In Part 1 we looked at some of the reasons to question scientific certainty about the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis. Please read Part 1 first if you currently believe there is no basis for scepticism. In Part 3 we’ll explore the ideology underpinning globalist thinking on the ‘climate emergency.’ But first, let’s look at some of those globalist forces leading the climate activists and their environmentalist movements.
The Alarmist Power Structure
Over the last few months, we have seen the synchronised appearance of three distinct yet mutually supportive phenomena. The pressure group Extinction Rebellion (XR) seemingly rose from nowhere to global prominence. Simultaneously, the Swedish teenage activist sensation Greta Thunberg started a global youth movement, garnering an immense social media following in no time at all, rarely falling far from the MSM limelight since.
The meteoric rise of XR and Thunberg has been accompanied by a ubiquitous MSM and intergovernmental campaign to redefine language itself. Over the last two decades we have been systematically educated to first forget about the ‘hole in the Ozone layer’, focus upon ‘global warming’ instead, then forget that and adopt the term ‘climate change’ before abandoning that to think in terms of a ‘climate emergency.’ This is sometimes called ‘reframing’ or, more commonly, ‘spin.’ The underlying evidence base doesn’t necessarily change but our perception of the possible threat does.
XR have been calling for global revolution, staging street protests the world over, in response to claimed government indifference to the intergovernmental pronouncements that we are entering the 6th global mass extinction event and only have 12 years left to save the Earth. They insist, as do many others, that anyone who questions their certainty that CO2 propelled disaster is upon us are ‘climate science deniers.’
As the Red List shows, mankind has wiped out a number of species. But these moronic feats were overwhelmingly achieved with spears, bullets and tarmac. There is no evidence that CO2 ever had anything to do with it, nor that it ever will. XR are one among many modern ‘environmentalist’ movements who exclude the very real dangers mankind’s activities present to the natural world, while focusing exclusively on alleged AGW.
Scepticism about AGW does not denote any belief that we don’t have a man made biodiversity problem. Certainly deforestation, pollution, urbanisation, modern agriculture, the widespread use of pesticides, electromagnetic pollution, over fishing, the general loss of natural habitats, the huge ecological destruction wrought by war (by far the biggest threat to the environment) and numerous other environmental abuses are threats. However, the insistence from ‘green lobbyists’ that CO2 is practically the only one we should concern ourselves with, consistently overlooks these significant, more evident problems.
To question if CO2 is really to blame, is not to deny either the scientific or historical evidence. To studiously ignore all the other environmental crimes we continue to perpetrate, solely to promote a single unproven hypothesis, most definitely is.
We are reliably informed that XR are a grassroots movement, formed by concerned citizens who are dismayed by the lack of government action on climate. They are supposedly opposed to current government policy and state on their website:
- Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency.
- Government must act now to halt the biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2025.
- Government must create and be led by the decisions of a Citizens’ Assembly on climate and ecological justice.
Their demands are clear. The AGW hypothesis is an indisputable fact, the only way to save the planet is by achieving something called ‘net zero’ CO2 emissions and elected government policy must be controlled only by people who don’t question either of the first two assumptions.
The Extinction Rebellion Industrial Complex
XR intend to achieve their geopolitical aims by stopping commuters getting to work, gluing themselves to office windows and heavy machinery, ruining local businesses and generally fouling up people’s day to day lives. This allegedly puts them in direct conflict with the state and they have the arrests to prove it.
So it is perhaps surprising that one of the cofounders of XR Dr Gail Bradbrook recently said:
“The politicians, actually, behind the scenes, including this current government, are telling us that they need a social movement like ours to give them the social permission to do the necessary.”
Gail should know. Her links to government policy making and the telecommunications industry are well established. She has spent the last two decades working with charities, NGO’s and thinks tanks, influencing, guiding and often producing central government policy.
Over recent years the UK government has passed a slew of legislation systematically eroding people’s rights to lawfully gather and peacefully protest. The Public Order Act 1986, Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 have coincided with a strategic shift in policing towards practices such as ‘kettling,’ intrusive surveillance, infiltration and a parallel militarisation agenda.
In order to organise a protest, even in a British provincial town, you need to have it approved by the local authority. Yet XR were seemingly able to bring widespread disruption the heart of London, for days, with little difficulty. The success of their guerrilla protests have been duplicated across major European cities, with consistent results. They have received massive promotional support from the mainstream media, with their leaders being interviewed on the main evening news and appearing on numerous, high profile, MSM discussion programs.
