 50-year-old environmentalist and photographer from Colorado named Wynn Alan Bruce lit himself on fire outside the US Supreme Court.
Friends of Bruce, who subsequently died, said he was worried about climate change.
“This guy was my friend,” said Kritee Kanko, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund. “This was not an act of suicide. This is a deeply fearless act of compassion to bring attention to [the] climate crisis.”
Bruce’s act of immolation is one example of increasing fear of climate change, a fear that is damaging humans in various ways, including a surge in so-called “climate anxiety.”
This fear is also manifesting itself in other ways, including the realm of public policy.
Many countries around the world are aggressively pursuing net-zero carbon emission plans designed to mitigate the effects of global warming.
‘Losing’ A Million Sheep And Cattle
While people tend to think reducing emissions involves shutting down coal plants, driving more electric vehicles, and relying more on solar and wind power — each of which comes with environmental and economic costs — these are not the only policies on the table.
Increasingly governments are targeting a different emission source: food (livestock specifically). The reasons for this are not hard to find.
No less an authority than the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notes that about one third of climate warming from greenhouse gasses stems from human-caused emissions of methane. While CO2 gets more attention, the EPA notes that methane is actually a more potent greenhouse gas, trapping about 30 times as much heat as CO2 over a century.
A new law in Northern Ireland sets a target of zero net emissions by 2050, and the BBC reports the legislation includes a proposed 46 percent reduction in methane emissions.
Since about a third of human-caused methane gasses come from livestock, Northern Ireland is looking at a huge reduction of farm animals — especially sheep and cattle — to meet that goal.
“Northern Ireland will need to lose more than 1 million sheep and cattle to meet its new legally binding climate emissions targets,” The Guardianrecently reported.
Specifically, according to estimates from the Ulster Farmers’ Union, some 500,000 cattle and roughly 700,000 sheep would have to “be lost in order for Northern Ireland to meet the new climate targets.”
While the pig and poultry sectors also will need to be cut to meet emission targets, climate officials said these sectors are less harmful to the environment than “red meat” livestock.
“If you look at the evidence on the lifecycle of greenhouse gas emissions, the red meat livestock sources – beef, dairy, sheep – have the highest emissions because they’re ruminant and they have high methane emissions,” Ewa Kmietowicz, head of the land use mitigations team at the Climate Change Committee told the paper.
Chris Stark, CCC chief executive, told The Guardian that a switch to arable farming would likely be necessary to maintain food production levels.
Let Them Eat Synthetic Beef
What is happening in Northern Ireland is part of a much larger push to wean humans off red meat, particularly beef, which humans consume to the tune of 350 millions tons each year.
Many people, including Microsoft founder Billy Boy, have argued nations have a responsibility to transition off beef for environmental reasons.
“I do think all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef,” Gates remarked in an interview with MIT Technology Review last year. “You can get used to the taste difference, and the claim is they’re going to make it taste even better over time.”
Gates doesn’t really explain how this transition should occur, but we’re beginning to see.
While there’s no question that global temperatures are rising — 14 percent per decade, on average — people should find the efforts by central planners to curb climate change more alarming than rising temps.
Such policies have the earmarks of failed collectivist programs of the past, such as FDR’s “porcine slaughter of the innocents,” which saw millions of pigs and sows destroyed while people were going hungry — all in an attempt to keep prices high.
FDR’s mad program was child’s play, however, compared to Chairman Mao, who had plans to revolutionize China’s agricultural sector with his Great Leap Forward.
Things didn’t go as planned. It turned out food production was more complex than Mao anticipated. Via Britannica Online:
“The inefficiency of the communes and the large-scale diversion of farm labour into small-scale industry disrupted China’s agriculture seriously, and three consecutive years of natural calamities added to what quickly turned into a national disaster; in all, about 20 million people were estimated to have died of starvation between 1959 and 1962.”
Did you catch that? Twenty million people died under Mao’s collectivist effort.
Nor was this the first man-made famine created by socialists. In 1932 and 1933, millions of Ukraininans died in a famine engineered by the Soviet Union.
“In the case of the Holodomor, this was the first genocide that was methodically planned out and perpetrated by depriving the very people who were producers of food of their nourishment (for survival),” wrote historian Andrea Graziosi, a professor at the University of Naples.
