Is it about the climate, or control?
In 2015, in the wake of the globalists getting poked in the eye by the UK choosing to leave the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump to The White House in the USA, the globalist machine went full throttle on pushing their global totalitarianism (or global communism) ideals. The vehicle for this was the resurgence and expanse of their climate crisis propaganda.
However, even with the subterfuge of making children the focal point of climate crisis (in the guise of one Ms Greta Thunberg), and their attempt to ramp up climate hysteria across the west (with Ms Thunberg addressing both the WEF in Davos and the United Nations in New York). The majority of ordinary people went: “Meh!” and simply carried on with their daily lives. The globalists had failed.
In March 2019, when newly elected congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (guided by her globalist puppet masters), gave her “Green New Deal” speech, stating that: “This is not an elitist issue, this is a quality-of-life issue!”, impassioned as it was, presented by a young, vibrant, easy on the eye representative, the response – even within the most progressive of Democratic Party circles – was one of: “This is crazy!” The globalists had failed, yet again.
The climate crisis agenda was in the bin as far as the globalists were concerned. No matter how hard they pushed it, the majority of ordinary people still went: “Meh!” They were not afraid of climate change. They were far more concerned with putting food on the table, looking after their children, and doing so whilst their effective wages were stagnating. Climate change was simply not an important part of their everyday lives.
In late 2019/early 2020, the COVID pandemic hit the world.
Never letting a crisis opportunity go to waste, the globalist machinations were in place to capitalise as much as possible on the situation by instigating many infringements on freedoms that they hoped climate fear would provide – lockdowns, reduced movement, the closure of small, independent businesses, etc. – but which had failed.
2020 also saw the election of Joe Biden to The Whitehouse. Biden, a friend to the globalists (and their agendas), was keen to make tackling the climate crisis a key part of his election strategy. The conflation between the COVID-19 measures and climate change measures was now front and centre, and the Green New Deal – deemed “crazy” only a year earlier – was now the accepted way forwards for the Democratic Party.
The US was not alone. The globalist enclave of the European Union was quick to jump aboard the Green New Deal bandwagon, as was the UK (recently released from the shackles of the EU), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. All of their respective leaders quoting terms straight from the WEF’s Great Reset playbook such as “build back better” and “an opportunity for equality”. It was like they had all been coached by the same teachers (or paymasters if you prefer).
The main arguing point put forward by climate crisis experts, is that global warming is the single biggest threat to our planet. In the 1970’s, these same experts said that the single biggest threat to the planet would be an imminent period of global cooling. The solution to these diametrically opposed situations, however, remains the same: global control over people and resources, i.e. global communism.
In his 2012 book “Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing your Children’s Future”, James Delingpole coined the term “watermelons” in relation to climate activists: a thin veneer of green surrounding a completely red (communist) centre. And at the heart of communism is control.
The scapegoat for climate change from the 1970s through the 1980s were CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons). These were eating the Ozone layer – especially around the South Pole – that could cause sea level rises so severe that everywhere apart from the tip of mount Everest would be flooded (at least that’s what it felt like from the repeated hysteria narrative). CFCs were removed from industrial products. Climate change activists now needed a new scapegoat, and the new scapegoat was carbon, specifically CO2 (carbon dioxide).
Interfering Royal busybody – King Charles III – often gives the planet 20 years or so to exist unless “…something drastic is done…” in order to combat climate change. He’s been doing this since the early 1980s and simply revises his “End of Days” date by 10 years every decade or so. King Charles, like Ms Thunberg, also likes to travel to Davos and give speeches to the United Nations on how us plebs need to drastically reduce our carbon footprints, while his own carbon footprint is that of a small nation!
And speaking of St. Greta’s carbon footprint. When she was invited to speak at the United Nations, a very big thing was made of the fact that she “didn’t know how she would get there” because “she didn’t fly” (to save the planet). The Monaco Royal family provided her with the state-of-the-art Malizia II racing yacht which sailed her from Plymouth here in the UK to New York.
