Extinction Rebellion and the Great Climate Change Scam

“The society of experts will control propaganda and education. It will teach loyalty to the world government, and make nationalism high treason. The government, being an oligarchy, will instil submissiveness into the great bulk of the population…It is possible that it may invent ingenious ways of concealing its own power, leaving the forms of democracy intact, and allowing the plutocrats or politicians to imagine that they are cleverly controlling these forms…whatever the outward forms may be, all real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation” – Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook

There is a fever sweeping over the western world. True, incurable sickness has been its resting state for decades, but presently symptoms look set to intensify, producing all the sort of horrors that such fevers produce in the minds of rather lost middle-class men and women. The fever, with a rather self-triumphant, apocalyptic trumpet-blast, calls itself “Extinction Rebellion”.

Extinction Rebellion was founded in October 2018 and describes itself as an international “non-violent civil disobedience activist movement”. On its website it calls on governments to declare a “climate and ecological emergency” and to “halt biodiversity loss and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2025”; that “government must create, and be led by the decisions of, a citizens’ assembly on climate and ecological justice”.

Extinction Rebellion achieved notoriety back in April when the group held large demonstrations in London that brought the city to a standstill, leading to 1,100 arrests. The protests planned over these two weeks are their most ambitious yet, with more than 850 events planned across 60 cities worldwide, including London, Dublin, Berlin, Madrid, Paris, Amsterdam, New Delhi, Melbourne, Sydney, Washington DC and New York.

Protests got underway on Sunday 6th October with a vigil in Parliament square, London. The night before many outlets reported that the police had raided Lambeth County Court, a governmental building, which members “were using to store equipment”. 10 arrests were made “for conspiracy to cause public nuisance”.

Prior to the raid the police were gracious enough to call journalists so that they could cover the story….
….and, before or after the raid, they were even good enough to pose for a photo”

These heroes of law and order have long since found an answer to the age-old philosophical problem: If a tree falls down in a forest and no one is around to report it, does it happen? Extinction Rebellion, for their part, said “This escalation of pre-emptive tactics by the Government and police is a sign that we are being heard and acknowledged as a significant movement”.

Since then, however, it seems Extinction Rebellion and the police have been playing a game of pat-a-cake. Protesters have been gluing themselves to buildings and lying in the middle of roads stopping traffic with the police appearing to be watching on impotently – thereby fuelling the anarchy by their tacit consent. It reached peak satire on Thursday when a blind protester was helped on top of a plane by airport staff at London City airport. His action was perhaps not quite as well thought out as it was undeniably brave.

It’s almost as if the Extinction Rebellion London protest map was dreamt up by someone with the stunted intellectual and emotional maturity of a socially anxious 17-year-old who has been binge reading George Orwell’s 1984. Or, at least, it had those in mind

These protests are on the back of “Climate Strike”, which rallied hundreds of thousands in coordinated worldwide protests several weeks ago. Greta Thunberg, who was the 16-year-old face of Climate Strike, was also a key speaker at the Extinction Rebellion protests staged in London in November last year.

As anyone who has ever tried to arrange a protest will know, the mobilisation of mass numbers doesn’t happen spontaneously. It requires substantial financial backing, full-time employees and infrastructure to coordinate a protest with clear objectives, never-mind a synchronized worldwide protest. Here, we have every continent in the world having a ‘rebellious’ climate change protest at the same time. Who is behind this extraordinary feat of planning?

To peruse Extinction Rebellion’s website is rather like being taken on a trip across the rivers of Styx and Acheron by Charon the ferryman of Hades, such are the dire prognostications. At first viewing, its effect is rather persuasive. One is confronted with simple sloganeering, the website being divided up into several short, fierce pages, as if each were proclamations in a French riot. And one imagines that the short, crisp statements of doom, together with eye-catching imagery, is designed to appeal to a mass audience, from children to hipster grandmothers.

There’s an invitation for newcomers to provide an email for the purposes of news, updates and “Rebellion”. I’m sure that it’s the first time in history that co-opted subversives have been asked to provide trackable personal information in a “resistance” movement. There’s also an option to “Donate”, presumably a request to pay the ferryman for safe passage to this otherworld. It seems as if none are more vitally and recklessly otherworldly than environmentalist progressives who do not believe in another world, only a fervent belief in the one which is “facing an unprecedented emergency….. of our own making”.

The founders of Extinction Rebellion have been somewhat reluctant to publicly disclose their identities. At least, their identities haven’t been divulged on their website. Though they emphatically state that they are prepared to serve jail time to save the planet, it seems they’re not quite as prepared to declare who they are. I suppose anonymity is a fundamental characteristic of ‘Rebellion’ after all. But according to this Times article from last year, the co-founders are Gail Bradbrook, Roger Hallam, Ronan McNern, Stuart Basden and Simon Bramwell.

The main leaders appear to be Ms Bradbrook and Mr Hallam, long-time activists who have been involved with various protest groups, including Occupy and Rising Up. If we delve further, we see that Ms Bradbrook is listed as a director of Compassion Revolution Ltd, and Mr Hallam a former director. Compassionate Revolution Ltd is the parent company of Rising Up and seems to have spawned the latest incarnation of revolution, Extinction Rebellion. Interestingly, the other director is listed as one George Barda, whose brother Henry Lloyd Blackmore Barda, is tasked with “upstream risk management” for fossil fuel demon, BP.

It seems that in the past there has been a lack of transparency regarding the funding of some of the companies linked to Extinction Rebellion. Asked about the sources for donations for Rising Up, Ms Bradbrook responded “….some organisations and people that fund activists and prefer some confidentiality, and also through crowdfunding”. A similar screen of secrecy has been imposed for Extinction Rebellion. Major sponsors haven’t been disclosed, and it appears that many of the donations through crowdfunding are anonymous. This lack of openness at the heart of the green movement is rather troubling, considering the extreme message they are promoting.