The genocide, Graziosi notes, was not just tragic but ironic in that it took place in a region globally recognzed as the “breadbasket of Europe.”
These accounts remind us of a dark and disturbing reality highlighted by economist Thomas Sowell.
“Many of the greatest disasters of our time have been created by experts,” Sowell has observed.
In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, the economist F.A. Hayek explained that such disasters stem from the lack of humility among central planners about the knowledge (or lack thereof) they possess in their “fatal striving to control society.”
Above all else, Hayek said, the role of economics is to temper such grand plans.
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to [humans] how little they really know about what they imagine they can design,” Hayek observed in The Fatal Conceit.
Attempting to curb climate change by destroying food supplies may not appear quite as crazy as lighting oneself on fire in front of the Supreme Court to protest a lack of government action on climate change.
But it may ultimately prove to be even more deadly.
We’ve recently published articles about governments in Bologna, Vienna, Bavaria and Belgium making plans to implement social credit systems: those who consume less CO2 will be rewarded. In the Netherlands, starting on 22 April, the first Dutch bank, and possibly the first in Europe, is linking payment transactions with CO2 emissions.
Rabobank does not want to go as far as Mastercard. Its new tool is voluntary and is being sold as a service and not as a disciplinary procedure … for now.
The bank’s CEO, Barbara Baarsma, said: “The goal is absolutely not to point the finger as a bank and act as an advisor.”
To sell the idea to the public Baarsma wraps the innovation in fluffy language: “We want to give people insight into their own behaviour and if they want to, they can adapt their behaviour.”
Baarsma is considered an “expert” in the Netherlands: she advises the Ministry of Health through “expert commissions” and often makes guest appearances in the media.
The bank is also already issuing vouchers to farmers who are doing something about CO2 emissions.
“We’re making consumers part of the solution, just as we are doing with sustainable farmers who can earn carbon credits by storing carbon in their fields. Together, our eight million private customers can make a difference and fight climate change by changing their consumer behaviour towards a lower CO2 footprint. For example, by buying other, less carbon-intensive foods, they also encourage supermarkets to offer more sustainable products,” Baarsma said.
She also advocates that in future the CO2 emissions should be indicated on the products in the supermarkets. That’s what people want, they want “well-informed decisions and transparency.”
“This is a good first step for the bank,” said Laurens Sloot, a professor of retail entrepreneurship at the University of Groningen, “as a consumer, you don’t know exactly what damage the products you buy are doing, and you certainly don’t have to pay extra for it.”
What neither the bank nor “scientists” have considered is that Europeans’ disposable income is slowly being eroded and Europeans will factor in the price of goods, not the CO2 emissions, when making a purchase.
The lie about CO2 is being perpetuated by World Economic Forum technocrats to further their agenda: “You will own nothing and you’ll be happy.” Notice the use of “you” and not “we” in their statement. Their agenda does not apply to them and not to all of us equally – initially, as is the case with all of the technocrats’ plans, the poorest will be hit hardest.
For those of us who understand how the illusionists behind this fallen world of ours operate, and are able to “read between the lines” with our third eye, the opening lines of this Slimes article amount to a confession to serial arson coming from the Globalists at the UN, and published in “the paper of record.”
“A landmark United Nations report has concluded that the risk of devastating wildfires around the world will surge in coming decades as climate change further intensifies what the report described as a “global wildfire crisis.”
The scientific assessment is the first by the organization’s environmental authority to evaluate wildfire risks worldwide. It was inspired by a string of deadly blazes around the globe in recent years, burning the American West, vast stretches of Australia and even the Arctic.
The heating of the planet is turning landscapes into tinderboxes,” said the report, which was published on Wednesday by the United Nations Environment Program.” (emphasis added) *
Problem — reaction — solution. TEXTBOOK!
Who needs to wait around for the mile-thick ice-caps of the deep Antarctic and Greenland interiors to melt and drown us within the span of the ever-moving-up timeline of “20-25 years from now” when a few gas cans — or, better yet, some aerial or space-based lasers — can whip up made-for-TV infernos now and in the near future. Oh yes, it was (((the usual suspects))) who were behind the rash of mysterious hell-on-earth fires of these past few years now dubbed as “the global wildfire crisis.” Bet on it.
