then offers to save you from it.”
The United Nations agenda
The United Nations is quite possibly the most corrupt organisation on the planet, despite the altruistic image of itself it likes to promote. It was co-founded by a convicted communist spy, Alger Hiss, in 1945 and he helped to design their emblem (pictured above). Take another look at it, and keep it in mind as you read all that I have written. He co-authored the UN Charter with Soviet communist Andrei Vyshinsky, and as America’s chief contributor to the U.N.’s creation, he appointed scores of like-minded communist sympathizers and world-government advocates to UN posts. Since then, each of their 10 secretary-generals has been a socialist.
I am not intending to criticise socialism here, but rather point out the strong political bias that exists within the U.N. They are far from being politically neutral. In fact, ‘extreme’ would be a better word and I will explain why. In 1992 they announced a plan called Agenda 21, which morphed into Agenda 2030 in response to the widespread resistance they encountered surrounding its implementation. Agenda 2030 has been justifiably compared to a communist manifesto which has been dressed up in fluffy and vague “sustainability” language that is designed to appeal to environmentally-concerned people (pretty much all of us) who, due to the overwhelming amount of bleak environmental messages saturating the mainstream media, have become increasingly concerned about our environmental future. However, it is wise to consider that all of these pessimistic environmental predictions (which are usually quoted by the high profile voices on this issue) have come from the U.N.’s very own climate change department (the IPCC), who have been eagerly predicting the likelihood of future global catastrophe and widespread human suffering, despite saying in 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
On the surface, Agenda 2030 sounds like a deeply altruistic plan for saving the world from “climate devastation” and from the evils of unfettered capitalism, which we are told is fully responsible for our perilous situation. “System Change, not Climate Change!” urge many of the activist banners, and given all of the bleak and pessimistic predictions that environmentally concerned people have been bombarded with, it is understandable that they are demanding this. And of course the U.N. is 100% supportive of this message, because the new “system” being lined up is their system; the one that they have been working on introducing for the last 30 years or so. Agenda 2030. A pure communist agenda, in disguise. This may sound hard to believe, but once you start digging to find out what the U.N. is really about and what their true motivations are, everything will start to make sense.
The U.N.’s Agenda 2030 for “transforming the world” (their words) lists 17 goals for “sustainable development” (which of course sounds lovely). These 17 goals are broken down into 169 targets and the U.N. expect every one of their member nations (193 in total) to implement them over the coming 10 years. In fact, each nation is legally obliged to do so because in 2015 the Paris agreement overruled the sovereignty of the member nations, and the U.N. now have the rule of international law. I quote from the U.N. website: “These powers are given to it by the UN Charter, which is considered an international treaty. As such, it is an instrument of international law, and UN Member States are bound by it.” This means the U.N. are now essentially the universal global governmental authority. This is centralised government, or a ‘one world government’ which is what the U.N. have been working towards for a very long time.
Now consider this quote from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), speaking about the Paris agreement (allegedly a climate agreement) in 2015: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
She is referring to capitalism. The Paris agreement was supposed to be a climate agreement, but she revealed what the U.N.’s true agenda is: “changing the economic development model.” The U.N. have a deep incentive for generating and spreading anti-capitalist sentiment via the idea of a capitalism-created “climate crisis” (and most likely funding other organisations to do the same) because their plan is global communism and complete governmental control. I remind you to take another look at the Soviet & U.N. emblems, pictured above. Once you fully understand what Agenda 2030 truly is you will realise that it has been created specifically for the purpose of amassing and achieving the greatest degree of political power, social control and monetary riches that any organisation on Earth had ever held in the history of our civilisation.
It is not capitalism that is responsible for most of our society’s problems; it is corruption and greed. And to think that both will just vanish if we swap capitalism for socialism is naive, especially when you consider that it’s the corrupt U.N. who want to replace our “broken” system for us with their own self-serving agenda. People often talk about the corrupt “elites“. The U.N. is the elite of the elites, I assure you, and their plans are purely corrupt, greedy and evil, without a doubt. How do I know? I have been researching them for a very long time. As you will read later, they frequently prove that they have no moral compass whatsoever, and that their true focus is gaining more power, more control and more money.
So, with respect to the global climate hysteria, I want you to consider the quote at the beginning of the article. “The cleverest of villains creates a false enemy, then offer to save you from it…” The U.N. is most certainly a villain, and what they have done via their own corrupt “climate science” department (the IPCC), is fabricate one of the biggest and all-pervasive global threats to humanity possible: climate catastrophe. Several articles I’ve read even suggest that we are now “at war” with our own climate. A “climate emergency” affects absolutely everyone living on the planet, and the only other thing that might pose such an all-encompassing threat to humanity would be if there was a giant meteor on a collision course with Earth. But the U.N. could not save us from that in the same way that they plan to “save” us from the enemy which is our own climate. The climate crisis necessitates a certain urgent response, and the U.N. will respond heroically by introducing their step-by-step plan of salvation: Agenda 2030, which they’ve had lined up for a very long time.
Through all of their widespread misinformation efforts, they have initiated the mass spreading of great fear, panic and grief regarding potential future destruction and suffering, which has had the consequence of making people demand change urgently. System change. Having squarely laid the blame for our perilous predicament at the feet of the carbon dioxide producing capitalist system, a tremendous thirst has been created for a new system, a socialist system, especially among the younger generations who may not be so politically and historically savvy. And in the process of doing all of this, the U.N.’s climate department have succeeded in demonising one of the most crucial gases for life on earth, carbon dioxide; making people think that it is some kind of a toxic poison that is going to kill us all. If it were not for carbon dioxide, the Earth would be a giant ball of ice, and it is the abundance of it that makes our planet so luscious and green.
The U.N. are, without doubt, engaging in misinformation and manipulation on a grand scale – the kind that dictatorships engage in and rely upon – and they have done all of this in the name of garnering global support for their “Agenda 2030”, the new system which they would have us all believe is some kind of blueprint for Utopia. They are promoting it as the global solution to not only our environmental woes and to the capitalist nightmare that we are all having to endure (wait till you see a socialist nightmare (or just look at Venezuela), but they are promoting Agenda 2030 as the solution to pretty much every problem that humanity has ever known, and I am not exaggerating. Poverty, hunger, inequality, sickness… the list goes on and on. But consider that the more problems the government says they want to try to solve, the more the government has to get involved in every area where humanity has a problem (i.e. every area). And thus through legislation, governmental control reaches into every aspect of our lives, telling us how we should live for the benefit of a “sustainable, peaceful and equitable civilisation”. This is what is called the Nanny State, and it always begins with the seemingly ‘noble intentions’ of the government to solve all of humanity’s problems. But their true intentions always reveal themselves when power is achieved, just like a politician who promises to make everything better when he takes the reigns of the nation, and then leads the country into economic ruin. Promises mean nothing. The decency, honesty and integrity of the person or organisation making them is what we should really assess very carefully, which is why I am asking you to consider the true intentions of the U.N.