Greta’s return trip was from Hampton in Virginia (USA) to Lisbon in Portugal on La Vagabond (owned by YouTuber’s Riley Whitelum and Elayna Carausu). All very noble apart from the fact that the outbound crew of the Malizia II flew home. A further two people were then flown out to the states to crew the Malizia II back to Europe. When it comes to carbon footprints, King Charles is a novice compared to St. Greta. Oh, and has she not heard of remote video calls or Skype?
Even prior to the Green New Deal being a figment of someone’s imagination, carbon emissions in both the US and Western Europe have been falling, while the rest of the world’s has been rising, and yet the punitive carbon zealotry is mainly targeting both the US, Europe, and wider Anglosphere nations (and all with the consent of their complicit leaders).
These “leaders” want everything to be electrical and one of the biggest focal points is electric vehicles, specifically battery powered electric vehicles. When in office, Boris Johnson wanted 50% of all new UK cars to be electric by 2030 and for the UK to be carbon neutral by 2050.
Neither Liz Truss, nor her successor – the current PM – Rishi Sunak, have amended these deadlines, despite rocketing energy bills, fuel bills, and inflation. Moreover, the Labour leader – Sir Keir Starmer – is also all onboard with Boris’ Net Zero plans. In fact, after his recent participation in the WEF’s annual meeting in Davos, Sir Keir would like more done sooner when it comes to the Net Zero climate agenda.
Not one of these politicians will say exactly how much this will all cost the UK taxpayer, but it is to be sure that it will make the money needlessly thrown away on the COVID-19 pandemic look like a drop in the ocean in comparison.
Green, but at what cost to the environment?
Where will all of these electric cars get their power from? The national grid of course, but has the national grid got enough capacity to cope with such a demand in such a short time? With the population explosion in the UK (through mass immigration since 1997), the grid is just about at breaking point as it is, and that is with around only 5% of all vehicles in the UK being electric (most of which are charged at home).
The rechargeable batteries used in electric cars contain some of the most harmful substances to human beings on the planet with toxic levels being measured in micrograms. There is currently no viable mass recycling solution for these batteries. With a lifespan of around 8 years, and a growing trend towards battery and hybrid vehicles, this is a problem that is also growing exponentially year-on-year.
If these batteries are not disposed of correctly, or disposed irresponsibly (i.e. dumped), then they can infect water and bio-systems with carcinogenic materials that are virtually impossible to remove once that contamination has taken place. Which water do you like? Evian? San Pellegrino? No? Well, how about Klaus Schwab’s brand-new Carbonated Carcinoma, or Bill & Melinda’s Melanoma Still variety?
And what about the production of those batteries? Most of the elements that make up the rechargeable batteries in cars have to be mined and are toxic if inhaled or ingested by humans. Australia produces the most lithium worldwide today and has a high standard of mining safety. Most cobalt used today comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo where the mining regulations are – shall we say – less stringent.
Finally, we come to nickel. Nickel is mined in many countries including Australia, Canada, Russia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. The extraction process is far from clean, with refining areas being choked in great clouds of sulphur dioxide (yes, that’s the fart smell), with rivers and waterways turning red from the associated pollutants, and with great swathes of land covered in carcinogenic dust.
Well, that’s not very green, is it.
Combine this with the fact that the batteries themselves have a very short effective lifespan, then the need for these elements will also continue – and increase – to facilitate both the new and the replacement markets, not to mention the infrastructure in order to charge these vehicles en-masse.
However, the globalists don’t actually want that. In fact, they don’t want you to have a car at all. In fact, they don’t want you to have any autonomy whatsoever. They want you confined to a tiny geographic area for the entirety of your life (also known as “15-minute cities”).
They want everyone to use public transport and driverless car-sharing vehicles. Driverless, so that they can diktat exactly where you can and can’t go, again restricted to a tiny geographic area, and – eventually – based entirely on a social credit score scheme linked to a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
In their “trust the science” wisdom, the UK Government not only thinks that we can power the country using renewables (as well as accounting for a million new people entering the UK every 2-3 years courtesy of unwanted, legal, mass immigration), but they also believe that we can charge all of the cars using renewables too.