The report attributes the “the global wildfire crisis” to increased temperatures and dryness caused by decreased rainfall and humidity. This is truly an astonishing example of Orwellian double-think coming from the very same United Nations which, in another “scientific” report published only six months ago, had this to say about precipitation:
“As air temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold more moisture and thus produce heavier rainfall. As a result, heavy precipitation events have increased in both frequency and intensity since 1950.” (emphasis added)
Too much rain and more flooding? Blame it on CO2 (plant food). Not enough rain and more wildfires? Blame it on CO2. Droughts and floods at “normal” levels? Don’t confuse weather and climate, dammit!
No matter which predictable or unpredictable, short term or long term course nature takes, the well-paid high priests of the Communist Climate Con and their true-believing “lesser brethren” have got a manufactured explanation for it — one which their co-conspirators in Fake News will always publish and extol as “settled science.”
The article closes out with some “educational” links for the demented boobs who worship the Slimes to “learn more.”
Learn More About Climate Change
If you struggle to understand the science behind climate change, let us walk you through the basics.
Get your children invested, by talking to them about our warming planet, and what we can all do about it.
In the climate debate, the science is clear, and the language is anything but. These are the buzzwords to know.
Fake News has come a long way since the very first casually mentioned “trial balloon” claims of 1979 about how “Some scientists speculate that we may be experiencing a CO2-caused Greenhouse Effect” — to: “Shut up, you imbecile! the science is settled! Learn more!” And all throughout that 43-year period, all of the real observable science points to the theory of man-made CO2-based “Global Warming” as being a well-financed joke on humanity — just like its cousin, the Stupid-19 scamdemic.
Following the supposedly unusual “record” high and low temps of 2021, the first real snow and cold wave has descended upon the eastern United States. But if any of “you guys” think this presents a good “teachable moment”to tweak the loons of Libtardia with a “Say, what happened to Global Warming?” barb — well, that won’t get you too far because “science” now tells us that nasty cold spells (just like killer heat waves) are also caused by “heat-trapping” CO2 as well. Hence the back & forth marketing shift from “Global Warming” to the catch-all “Climate Change.“
A bit of “1984”-ish Orwellian double-think, from the article:
“Temperatures in the United States last year set more heat and cold records than any other year since 1994.” (emphasis added)
You see how the Marxist manipulators of the public mind work?
Too hot — blame it on made-made CO2 and call for taxing “emissions.” Too cold — blame it on man-made CO2 and call for taxing “emissions.” Just right — say we must not mistake weather for climate and call for taxing “emissions ™.”
Still not buying this now 43-year-old doomsday bullshit? Well then, you evidently just don’t understand “science,” boys and girls.
Fake Science aside, from a philosophical perspective, what really fascinates your baby-boomer historian here — who, having lived through all 43 years of this hoax and watched it grow from a few sporadic hypotheses into a Global cult of “settled science” — is how short people’s memories are. We may forgive the 35 & under population demographic for not appreciating how long and how wrong the “20-years-from-now” doomsday computer model forecasts have been. But how can anyone who has been blasted with this Bolshevik bullshit for a full 20 years or more not have realized by now that new doomsday target dates are perpetually pushed forward as the old doomsday dates come and go? Heck, I specifically recall being taught, circa 1981-82, that lower Manhattan would be under water “by the year 2000!”
Even if a man did not possess a basic understanding of the Globalist Conspiracy nor of basic science; one would think that by actually living through the passing of relatively recent history and so many wrong predictions (including the ice-age scare of the 1970’s) that the middle-aged Normie would have grown suspicious about all the past and present hype by now, and started to ask some probing questions. Evidently not, and Orwell nailed this one too:
The Climate Con — referred to in the beginning as “The Greenhouse Effect” — was preceded by the announcement of “Earth Day” in 1970. With great fanfare ginned up by the Jurisprudence, the very first such observance kicked-off with CBS’s Walter Cronkite (CFR) (aka, “the most trusted man in America) hosting a nationally televised TV special (at a time when there were only 3 networks). The theme of “saving the planet” was thus introduced to the gullible young hippie crowd who have since grown up to take over America — at the behest of their invisible New World Order handlers.