So with regards to Agenda 2030, considering that every U.N. member nation (193 countries in total) agreed in 2015 to adopt and implement the biggest global plan that has ever been produced, which promises to totally “transform our world” into a peaceful and sustainable paradise, isn’t it strange that many people have never heard of it, and it has received virtually no mainstream publicity whatsoever since then? Perhaps this is because it is guaranteed to be picked apart in the mainstream media by intelligent people, and thus revealed for exactly what it is: A plan for global communism. Perhaps it is better to wait until the world sees upon their screens all the deeply worried and angry people congregating and protesting en masse around the world, crying, lamenting and demanding “system change” for the sake of humanity and future generations, for the sake of all the beautiful creature that might become extinct. Perhaps that is a good time to reveal your plan to save the world? Yes, that could be good timing. Keep your eyes on the September 20th global climate strike protests, and then three days later the response which follows from the U.N. summit in New York. All will be revealed.
If you think a lot of this is conjecture, speculation or theorising, I recommend you read the in-depth article which follows, and take a look at the links/videos below. All the evidence is on plain view, but you must look with an objective and politically unbiased mind. This is essential. You also might be wondering at this point about Extinction Rebellion, Greta Thunberg, the Green New Deal, and perhaps some other things. I will go into great detail in the longer article below. I will inevitably repeat some of the things I have already mentioned, but it should be worth it. Thank you.
>> Go to our “climate videos” page…
“Is there really a climate emergency?”
“Is carbon dioxide really a pollutant?”
Wikipedia: “Criticisms of the United Nations”
“A history of failed doomsday predictions”
The Head of World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) criticises extremist climate alarm scientists
IPCC Report : “Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
The U.N. Agenda & The Climate Emergency (in-depth)
This article is so long that I have given it chapters, which are as follows:
Power – Investigating the climate emergency – A political issue? – Adhering to peace and valuing humanity – Keep an open mind – The United Nations – Ready to radically change the way you live? – Extinction Rebellion – The U.N.’s communist roots – The very real danger of a political climate war
This is possibly the most important article I have composed out of the 200+ articles that I have written over the past 3 years. In fact, it could be the most important thing you could possibly learn about what is happening in the world at present. The reason being that it is about a topic that threatens to divide the world in a very unpleasant way; that has the possibility to lead to widespread civil war and generate an enormous amount of suffering globally. That may sound extremely dramatic, but I assure you I don’t say such things lightly. My deep desire is that by bringing awareness to the hidden aspects of this issue, we can avoid being divided by it, and also realise that there is absolutely no real reason to be afraid.
When fear, division, social tension and polarisation increase in society to an extreme degree, especially surrounding specific matters of great importance and great emotion, the danger of conflict is very present. My desire is that we reduce the amount of division within our human family, and to do this we have to keep our mind open and consider each other’s perspectives, rather than just defending our own views aggressively.
If we feel angry or defensive regarding another person’s perspective, we can be sure that we have become emotionally attached to our own ideas. This makes it very difficult to consider alternative perspectives which may indeed contain some truths that our own ideas are lacking, or may come from the other side of the political fence. It is good to be inquisitive, objective and scientific when it comes to important information and to consider all possibilities, so that our innate intelligence can make a fully informed conclusion, rather than automatically (and often, emotionally) just believing what we are told by mainstream conventional sources. It is vital that we remain open-minded and employ the investigative nature of our intelligence in such important matters as I will discuss in this article. Thank you.
So in this article, I am going to focus on one of the biggest and most corrupt organisations in the world (the U.N.), upon their very altruistic and compassionate-sounding plan to save the world (which they call “Agenda 2030”) and their deeply corrupt political and financial reasons for doing so.
I assure you, all is not as it seems from the ground. It is very important to look carefully at the top of the power pyramid, and learn how the things which are occurring in society are benefitting the rich and powerful (who are often orchestrating them for that very reason). Keep in mind that the deepest corruption and deception is usually found in the places where there is the most power and money. Globally, this is without doubt the United Nations, a conglomeration of all the words most powerful and wealthy leaders, many of whom still preside over dictatorships in their own countries.
To just emphasise the U.N.’s lack of a moral compass, on their “Human Rights Council” – which is the part of their enormous organisation which is said to preside over protecting the dignity and human rights of citizens across the globe – are 6 countries whose laws call for the death of homosexuals: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Nigeria and Qatar. Also recently elected to the human rights council are 6 notoriousdictatorships: Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Eritrea, the Philippines, and Somalia. This is the human rights council, I remind you. Also, this year Saudi Arabia were elected to the U.N.’s women’s rights commission, despite its horrific subjugation of women. This alone speaks volumes about the U.N., but the hypocrisy goes even deeper than this. I recommend fully reading the Wikipedia page linked at the end of this article, which details much of the scandal, greed, hypocrisy and lack of compassion surrounding the U.N.’s behaviour.
2) Investigating the “Climate Emergency”
Now, I must point out that I am not arguing here about climate change, about the harm being done to the planet, about species loss, or the immense pollution that our consumerist lifestyles create. I assure you, I value this beautiful planet as much as anyone else on Earth. I live a very simple life – mostly in nature – and I am happy to do so, engaging in consumerism as little as possible, not flying in planes, enjoying a very simple diet, and driving a minimal amount. That is my choice of life, and do not believe in imposing or cajoling people to do the same. We all have our freedom, thank God, and I believe each person’s freedom should be respected. We all know there is vast room for improvement in the way we collectively treat this planet, consume from it and coexist upon it, and I am fully supportive of the impetus to do so.
However, as soon as you hear the words “panic, emergency, social collapse, mass starvation, extinction, catastrophe” and so on, then stop and do some really, really thorough research. (It is important to note here that the U.K. climate activist group Extinction Rebellion has now rebranded the climate emergency as a “climate apocalypse.”) These are enormous, powerful and frightening things to suggest and they must be researched thoroughly, no matter how much you trust the altruistic motives of the people who are saying them. Because if you do research them really, really thoroughly (as I have done on both sides of the argument) then you might be surprised to find out 2 things:
The IPCC (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) whose scientific data is usually quoted by Greta Thunberg, Roger Hallam of Extinction Rebellion, other activists and politicians to back up their argument, is part of the U.N. It is their very own climate science department. There are hardly any distinguished and globally respected weather scientists (meteorologists/climatologists) standing up and saying that we are in an emergency situation regarding the climate. And even back in 2001, the IPCC said it themselves: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” See the links at the end of this article to hear what some of the globally respected scientist who are not connected to the U.N. are saying about the “climate emergency”.
There are some very powerful reasons – both political and economical – for spreading such an extreme and fearful message as ‘potential social collapse, starvation and extinction’. What are they? Firstly, with all the blame for global pollution and warming being directed at the capitalist system, it encourages a thirst in society for a different kind of system. A socialist system. You may have seen the popular slogan “System change, not climate change”. This is a key part of the agenda, because thus the climate crisis generates a great willingness within the global population to adopt a new system of government, a new way of living. Enter on stage the U.N.’s “Agenda 2030” to “transform the world” (their words) and save us from the climate catastrophe that we are being convinced is around the corner. (See the video at the end for what Agenda 2030 (previously Agenda 21) is really about). Obviously, there will be significantly less resistance to adopting such a life-altering agenda if people think it is the answer to the dreadful emergency situation they believe we are in. If there was no global climate emergency, and the current system was not deemed to be so threatening to us all, then asking all countries to adopt this plan for their civilian population would seem highly suspicious to say the least. It is full of infringements upon our God-given freedoms, all of which require a justification. Climate crisis is the justification. If you know the U.N. well enough, pretty much everything they do is not be trusted.