Dr Gail Bradbrook

Some of the statements made by the ringleaders have been, shall we say, curious. Ms Bradbrook, who has the air of a depressed hairdresser, was granted a captive audience this week by the state broadcaster to repeat Extinction Rebellion’s calls for the UK to move to a zero-carbon emissions economy by 2025. For one thing, to call for zero carbon emissions by 2025 is rather like saying that cutting off King Charles’ head was one of the most elegant of the Cavalier fashions in hairdressing. 6 years to zero carbon emissions is deliberately obtuse. In fact, it’s completely unfeasible unless society collapses, and martial law ensues. But Mr Hallam, another co-founder, apparently came to London “to take down the system”, and has stated that Extinction Rebellion, “will bring [the Government] down and create a democracy fit for purpose and yes, some may die in the process”. Off with his Majesty’s head, it seems.

According to Rising Up’s manifesto, a forerunner of Extinction Rebellion and ostensibly set up and led by the same people, all private businesses must be abolished and it should be “illegal for any enterprise other than the state and local co-operatives to create the nation’s money”. Indeed, the claim that this radical leftist political agenda has anything to do with climate change collapses upon the discovery of this article, “Extinction Rebellion isn’t about the climate”, which was authored by another co-founder, Stuart Basden.

Mr Basden’s writing is awash with all the typical cultural Marxist talking points. In other words, gibberish that’s been keeping our universities busy for many decades. Notions like “white privilege” and “patriarchy” are propounded as fundamental, systemic problems with the system. These divisive abstractions, which of course are largely undetectable by empirical analysis, fit in snugly with the rest of the movement’s diatribe, which read like the vain demands of fanatics that are similarly empty of cogent analysis. There are merely repeated calls for the “science” and that we “must listen to the scientists”, without citing the actual science; while making wild claims that, for instance, 6 billion deaths will result from climate change within the next generation or two. A claim loudly discredited by the scientists themselves.

The overall effect is to induce fear and panic, as the overall effect of cultural Marxism is to fracture existing ideas and customs. This fusion is perfectly encapsulated by one of Extinction Rebellion’s core mantra’s: “It’s time to act like this truth is real” – which is almost to say, it doesn’t have to be real. Classic Marxist subversion.

The fact that this is a political and not an environmental movement is also demonstrated by it being focused almost exclusively on the western world, while completely disregarding China, which is by far the world’s worst carbon emissions offender. If the people in the UK, for example, who contribute less than 2% to the total global emissions, lived out of caves starting from tomorrow, it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference to scaling back the most alarmist of the climatologist’s doomsday predictions. This impression is reinforced by Ms Bradbrook herself who at a CogX event in June said: “We have to de-growth the economies of the west and, in fairness, allow the economies of other countries to grow”. The CogX event, which was a “festival of Artificial Intelligence and emerging technology”, was sponsored by HSBC.

The absence of a healthy debate about climate science, and the constant repetition of dogma about the science being settled – which has to be the most unscientific statement one can make, as science is never a consensus, but a moving target open to repudiation – has led to the environment movement being hijacked by the hard left, which seeks to capture and control both local and world economies. Thus, capture and control every person living within them.

Does it not seem rather odd how embedded in the system these revolutionaries are? How well organised. And how very tolerant the authorities have been about their activism, which is ultimately intended to cause food shortages and “once that happens the regime will fall.” Not that this extremism deters the UK’s Energy minister, Claire Perry who recently said that if she was younger, she would have joined the protests herself.

Ms Bradbrook is listed as a former director of Citizen’s online, and is currently in charge of its programme development, “where she consults with a wide range of clients such as EE and the Cabinet Office”. In her role, she works with a former oil company executive and a director of ExxonMobil, as well as a lord of the realm, who is currently a Member of the House of Lords Communications Select Committee. He seems to be heavily invested in various telecommunications companies and aerospace industries which stand to make billions from the global 5G implementation.

Curious company for a revolutionary to keep. On the one hand, Ms Bradbrook is advocating “resistance” and “rebellion” and, on the other, she plays a part in the core components of the very system she seeks to bring down. Her left hand doesn’t seem to know what the right hand is doing. Or does it?

Both the environment movement’s calls for carbon emissions reduction and the planetary roll-out of 5G – the so-called Internet of Things (IoT), which is the inter-networking of physical devices facilitated by the advances in 5G wireless technology – are core tenets of the UN’s sustainable development, Agenda 21 programme. A non-binding motion signed by 178 countries after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. As of 2015, it is now termed Agenda 2030, as the aim seems to get it fully implemented by the year 2030.

It seems Extinction Rebellion was hastily inaugurated on October 31st 2018, to ride the wave of publicity that was generated from the publication of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) ‘Special Report on Global Warming 1.5C’ (SR15), which was published earlier that month. The SR15 made the alarming prediction that unless carbon emissions were drastically cut the world ‘may’ face apocalypse within 12 years. Which happens to be precisely in-keeping with the date of UN Agenda 21, which was written 30 years ago, and planned decades before.

The SR15 boasts 6,000 scientific references and was penned by 91 authors from 40 countries. Only that, as the IPCC is part of the UN, membership comprises nations, not scientists, the final report being written by diplomats and politicians after recommendations from the scientists, who are themselves cherrypicked by a familiar framework of market forces and mutual interest.

Like all other aspects of society, science is not divorced from the market system. It does not walk on hallowed turf. In fact, this is even truer of scientific research, which is entirely contingent on patronage and benefactions. And even more true of the IPCC, which filters scientific data through a prism of political interest. To emphasise this point, last month 500 scientists penned a letter to the UN Secretary-General declaring that “there is no climate emergency”. Which is to say, that the so-called consensus is political, not scientific.