Unfortunately, there’s one big problem with this, and the same “uncomfortable truth” elephant – that was in the room during the COVID-19 pandemic – is there once again, except it’s wearing a climate agenda jacket now.
Wind turbines and solar do not produce enough energy. The only renewable source capable of generating anywhere near enough power for the required consumption, is nuclear. But nuclear is a bad word because
a) it does produce enough power (and that is not what is wanted by the globalists), and
b) “nimbyism”, i.e. most folk would be happy to have power from nuclear stations, just “Not in My Back Yard”.
The rotor blades on wind turbines cannot be recycled, they have to be replaced every 10-20 years, and usually end up getting buried (in landfill sites across the 3rd world). Solar panels have a lifespan of between 25 to 30 years (based on official statistics), but their effective lifespan is around 20 years. After this time, they need to be replaced. Most of the materials in solar panels can be recycled but the recycling process itself takes a lot of – you guessed it – energy.
Climate activists, on-board politicians, and their propagandists in the mainstream media, are now in lockstep when it comes to the taxation of carbon. They’re less reticent, however, to state the fact that carbon taxes affect the poorest in society most. The simplest way that they can tax carbon is by increasing the cost of energy consumption. Increases that are barely felt by the rich, but which have a devastating effect on middle to low-income households.
Even now, many poor people – even in developed nations – often have to make a choice between being warm and being hungry. This impact on people’s quality of life is not only punitive, but also deadly. Once again, the managerial and chattering classes are swift to skirt over this reality, but a carbon tax literally is a death sentence to many. Namely, the weakest in society, the very same people that these activists and politicians claim they stand for in terms of fairness and equality.
The truth of the matter is that fossil fuels and free market economics have lifted more people out of poverty than could ever be achieved by some gregarious thinktank that knows what’s best for you. Which is why the globalists no longer want you to have the ability to make up your own mind as to what is best for you. Hence why they want absolute control over everything. They want to annex decision making to an elite few, whose sole purpose is global dominion over every single thing.
Everything is “smart” these days
Smart meters, smart motorways, smart cars, smart devices, smart payments. When you see the word “smart”, replace that immediately with “control”. Controlled meters, controlled motorways, controlled cars, controlled devices, controlled payments, and all in the name of a thinly veiled layer of climate protection.
Not sounding so “smart” now, is it?
With the expanse of IoT (the Internet of Things), and ever evolving wireless networks such as 5G (with its staggering bandwidth increase), this means that everything can be controlled remotely. Except not by you!
Today WE think that 15°C degrees is enough heat for YOU. WE think YOU should only travel 2 miles in your car today. WE think YOU should fast today, and so WE are locking YOUR fridge. WE overheard YOU moaning about OUR control through YOUR smart devices, and so WE have decided to suspend YOUR smart payments today. The “WE” of course being the globalists who want to diktat how everyone else should be controlled, and, what everyone else should be allowed to do/not do that day (while their lives remain completely unaffected).
The “Woke” Conflation
Climate is no longer a scientific issue; it has now become a social one.
Climate change is no longer considered in terms of whale or polar bear numbers in the wild (both species are booming by the way), or the protection of greenbelt, it is now to be considered in terms of race, gender, and sexuality. Climate change affects every fringe group far more seriously than everyone else and – surprise surprise – straight white men are yet again the culprits.
The Green New Deal as espoused by the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by the Biden administration, is a multi-trillion-dollar spending regime, and while climate change is paid lip service, large sections of that bill cover monies being allocated to minority, trans, and gender inequality issues (along with their associated movements).
The US is not alone. The usual suspects (UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) are completely onboard with all of this nonsense and are also promising huge sums of money from the public purse in order to tackle climate change, combined with race issues, gender inequality, and trans issues.
It’s a one stop shop for everything woke. Will the wider public have a say, or referendum on any of this spending, or any say in the destructive and futile race to Net Zero? Why of course not, we might not give them the result that they want, and so it’s “Shut up, pay the taxes, and eat the bugs!” for the rest of us.