The second reason to promote such intense fear of our global future is that fear makes populations far, far easier to control and direct. (And bear in mind that the U.N. happily supports dictatorships). Fear also encourages people to consume significantly more than if they were happy and secure, which is why fear is a key tool in a consumerist society. (This should help you realise why there is so much fear-inspiring information and programming on our screens). Fear also encourages people to grasp for any authoritative governmental proposals that they are told will make them feel safer (as per Agenda 2030). Fear is the most powerful political tool there is, make no mistake, and there are few better ways to inspire terror than to tell people that the planet they are living on is in the process of collapsing. There is no escape, and no hope – until the U.N. reveal their plan to save us all, that is.
It’s almost as if they are playing God, saving humanity from a global armageddon. Megalomaniacs love to make themselves feel that important, yet I can assure you they have fabricated the idea of impending global catastrophe for their own purposes. Again, I must remind you that I am not arguing about climate change and human destruction. I am challenging the rapidly-spreading idea that the future will be catastrophic if we don’t all radically change our lives, change “the system”, and make the world ‘carbon-zero’ by 2030. You only have to do some objective research, and it becomes clear that not only is this not true, but it simply cannot be predicted. The IPCC said it themselves in 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
3) A Political Issue?
One thing I must say here is that this has clearly become a political issue, and not just an environmental one. I have had a couple of exchanges with people who are sure that any counter-information regarding the “climate emergency” is purely right-wing mistruth by people who are sponsored by the fossil fuel companies. That is totally understandable, and while it may be true in one or two instances, I have found that generally it is not the case. Saying such a thing is a very good way to get people to dismiss valuable information.
It should be mentioned that I do not take political sides. By nature I am a much more liberal kind of person, but politics are not important to me, and I have not voted once in 40 years. What matters to me is what is true. I am wholeheartedly on the side of truth, and opposed to deception. So if deception is coming from a person or group on the political left or the political right, I will point it out irrespectively. Similarly, whether the truth is being spoken on the left or on the right, it will have my support.
It is essential that we put truth before politics, which sometimes means putting our political biases & passions temporarily to the side. It is truth we need to be passionate about if we wish to cut through all the misinformation that abounds in our media at present. This can be hard for some people to do, so strong is their allegiance to one political side or the other, and so strong is their mistrust of the opposing side. But it is absolutely essential to do this if we want to find out what is really going on, because our political feelings can often blind us to intelligent objectivity. So listen to the intelligence of someone’s perspective, watch them closely to discern if they are being honest or not, and do not judge them on any personal or political characteristics. I recommend you do this with the videos linked at the bottom of this article also. These are intelligent, caring and decent human beings, sharing some very valuable information.
Calling out someone’s politics is a cheap and easy way to arouse distrust of their argument, especially when the issue is overwhelmingly politically one-sided, as the climate issue is proving to be. Generally speaking, it seems to be right-wing pro-capitalists on one side (they are allegedly ‘the bad guys’), and left-wing environmentalists (and to an increasing degree, anti-capitalists/socialists) on the other side. And so you can easily fall into the trap of thinking that only one side contains goodness, care and compassion, and if you are not on that side you are the enemy. This is a very dangerous attitude to encourage, because you overlook the humanity of any particular individual. You overlook the goodness of their heart, and judge them by their political allegiance. It’s the old attitude of “if you’re not for us, you must be against us.” “If you do not support this cause which we think is noble, decent and righteous, you cannot be a truly good and caring person”. That is a kind of ideological fascism, which we should all be very careful that we don’t engage in. Creating enemies is a very bad idea, and when it occurs socially on a national or international scale, then the soil is being prepared for conflict and war.
4) Adhering to Peace & valuing humanity.
Like most people, I want a peaceful world without conflict, hatred, cruelty, violence and without wars being started. But I am very much seeing the danger of this with the climate issue, especially because of the heightening politicisation of it. One of the fiery comments I received was:
“The [capitalist] hierarchy has to go, and all those that stand by it, support it and promote it!”
Now of course you may feel exactly the same way, but be fully aware that they are not words of peace. There is always a danger that a crucial issue will polarise people, and thus steer them far away from what should be our top-priority common goal: inter-personal peace. If we forsake that for anything, then peace loses and conflict wins.
One of the biggest dangers with the climate issue is that people start brushing aside the importance of treating their fellow humans with decency, compassion and respect, because of the idea that individuals are far less important than the wellbeing of the planet and the survival of the entire species. This is called collectivism. With the welfare of the Earth and humanity seemingly in peril, people start justifying the notion that mere individuals don’t really matter, especially if they are not supporting “the cause”. However, this is very, very dangerous indeed, because then killing large numbers of people has a rational justification.
That is how dictators justify genocide, because the ones who are killed are the ones who are said to threaten the stability of the overall collective, the wellbeing of the nation. That is what happened in Rwanda, when the government persuaded the Hutu people – via media propaganda over the course of several years – that the rest of the population (the Tutsi) were a dangerous threat, not only to their personal wellbeing, but to the wellbeing of the country. Beware of such ideologies being fuelled by the media, and then growing within your own thoughts, because I assure you that with the increasing ‘urgency’ of the climate issue, such an ideology is spreading. In fact, the idea that the Earth would be better without humans altogether is becoming a more and more common one. Is there then a righteous justification for the killing of all humans? Is genocide then an act of of compassion for the planet?
If we are not careful, the more we hear about mankind’s destruction and pollution of Earth’s habitats, the more we will begin to resent our own species and be willing to foster a less-than-compassionate attitude towards our fellow humans. Or perhaps our compassion will only extend towards those who we think are on our side, on the side of the righteous, the side who care? Perhaps the other side – those who don’t seem to care about the welfare of the planet – deserve all that they get? Perhaps they deserve to suffer or die?
There are plenty of powerful leaders out there who have harnessed such sentiments in the past to get people to do terrible things to each other. Don’t be so sure that it couldn’t happen again, and much closer to home. The justification is always thoroughly convincing, and people usually fully believe themselves to be on the side of righteousness and justice. But what if they have been misled, deceived or manipulated? And how could we be aware of this occurring in our own society, which is so incredibly media-driven now? The media is far more influential upon our thoughts and attitudes than we realise. It is cumulative, often subliminal and it can be very, very subtle. Our thoughts can easily be guided by TV programs, films, documentaries, even music and video games. If you are not absorbing messages which are overtly positive and inspiring, then who knows how more negative messages could be influencing the way you think, feel and view the world.