During the period between 1979-1982, at a time when world population and man-made CO2 “emissions”were far lower than today, concerns about an ice-age were suddenly replaced with tales of a warming “Greenhouse Effect” that was expected to melt the Antarctic ice-cap and catastrophically flood the world’s coastlines by the Year 2000. Four decades later, none of the dire flooding and crop failure predictions have come to pass as “doomsday” is again and again pushed up to yet another far off date in “our children’s future” as forgetful fools over forty fail to notice anything suspicious about the “science”behind the never-materializing and never-ending scare that is the Climate Con. What the heck is the matter with people?
As The Great One(that’s Hitler for you newbies & normies) once observed in one of his criticisms of the predatory political class which he was seeking to replace:“What good fortune for rulers that men do not think.”
The release of the most recent report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was met with widespread international alarm. The BBC wrote that this was “code red for humanity” and the New York Times warned, “A Hotter Future Is Certain.” A Guardian headline stated that major changes to the climate were “inevitable” and “irreversible,” while both the BBC and the Guardian seemingly celebrated a survey that showed 4 in 10 young people now have almost uncontrollable anxiety about the climate.
According to the survey, nearly half of 16-25-year-olds around the world are hesitant to have children as a result of what they believe is a climate crisis and feel that governments are doing too little to prevent it.
In come the bankers with the help of the UN and world governments to finally save the day. The first step is: Find a way to purchase, own, and monetize the land we need to conserve.
In October, journalist Whitney Webb reported on one of the plans launched by a new group called the ‘Intrinsic Exchange Group‘ (IEG) that promises to save us from this catastrophe once and for all. According to the IEG, with the help of multinational corporations, billionaires, and other investors, the UN and IEG will rescue the planet from certain extermination.
After all, the UN conceded once that ‘the businesses of the world is now the business of the UN.
In September, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) announced it had developed a new asset class and listing vehicle aimed at “preserving and restoring the natural assets that ultimately underlie the ability for there to be life on Earth.” The vehicle, known as a natural asset company, or NAC, will enable the formation of specialized firms “that own the rights to the ecosystem services produced on a certain piece of land, such as carbon sequestration or clean water.” The natural assets that these NACs commodify will subsequently be maintained, managed, and grown by them.
In the US, Summit Carbon Solutions recently began work on obtaining land in North Iowa for its proposed Midwest Carbon Express pipeline.
Summit Carbon Solutions, an offshoot of Summit Agriculture Group, is behind the $4.5 billion Midwest Carbon Express project. It would be the largest carbon capture project in the world with the goal of sending 12 million tons of CO2 annually to western North Dakota, where it can be stored underground.
Landowners expressed concerns regarding Summit Carbon’s use of eminent domain, which allows the company to build the pipeline on land without consent from the landowner.
Eminent domain is when a government body can acquire private property for public use, with compensation for affected landowners.
While shady deals like these have been happening in the US for decades, these new corporations — soon to be traded on the stock market casino — aren’t going to be largely focused on land looted in the US.
Allegedly, NACs will use the funds from these newly obtained and monetized natural assets to help fight climate change by ‘preserving’ the rain forests, mountains, and lakes mostly abroad. They also vow to change the “conventional agricultural production practices” of farms to make them more efficient and sustainable.
But, the creators of NACs concede the ultimate goal is to extract trillions in profits from natural processes such as photosynthesis, apply intrinsic values to natural processes, and then monetize it.
“Our hope is that owning a natural asset company is going to be a way that an increasingly broad range of investors have the ability to invest in something that’s intrinsically valuable, but, up to this point, was really excluded from the financial markets,” said NYSE COO Michael Blaugrund upon the launch of the NAC idea.
On their website the Intrinsic Exchange Group states that they are “using Intrinsic value as the umbrella for values not yet identified or quantified, as well as values such as cultural, social, aesthetic, spiritual, etc.”
Following the launch, Fortune Magazine noted that NACs allow for a ‘new form of sustainable investment’ which has caught the ears of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink along with countless other infamous investors.
…”In return, investors will get access to a new form of sustainable investment—a space that has enthralled the likes of BlackRock CEO Larry Fink…” Fortune Magazine wrote.
In 2019, the IEG teamed up with NYSE — which itself holds a minority stake — to launch the idea of NACs. The top three investors in the IEG are the Rockefeller Foundation, Aberdare Ventures, a venture capital firm founded by Paul Klingenstein focused mainly on digital healthcare, and the Inter-American Development Bank, which is the largest source of development financing for Latin America.
Climate Alarmism: A Land Grab Manufactured And Funded By The Bankers, For The Bankers
IEG is currently working with the Costa Rican government to guide a ‘pilot program’ of the efforts in Costa Rica. Andrea Meza Murillo, Costa Rican Minister of Environment and Energy, argued that the pilot project with IEG “deepens the economic analysis of the economic value of nature and continues to mobilize the flow of funds for nature maintenance.”
According to the IEG, the plan is to pioneer “a new asset class based on natural assets, and the mechanism to convert them to financial capital.” The new ‘assets’ according to the group are all of which make “life on Earth possible and enjoyable, and include biological systems that provide clean air, water, foods, and medicines.”
Put simply, entire ecosystems and the benefits people receive from them, will become financial assets. Assets will include food production, tourism, clean water, biodiversity, pollination, and even carbon sequestration. The assets will then be owned by corporations, and stocks in these assets will be sold on Wallstreet.
As IEG notes, the NAC is just the issuer of the natural asset, while the assets the NAC represents can be purchased by investors like BlackRock. Those investors include institutional investors, private investors, individuals and institutions, corporations, sovereign wealth funds, and multilateral development banks.
All of this is only possible if the ownership of the land is transferred into the hands of the banks.
From the IEG Website:
Webb recently reported that in early November an “industry-led and UN-convened” alliance of private banking and financial institutions announced their plans at the COP26 conference. The group is called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the goal is to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to “transform” the global financial system.
According to the group’s own progress report, the group aims to merge these institutions with the private-banking interests that compose the alliance and create a new system of “global financial governance.”
To obtain the land necessary for the NAC, developing nations would be forced to establish business environments beneficial to the alliance members and open up land. This can be accomplished in several ways including debt-for-nature swaps. This process is where a creditor country forgives a portion of the public bilateral debt of a debtor nation in exchange for environmental commitments from that country.
The degree of debt-for-nature swaps groups like these have engaged in have been well documented in Argentina, specifically Patagonia, for decades. What occurred in Argentina and Chile however would pale in comparison to the level of swaps this plan would entail.
At the Climate Leaders Summit in April 2021, convened by the US and attended by global policymakers, Argentina alluded to another one of these swaps. Argentina’s president Alberto Fernández pushed for an agreement with its creditor countries to reduce part of the foreign debt in exchange for increased ‘environmental and climate commitments.’
In other words, when a Latin American country owes money, they open up their land to pay the debt or the interest of the debt. This process is normally referred to as Debt-trap diplomacy or put simply, debt-entrapment.
Multilateral development banks (MDBs), such as the World Bank, leverage the debt of developing countries to force them to privatize public assets. The GFANZ report states that the Alliance is now trying to use the same controversial tactics by forcing more deregulation in developing countries to allow alliance members to invest.
In the 1990s founder of Northface clothing, Doug Tompkins, and his second wife, Kris Tompkins, who was an executive of clothing brand Patagonia, purchased more than 2 million acres of wilderness in Chile under the guise of ‘conservation efforts.’ Following Tomkins’ death, their NGO Tompkins Conservation formally donated one million acresof land back to the Chilean government.
The other way this land grab can be accomplished is by using powerful international groups like the UN to pressure developing countries to deregulate and open up their land for privatization due to the ‘urgent life-threatening’ menace of climate change.
The GFANZ alliance was launched in April by John Kerry, Janet Yellen, and former chair of the Bank of England, Mark Carney. Carney also co-chairs the alliance with Michael Bloomberg.
While the world focuses on Russia reportedly planning a military offensive against Ukraine, and China apparently rehearsing for an attack on Taiwan, the supranational banking elite is quietly invading the US and countries worldwide to loot their resources.
John Kerry recently noted that “the largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition represents a vast commercial opportunity.” Boris Johnson described GFANZ as being responsible for paving the way to “uniting the world’s banks and financial institutions behind the global transition to net zero.”
The principals listed on the GFANZ website include the CEOs of BlackRock, Bank of America, Citi Bank, Banco Santander, and HSBC. The CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and Nili Gilbert, chairwoman for the David Rockefeller Fund are also listed.
In mid-November, Michael Bloomberg hosted his ‘New Economy’ forum. According to the event’s website, the group is focused primarily on climate change and COVID-19 vaccines.