The politics of climatology predates the science. It can be dated back to 1967 to an obscure publication, ‘The Report from Iron Mountain’, which was later picked up by the Club of Rome, an elite society founded in 1968 by David Rockefeller and a string of the most influential and wealthy people in the world. The club published a report in 1972 entitled ‘The Limits of Growth’, which was a Malthusian take on population growth in a world of finite resources, and a thinly disguised version of eugenicist theories that were prominent in the early part of the 20th century, and which achieved infamy during the Third Reich in the 1930s and 40s. Throughout the 70’s, when the science of global cooling was all the rage, the club, in various publications, advocated more population control measures and a progressively increasing gasoline tax to curb excessive global population. But the fear of food shortages as a result of exponential population growth was gradually replaced during the 1980’s by climate change fear-mongering. On page 75 of the club’s 1990 publication, ‘The First Global Revolution’, it states:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. All these dangers are caused by human intervention……The real enemy, then, is humanity itself”

This excerpt appears under the sub-heading, “The common enemy of humanity is man”.

And thus, the fledging science of global warming achieved maturity, with UN’s Agenda 21 being published at the Earth Summit 2 years later. We should add that the UN itself was set up after the conclusion of World War 2, by much of the same titans of finance and industry, including the Rockefeller family and other banking dynasties which completely dominate and control the world’s monetary system. Considering the demonising and scaremongering of fossil fuels, it’s ironic that the Rockefeller family owes it’s wealth to Standard Oil, a company which monopolised the oil industry in the 19th and early 20th century, before the family branched out into banking.

{Note: I’m using the Rockefellers to furnish a narrative for the purposes of readability in what is a condensed medium. Although they are unquestionably extremely powerful and, in this global system, are certainly upper management, they are not necessarily the proverbial kingmakers. It should also be noted that the fabric of power has not changed since humanity first started forming groups, dividing resources and spinning tall tales about the way things are. It has no race. No fixed ideology. No scruples. Its only concern is to remain atop the human tree. And it will do so at any cost and by any means necessary].

“When science is divorced from ethics scientists will use their skills to pursue power not truth” – Blaise Pascal

The science of climate change is one where all the important people benefit, hence its dominance of scientific discipline and widespread promotion through the pyramidical web of global governance, via the political, economic and media spheres. There’s a common misconception that the interests of the trillion-dollar carbon emissions industry and fossil fuels industry are opposed. They are not. The same powerful hand controls both. With those profiting from the carbon emissions taxes industry being the same fossil fuels and banking tycoons who have been bankrolling the “green” movement, as this US Senate report demonstrates.

Al Gore received an Oscar for his 2006 film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and it led to his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. Time has shown that the claims made in the film were wildly inaccurate

Some of the lead advocates of climate change alarmism, such as Al Gore, and Maurice Strong, considered to be the father of the global warming scare, are and were heavily invested in the carbon trading mechanisms that deal with carbon offsets. Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). While Strong, before he died, served on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading figure of the of the Earth Summit in 1992 and the drafting of the UN’s Agenda 21, where the theory of global warming caused by human activity was first emphatically advanced. Strong, like so many others behind this movement, made his billions in the fossil fuels industry.

All the recognisable multinationals have got in the queue for a slice of the carbon tax pie in this emerging economy, from HSBC, JPMorganChase and Citi, in the Blended Finance Taskforce, where “Profits [are] to be had” in “climate-related sectors”; and the guzzling fossil fuel corporate behemoths, the likes of Ford, Toyota, British Airways, BP and Unilever and many others, have all called for these carbon trading systems to be established at the G8 Climate Change Roundtable.

Carbon tax implementation, at a gradual gradient, accomplishes five things: the transition to a new sustainable economy without fossil fuel abundance, to stabilize markets; it provides an ancillary benefit of a pure profit carbon emissions market for the hydrocarbon energy tycoons in the incoming resource squeeze market; it facilitates the largest redistribution of wealth in modern history, with the richest in society benefitting at the expense of everybody else; it facilitates corporate resource extraction and control under the guise of “conservationism”; and finally, and most importantly, it ingeniously uses the environment movement as a substitute for war to maintain class structure.

The political economy is primarily concerned with the distribution and redistribution of wealth. It is controlled by those who command the system of universal commodity exchange – the banks – and those who command the largest share of the resources and or markets – major industry. In a globalised system, a pyramidical power structure, which humans have always lived in since they emerged from the Garden – or from the primordial slime, whatever your preferred theory – is therefore global. And this shadow global power is concealed by its many bureaucratic, corporate, political faces, for absolute power is only tolerable if it masks a significant part of itself.

Science itself, from a political standpoint, is being used as a tool. A propagandistic tool. It’s a means to preserve and reinforce existing power structures and it is used as a compelling pretext to control resources under the disguise of environmental protectionism. Much of the established science is about land management, as you can read here.

Science is there to provide an inscrutable shroud to conceal real objectives. Which is what politics is all about: the validation of pre-determined objectives by selling marketable pretexts to a largely credulous populace. Furthermore, to subdue an otherwise choleric populace by giving them the illusion of consent. This fusion of politics and science is like oil in water. But it’s effective.

Established power is obsessed with resource control and extraction. It doesn’t care about money. It controls an unlimited supply of money through the practice of fractional reserve banking, and since the end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, this supply is unbacked by the gold standard, but by the petrodollar, a sure sign where true power lies.

The main objective is to control resources. Namely, geographical and human resources. In the latter case, the principal method of control is debt. The various local and regional agencies and institutions which were set up their owners, and heavily influenced by them, are designed to privatise profits and socialise losses. Take the US’ recent ‘withdrawal’ from the middle-east. It’s been estimated that the US has spent $8 trillion on the interminable warfare in the region. The US national debt stands at over $20 trillion. Hence, profits are privatised and losses, socialised.