This is something to be very, very aware of, because all forms of media can be used for propaganda – i.e. to encourage you to think and view things in a certain way. We may think we are just being entertained by that violent drama, or that dystopian TV series, but what are the messages? Who are portrayed as the ‘bad guys’ and what kind of attitudes and behaviours are being promoted as noble, honourable, decent and good? Because sometimes even violence and cruelty can be packaged in a way that makes us feel that it has a noble justification. Perhaps this even occurred in the Rwandan media in the build up to the genocide in which nearly a million innocent people were brutally killed by their fellow Rwandans, just for their socia-political position. Violence can be encouraged to be justified in people’s minds if you continuously flood them with enough inflammatory and incendiary information. You can read more about this in the final section of this article. So be very aware of anything which generates a sense of animosity, anger or resentment towards any group of human beings. It is deeply detrimental to your soul and very dangerous in society if it becomes a widespread attitude. Always do your best to spread peace and goodwill to all, aiming to forgive all people, no matter what they may have done. This is how you can keep your heart pure and ensure that you are not manipulated in being hateful or resentful towards anyone, or any group.
In terms of deception in social movements, one obvious thing to look out for is people or groups who are encouraging you to engage your emotions first, rather than your intelligence. People can be persuaded and guided through the evoking of strong emotions such as fear, passion and anger, and they then act from the emotion rather than from a balanced and intelligent consideration based on all the information from both sides. That is what I am asking you to do here. Consider all the information and use your intelligence, because there is more going on than meets the eye in the world and in the media, and a lot of it is political.
The mainstream media is constantly filling our minds with images of destruction, pollution, environmental pessimism; repeated predictions of loss, death, suffering and catastrophe. I am not saying it is all untrue (although the science for all the catastrophic predictions is flimsy at best). I am saying that it makes us emotional. It makes us sad, it makes us afraid for the future, and it makes us angry towards those who we hold responsible for what is occurring. This is natural, but we must temper this with intelligence, with healthy scepticism and with in-depth and objective research into what are the facts. Is everything we’re being told totally true? How can we be sure? Could there be a powerful social or political agenda that would benefit from a large amount of the population feeling very afraid, sad or angry? Well, in the case of the climate “emergency” there most certainly is, and it is a very, very big agenda.
5) Keep an open mind
So on this very concerning subject of climate “emergency” I ask you to keep an open mind, because things are not as they seem. And if there truly isn’t a need for fear, panic, anger or grief for what may occur in the future, wouldn’t you like to to know?
The reason it is so important to know (other than not needing to fear for you or your childrens’ future!) is that a critical and urgent situation will usually require critical and urgent action. If the emergency is not fully justified, the critical and urgent action is not needed, and we spare ourselves from unnecessary tribulation. But given the hype, fear and alleged extremity of our human environmental predicament, extreme ‘solutions’ are on their way, you can be sure, because the United Nations are ready to step in and tell us what we all need to do – in the midst of such a dire emergency – to save ourselves from an unpleasant demise. They have been planning for this situation for over 30 years.
A recent activist newsletter on this subject was forwarded to me which said:
“The stories are terrifying — fires, droughts, now even the number of heat deaths is rising. It’s hard to not feel overwhelmed by the gravity of this crisis. But we know what needs to be done to stop it — the science is out, and our governments have their instructions. Now it’s up to us to make sure they follow. So join the strike on September 20th, let’s make this the biggest climate mobilization yet! … The bigger we can help make it, the more impact it will have on leaders as they decide how to respond to the climate crisis.”
As you can see, fear and passion are both employed here to emotionally charge the reader and encourage engagement. But what is really interesting is that the leaders have already decided how to respond. The U.N. – a conglomeration of all the world leaders and now responsible for “international law” which overrides the sovereignty of the individual nations – have already made their plan to “transform the world” and save it from environmental ruin. It’s called Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development, and it focuses heavily upon environmental issues. Surprisingly it hasn’t been given much publicity yet, but it soon will.
Let me tell you a little trick that governments use to implement greater control and restriction in society, without eliciting too much resistance from the general public. So let’s say they already have an important agenda or a law which they wish to introduce, which they know might be met with resistance by intelligent people because it involves a reduction of freedom. So they orchestrate within society a set of circumstances which make people feel afraid and insecure. When human beings become afraid, their intelligence takes a back seat to a large degree, and they just want to feel more safe and secure. This is totally instinctive and primal. So the public then start actively asking the government to act, to implement measures that will ensure their safety. The government obligingly bring in the new law or agenda that they originally had planned, and it is accepted by the public. The people feel like the government listened to their voice (which is very important), and the people feel like the new agenda or law was initiated by them, and not forced upon them (which again is very important). This has happened time and again within all of the biggest and most affluent countries in the west, as government regimes have ever-so-slowly eroded the God-given freedoms and rights of intelligent people, and brought in more restriction, regulation and control. And fear usually always plays a role in doing so.
Now of course I am not saying that global warming was made up, and obviously the rainforests burning is plain to see, and there are so many more other aspects to the situation that have been scientifically measured and proven (although there is plenty of counter-evidence to some of these). What I am saying is that the U.N. are not hiding the fact that they have an enormous global agenda (Agenda 2030) which they wish to introduce, and it involves all of us changing the way we live quite drastically. It is a global plan to transform everything about our civilisation “socially, politically and economically” (their words) in the name of being more “sustainable.” This means greater control, greater restriction, greater austerity. And since the 2015 Paris agreement overrules the sovereignty of the nations, the U.N. has absolute control of all its member nations (193 at present) under international law. Essentially it is a one world government, or a ‘centralised’ government.
6) The United Nations
The U.N. has been working on their plan to ‘save humanity from itself’ for several decades, and I have been following them for a long time. Their original plan, released to the public in 1992, was called Agenda 21 and due to a reasonable amount of resistance that built up, it morphed into Agenda 2030. They call it an agenda for “transforming our world” through “sustainable development”. (But if you want to know what it’s really about, I recommend watching the video in the links at the end). Obviously, sustainable development sounds good, and perhaps if the U.N. truly were the noble, altruistic and compassionate organisation that we would all like them to be, then there would be no problem.
But unfortunately they are not. Far from it in fact. They have done some good PR to enhance their environmental image recently by inviting Greta Thunberg to speak there, but the vast bulk of the shadowy iceberg lies beneath the surface, and it is not exactly hidden. All you need to do to is go to a search engine that you trust and type “U.N .scandal” and you will be presented with more than you can read in a day. There is also a link at the end of this article. The organisation is headed by the rich and powerful – fat cats you might call them – which is ironic given how much the capitalist fossil fuel billionaires (and those who serve them) are being held accountable for the pollution and warming on the planet. It seems everyone is going to be willing to put their faith instead in a different group of rich, powerful and corrupt fat cats, ones who say they care deeply about the planet and it’s inhabitants. “Out of the frying pan and into the fire” they say.
But in fact, it is very hard to find any evidence that the U.N. has any sort of moral compass whatsoever (unless you read their own website, which seems to make them sound almost holy.) When you read about the countless scandals they have been involved in, it all seems to be about power, greed and money. And we’re talking a lot of power, and a lot of money, given the global scale of the organisation.
7) Ready to Radically Change the way you live?