This is in stark contrast to other groups whose protests have been all but ignored. For example XR’s civil disobedience has been dwarfed by that of the Gilet Jaune in France. Yet, while XR have grabbed the global headlines, including in France, the ‘Yellow Jackets’ have barely warranted a mention by the MSM, unless to accuse them of instigating violence, and there has been virtually no MSM news reports of the brutal suppression meted out by the French and EU authorities.
As far as the state and the MSM are concerned, not all protests are equal. Some are allowed and promoted, while others crushed and ignored. The Notable difference between XR and the Gilet Jaune, other than the size of the protests, is that XR support the globalist agenda while the much larger Gilet Jaune movement oppose it. Obviously, it isn’t the weight of expressed public opinion that matters but rather how that opinion is received by the state.
Only a month after the sudden appearance of XR in the UK, the leader of her majesty’s opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, had his motion to declare a ‘climate emergency’ approved by the UK government. Within weeks of their protest beginning, XR were in discussion with cabinet ministers. So it seems Dr Bradbrook’s opinion that XR have at least tacit support from the state is well founded.
Claims by XR that they are a ‘grassroots’ movement of the people are complete tosh. In just under 3 months, following its launch on October 31st 2018, XR had spread to 50 countries and, by April 2019, was reporting a global network of 400 branches. This doesn’t just happen. It requires a massive, coordinated effort, a global, highly effective media strategy and significant funding.
XR have been extremely coy about their revenue sources, claiming it all comes from private benefactors, public donations and money generated from ‘activist workshops’ where they sell training to would be protestors. Bizarre trainee requirements, such as participants being encouraged to sign a declaration stating a willingness to break the law for their activist principles, have raised considerable concerns among the genuine activist movement. However, you only need to look at the leadership to identify some extremely powerful globalist institutions deeply ensconced within Extinction Rebellion.
Senior figures, like Dr Gail Bradbrook, a consultant for EE and the Cabinet Office, among others, maintain a network of connections to multinational corporations, governmental and intergovernmental bodies. Dr Bradbrook works for a registered charity called Citizens Online, who call themselves ‘digital inclusion experts.’ Whatever that means?
They have consulted for a variety of government ministries and agencies including Ofcom and the Department for International Trade. Their board of trustees include Lord St John of Bletso, whose corporate ties include stints with numerous oil and gas energy firms, plastic manufacturers, investment and asset management firms and banks. Anthony has more recently focused upon communication technology and sits on a number of governmental policy steering groups focused upon the 4th industrial revolution. While gracing the House of Lords Select Committee on Artifical Intelligence Anthony co-authored the following:
“We urge the Government to consider further substantial public investment to ensure that everywhere in the UK is included within the rollout of 5G and ultrafast broadband, as this should be seen as a necessity.”
I’m sure the fact that Tony’s venture capitalist firm Albion Ventures VCT stand to gain significantly from the 5G toll out had nothing to do with his enthusiasm for it. Nor his directorship of Tyvak Orbital Networks, who make the micro satellite technology needed to roll out 5G to every single corner of the nation.
Tazza isn’t the only member of the Citizens Online charity board with a vested interest in 5G. Charles Lowe is involved with Telehealth Solutions Ltd, who are heavily invested in ‘remote health monitoring’ and Tuli Faas, a corporate lawyer, with links to SITA, the world’s largest provider of communication and IT services for the airline industry, would also like to see the spread of 5G technology.
While working for Citizens Online, funded by the telecommunications industry, Dr Bradbrook entered into the heart of government policy making. Speaking to the influential think tank the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), who are largely funded by the JP Morgan Chase Foundation (the U.N’s bank of choice,) when asked in 2004 who was paying for all this ‘deep state’ infiltration Dr Bradbrook said:
“Who has paid for it? Industry, our Alliance for Digital Inclusion partners have understood the importance of the strategic coordinating role, alongside the delivery of projects on the ground. AOL, BT, Cisco, IBM, Intel, Microsoft and T-mobile are all supporting this work.”
So with leading lights in the ‘environmentalist movement’ having such deep ties with multinational corporations, perhaps it isn’t so surprising that XR are strong advocates of 5G. On their website they state:
“There is certainly no conspiracy at the heart of XR to promote 5G and/or other technical solutions and such conspiracy theories are best seen in the light of usual attempts to divide movements and attack spokespeople, like the attacks on Greta Thunberg.”