Humans are the only animal that requires artificial energy sources such as electricity for their activities. One easy way for a nation to reduce its energy consumption (and by proxy its carbon footprint) is to have fewer people. The easiest and simplest way to achieve this would be to stop mass immigration.
Unfortunately, climate activists are completely against this because it offends their sensibilities (irrespective of the contradiction with regards to reducing carbon). Their preferred option is to simply get rid of old people sooner.
The Darker Side of the Climate Agenda
Faux climate scientists like Bill Nye “The Science Guy” (an aviation engineer), thinks that it would be good if “older” people died sooner, because they have the highest carbon footprint (relying on artificial heating and cooling the most), and are also the least likely to be onboard with climate control measures. I wonder why?
Bill Nye – himself no spring-chicken these days – does not define what age “older” is, but maybe he thinks he’ll get a pass when the A.I. controlled “Smart Grim Reaper App” comes for him over the “Smart Network” in order to turn off his “Smart Heart Monitor”, that’s controlled via the “Smart Chip” in his hand?
Humour aside, this aspect of the climate change agenda is probably the most chilling. It is no secret that the likes of Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab would like to see the global population reduced, and – as recently as 2022 – Canada added a dial option on its health service phoneline in order to discuss voluntary euthanasia for any reason whatsoever, even if the person in question is fit and healthy.
The Canadian authorities call this Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) and have had many people contacting them to discuss assisted dying for nothing more than simply being poor. Not only is this disgusting, but it is also alarming because it does not take too much of a leap-of-faith to believe that the state could one day take over this decision for you (should you no longer be useful to the state, or dissent against it).
For anyone who does not think that this is possible, or that no government would dare overreach that far, then may I remind you of what transpired between March 2020, and February 2022. No one would have believed that either, until it happened!
Some Energy Versus No Energy
We are being forced to accept all of these climate measures that our taxes pay for, but in which we have no say. We know that non-nuclear renewables simply do not generate enough power to meet the supply now, let alone in 10-20 years (when all transport is set to becomes electrical), and when we have an extra 3-5 million people in the country (based on current net legal migration trends).
So, what would happen, should the UK not be able to provide enough energy for its ever-growing population? Well, we know exactly what would happen, because we had a mini taste of this (when an energy supply cannot meet demand), courtesy of Texas in February 2021.
The Texas governorship has pushed ever increasing renewable energy sources on their population over the last few decades (solar and wind based). Unfortunately, in February 2021, Texas had a cold snap (in spite of global warming), which left solar panels covered in snow and wind turbines seized-up due to the low temperatures.
With no alternative viable power source being available, 4.5 million homes and business were left without power for over two weeks, with temperatures reaching as low as -19°C degrees. The official number of deaths associated with this cold snap was estimated as at least 178, but with COVID being the scapegoat for many deaths around the planet at that time, the real number of casualties is probably a lot higher, and yet this is the renewable model that is being adopted around the developed world.
The globalists’ real plan, however, is to never have enough energy to match the same output of fossil fuels, or nuclear fission. If we had a clean, renewable, viable energy source – such as a nuclear fusion reactor – then there would be no power shortages. Power shortages, however, are an excellent way of controlling the wider population. Hence why the globalists all have their own private generators.
They may have solar on the roof, but they have diesel in the basement!
Energy – or a lack thereof – is a great way to keep the masses in check (given our dependence on it, especially electricity). If your area, or individuals within your area are causing trouble for the powers that be, then they will have the ability – via the IoT “smart” grid – to simply turn off your energy supply.
They will deny responsibility, and blame external factors, but everyone will know that it is a punishment for stepping out of line. And if that is down to a few rebels, then the social shaming machine (as used by the COVID-19 behavioural scientists and social engineers), will be used once again to target political offenders, and to enforce social conformity.
The NHPUK has made it clear that it is not onboard with the destructive and nonsensical globalist climate agenda, and you can read their climate change policy here.