Now, in preparation for the global spotlight that will soon fall upon Agenda 2030, certain activist groups (e.g. Extinction Rebellion) are now demanding that we need to “radically change the way we live” and do it urgently. They are calling it “deep adaptation”, which sounds almost beautiful and transcendent. But consider those words. Are you ready to adapt your life on a deep level, to this new, stripped-back way of living, which the “climate apocalypse” (to use Extinction Rebellion’s new phrase) necessitates?
This is not only about “system change” (which refers to replacing capitalism) but it is about every human being doing everything they can to prevent unnecessary carbon dioxide being put into the environment, such is the fine knife edge we are said the be balancing on ecologically. Expect some rather extreme suggestions (from the U.N. or Extinction Rebellion) about how we must “do our bit” to save the planet in this most desperate situation. How about we all stop breathing? (They have not suggested that yet). Carbon dioxide is being thoroughly demonised in the media, as if we should want to get rid of all of it urgently, but it is essential for all life on this planet. Without its presence, the Earth would be a ball of ice. The more of its presence, the lusher and greener the earth becomes. All life contains carbon; it’s an intrinsic part of our ecosystem, and carbon dioxide is not “bad” in any way, shape or form. Fear is a much greater threat to the human race, as is anger and hatred. There is not much use reducing our carbon dioxide output if we are living in fear, anxious in every moment whether our neighbour is about to tip the ecological balance by lighting a barbecue. Can you imagine living your life constantly monitoring everyone around you, watching people to see if they are breaking the rules, doing something that they shouldn’t be doing because it threatens the collective? That’s communism. That’s social enforcement. That’s Agenda 2030.
It sounds extreme, but in such a perilous situation as we are supposed to be in, what else do you think “deep adaptation” means exactly? As a species we are said to be teetering on the edge of an ecological abyss (if you believe what you are told) so do you think half measures will be sufficient? That’s not what “deep adaptation” means, and it’s not what Extinction Rebellion are calling for. It means changing everything in your life to be in line with what the government scientists say is necessary to save the human race, and other species. And who is going to tell us exactly what we need to do on a practical level? Extinction Rebellion? Greta Thunberg? Or could it by any chance be the U.N. who have drawn up a sublimely detailed action plan containing 17 main focus goals, which are broken down into 169 targets, for easy implementation? At the beginning of the document itself it states in no uncertain terms “All countries and stakeholders will implement this plan.” These are not suggestions, these are specific outlines for new strategies of social, economic and environmental governance, to be implemented by law. No area of human life will be ignored, and in the words of the document itself: “no-one will be left behind”.
Again, I ask you that important question: “how much do you trust the U.N.?” Do you trust them enough to allow them to micro-manage your life? Because that is what their Agenda 2030 is designed to give them power to do, by law. I quote from the U.N website: “The U.N. Charter, which is considered an international treaty, is an instrument of international law, and UN Member States (countries) are bound by it.”
So if you asked me “should I trust the U.N.?” then without hesitation I would tell you no, you should not trust them an inch. Not even a millimetre. I have done enough research to be sure of that.
So you see, as “homegrown” and “grassroots” and “alternative” and “anti-establishment” as they may seem, the agenda of the U.K. activist group, Extinction Rebellion, ties in perfectly with the “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” of the U.N., as does everything being said by Greta Thunberg. (And remember they both repeatedly quote the data of the U.N.’s ‘trusted’ climate change department – the IPCC – to back up the story that the every living thing on earth is in grave danger). The U.S. Green New Deal is ploughing exactly the same furrow. All 3 are appealing to the younger people, the alternative people, the spiritual people, the caring people, to women and especially to mothers, whom they never fail to remind will lose their children in tragic ways if they don’t do something. It’s almost as if they are building a “climate army”. (Note: on the first page on the Green New Deal website, in 3 separate places, it says “We need a World War 2 scale mobilization”).
It’s almost as if the left have found the perfect way to initiate an angry revolution against the right, in the name of loving the Earth; in the name of protecting humanity, and in the name of life itself. That’s a very, very powerful cause – possibly the most powerful cause there is – so who wouldn’t feel fully justified in standing up for it? But what if – just what if – the terrible future threat of climate apocalypse has been fabricated fully by the U.N. for their own purposes, which is generating global support for the most important agenda that they have produced: Agenda 2030? Could they be that deceptive, that manipulative, that evil? It’s not even questionable. They are that deceptive, that manipulative and that evil. I have seen enough to be left in no doubt whatsoever.
Everything that is occurring regarding the “climate emergency” totally benefits what the U.N. have planned. Remember, I am not politically tied but I do say what I see. In this very serious situation I am particularly compelled to do so, not because I am against anyone, but because I am totally against deception and dishonesty, not to mention cruelty and evil. People and organisations get possessed by such things, and as such should not be attacked. But they do need to be exposed though. The stakes are very, very high in this situation.
I am not suggesting that anyone other than the U.N. are corrupt, however, it is the most powerful global organisation on the planet, a highly corrupt one at that, whose members include every powerful leader on the planet (many of whom run dictatorships). Should we be concerned or suspicious that their agenda for increased control upon the lives of pretty much everyone on Earth (in the name of saving the environment) just so happens to tie in perfectly with the very sudden, very rapid and extremely well publicised movement launched by Extinction Rebellion and championed by Great Thunberg, as well as the very timely initiation of the Green New Deal programme by the American democrats? A cynic might say that it is all perfectly choreographed, especially with the next U.N. summit occurring on September 23nd in New York, 3 days after a global protest is due to be staged, begging for “system change”, no doubt. From a cynical perspective, you could even say that the Amazon fires have appeared on our screens globally at a very poignant moment also. But surely the U.N. wouldn’t pay people to start fires in the Amazon rainforest? Surely, they couldn’t be that corrupt? That would be evil.
8) Extinction Rebellion
There is a lot which is likeable about the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, Roger Hallam. I have watched quite a few videos of him speaking. He is an affable man, humorous, gentle, nature loving obviously. He seems to be being honest, in that he seems to believe what he is saying, but whenever he mentions the science regarding why everyone should be so terrified of the future (which he repeatedly emphasises), he is often quite vague and brings in other factors that might give humanity much less time. It sounds as if the less time that people think they have, the better for Extinction Rebellion.
Time shortage creates pressure and a sense of urgency, obviously. And if you want people to act in a certain way without really considering or analysing whether the action itself is really necessary, you create a sense of urgency. Because if you spend enough time analysing the quality (and politics) of the scientific data, you will start to see large cracks in the very premise that the entire movement is built upon: the idea that if we don’t radically change everything (deep adaptation) then our civilisation is likely to collapse, the human race is likely to suffer horribly, and pretty much everything on the planet could become extinct. These are massive fear-based speculations, and let me again remind you of what the IPCC said themselves in 2001: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled, non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
Extinction Rebellion are certainly not “beyond politics” as they like to put on their posters, because their movement is wholly geared around forcing “system change, not climate change” as another of their posters says. Roger Hallam has admitted he is a socialist (and there is nothing wrong with that), and he has also admitted he wants to “bring down the government and create a democracy fit for purpose”. Again, I have no problem with those words, but they are political, not environmental. He has a political agenda which is clearly well fortified by spreading the idea that the capitalist system is leading the human race to the brink of a terrifying extinction. (And again, remember that I am not necessarily pro-capitalism, although I am deeply concerned about the dreadful threat of communism). So one might question which conviction is stronger within Roger Hallam: his own genuine fear of the end of the human race, or his deep contempt for the capitalist system? If it is the latter, might he be willing to bend the truth in order to achieve the aim of forcing the “system change” which Extinction Rebellion (and the U.N.) clearly have as their goal? After all, is there a more effective way of generating a strong hunger for socialism in the general public than blaming capitalism for the near-certain future destruction of the human species?