Whenever we see the ‘conspiracy theory’ canard deployed it is usually a good indicator that the corporation involved, in this case Compassionate Revolution Ltd (Extinction Rebellions’ tax exempt parent company) has something to hide. Given that XR’s whole existence is based upon the allegation of a conspiracy between the state and the ‘big polluters,’ to suppress the seriousness of the ‘climate emergency,’ it seems odd they would use the term dismissively themselves. However, in the case of their promotion of 5G, this attempted deflection is understandable.
A team of more than 240 international scientists have expressed significant concerns about the health and environmental impacts of non-ionising electro-magnetic fields (EMF) and implored the EU and other globalist institutions, to hold a moratorium on 5G safety.
This can only be done by independent scientists as the corporations themselves, who pay for Gail’s policy advice, evidently have no interest whatsoever in exploring these issues. At the U.S Senate Commerce Hearing in February 2018, the representatives of the telecommunication industry stated that they had funded no independent research at all into 5G safety nor its environmental impact. Knowing this, without seemingly having a clue what damage this military grade weapons technology may inflict upon people or the environment, governments across the planet are frantically surging towards global deployment of this potentially lethal technology.
Promotion of 5G is a core element of XR’s entire ethos. They are wholly supportive of the IPCC stance and state they were formed as a response to the IPCC’s Summary for Policy Makers. They want to see, at the very least, full implementation of the Paris Climate Agreements and are committed to the U.N’s sustainable development goals (SDG’s.) All of which is predicated upon the global adoption of 5G technology.
The Paris Climate Agreement lays the groundwork for a global economic change towards what the U.N call a decarbonized economy. According to one of the chief architects of that agreement, Christiana Figueres, it represents the first time such a global economic rebirth has been attempted. Speaking in 2015, in her then capacity as the Executive Chair of the U.N Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) she stated:
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history…….the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change………It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”
In order to achieve this economic revolution, speaking in November 2017, to the U.N Environmental Program (UNEP) the U.N Secretary-General Antionio Guterres said:
“Energy is the golden thread that connects all the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG’s). That means transforming the world’s energy systems……With smart grids it is now feasible to generate, transmit and distribute power efficiently, cutting transmission losses and providing clean, affordable, economically viable and environmentally sound energy services.”
This theme was supported by Liu Zhenmin, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, who stated:
“New technologies, new business models, and new approaches to capacity building are all needed to transform the world and achieve global sustainable development. The global energy interconnection, through smart grids, offers one such avenue.”
The planned smart grids, smart cars, smart cities, smart fridges and pretty much everything prefixed with ‘smart’ is reliant upon the vaunted Internet of Things (IoT). This is fully endorsed by globalist and corporate institutions like the World Economic Forum who claim the IoT is essential for achieving global ‘sustainable development goals’. All enabled by 5G. This is why the states around the world are actively promoting it.
For XR to deny they support 5G is completely at odds with their own existence. Support for 5G is integral to everything they do and say. The global revolution they are advocating is already well underway. It is the transformation of the global economy towards one based upon units of energy rather than the petrodollar.
Most rank and file XR activists, who must be among the most ardent of AGW hypothesis disciples, probably have the best of intentions and really do want to ‘save the planet’. However, you don’t have to look very far into the top tier of XR activism to find economic, rather than environmental, ‘activists.’
Extinction Rebellion’s Economic Activist
Farhana Yamin is an XR activist who glues herself to buildings (though only for a 20 minute photo shoot.) She was allegedly protesting against the big polluter (Royal Dutch) Shell. Yamin claims that these “business-as-usual” polluters are denying climate science in the same way that the tobacco industry denied medical science.
Shell are a funding partner of the IPPR think tank whose conferences Farhana Yamin, like her colleague and fellow adhesive activist Gail Bradbrook, attends. The Shell Foundation are also partners of the World Resource Institute whose board members include Christiana Figueres who Yamin worked with to formulate the Paris Climate Agreement. So it seems odd she would protest against Shell when they are financial supporters of her causes.
As activists go, Farhana is exceptionally powerful. Having played a part in drawing up the Paris Climate Agreement with Christiana, as a Greenpeace board trustee (Greenpeace being the wealthiest environmental pressure group on Earth,) and an advisor to the World Wildlife Fund and World Economic Forum, she is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Yes, she is a lawyer not a scientist, but you don’t need to be a scientist to become one of the ‘world’s leading climate experts’ as far as the IPCC are concerned.
Yet it is perhaps her status as a fellow of the deepest of deep state think tanks the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House,) who spawned a global network of influential policy think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which means no one could be better placed to shape global economic policy than Farhana.