Only a very rudimentary understanding of the market system will inform you that, though science is our best method of discerning objective truth from fiction, it’s corruptible. Because humans are involved. I won’t get too embroiled with climatology here, but I will leave you with this before I proceed:

All the current warming data is confined to a record comprising a fraction of the existence of the earth. One obvious problem therefore is that it presumes a baseline. And they take that from the mid-19th century when records started. I need hardly dwell on how specious this is. We have evidence of fabrication of data, and collusion within the scientific community of adjusting temperature records to exaggerate warming trends. We can glean from the ice records that the world has been warmer than it is today during many periods of history, including the recent history of a few hundred years ago. This is corroborated by botanists and palaeontologists who have found evidence of flora and fauna in northerly regions, which are unable to habitat there in the existing cooler climate. Despite an estimated one third of all anthropogenic forcings (human caused greenhouse gases) in the history of civilisation being produced in the last 20 years, it has produced a statistical 0 degree warming trend. During this time, we’ve seen the label of “global warming” being replaced with the generic “climate change”, which of course is rather fatuous considering the world’s climate is naturally cyclical.

It’s rather curious how temperature aligns with solar activity…

“Some even believe we {the Rockefellers} are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will……If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” – David Rockefeller, ‘Memoirs’ 2002

Globalism is a world system where the overwhelming majority of the human population are dominated, controlled and exploited by a political, economic and media elite. A major aspect of its successful governance is through controlling the cognitive landscape. As such, like all social systems that preceded it, prevailing ideas tend to be the ruling ideas, filtered down the cognitive edifice as a faucet fills up a glass with water. Thus, true motives are often concealed, especially when public sentiment may largely be inimical to them.

Take the basic example of war. It is typically uncongenial to the democratic instinct, which is why powerful bodies package the reasons for war in something that will more likely cultivate public support. Such as when a foreign regime is presented as posing a “clear and present danger”, or perhaps “intervention” will be for some noble humanitarian endeavour.

You have a hard tyranny when say, neo conservatives find a persuasive reason to bomb another country to smithereens. The flip side of this is often ‘blowback’ terrorism, and the implementation of a draconian police state at home and abroad. With notions like the Shock Doctrine, forwarded by the estimable Naomi Klein, or the strategy of tension, advanced by NATO, the intention is to bamboozle people without giving them a moment to pause and reflect; you stress them out economically, such as through the iniquitous imposition of austerity, while creating a climate of fear in their communities, and promoting hedonism where they become too distracted, weakened and degraded to question a huge soft tyranny which creeps up on them on the blind side. That being the slow, continuous movement towards the implementation of Agenda 21 by 2030, under the auspices of the UN, as these other things are grabbing the headlines.

In order to execute this grand plan, not only does there need to be pressure from above, as described, but also pressure from below, which are the demonstrators on the street. This creates the illusion of a popular mandate for what has already been planned. It also keeps the urgency of climate action in the news cycle, so that the agenda seeps subliminally into the collective unconscious. This is what is called as astroturfing – fake grassroots movements. In other words, state-controlled opposition.

The people who rage against the system become the instruments of the very system itself. Their energy is galvanised and re-directed to matters of no real consequence, or to steer the prevailing narrative. Genuine activism is infiltrated and ideologically subverted from within, and front movements are established, using well-worn templates, to attract dissidents and therefore neutralise their revolutionary potency.

An interlocking web of change agents, which are linked to the UN’s sustainable development programme, and various Think Tanks, set up by combinations of international capital, link to other Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and organisations for the purposes of psychological programming. Such as the Tavistock Institute or the British Psychological Association or Common Purpose. It’s a kind of advertising, if you will. For example, DEMOS is a think tank that is injecting ideology into our media. One quote from DEMOS, which is linked to British Intelligence: “The new democracy will work with a combination of government open infiltration and citizen groups taking direct action”. Such organisations, which are internationally backed, and borderless, but work on a local and regional level, link into state institutions like the metropolitan police. They begin to change local customs by infiltration and a process of ideological subversion.

We recall that co-founders of Extinction Rebellion are rubbing shoulders with executives of the hydrocarbon energy and telecommunications industries. Not that Extinction Rebellion, itself, is of any real consequence, it is the template that it represents that’s the key. These groups tend to dissolve almost as rapidly as they are founded, like shooting stars across the night sky. It’s almost as though the kaleidoscopic effect of mutating shapes and forms is intended to distract, bewilder, befuddle the general population. Extinction Rebellion was born out of Compassionate Revolution and Rising Up! And Linked to Reclaim the Power and Occupy. Extinction Rebellion is just one of 21 eco-companies which operates out of Stroud, Gloucester.

{Note: The point here is to demonstrate the existence of controlled opposition state infrastructure. And the state infiltration of protest movements. It is not to cast aspersions at the members of Extinction Rebellion. Whether Ms Bradbrook or the other members of this movement are witting or unwitting participants, is immaterial. It is likely that there are knowing ringleaders, but who they are is a superfluous question. And not one I wish to entertain}.

While the police watch on impotently at protestors blocking bridges and roads, denying law abiding citizens access to hospitals, many far-right groups aren’t even allowed to meet. If they did, how long would it be before the police did their job and put them in the back of a van? I suspect the officers themselves want to get on with policing but are being held back by upper management who are taking orders from British intelligence agencies and so on and so forth.

When Extinction Rebellion’s cannon fodder are eventually incurring the wrath of ponderous authorities, and being given criminal records, it appears the leaders themselves have been granted apparent immunity, despite fronting a movement that beseeches people to break the law. Moreover, the media is clamouring to give them recognition and a platform to promote their pernicious and unsubstantiated ideology.

Genuine activism avoids breaking the law or, at least, it does so discreetly. Genuine activism tends to avoid events in public places where there’s facial recognition or surveillance on a huge scale. But Extinction Rebellion’s first gathering in November last year was at Parliament Square, London possibly the most surveilled piece of land in the country. That set the stage for the ‘protests’ this year.

Protesters were empowered to only be disempowered

Genuine activists are being monitored and induced into breaking the law under the auspices of the very structure that they are protesting against. They are being used as unknowing pawns on the grand chessboard. They are therefore being empowered to only be disempowered. Meanwhile, real environmental problems, such as the poisoning of the water table by fracking, and the hearty activists who are doing all of us proud by leading the fight against this alarming practice, are being drowned by this larger, fake movement.