The strong and powerful momentum needed within a society to invite such a massive change could indeed be generated if enough people were strongly motivated by a sufficient quantity of fear or anger. Being a non-violent organisation, fear is obviously far preferable for Extinction Rebellion and that is clearly the tactic they have chosen to use upon the public at large. You just need to look at the very dark nature of all their promotional material (deathly skulls aplenty) and their street performances (coffins, deathly looking figures gliding around ominously, people clad in black with their heads in nooses, mass die-ins, and fake blood aplenty) to see this clearly. The fear they are pouring into people’s minds with such darkly powerful imagery is getting them support, and it is motivating people. That is exactly what they want of course.
I have studied the power of imagery in great detail, and the very moment I saw one of Extinction Rebellion’s posters for the first time, I knew exactly what they were up to. Everything they do is strategic, because they obviously want results. This is exactly why they use slogans like “Tell the Truth” which cleverly asserts that they are the honest ones, and anyone who contradicts their “facts” (as provided by the dubious IPCC) must be lying. People who instinctively trust alternative-looking people more than they trust men in suits will not question such a demand for honesty, and will assume that Extinction Rebellion must be trustworthy because they are the ones demanding the truth. It is very clever, as are many of the phrases used in their posters. Another one is “Stop Denying the Earth is Dying.” That ingenious little phrase slips a presupposition into our minds that “the Earth is dying” and we are distracted from questioning such an extreme and terribly bleak statement, because the focus is upon whether we are in denial or not. And if you do question that the Earth is dying, then you must in denial. Because Extinction Rebellion say so. And because they care so deeply about the planet, they must undeniably occupy the moral high ground. But do they really? If there is any dishonesty or ulterior motives behind getting people to join their movement, then they cannot occupy the moral high ground. And the clever, manipulative, dark and coercive nature of their advertising speaks volumes about what is truly going on, even if most of the good people who support them are totally oblivious to it. It is coercion through fear, and very clever propaganda.
Words are very, very powerful and propaganda uses them to full effect to manipulate people’s thought processes and perspectives upon the outside world. I have never seen so much propaganda in my life as that which has been flowing out from Extinction Rebellion in the past year. The people who are responsible for the imagery they use and the words in their slogans are master propagandists for sure, and the propaganda is working. People are agreeing with what their slogans suggest (e.g. “The Earth is dying”), repeating them as if they were gospel truth, and jumping on board the enviro-political bus, destination socialism. Because it is very clear that one of the main results which Extinction Rebellion are looking for is system change, justifying it as being the core solution to all of humanity’s environmental problems. But can you fully trust their motives for wanting this? Is their moral purity beyond question? What if the U.N. were funding them to generate a strong social momentum for system change?
Because Extinction Rebellion are doing outstanding work at furthering the U.N. agenda to implement their new socialist system: Agenda 2030. Why wouldn’t the U.N. use all the help they can get? Most alternative, environmental and spiritually-minded people would be a little suspicious of large governmental bodies like the U.N. purporting to want to change the system (and rightly so). But an earthy, cool and hip grassroots movement, anti-establishment to a large degree, created by a few normal and relatable people who have alternative attitudes and appearances can be sure to have the trust and confidence of such people. You’ve heard of a wolf in sheep’s clothing? The U.N. is the wolf, Extinction Rebellion seem to be the sheep’s clothing. If you think I am being unfair, I am just encouraging you to engage in some healthy scepticism because there is a very real possibility that what I am saying is true, no matter how much you dislike it or disbelieve it. What if it is true?
It is very wise to look at any situation from all perspectives, to ensure that you have the best understanding possible. So I ask you to be objective and consider the entire “climate emergency” movement from a political (and not environmental) perspective. If you do you will see that it is very political indeed. Greta Thunberg (as well as supporting Extinction Rebellion) appeared in a photo shoot with Barack Obama (a Democrat), and appeared on the cover of the U.S. Guardian Newspaper magazine with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democrat (left wing) U.S. representative. The cover read: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg have a plan. Are you in?”. Obviously, it is a political plan because Ms Ocasio-Cortez is a politician who is promoting “democratic socialism”. Can you see a theme developing? Socialism. And if that is not enough, consider this quote from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), speaking about the Paris agreement in 2015: “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, changing the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” She is referring to capitalism. The Paris agree was meant to be about the climate, not about removing capitalism from the world. That is a political agenda, not an environmental one.
9) The U.N.’s Communist Roots
Did you know that the man who was jointly responsible for the creation of the U.N. in 1945 – Alger Hiss – was convicted in 1950 of being a communist spy? The emblem of the United Nations was designed under his direction and bears a striking resemblance to the State Emblem of the Soviet Union. Hiss co-authored the UN Charter with Soviet communist Andrei Vyshinsky, and as America’s chief contributor to the UN’s creation, he appointed scores of like-minded communist sympathizers and world-government advocates to UN posts. Since then, each of their 10 secretary-generals has been a socialist.
So hang on a moment, let’s just absorb all of this… The U.N. (as stated by Ms. Figueres) have an agenda to remove capitalism? They were co-founded by a communist spy, their first charter was co-authored by a Soviet communist and all of their 10 secretary-generals since 1945 have been socialists? And it is their very own climate science department (the IPCC) which has been producing all the bleak and fear-inspiring data that is being used to paint the picture that the capitalist system is fully responsible for putting the survival of humanity at risk? And all the activist movements and left-wing politicians quoting this data are suggesting that for humanity (and many other species) to have even a remote chance of survival, it is a matter of great urgency that we change everything about our society – and especially the capitalist system? And the United Nations just happen to already have an extremely detailed, pre-prepared socialist plan about exactly how we can “transform the world”, which they have been working on for about 30 years? And all 193 member nations are legally required to implement this plan because they surrendered their sovereignty to the ‘International law’ of the U.N. in the 2015 Paris agreement? And the U.N. are having their annual summit on September 23rd, three days after a global “climate strike” protest will be staged all around the world, with millions of people imploring them to do something urgently to save the world from destruction? (and I am sure they won’t tell everyone they want to impose global communism). And we are expected to believe that all of this is totally independent from the sudden rise and highly publicised actions of Extinction Rebellion in the U.K., The Green New Deal in the U.S., the fact that many global governments so willingly declared a “climate emergency” at the drop of a hat, and all the climate hysteria which has come to a crescendo this summer in all of the major western nations?