However, we might question her scientific understanding. Farhana was an advisor to the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) who feared they would disappear because of climate change. Her advocacy for the terrified Islanders helped her establish the concept of ‘net zero’ carbon emissions with the UNFCCC. One wonders where the RMI government’s fears came from, because the science seems to show the Marshall Islands are expanding, not disappearing. Though there is no mention of this in the XR literature, nor any comment from Farhana.
Rapidly achieving ‘net zero’ carbon emissions, as defined by the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, are one of XR’s key demands, fiercely advocated by Bradbrook, Yamin and other activists. This won’t mean an actual reduction in levels of CO2 emissions. If it did then the ‘big polluters’ business model really would be in trouble. Luckily for them it doesn’t, which is why it will still be business as usual but only for them. Developing nations, small to medium size enterprises and start-up businesses will be screwed by ‘net zero’ carbon emission policy. Which is why the ‘big polluters’, like Shell, are all for it. There’s nothing as lucrative as a monopoly.
The Kyoto Protocols, a treaty Farhana helped to draw up, also established the concept of carbon offsetting in international law. Not only does this allow multinational corporations to continue their industrial productivity, but it creates a whole new CAPS (Cap and Trade) emissions market as an additional revenue stream for ‘big polluters’ and their major beneficial shareholders, the banksters.
In turn, this created the carbon credit. A tradable certificate which can be used to ‘purchase’ a tonne of carbon pollution. These credits are as good as money and can be bought and sold (traded for profit) on the open market. Currently the largest ‘market place’ is the EU’s Emission Trading Scheme.
Supported by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) our taxation and corporate profits (rarely taxed in any meaningful way) can be used to purchase the carbon credits, allocated to developing nations, to offset carbon emissions in the developed, industrial world. These Emission Reductions Purchase Agreements (ERPAs) mean the developing nations will no longer own the necessary ‘carbon credits’ to enable them to operate an effective industrialisation policy. Richer nations, and their corporations, can carry on emitting CO2 as long as poorer nations don’t. Thereby staying poor.
For multinational corporations, not only does this reduce the chances of global competitors emerging, they can use other ‘carbon ofsetting’ mechanisms to further consolidate their position and profits, as well as maintaining opportunities for the continuing neo-colonial exploitation of impoverished labour in developing nations.
It is undoubtedly Farhana’s experience as an international lawyer and global policy advisor which prompted XR to ‘allow’ her to take the lead in discussion with the UK government only weeks after the ‘grassroots’ activist movement came into being. As an advisor to the UNFCCC, who plan to intentionally transform the global economic model, perhaps Farhana wasn’t surprised when the discussion turned to overhauling the ‘debt based economy.’
According to XR activist and co-founder Clare Farrell, this is precisely what the discussion entailed.
“I was surprised to hear a radical reflection on our economic paradigm from Michael Gove when he talked about how our model is extractive and destructive – and that we need to move to a circular model. And that similarly a debt based economy doesn’t do right by young people, that it is creating a huge debt for them and that it has to change.”
Perhaps Clare is more concerned about flooded Islands and was somewhat perplexed, but I’m sure the words of the UK cabinet minister and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs weren’t lost on Farhana. A woman of many talents, she is also the founder and CEO of Track0 who aim to assist governments, businesses, investors and philanthropists to transition towards a decarbonised global economy. Her company partners with the Rockefeller Foundation, among other globalist heavyweights.
The Rockefeller empire, built upon oil, venture capitalism and banking, recently announced it was divesting from fossil fuel and increasing its holdings in clean energy technology. They, along with many of the wealthiest tax exempt foundations in the world, are major backers of the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDG’s) inspired by the Agenda 2030 commitments.
You may wonder what’s wrong with that. Surely it is good news that the wealthiest people on Earth have realised the error of their ways and, having been the primary cause of the CO2 emissions allegedly driving us towards extinction, they have all turned over a new leaf, having suddenly discovering their concern for humanity and the planet. However, the Agenda 2030 goals raise some doubt. It appears that the transition towards a new global economic model, as promoted by the UNFCCC, may deliver utopia, but only for the Rockefellers and their ilk.
Agenda 2030, though couched in fluffy language, serves up a plethora of wonderful and totally meaningless objectives such as “ending all poverty.” However, even rudimentary analysis of the objectives prompt concern.
It firmly establishes the remit of a global government to seize all resources. Water, food, energy and even the air will be regulated by the global government. Nature will be ‘protected’ by the global government by restricting human access to the countryside through ‘sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems.’ GMO will be encouraged, to ensure food security and resilience, by the global government. Public health, such as mandatory vaccination, will be regulated and enforced by the global government. The world’s children will be ‘educated’ by the global government.
The global government, in order to achieve global SDG’s, will have to regulate all industry, economic activity, manufacturing, scientific research, healthcare, international trade, travel and more. People will need to live in smart cities (because most of the countryside will be off limits) where their energy usage will be monitored, and restricted where necessary, through global government’s control of the 5G Internet of Things. All money will be controlled by the global government as people are transitioned away from private property towards allocated sustainable resource usage.
Maybe it’s the centralised control of everything and everyone on Earth which interests the global economic elite? Rather than a love for humanity and the environment driving their incessant push towards global ‘sustainable’ government, including the financialization of nature itself, perhaps the creation of new markets based upon SDG’s are an impetus?
Has this never occurred to Gail Bradbrook, Farhana Yamin and the other activist leaders of XR? It’s feasible I suppose. Only you can decide if you think it’s likely.
The Cultural Abuse of Greta Thunberg
The same questions could be asked of the other environmentalist sensation Greta Thunberg. Greta has certainly been sharing the rarefied atmosphere of the global elite. We are supposed to believe this all came about by chance following her 1 girl protest outside the Rikstag (Swedish Parliament) in August 2018.
In the eight months since, Greta has inspired global protests, addressed the U.N, EU and World Economic Forum, has been supported by politicians across the planet, spoken to huge crowds in London, Berlin, Sweden and elsewhere and has gained millions of Social Media followers across the globe. Not bad for 16 year old, and all achieved in a matter of months.
Again we are told Greta has simply captured the public imagination. By being in the right place at the right time, she has struck a chord with a population desperate to see action on climate change. Just like XR, the movement she inspires is organic. A ‘grassroots’ uprising of concerned citizens, mainly children. Anyone who questions her are not only ‘climate science deniers’ but also fascist bigots, for she is both autistic and young.
This is undoubtedly one of the most absurd narratives ever foisted upon humanity. If you imagine for one moment that it is possible for a child activist to achieve all this in a few months without powerful backers, significant investment and a coordinated media strategy, you really have taken leave of your senses. Could it be that the same multinational corporations, global investors and state apparatus’, so conspicuously involved with Extinction Rebellion, are also behind Greta?
Greta’s initial emergence was first promoted by the founder of the Swedish financial industry consultancy firm Laika, Ingmar Rentzhog. Rentzhog is one of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project (CRP) Organisation Leaders and Greta is a youth advisor to the CRP’s partner organisation We Don’t Have The Time (WDHTT), run by Rentzhog.
WDHTT is a marketing platform with specific interest in digital media and promotes ‘carbon offsetting.’ They are keen to establish the WDHTT rating system for brands and products. People will be encouraged to vote down products that aren’t ‘energy efficient’ and boost sales for those that are. Products will be valued based upon their carbon footprint. Marching along with the U.N’s determination “to change the economic development model.”
I believe Greta, like the majority of the XR rank and file activists, is genuine in her concern for the planet. Like most people under 30, despite the numerous reasons for reservation, Greta has literally been ‘educated’ to unquestioningly accept the AGW hypothesis. When the IPCC say we only have 12 years left to save the planet, oblivious to the manipulated data used to make this claim, Greta is not alone in being terrified.
It is this fear which is exploited to convince people to accept a radical overhaul of the global economy. One that will consolidate, protect and enhance the power of a tiny, global elite who would be better termed the parasite class.
We can be reasonably certain that Greta is being abused in this way by the censorship of her speeches. When Greta addressed the U.N Conference of Parties (COP24) in December 2018, the NGO Avaaz, who heavily back her media strategy, released transcripts to her eager Social Media audience. However they removed certain elements of her speech, as follows:
“…..You only talk about moving forward with the same bad ideas that got us into this mess, even when the only sensible thing to do is pull the emergency brake……Our civilisation is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money.”
This is because, like XR, the NGO Avaaz are a creation of that ‘very small number of people.’ Avaaz was founded in 2007 by Jeremy Heimans and David Madden who also run a New York based consultancy firm called Purpose.inc. They set up Avaaz with the assistance of Moveon.org, a fundraising organisation for the Democrat Party in the U.S which is financially backed by the billionaire, currency speculator, George Soros. Avaaz’s startup was also directly funded by Soros, as evidenced by p88 of his Open Society Foundation’s 2009 tax returns.