The leaders of Extinction Rebellion are running training camps on civil disobedience. They are making money out of selling “activist courses” to unsuspecting people. When one lifelong protester asked why people needed training, she was told it was “so that everyone knows what to do and can act safely”. Apparently, a “Tranquillity Team” is there to remove anybody who does not follow correct procedures, which seem to be the reinforcement of stupid repetitive mantras and playing dead with blood sprayed over you. If you think that you don’t need training to be an activist, and you just kind of turn up in a peaceful and courteous manner to make your point, you’d be right.

This mirrors the mandatory training that is arising across many organisations. Many people, from students, professors, and people across the workforce alike, have complained about how insulting, demeaning and frankly, totalitarian such training is. Organisations have now taken on the parental responsibility of nurturing adults back to adulthood. In a world of oppressive political correctness, people are being taught by repetition and standardisation how to behave in their daily interactions. And any failure to conform to an increasing narrowing of permissible expression, is met with social and professional punishment. This is also familiar with the rote learning on display in modern schooling. It is outcomes-based education. You’re supposed to come out thinking a certain way. If you’re not thinking in that way, something is wrong.

Controlled opposition groups are easily identifiable by their well organised synchronicity; by them being granted a media platform to promote their ideology; by them being universally lauded by the world of politics and celebrity; by the police’s apparent reluctance to do any policing; and by their simple sloganeering, and repetitive, fatuous mantras, where the overall effect seems to inculcate a kind of pseudo-religious environmental zealotry.

In this sort of auto-suggestive, community echo-chamber of repetitive mantras, the solitary, lonely, true, enduring love of Mother Earth enters every thought, and becomes the very substance, or as our forefathers would have said, the “stuff” of life. And the ironical observation, is that by being swept up in this culturally engineered whirlwind, the protesters object to the very stuff of life itself: carbon.

‘The Red Brigades’, “created by a street performance group from Bristol” – where eco-spirituality meets communism

Much of this agenda is being sold to the public under the rubric of eco-spirituality. We can observe that abstractions are controlled by those who possess them to subjugate those who don’t. Old creeds are slowly being replaced with beliefs which better serve the expediencies of the age. Ms Bradbrook, for example, is a self-confessed pagan spiritualist and a fan of using “psychedelics-aided magical ceremonies” for advancing the movement.

There is nothing remotely spontaneous or grassroots about most collectivist movements. If the movement is initially grassroots, it will either be infiltrated by money, or it will be destroyed by the typical mechanisms. Acting through entire networks of proxy organisations like charities, scientific institutions, NGOs, allows corporate behemoths and huge combinations of capital to obscure the fact that governmental policies are being influenced by their interests. Not only are they largely responsible for putting governments into power through legal bribery we call “lobbyism”, but they interact with governments through their proxies.

Mass media, multinationals and NGOs work together to manipulate public sentiment. The interests of powerful organisations are almost always antithetical to the interests of the ordinary person. Because power and powerlessness are always diametrically opposed. Over time, people in power have set up well organised and complex structures that are designed to channel people’s need for meaning and power into a system which they control, like the canals that flow into a much larger body of water. Here, its energy can be confined and exploited, in the same way reservoirs created by dams are designed to suppress floods and provide water for other activities. We therefore see that the more people protest for a common cause, the tighter are the shackles placed upon them, just as a frantic animal seals its fate by blindly twisting and turning in the hunter’s trap.

If we build a rule into our personality where we say that anything which we perceive as positive from the perspective of the environment is therefore something that we’re in favour of, we can be easily manipulated, because all that has to happen is that somebody wraps that label around something noxious and we may not detect until too late that it isn’t what we signed up for. What’s more, this sets the stage for our cognitive dissonance to be weaponised against us. Once we’ve protested for something called environmental protectionism and we discover that it wasn’t as it was advertised, we have a predicament, we either have to publicly admit fault that we favoured this in the first place, which is hard to do, or we double down on protesting even further. This effect is certainly enhanced when opinions have become enveloped in a mist of pseudo-religious idealisation.

A lot of people in the past, who simply got involved in a movement because it was labelled in a way that sounded good to them, continued to move in the wrong direction because at the point they began to detect that it wasn’t what it was supposed to be it was too late for them to figure out how to back out. The Russian revolution that led to tens of millions of deaths started out with the best of intentions, at least for the vast majority.

As history has demonstrated, ideologues have always been tools of the oligarchs. During the Russian revolution, from above and below, the public were crushed in a vice of extreme ideological violence, and they were strangled by it. It’s the classic pincer strategy. It’s been used for over a century to take down countries, and the Bolsheviks certainly used it to overthrow the Russian Empire of the tsars. History has a way of repeating itself.

“Without big banks socialism would be impossible” – Vladimir Lenin

There are many different forms of communism. In a nutshell, it is the facilitation of economic equality. The UN’s Agenda 21 is a form of slow boil communism intending to move us into a deindustrialised society, which will be one of rationing, curtailed freedoms and martial law. Considering the coming land grab, most people will likely be corralled in smart cities which, with 5G and its successor, will have full spectrum surveillance and control.

Communism is always bankrolled by breakaway elite factions – or in this case a highly organised and monolithic global power – which enlist the support of the lower classes, and it’s never a grassroots movement – of the people and for the people – as it will portray itself. This is a common misconception. The notion of economic parity is also a common misconception. The most economically unequal societies in history have been those in which central planners have controlled the division of labour and distribution of resources.

Essentially, it weaponises people’s credulity and misplaced idealism and turns it against them. It’s seductive because Marx’s writings – and others – are a brilliant, painstaking deconstruction of the evils of capitalism. The problem, however, is that it doesn’t offer anything more, because it is Godless poison.