If you cannot see the enormous political and social agenda here (and I pray to God that you can) then I don’t know what more I can say. Perhaps you think that I am simply casting aspersions upon those whom I disagree with politically. But I have no political allegiance, and I never have. My allegiance is with truth and honesty, whichever political side it is presented on. But as I said earlier, the climate situation has become such a politically divided issue that almost everyone who speaks against it tends to be right-wing. In fact, I’ve been looking online if there are any left-wing critics of the climate hysteria, and have found only one. All those who most champion the cause seem to be left-wing. I myself do not like to take political sides (despite my deep concerns about communism!) but I am certainly a more liberal minded kind of person. And when it comes to economic “systems”, I will support whichever system proves (or has proved) itself to be best able to create a more peaceful, fair and compassionate-minded world. Communism has already totally disqualified itself from the running though.
I must emphasise that politics is not my interest, and if I am ‘anti’ anything it is deception and cruelty (which are often found together). And if I am ‘pro’ anything it is truth, human decency, kindness and peace. So when deception is being used for political purposes (on either the right or the left) I am extremely suspicious. And when the U.N. are deeply involved and attempting to persuade the public how much they care about the Earth and the wellbeing of humanity, then I am beyond suspicious. In fact, I am in no doubt whatsoever about their evil intentions.
Having researched all of these things objectively, free of political blinkers, the truth very quickly became very obvious. I strongly recommend that you put your own political bias or allegiances to the side temporarily, so that you can also see this situation objectively. It might be difficult because, as I said, the whole “climate emergency” hysteria has become a very political issue indeed. Pretty much all of the support for the activist & political movements that promote it are coming from the left, and that includes the left-wing media (which seems to be about 95% of the media in general). And most of the critics or sceptics (i.e. those who don’t subscribe to the whole “climate panic” narrative and which includes some very distinguished and globally respected scientists) are right-wing. The most prominent exception to this rule is Rosa Koire, a very switched-on Democrat whose video about Agenda 2030 can be found on the climate videos page.
So if you are strongly politically biased, you might find it hard to view some of the counter-information you come across on this subject without judging it through a political lens. But if you listen, watch and read carefully, with an open, attentive and curious attitude, I am sure you will be able to ascertain who is speaking honestly and free of agenda, and who is not. At least, I hope you will.
10) The very real danger of a political climate war
Wars don’t always happen accidentally, or because circumstances necessitate it. No, sometimes wars are planned for political or even economic reason. Wars can be astronomically profitable, in terms of arms sales, vehicle production and reconstruction contracts handed out after the decimation is over. War is also a political tool that can be of great benefit to one side if enough of the opposition are destroyed. This is what happened during the Rwandan civil war. The Hutu-led government carefully planned the genocide of the entire Tutsi population, and they were mostly successful. Close to a million Tutsi were estimated to have been killed by their fellow countrymen in very brutal ways. The Tutsi and Hutu people lived side by side, a bit like Republicans and Democrats, in the same villages and towns. But over a period of several years, the Hutu government flooded the government radio and newspapers with more and more anti-Tutsi propaganda. I quote from an article on the ‘EndGenocide’ website:
“Radio hosts regularly discussed discrimination that the Hutus suffered under the power of the Tutsis. Strong connotations describing Hutus as slaves during colonization painted the Rwandan genocide as a type of slave rebellion. Radio stories were used to anger the Hutus and channel that anger into action. Radio was also used to dehumanize Tutsis by calling them “cockroaches,” making acts of violence against them seem less inhumane.”
And the Hutu people were not only encouraged to feel angry towards their compatriots. They were encouraged to be deeply distrustful of them, and fearful also. They were persuaded that the Tutsi posed a great threat to their personal and national safety.
So what concerns me here is that similar things have been occurring in the USA recently, where certain media outlets have allowed messages to be put out along the lines of “Anyone who supports Donald Trump is a racist/white supremacist.” Now, I do not support Donald Trump in any way, shape or form, but that’s a dangerous brush with which to tar millions of Americans. The anger and contempt felt towards him as a human being is understandable, but to use it to make very extreme comments about half of your county’s population is incendiary and dangerous to say the least. Just consider what occurred in Rwanda. Don’t be so sure that we are too evolved to allow such atrocities to occur in our own countries, because the media bombardment is absolutely relentless, and as a result the division and polarisation continues to intensify).
Politicians, TV personalities and media presenters have a huge nation-wide responsibility (irrespective of the extremity of the behaviour upon which they are commenting) not to fuel anger, vitriol, and hatred among the general public. Such strong emotions felt among millions of people nationwide are very, very dangerous, and we all have our responsibility to be part of the solution, not the problem. It is easy to point the finger at the bad guys – almost everyone does it – but are we doing everything we can to make things better? Or are we also spreading negativity, anger and hatred? If we are, it makes us no better than those whom we are criticising. We need to rise above such practices, and spread tolerance, understanding and unconditional forgiveness, not anger and hatred. This is the mark of an evolved human being, and this is the direction we all need to move in.
One of the most detrimental things that can occur within a society is the extreme polarisation of its people. A polarisation of ideas is one thing, but when you accompany that with very strong emotions: deep fear, anger, hatred or even collective rage, then you have a serious problem which needs addressing urgently. We have all seen the polarisation occurring between the Democrats and Republicans in America, largely inspired by the presence of their current president, but I would like to focus for a moment on the climate “emergency” and how that threatens to be far worse, on a global scale. I pray that it does not, and the greatest motivation behind me writing this article is the strong hope that it will encourage greater reason, perspective, consideration and peace in those who read it, and that division, fear and anger may decrease.
Strong negative emotions coupled with strong negative ideas are a very dangerous mixture, so even if the ideas remain it is good to deal with the emotions immediately, so that they can be pacified and a sense of balance and peace can be restored. Such seemingly small actions, enacted by enough people within a volatile national situation can avert widespread conflict. Put simply, we need to breathe, relax and restore a sense of calm to our body and emotions; especially before we act or speak. Spreading peace or spreading conflict is a conscious choice we all have to make in every thought, in every conversation, and in every social media post. We all have a responsibility because we all possess the power to influence others in a positive or negative way. For the sake of peace, we should steer clear of the latter at all costs.
So this is why I am very concerned about the increasing use of war terminology regarding the climate “emergency”. I have seen the phrase “A World War 2 type mobilisation is needed” too many times. Such words are not being used by accident, because they are coming from several different areas simultaneously. In fact, an entire article I read in an online socialist magazine (New Republic) painted the climate “emergency” as a full scale war against the climate. It used battle terminology throughout the article and painted a very detailed picture of being amidst the most serious war that the world had ever seen. They called it “World War 3”. I quote: “World War III is well and truly underway. And we are losing.”
Words are powerful, as are metaphors and analogies, because they lead people into a certain mentality, a certain way of seeing things. Unless we want a war, we should not paint pictures that suggest we are in one. But perhaps there are some groups who would like one, such is there contempt for the current system? Perhaps some people are thinking that a massive (and inevitably violent) revolution is what is required to aggressively force the system change that everyone is being encouraged to believe would solve all of our problems?