Just like XR, within months of their creation, Avaaz Foundation representatives found themselves in discussion with high representatives of international government. The NGO attending the U.N COP13 conference in Bali. They embarked, along with fellow Rockefeller backed NGO 350.org, in the creation of the Global Call For Climate Action (GCCA – also partners of Yamin’s Track0) and threw their weight behind the GCCA’s TckTckTck campaign. The partners in the TckTckTck movement read like a who’s who of multinational corporations and NGO’s. Google (Alphabet.inc), Microsoft, EDF energy, HSBC, Lloyds Bank, Volvo, Peugot, Centrica and of course Avaaz, were among its numerous contributors.
The notion that Greta is promoted by an NGO complex, partnered and funded by multinational corporations, has been flatly denied by Rentzhog and other member of the WDHTT team. The narrative we have been given is that when Greta found out that her name had been used by WDHTT without her permission, she immediately withdrew her support. For their part, WDHTT stated that they were only interested in climate change, not economics.
We know this is tripe thanks to the outstanding investigative journalism of Cory Morningstar, who has painstakingly pieced together the timeline of Greta’s explosive arrival on social media and the continuing support, of what Cory calls, the Non Profit Industrial Complex (NPIC). Their focus clearly isn’t on climate but rather economic change.
For example, Greta really stepped into the limelight with her Speech to the U.N COP24 conference in Poland. Her presentation was immediately promoted by the World Bank through their ‘partnership’ program the NGO Connect4Climate. This video consequently went viral, highly likely if the World Bank are pushing it, and was then reported by the MSM as Thunberg wowing the dignitaries from gathered nations, all of whom understood the vital importance of her message. In reality, she was speaking to an empty auditorium. Obviously the U.N delegates weren’t that interested in her climate change message and nor were the MSM in reporting honestly.
This is because globalist institutions like the World Bank, who exist to create third world debt, aren’t really in the business of ‘saving the planet.’ Their NGO front, Connect4Climate, has two purposes. Firstly to ‘greenwash’ the World Banks’ predatory crony capitalism and secondly to sell the propaganda the World Bank require to achieve its objective. Transition to a new global economic model.
Similarly, you don’t have to look far into the WDHTT business partners before finding links to some of the world’s largest multinational corporations, policy makers and think tank ‘leaders’. In September 2018 Rentzhog co-authored an op-ed with the president of the ‘Club of Rome’ Anders Wijkman. For reasons we’ll discuss in Part 3, Greta’s PR Team’s association of the ‘Club of Rome’ is notable. Greta’s mum, Swedish opera singer Malena Ernman was also a signatory to the open letter. In it, they all agreed:
“……..the work of saving the planet must start with a bottom-up approach………. Although much of the change required is both possible and profitable, vigorous political campaigns are essential to adjust prices, taxes and regulations so that the transition to a sustainable society becomes attractive, profitable and fast………The necessary proactive policies must be based on broad social mobilisation; something reminiscent of what takes place in communities threatened by war……The next government’s primary task is to create the momentum for the necessary transformation. The signatories stand ready to assist in the process, in support of transforming our society and the wider world into a low-carbon economy.”
Both Rentzhog and WDHTT cofounder, Christian Emmertz are Al Gore Climate Reality Project leaders. Emmertz is also a partner at the corporate finance firm Realcap.
Al Gore has been described as the world first ‘Carbon Billionaire’ though he strenuously denies this. However, there is no doubt that he has been among the most prominent public faces pioneering the path towards sustainable investment in a carbon neutral world. But why are immensely wealthy people like Gore, Soros and the Rockefellers so keen on this transition to a new global economic model?
In an interview to the Financial Times in 2014 Gore said:
“The next five to 10 years is the most critical time to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. We think capitalism is in danger of falling apart…..We need to go all in. We are going to be more aggressive because we have to.”
When Gore says capitalism, he doesn’t mean the free market. He means the system of global collectivism which controls markets for the benefit of multinational corporations and the parasite class who own them. In fact, nothing could be further from a free market. The free market only exists for small to medium size enterprises. If their business model fails, they go bankrupt. This system is not shared by globalist corporations. When their business collapses, as it did in 2007/8, they are deemed ‘to big to fail’ and taxation is used to bail them out.
The crisis of capitalism (the crony collectivist variety) is something spoken about frequently. We are told it is plagued by cycles of boom and bust and impacted by wild market swings, brought on by allegedly unforeseeable financial catastrophes. None of the thousands of MSM column inches dedicated to these issue have ever addressed them with a shred of integrity.
The truth is that Fiat currency (money) is not sustainable in its current form because it is based upon the usury that is fractional reserve banking. It can only ever create mounting global debt because Fiat currency itself is issued through a debt mechanism. While the parasite class has used the apparent criminal fraud of fractional reserve and central banking to hoover up global debt into their own coffers, which they call credit assets, at some point the bubble has to burst. That point is rapidly approaching.
In addition the petrodollar is falling out of favour, especially in India, China, Russia and Iran. The global parasite class are faced with the dual problem of potential seismic power shifts and structural upheaval. There’s not much point being unimaginably cash rich if money itself is worthless.
This is the crisis that preoccupies them, it has nothing to do with climate change. The ’emergency’ is economic not ecological. However saying, “we need you to bail out our business model again” is a tough sell. Having bailed out their financial system only a decade ago, and suffering the destruction of austerity policies as a result, people aren’t likely to put up with it again. So, in part, the reason the parasite class are promoting the ‘climate emergency’ is to convince all of us not only to accept but actually demand a new global economic model. One designed to maintain and enhance the parasites, rather than the host.
This is why XR were created, it explains the use of unsuspecting, well-meaning activists like Greta Thunberg and it defines the IPCC and MSM’s insistence that we all believe in the doomsday scenario being sold to us as the ‘climate emergency.’ The whole purpose is to instill fear in the public imagination. It is the oldest of propaganda tricks.
A fearful population will clamour for the government do something to ‘save them.’ They will accept increased taxation, reduced economic freedoms and forced relocation; they will give up private property rights, welcome dictatorial ‘healthcare provision,’ willingly submit to restriction on their freedom of movement and most importantly, will compliantly hand control of all resources to their benevolent global state.
In order to achieve the total acquiescence the people really need to believe it in their hearts. The propaganda must be overwhelming and impervious to all who could possibly question it. These people must therefore be demonised as ‘deniers,’ the modern day heretics. They must be cast out as unbelievers, while humanity demonstrates its obeisance to the new global faith. The climate emergency.
However, like most organised religions, there is something unseen lurking within its power structure. A hidden ideology drives the parasite class and it needs to be understood if rational people are going to have any chance of resisting the global devastation it ushers in. Read Part 3 to learn more.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
Hi Iain, what an interesring article. Of particular ibteredt to me was yoyr coverage of what/who is behind the rabble-rousing Extinction Rebellion/RisingUP organisation. You may be interested in my related article http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2019/04/spotlighton-extinction-rebellion.html which I started in April but am continually updating as more and more cones to light about this mottley crew.
Thanks Pete, what a great resource. Your evolving post provides links to some really valuable information. I am certainly going to take some time to look through it. Great stuff mate. Cheers.
Hi Iain,
The Internet of Things depends on the internet, and it would benefit from 5G I’d imagine, but does it really require it? What would convince you that XR is not interested in 5G? On their website, they claim to want governments to declare a climate emergency, act on biodiversity loss and reduce GHG emissions to net zero by 2025, and create a Citizens’ Assembly to make decisions on climate and ecological justice. I would not be surprised at all if there are people trying to profit from XR. People try to profit from anything/everytihng. So I appreciate you shining a light on that.
However, the part about XR and 5Gdoes sound conspiracy-esque because I don’t think you’ve made a convincing case for the link between them. Net zero emissions does require a transformation of the economy, but I don’t see why that necessitates 5G. People are already implementing IoT solutions without it.
I only got through half of the post – been at this for too long already. But quick other bit about sea level rise and island nations: it’s not about the area, it’s about flooding and salt water penetration into the groundwater supply and some other things (See here: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/4/eaap9741.full. Also potholer54’s YouTube Channel had a few back and forth videos about this, can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41TCWEl-x_g)
Thanks Matthew.
You ask:
“What would convince you that XR is not interested in 5G?”
I think I’ve outlined the argument quite clearly in the post. I urge you to read the rest of it.
Many thanks
Hi Matthew,
Ref. your comment about others profiting from XR, try looking at it from the ither way round – how are XR’s founding/significant members trying to profit from XR?
It was “mother of Xar” Gail Bradbrook who admitted “Hands UP! I run a charity and it’s mostly about securing your own salary”.
Fir more on this motley crew of ran le-rousers and how they benefit from “Volunteer Living Expenses” see my blog article “spitlightOM: ExtibctionRebellion/RisibgUP?/CompassionateRevolutionLtd”
Hello Iain
What I’m saying here may not be the right place for it but I do feel it’s highly relevant to ‘all’ of what your trying to tell people i.e. ‘conspiracy….’ is the elephant in the room i.e. so few people are able to, as far is I’m concerned, see the bleeding obvious. & I’m so hungry to find just the tiniest bit of decent criticism as I’m always highly alert & enthusiastically looking for contradictions which is I believe the way we (keep) painting that picture in our mind.
It’s much about so called ‘clear’ thinking; about conquering that painful feeling of being wrong. There is no way your going to be able to see contradictions if it’s going to be hurt i.e. Attachment; therefore you will be highly prone to sneaky rationalisations.
The recent ‘proper’ reason for our two brains has been worked out by Iain McGilchrist (which appears to fit perfectly with my ‘picture’):
see 12min video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI
This I believe, in a nut shell, will provide many answers/reasons for why there are so many ‘Smart’ dumb people.
There are many important issues that come before the so called ‘critical’ thinking bit.
The Master (right brain) the the emissary (left brain).
Thanks for what you’re doing.
Ralph
Thanks Ralph. Interesting video. I think you have hit the nail on the head. Conspiracy implies a plan by two or more to commit an unlawful act. So any joint plan to harms others is a conspiracy. In terms of the global warming scam the conspiracy definitely exists from that perspective. But we have come to view conspiracy to also imply a “secret plan” to harm others. Hence the inference that “conspiracy theory” is therefore speculative and consequently unknowable, based upon conjecture and imagined connections. This is of course the purpose of the label. To discredit the “conspiracy theorist” simply by virtue of the suggestion that they believe something for which there is no substantive evidence. That is the the true conspiracy.
It enables those who do operate global conspiracies to hide in plain sight. The evidence of the existence of the global warming conspiracy is clear, identifiable and referential. It isn’t hidden at all. Yet all this evidence is utterly obfuscated by the merest suggestion of conspiracy. People of sound mind, labouring under this psychological misdirection, cannot believe the conspiracy is real because the suggestion dictates otherwise in the linguistic construction of thought. Intuition seemingly drilled out of them. The suggestion is the veil beneath which the perfectly observable hides.
I would suggest to you that it is not a matter of right and wrong. I am opinionated on the issues I write about but wouldn’t claim to be right. I see evidence and I draw conclusions from it but this is based upon my own limited understanding of the world. My interpretation may be awry but it appears logical from my perspective. I am not denying absolute truth here nor advocating a reductionist view of reality, all I am saying is that I am wary of claiming to be in full possession of all necessary facts. There is always more to know.
Thanks for the informative comment.
All the best
Hi Iain,
Your final sentence really strikes a chord in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) debate. What a shame that all those CACC hypothesis supporters who claim that the science is settled don’t reflect on ” .. I am wary of claiming to be in full possession of all necessary facts. There is always more to know. .. “.
Matthew Sarker is one of those enthusiastic CACC supporters who promotes the propaganda that climate science is settled but I have to be suspicious of his real motives. He is not your typical layperson without any real understanding of science. Matthew earned a BSc but a teacher of physics and engineering at the Bronx High School of Science. He has also initiated the setting up of a “sustainability” class for. final year students in which “climate change basics” are covered in only 3 days, one each for causes, inpacts and mitigation.
My exchanges with Matthew suggest that those students who take this optional class will simply be introduced to the “settled science” propaganda promoted by the UN’s IPCC, etc. and learn nothing about the scientific method and its requirement for sceoticism.
That exempkifies a major problem in our schools. Students are not encouraged to be sceptical but instead are simply brwinwashed about CACC – result, “fear feeds on ignorance” (Lovelock in Gaia) and the rabble descends on major cities in the form of Extinction Rebellion.
Yep. I couldn’t agree more. Somehow, in all this “settled science” nonsense, the actual scientific method appears to have been thrown out of the window. Which is probably the most concerning aspect of all.
Reading this now in August 2020. The management of the COVID19 crisis and the Great Reset initiative of the World Economic Forum follows perfectly what this article is describing. This crisis is obviously used as an accelerated push toward the NWO alongside climate change. The massive roll out of 5G during the lockdown speaks for itself. The supposedly necessity of contact tracing for health purposes is only a mean to install a mass surveillance/data gathering technocratic era. The first thing we should do is close everything is our home that have an internet connection that doesn’t serve any purpose (ex.: your oven, fridge, etc.).
Thanks for the feedback. Yep, it is remarkable how the proposed solutions to COVID dovetail so precisely with “net zero” policies and the green new deal.