It is a world view which promotes group identity over the sanctity and spiritual empowerment of the individual because individual interest is secondary to group interest, and group interest subordinate to the interests of a global takeover. Hence, every individual becomes disposable in the interests of the creation of this socialist ‘utopia’.

The greatest famines of the 20th century were all the result of central planning and land reform. The Holodomor famine that killed 4-8 million Ukrainians was man-made. Indeed, the great Russian writer, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn estimated that 66 million Russians were wiped out as a result of Soviet policies.

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is man” – Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning point.

Thomas Malthus was an English economist whose ideas influenced Charles Darwin. In his 1798 work, ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ he observed: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man”. He said, “that an increase in a nation’s food production improved the well-being of the populace, but the improvement was temporary because it led to population growth, which in turn restored the original per capita production level”. The inspiration for his work was said to come from his observance of the animal world’s propensity for spikes and dips in population numbers. It’s a pattern that seems indelibly part of the fabric of life. We can even see it in bull and bear financial markets – booms are inexorably followed by busts.

Since the advent of fossil fuels the world has seen a population explosion. Everyone alive today owes their existence to the increased capacity for production that they have enabled. In fact, our whole economy is built around them. They are behind everything, from transport, irrigation, and modern pharmaceuticals, to materials, heating and construction.

There is a direct 1to1 relationship between wealth and energy; 85% of the world’s energy is generated by fossil fuels. Without them most of the world’s population will return to pre-industrial revolution lifestyles. And we’d live much shorter lives.

Presently, the world’s population is only sustained because of hydrocarbon energy. There are currently no alternatives to bridge the gap, and even if there were, it is so imbedded in our economic system that proposals to reduce emissions by 50% in a short space of time will have irreversible effects on people, in particular, poor people. It will inexorably lead to tens of millions of deaths in the short to medium term. In the long term it will be billions. Because current alternative energies will only support a global population of 1 billion or less. My tentative suggestion is that we should be absolutely certain that the science hasn’t been politicised before we act upon it.

Soberingly, according to the World Health Organisation, which is another branch of the UN, millions of people die every year because of energy poverty, and this has been exacerbated by increases in energy prices caused by the implementation of carbon taxes. The truth is that the great population cull is already underway. And people should know that this is the end result of the protests of privileged, sanctimonious westerners who have ironically been invited to lie in the middle of the street to play dead.

The comforting element of the present climate crisis is that all the prophecies have failed. At least the people who have been repeatedly proved wrong are the people who are quite sure they are right. But the discomforting element is not so much the apparent wickedness of global power; it is the propensity of people subjected to that power to take the world at face value.

The world is like a machine, and its people are wheels and axels rotating around the fulcrum of ideas and relationships. Such is the hold of social position on the minds of men and women, commonly held beliefs are difficult if not impossible to displace. For one thing, as Upton Sinclair noted, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”. It is also out of fear, for “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.” – Niccolo Machiavelli.

Undeniably exponential population growth is a drain on the world’s reserves of finite resources. With rapidly advancing technology and AI, a few can maintain their luxurious lifestyles without drawing on the labour of the great human population sprawl. But of course, in this brave new world some people will be less human than others, and the surplus of machines which have hitherto been creating wealth, will be expendable. Simple Malthusian economics.

Gone are the days of nations. We are not necessarily talking of secret clubs, but a global culture of hierarchical networks of mutually beneficial corporate relationships, inevitably determined by the immutable bylaws of trade and finance. This climate change agenda is merely the cement in the masonry of global population control and reduction.

Related articles:

https://edwardjblack.com/2019/09/28/the-climate-change-youth/

17 thoughts on “Extinction Rebellion and the Great Climate Change Scam

  1. Excellent expose of a movement I had a vague unease with, but hadn’t done the research on. Extinction Rebellion begs the question- are they trying to save the planet from the humans or the humans for the planet?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I had the same vague uneasiness – the unconscious is invariably a good guide and it was with this. Sadly, I think it’s the former. This is to do with power and control, which is ultimately what leftism is all about. In a world where everything is called something it’s not, it merely dresses itself in attractive and appealing nonsense, which is calculated to harvest the public’s credulity, much to their detriment.

      Like

  2. I think you vaguely touch on this, but their philosophy seems to be a rehash of Benthamite or Utilitarian thinking that I studied in history many moons ago. I’m going to have to revisit it to refresh myself, but I think that they would say that because mankind is negatively impacting the planet, mankind is part of the problem. So, although they would profess than mankind is part of the solution, things like abortion and euthanasia become a mercy for poor “Mother Earth”. And so we become as someone once described Russia like a she-bear that devours her cubs. Pretty horrific really. Makes the grace of God to us in Christ all the more astounding!

    Like

    • Yes, very well said, it’s rather terrifying when you put it like that. Everyone becomes disposable to the larger idea because the sanctity of individualism is discarded in the interests of a deranged, self-assured hubris of collectivism. People should know their history. If the forces behind the curtain are dangerous, the ideas are even more so.

      The best defence to this self-harming madness is actually a belief in God. The reason why the offspring of Marx firstly ridicule then attack Faith the hardest is because it’s completely anathema to their worldview – dialectical materialism – which has left the world with nothing but broken promises and utter mayhem.

      Like

      • To the Marxist, religion is the opium of the masses. To me, I believe that the fallen angel satan is, as it were, the opiate of the masses- blinding them to God and even to himself. Interestingly, even the demons believe in God in that they know He exists- and shudder, anticipating their final comeuppance! Thankfully, we can believe with confidence that God is good, gracious, and merciful to all who seek Him in spirit and in truth.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Your article seems to completely avoid addressing the fundamental issue that our economic system (and the majority of western culture) completely lacks an environmental ethic, and it is simple math to predict that western society’s levels of hyper-consumption (and thus the economic system that depends on it), are entirely unsustainable, and subject to catastrophic collapse. Your article instead focusses on theories regarding the political manipulation of climate change by entrenched power, while critically ignoring the all-encompassing nature of our depedence and unsustainable degradation of the surrounding environment.