My biggest concern with the ‘World War 3’ metaphor being used so widely now is that we cannot fight the climate, because it is doing nothing wrong. But if people’s minds are steered into a war mentality, they will instinctively look for who the real enemy is; the one that is responsible for our supposed global climate predicament. We are told it is those who are responsible for the climate changing: The fossil fuel companies, the politicians who support them, the people who champion capitalism and so on. Here is another quote from the New Republic ‘war article’: “There are powerful forces, of course, that stand in the way of a full-scale mobilization [of renewable energy technology]. The only way to overcome that concerted opposition… is to adopt a wartime mentality”. And here we see the true message of this very long article: ‘If we care about the planet, we need to engage in a war against those who are standing in the way of us making the changes we believe will save us.’ Subtle, but not so subtle.
I am seeing this mentality exhibited in various areas of left-wing politics, activist movements and the media, and essentially it is a case of ‘come on, let’s take on the big boys. We can beat them if we all join forces.’ It’s the women, the children, the minorities and all the worlds’ oppressed versus the men in power, the ones who are heartlessly destroying the planet, without a shred of remorse. This is the scenario that is being put in people’s minds, this is the film script for this particular drama, with the underlying message of “if we can just defeat the bad guys once and for all, we can all live in peace”. If you have noticed yourself being drawn into such ways of thinking, please remember that peace cannot come from war. War is truly devastating, emotionally, psychologically as well as physically. Do you think the Hutu people were singing and dancing in the blood-soaked streets of Rwanda after one million Tutsi were slaughtered (many of them with machetes)? It was horrific, brutal and devastating. It was no cause for celebration, especially when the Hutu realised that it had been totally unnecessary; that they had been manipulated and used by the Hutu political extremists in the government to wipe out nearly a million good people, for nothing more than political reasons. Be very, very aware that something similar doesn’t unwittingly get your support in your own country, no matter how convincing and righteous it sounds.
There are always extremists who will believe that conflict is necessary to achieve an important end, and the danger is that intelligent people can be persuaded into becoming so, through emotional manipulation (usually involving fear or anger) and through an unquestioning belief in the reality of an extreme situation, such as impending climate doom. And an extreme situation will often elicit extreme behaviour. It is true that one of the biggest dangers here is the amount of fear and anger that is being generated by people believing that the future of humanity hangs in the balance. We are told who is largely responsibly for this situation (repeatedly by Greta Thunberg and others): the rich capitalists who have their finger in the fossil-fuel pie, the politicians who talk but don’t act, the “establishment’ who are quite comfortable with all of their wealth and power but seemingly not in the least bit concerned with the dire state of the environment. They are the ones putting all of our lives at risk, not to mention the lives of our future children and grandchildren, and it’s all in the name of profit and greed.
How can anyone not feel angry towards these people if they believe that they are leading the human race to its death and destroying the earth in the process – all out of pure greed? And what about all the people who are pro-capitalism? Does that make them part of the bad guys’ team, part of the enemy? If they support capitalism and you perceive capitalism to be the most dangerous threat to the wellbeing of the planet, how tolerant are you likely to be of their perspective? Doesn’t that make them a threat, if they are defending (or perhaps promoting) a system that you perceive is putting all of humanity in peril? Be aware of such thinking, because such ideologies on a big enough scale can be used to mobilise large groups of people into conflict. Wars have been started like this in the past, and we really, really don’t want it to happen again in the future.
When intense emotions such as fear and anger are present in what seems like a incredibly critical situation, people certainly will become extreme in their behaviour. And given that we are being told that the stakes couldn’t be higher (i.e. the whole of humanity is in danger) then you can expect people to behave very extremely. In life-or-death situations, there is no room for normal human etiquette, respect, decency and other socially agreed behaviours. This is the social danger we are presented with in this emotionally charged situation, especially as there is not a total consensus regarding the gravity of the situation. There is a division of opinion, yet on one side you have some extremely strong emotions, a sense of panic even.
So if you feel a great sense of urgency and gravity, and are convinced that we all have to “work together” to stop producing unnecessary carbon dioxide for the planet to have a chance of survival, how do you respond to people who are not remotely concerned, and as such are doing things that you perceive are increasing the danger, like having bonfires, flying in airplanes, driving fuel-thirsty cars and so on? The greater and more present you perceive the danger to be, the less tolerant you will be of such things. And if by chance it became law that people had to curtail their use of certain things, how likely would you be to be an enforcer of such law? Or an informer of those who trespass the law? All human beings would be surprised of what they are capable of when motivated by sufficient fear. This is why we have to make absolutely sure that it is never a prime motivating factor for us, and that we don’t pay heed to those who are using it as a tool for engagement, motivation and social persuasion.
I believe there will be more and more people who see through the U.N.’s deception, as outlined in this article, and who realise that we are not in the dangerous and threatening situation we have been told we are in. If you are one of them, how do you respond to people who are terrified about the future and urging you to take action, to get involved and to be afraid? Or what about those that might be angry regarding the people who don’t believe the catastrophic prognosis? It’s a tricky situation, because of the wealth of very persuasive information that has been flooding the media for quite a long time. I do believe that intelligence will always triumph over fear and deception, but it is important not to argue with people, as conflict and hostility will often be the outcome, especially when people feel very strongly about the issue at hand. Listen to them, listen fully to their concerns without judgement, accept how they feel and be compassionate towards their fears and their anger. But tell them there is something they must read to have a clearer picture of the whole situation. Do not argue the case, but tell them to read this article. Forward them the link. Email it to them or print it out and give it to them. The truth always triumphs over deception, and the light always shines through the darkness. Have faith, have compassion for the angry and the fearful, and trust fully in the power of truth and goodness to prevail.
Related videos & articles:
Please note, my information has not come from these videos, but I have chosen them because they succinctly convey the relevant information in an intelligent way. I recommend watching & reading in detail, and continuing your own objective research, using a search engine you trust. Google is far from impartial on the climate emergency topic, so try DuckDuckGo. Beware of the countless online smear stories which attempt to discredit highly distinguished and knowledgeable experts, for purely political reasons.
Video (5 mins) Richard Lindzen PhD, world respected meteorologist & atmospheric physicist, and Professor Emeritus at MIT, published 230+ scientific papers and books. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” in the IPCC’s 3rd assessment report on climate change.
Article: Is carbon dioxide really a pollutant?
Video (20 mins) Rosa Koire, U.S. Democrat & expert on land use who is legally challenging the government on the implementation of Agenda 21 (Agenda 2030) in the USA.
Article : Wikipedia: “Criticisms of the United Nations”
Video (20 mins) William Happer PhD,Princeton Emeritus, atomic physicist and one of the world’s most foremost experts on the carbon atom
Article: “Is there really a climate emergency?”
Video (14 mins) Roy Spencer PhD, climatologist, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.
Article : The Head of World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) criticises extremist climate alarm scientists
Video (15 mins) Patrick Moore PhD, ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace talks about the relationship between CO2 & global temperature
IPCC Report : “Long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible”