The earth does not need our help.
Good Afternoon.
Coming off the heels of the COP26 climate conference that occurred last week, it would be out of place not to discuss or try to understand the climate worry (some might label it as hysteria) and try to break down what is being proposed. The most important question is, Cui bono?
First of all, I would like to state here that I am a graduate of a Master degree in Environmental Assessment and Management. Sorry, but I have to signal without bragging that I know a little more than your average climate activist on this subject (I know, I know degrees are kind of worthless in this age, but I digress)- covers head in shame.
Let us begin by going into the history to map out how all it started. The climate change narrative was advocated in 1970’s as a “global warming” agenda aiming to control carbon dioxide (energy) and conduct existential social experiments on the world’s population by means of industrialization, food production and resource depletion. This was advanced by The Club Of Rome (Consultants to the UN) – a group of mainly European scientists and academics, who used computer modelling to warn that the world would run out of finite resources if population growth were left unchecked. I cannot leave out the fact that the club of Rome was founded by David Rockefeller (to all my conspiratorial friends, yes I am aware- cough).
They advocated for a shift in the world order in a conference in June 12-19, 1965, at the Conference on Conditions of World Order in Bellagio, Italy, with papers given by Henry A. Kissinger and others. Three years later in April 1968, The Club of Rome (CoR) was founded in Bellagio by ‘a think-tank of financiers, scientists, economists, politicians, heads of state, and industrialists.
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill.. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….” – Club Of Rome
The Club Of Rome went on to publish books like the 1972 environmental best-seller “The Limits To Growth” that examined five variables in the original model: world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion and sponsored several reports that favored population reduction and advancing global government on the back of an environmental crisis.
Not surprisingly, the CoR predicted a dire future for mankind unless “we” ‘act now’;
Journalists like James Delingpole of The Telegraph has elaborated on the hoax and agenda:
The reason I have become so obsessed with “global warming” in the last few years is not because I’m particularly interested in the “how many drowning polar bears can dance on the head of a pin” non-argument which hysterical articles are striving so desperately to keep on a life support machine. It’s because unlike some, I’ve read widely enough to see the bigger picture.
One thing I’ve learned in this wide reading is how obsessed so many of the key thinkers in the green movement are with the notion of “overpopulation.” As one of their favorite think tanks, the Club of Rome, puts it: “Earth has a cancer and the cancer is man.” This belief explains, inter alia, why the “science” behind Anthropogenic Global Warming is so dodgy: because the science didn’t come first. What came first was the notion that mankind was a problem and was doing harm to the planet. The “science” was then simply tortured until it fitted in with this notion.
The goal was established by the Club of Rome whose member, Maurice Strong transmitted and translated it into world government policy through the United Nations.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that .. the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill…. the real enemy, then, is humanity itself….we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or….one invented for the purpose.” — Club of Rome
He was assisted by politicians like Al Gore with his famous documentary advocating sustainability, green energy with soundbites that seem benign and altruistic. The latest soundbite to date is ESG (Environment, Sustainability and Governance) but lets carry on..
These findings and articles together with the 1987 document altruistically named “Our Common Future” by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) defined ‘sustainable development’ for the first time, as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. It referred to ‘global warming’ throughout, and specifically attributes it to CO2, and the document also proposed an inevitable move to the cities and clustered shelters.
Fast forward to the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (aka Earth Summit 2, UNCED, or simply ‘Rio’), Rio de Janeiro, where Agenda 21 and the sustainable development goals (SDG’s) was born. A plan that detailed a shift in modern way of life such as in;
Agriculture
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management
Education
Energy and Housing
Population
Public Health
Resources and recycling
Transportation, Sustainable Economic Development
What I find interesting is that upon reading the documents (like I did back in school), one would find little fault in them as they seem to be morally pure with a progressive twist that aims to further growth and development in humanity. But upon careful inspection aided with critical thinking, one could read between the lines and understand it for what it truly is.
It raised various questions left to be answered as it favored an unlimited control of the world’s resources to a group of people named with a vague word as ‘stakeholders’.
The stakeholders referred to in the agenda 21 (and as we now know through the recent COP26) is now revealed as the billionaire 1percent class, owners of multinational corporations, private banking and financial institutions through the GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero). Not like we did not suspect earlier but good that we have a solid confirmation. A read of the publication from GFANZ is a chilling one.
Together with the UN, this organization has come to work against the public interest and in favor of private ones under the banner of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ that prioritizes this group of actors over national governments and the public.
Even the late and former Secretary General of the UN Koffi Annan speaking at the World Economic Forum in 1998, pointed out the shift of representation at the UN, saying;
“The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution.” . . . A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. . . . The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”
Coming to conclusion with the exhibit of evidences stated above and in documents referenced, we have come to are witness a complete overhaul of the old system and a new recolonization of the world, a limit of freedom and liberty, the elimination of national sovereignty and individualism, the privatization the “natural assets” (e.g., ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world, and employing arbitrary force to increase technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations. In short a new form of servitude and feudalism cloaked in slogans our governments are promoting such as “Building, Back, Better”.
All in the name of “protecting the planet”. PLEASE!!
See you tomorrow
- Ope