“Covid-19 held a mirror to society’s biggest problems, from climate change to inequality, forcing humanity to grapple with their consequences. But there is hope. Even as the pandemic still rages, the success of groundbreaking mRNA vaccines, the acceleration of the digital economy during lockdowns, and a focus on government spending to save lives and improve livelihoods demonstrate that humankind is capable of taking on — and overcoming — great challenges. Breakthroughs are possible. In science and technology, we’ve entered a new age of discovery.”
Bloomberg’s ‘New Economy’ forum is led by Bill Gates, Henry Kissinger, and Penny Pritzker, as well as a dozen other board members with ties to multinational banks like Goldman Sachs. Former Governor of the People’s Bank of China Zhou Xiaochuan, as well as the founder of Binance, are on the board as well.
“As part of COP26, GFANZ— a key group at that conference—is publishing a plan aimed at scaling “private capital flows to emerging and developing economies.” Per the alliance’s press release, this plan focuses on “the development of country platforms to connect the now enormous private capital committed to net zero with country projects, scaling blended finance through MDBs [multilateral development banks] and developing high integrity, credible global carbon markets.” The press release notes that this “enormous private capital” is money that alliance members seek to invest in emerging and developing countries, estimated at over $130 trillion, and that—in order to deploy these trillions in investment—“the global financial system is being transformed” by this very alliance in coordination with the group that convened them, the United Nations.”
A “country platform” is defined by GFANZ as a mechanism for a “public-private partnership around a specific issue or geography.” In other words, a country with lucrative land they can obtain ownership of, monetize, corporatize, and sell on the New York Stock Exchange.
As documented in a recent Bloomberg article, U.S. climate envoy John Kerry says investment banks including Goldman and Morgan Stanley are ready to invest $4.16 trillion in the energy transition over the next decade. “We have to find a way to deploy that money,” he says.
“We have to start where the greatest amount of emissions are if we’re going to win the battle,” Kerry told the Bloomberg New Economy Forum. “We have to, all of us, be able to put the deals together that will phase out their coal fast.”
According to another Bloomberg report, Jeff Bezos has given over $1 billion dollars to date. Last year, Bezos gave $791 million to 16 organizations as part of his commitment to his ‘Earth Fund to fight climate change.’ Bezos has promised to distribute the full amount by 2030.
The GFANZ report plainly states that the MDB should be used to encourage developing countries to“create an appropriate high-level and cross-cutting enabling environment” for alliance members’ investments in these countries.
Another mechanism that comes into play is the Global Public-Private Partnership(GPPP) The GPPP is a worldwide collective of billionaires — including central banks, philanthropic foundations, think-tanks, and governments — working together as a network in order to implement policy favorable to the banks.
As journalist Iain Davis writes, “Under our current model of Westphalian national sovereignty, the government of one nation cannot make legislation or law in another. However, through global governance, the GPPP creates policy initiatives at the global level which then cascade down to people in every nation. This typically occurs via an intermediary policy distributor, such as the IMF or IPCC, and national government then enact the recommended policies.”
Based on the proposed international ‘problem’ the GPPP enforces the international consensus for the ‘solution.’ It is then the policy framework is set. The supranational partners then collaborate to ensure the desired policies are implemented and enforced. The GPPP can control nations across the world without the need for traditional individual legislation.
At the same time, Bloomberg partnered with holdings company Equitable, Franch Insurance firm AXA, and banks like Goldman Sachs and HSBC to form the Climate Finance Leadership Initiative (CFLI). The group was formed at the request of the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres.
Through the CFLI, networks of banks and corporations recommend policy to achieve ‘net-zero emissions.’ One of the solutions implied is obtaining huge swaths of land in North America to build solar and wind farms.
Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates maintain a close relationship in this broad network of self-described philanthropists.
An analysis by The Land Report found in January that Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates owns 242,000 acres of farmland in the US, making him the largest private-farmland owner in the country.
Gates’ farmland portfolio stretches across 18 states, according to the report. His biggest holdings are in Louisiana (69,071 acres), Arkansas (47,927 acres), and Nebraska (20,588 acres).
According to another report, one of Gates’ investment firms also purchased about 25,000 acres near Phoenix, part of which to be transformed into a suburb with space for 80,000 homes. Gates is not alone, recent viral news reports indicate that corporations Like BlackRock are buying up thousands of homes and entire neighborhoods, further pricing Americans out of the market.
In 2017, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also pledged $300 million to ‘help low-income farmers in Asia and Africa adapt to climate change.’
According to an Insider report, in 2011 the Oakland Institute made one of their investigative reports public regarding billionaires buying up land in Africa. The OI stated that the amount of land being purchased in the continent ‘concerned them,’ and that hedge funds and other foreign firms have been acquiring large swathes of African land, often without proper contracts. In the same year, the BBC published a headline titled ‘Hedge Funds Grabbing Land in Africa.’
The OI report concluded that the acquisitions had displaced millions of small farmers and is “creating insecurity in the global food system that could be a much bigger threat than terrorism,” the report said.
The interest these billionaires have in this land abroad is not just the infinite lucrative potential of NACs, it also includes precious metals and minerals.
According to the New York Post, Mineral exploration company KoBold Metals —backed by billionaires including Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates — recently signed a deal to search and mine for critical materials used in electric vehicles.
According to one of their recent reports, KoBold metals calls on networks of billionaires and multinational firms to get behind ‘competing with China’ in the race to develop electric vehicles, in order to aid the Western world in being the first to achieve net-zero emissions.
In their report, KoBold states that more than half of the world’s cobalt reserves are in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and two-thirds of the world’s production of refined cobalt, a prerequisite for large EV batteries, takes place in China.
The company implies that the Western world needs to find a way to prevent China’s influence over natural resources, including lithium, cobalt, and other precious metals.
It seems this broad network of philanthropists seeking to achieve net-zero emissions forgot that Cobalt mining is one of the dirtiest processes for the environment. It should come as no surprise that a recent report from Mining.com predicts that CO2 emissions from cobalt production are expected to soar in 2021.
Lockheed Martin is also apparently getting in on the action.
UK Seabed Resources, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, in partnership with the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, currently holds licenses and contracts to explore endless amounts of the Pacific seafloor to extract mineral-rich polymetallic nodules.
Tanzania — one of the countries in Africa on the chopping block for multinational firms — has recently become a target for Nickel production. According to Reuters, the Northwest part of the country has the world’s largest development-ready, high-grade nickel sulfide deposit. Conspiracy theories surrounding the recent death of Tanzanian President John Magufuli are usually centered around his COVID-19 vaccine response, but his regulations against investment firms are a far more plausible conspiracy.
According to a Reuters report, Barrick Gold and Glencore lost a massive nickel project in 2018 when Tanzanian President John Magufuli’s administration revoked their retention license along with the licenses of 10 other investors as part of new mining laws and regulations.
Just months after Magufi’s death, UK-based mining firm Kabanga Nickel Limited signed an agreement with Tanzania to develop the Kabanga nickel project formerly sought by Barrick Gold and Glencore. The company says the recent agreement could help ease electric-vehicle manufacturers’ ‘insatiable demand for nickel.’
In 2017, Tanzania nationalized $29.5 million worth of diamonds it seized from Petra Diamonds Ltd.’s Williamson mine after Tanzanian authorities accused the company of under-declaring mineral exports. In May of 2021, the Guardian reported that the London Stock Exchange-listed company paid a settlement of £4.3m in compensation to dozens of Tanzanians who allegedly suffered serious human rights abuses at mines.
A US-Supported 2019 coup in Bolivia — which many news outlets say led to massacres — came less than a week after former President Juan Morales stopped a multinational firm’s Lithium Deal in the country. Morales resigned as president on 10 November 2019, and he called his removal “forced” and a “coup” but also said that he wanted to stop the bloodshed.
Morales thanked Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, whom he credited with saving his life, after a Mexican government plane flew Morales out of Cochabamba, refueling in Paraguay before arriving in Mexico.
Morales was no saint, however. The former President oversaw a time when Bolivia was one of the largest producers of illicit drugs, had close relationships with drug cartels, and faced multiple rape accusations. In 2020, several photographs of him with a minor came to light and were circulated on social networks. Bolivian authorities said that Morales had been in a relationship with the minor since the age of 14.
The Western world has a well-documented history of bankers, war, and regime change. Many claim the U.S.-backed 2011 military intervention in Libya by NATO forces, and the subsequent death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was an intentional act by the US government which sought to benefit bankers.
Just six months after the email, Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed leader of Libya, was captured and killed after the Battle of Sirte.