    Modern human society needs to pay attention to the environmental impacts of our choices about how we live (individual through to societal scales), and this is what most of the XR protestors (volunteers and unfunded), and other grass roots environmental groups want to raise awareness of. Entrenched power attempts (and succeeds) at sowing division within most social and environmental justice issues and instead of participating in this dischord, I suggest we examine the ways in which we can find common ground and unite both against the structures of entrenched power, as well as the economic and corporate institutions responsible for much of the almost casual abuse inflicted upon our life-supporting environment (e.g. oil-gas and other mineral extraction, intensive-disturbance based agriculture and industrial food, consumption-based economic development, etc.). If you think the christian religion is a good way in, then so be it, however, there are plenty of scientific/empirical, ethical/moral foundations on which to build an environmental ethic and a mutually supporting relationship with nature. Or we could look towards most indigenous societies’ relationship to the environment from around the world.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for your comment. My article was entirely focused on the political manipulation of climate change by entrenched power, as you say. Unfortunately, everything appears larger when placed under the microscope of analysis, and that which is neglected, smaller. Short of writing a multi-volumed book, this is quite unavoidable.

      I agree with you. Environmental issues need to be addressed. Urgently. I accept that. And presently society needs to engage in constructive dialogue. But IMO, lies and deceit are rotten foundations on which to base a movement. If this is about consumption, say so. Inducing existential angst and panic is not constructive. Quite the opposite.

      I do accept that there will be a certain amount of necessary illusions in public life – the oil in the tank of social order and progress (forgive the metaphor); but, at the same time, we must be hyper-vigilant that we are not being used as pawns in a bigger, ugly game. Invariably, this is the case, and I’m of the firm opinion that this is the case, here.

      I used to be a Marxist. My dissertation was on a Marxist interpretation of the law. So, I’m well versed on Marxism’s core tenets and strategies of usurpation. Uncomfortably so. Marxism is a misanthropic elitism clothed in the language of fairness and equality. Here, it’s clothed in the language of saving the planet.

      This ideology has paved the road of much destruction and chaos, and there’s no good reason to suppose it won’t do so again. Protect the environment, absolutely. But not like this. Never like this.

      I respect everybody’s beliefs provided those beliefs don’t impinge on others’ rights to think and speak freely.

      Thank you for taking the time to post your comment.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. I do share some of your concerns, though I do have friends in XR, and from what I see of their activitism it’s driven quite strongly by the fact they are grandparents. They also see climate change affecting the poorest people on the planet (as has been apparent now for decades and especially to those of us who have worked in overseas development). Our county XR group swelled from a handful to hundreds immediately after people saw the April bridge closures on TV. Locally at least, I gather it is a non-hierachical body with no one person in charge, but wherein individuals put themselves forward either as demonstrators or supporters of demonstrators/arrestees – i.e. providing food, legal, medical, emotional support; many are middle aged, middle class professionals. Whether or not there is arch manipulation going on I for one cannot tell. I would actually like to know. But my impression is that XR has provided the rallying point that millions of people have actually been waiting for. If going green means we have to regime-change ourselves, then it’s bound to be political.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi Tish. Thanks for your reply. I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of those involved are earnest, well-intentioned people who care deeply about the environment. That’s a given. But it’s irrelevant. Because they’ve failed to do basic fact checks about the organisation, those behind it and how its aims perfectly dovetail with an elitist political agenda that is at least 40 years old and long predates the science behind climate alarmism.

      The environment movement has been completely infiltrated by unlimited pots of fractional reserve money, huge commercial interests, and the fossil fuel companies themselves, which are all on board with the UN’s Agenda 21. This is why the liberal establishment has given XR ample exposure and plenty of oxygen to disseminate their apocalyptic message, in spite of it being ostensibly a resistance movement which seeks to take down the system.

      Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, has said:

      “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, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution”

      She said that the goal of environmental activism is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism:

      https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/

      I really don’t see why it’s so hard to understand that climate change is a mask for the agendas underneath when the diplomats themselves are saying exactly that.

      As I outlined in my article, the UN is merely a bureaucratic proxy for the powers behind it: the major banks and those who control them.

      Here, we can equate the threat of climate change with the threat posed by an uncooperative dictator who is sitting on top of valuable resources. The public are simply being sold the pretext of climate change like they are sold pretexts at the onset of every war.

      Carl von Clausewitz: “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means”.

      And climate change is merely the continuation of war by other means. The enemy, of course, being all of us; with poor people being the biggest enemy of all.

      Thanks for your reply

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Hello Eddie, Thank you too for your considered reply. It was very thought proking reading compared with much of what is generally posted on social media.

    I suspect that we are likely in general agreement about entrenched power’s manipulation of political agenda setting, public opinion, culture, and the social-economic system at large. However, a question that immediately springs to mind from your article and reply is: How then should all of us concentrate and wield our collective power to produce change? Though, we should all be very cautious about throwing our hat into rings (and mine is currently on my head), I would argue that a movement like XR could potentially be a promising way to engage people as a force for social-economic change.

    As you say, environmental movements (and any other threat to existing power structures) will be infiltrated by power to mislead/diffuse/subvert/sow-dissent, etc. However, that is what we (i.e., the masses, the poor) have to work with as our power comes through voluntarily uniting a collective will to change aspects of our societies’ structure, processes, (or myths) to enable “better” outcomes such as sustainable and equitable resource use; improved social, economic, and environmental justice; access to healthy food systems, water, medicine, etc.

    In the case of XR, I have similar feelings to Trish below in that I think the large majority of people join for reasons related to their values and ethics, for example, see the statement read out here by an ecologist from the Isle of Man:

    (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=51296&headline=I%20have%20pleaded%20guilty,%20but%20%20I%20don%27t%20feel%20guilty&sectionIs=NEWS&searchyear=2019)

    I don’t think it is a valid argument to disregard the ideas and action of the entire group because of the possibility of infiltration by the system that they are trying to influence. For any mobilization against an existing power structure this will ever be the case. Even if the founding of XR is suspect, the weight of numbers of people who join in goodwill can shift the group from this base. From my reading of XR’s website material, and from the few people I know who have gotten involved, XR has intentionally tried to create a broadly flat hierarchical structure formed from many autonomous groups, which in turn attempt to minimize their internal hierarchical structure. For example, the infamous Camden Town train roof incident is reported to have been perpetrated by a single XR group against the better advice of the majority of other XR groups.

    This organizational structure (similar to many subversive groups) was purposefully developed to facilitate the ability to rapidly adapt and respond to changing circumstances, maintain group function without central leadership or finance, retain a relatively equal status among group members, and to minimize the degree to which the group(s) can be co-opted by specific individuals or by money/influence. For example, last month’s protests appeared to be mainly done by volunteers who converged on London from all over the UK, and were organized chiefly via social media. This does not require a large amount of financing (time, yes, but many hands make light work), and therefore, I also am of the opinion that money won’t be able to go far in influencing the ideas and actions of each individual group within XR (at least in the short term).

    As to XR’s demands that are portrayed in the media (and by XR “spokepersons”). I do not agree that the XR movement is based solely on a foundation of lies, as XR is made out of a collection of groups who individually are uniting around a diverse range of environmental justice issues. Unfortunately, climate change is the issue that receives all the attention in the media, as this is the most easily debated and undermined by disagreeing “experts” on both sides, thus, removing any need for “action” that would address inequities and injustice. Meanwhile, other much more obvious and immediate environmental concerns such as air and water pollution, loss of species and ecosystem resilience, degradation of ecosystem function through disturbance-based industrial agriculture, and inequitable access to land, water, and resources, etc., are actually more pressing and having demonstrable, direct, negative impacts to people around the planet, as well as in the west in growing numbers. To illustrate, there are many examples in regards to the plight of past and persisting indigenous groups throughout the world such as currently happening in Brazil.

    I agree that the focus on XR’s climate change demands and the creation of a climate “crisis” in the media is very damaging to society, and this I think is where you are most justified in pointing a finger at the influence of entrenched power, and which does very much fit the model of Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” and disaster capitalism as you insightfully pointed out. However, XR’s demand for government to institutionalize the use of citizen assemblies is a direct bid to devolve power to the citizenry, and I think would make a promising step to unmasking hidden power in our democratic system. There is a large body of literature written on participatory and deliberative democracy, of which citizen’s assemblies are one form, and a strong body of evidence describing both how decision and policy making by these assemblies closely align with the wider public’s will, and have an inherent resistance to overt influence from lobbyists, misinformation, and inequitable policy outcomes, though I’m not sure how these might function on a national/federal scale…

    Thus, my question remains, if not voluntary participation in a group unified to enact societal and economic change (e.g. move to zero growth economies), and redress social and environmental injustices in society (non-violently), then what other options remain? Forgive me if this sounds naïve, but I would be very interested to hear ideas from someone with an initimate knowledge of political economy, such as your self. Thank you again for your thought provoking article.
    Chris.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you Chris for taking the time to construct such a measured reply. It’s much appreciated.

      I’ll start by stating very clearly that I speak with no authority whatsoever. In fact, I completely reject authority in all its forms. It generally wants something from you and it’s not getting it from me. I expect you and the XR protesters would largely agree that authority advises in its own interests and the system itself is corrupted, broken and doing a great deal of damage to people and the environment. That’s a message hard to disagree with. It’s a message that has engaged many thousands of people around the world.

      I’ll add that what I have said is only my opinion. I’ve seen many people give their opinion freely in recent times, and like our friend from the Isle of Man, have even felt empowered to break the law to stand up for what they believe in. As a counterbalance, I thought it was important to give the other side of the story, because the MSM seems completely incapable of providing an objective account of anything. Another product of that broken system. The reason I set up this blog is probably for similar reasons to those that have inspired many thousands around the world to lie prostrate in the middle of roads. You see, we’re not all so different.

      I fear I may repeat what I’ve already written. It’s a completely valid argument to discredit this entire movement. The reason is that this is NOT a mobilization against an existing power structure, as it describes itself; this is a movement that is working on behalf of that power structure. I’ll say that again: this is not about concerns of the infiltration of power to mislead and diffuse; the origin, direction and overall purpose of this movement is one which is disposed to organised power. Indeed, XR is useful to it. Very useful.

      Let’s think about utility for a second. Greta Thunberg is 16 yrs old. She has no accomplishments. She proposes no practical solutions. Yet she is a household name – a Google search produces 176 million results. Boyan Slat was 16 years old when he invented the first ocean plastic cleanup system. It requires no economic destruction. A Google search of his name produces 276k results. Nobody I know has heard of him.

      One 16 year old is more useful than the other. This isn’t about the environment and solutions, this is about politics and control.

      It really is completely irrelevant how sincere the protesters are. Whether they know it or not, they are cannon fodder in a much larger war. They are fervently campaigning for what the most powerful have long planned for the world population. While those on the ground care about environmental justice and averting an ecological catastrophe, those in power care about resource control – geographical and human. Those intentions are opposed. Short of a violent uprising, those in command of the resources will always win the day over people power. Because people power is an oxymoron.

      Citizen assembles will be subject to the same forces current democratic structures are. I’m sorry but it’s extraordinarily naive to think they won’t be, at least on a larger scale. Devolution to local and regional assembles would ostensibly have more autonomy. But all of this talk is very vague. It’s vague because it is designed to appeal to conscience and not reason.

      Ancient Athens had a participative democracy, set up after a civil uprising against decades of tyranny. It lasted about 100 years and according to the playwright, Aristophanes and the historian, Thucydides, it was corrupt to the core. Our society is infinitely more complex than the world in which arch-deceivers Themistocles and Pericles inhabited.

      We don’t need more government. If we want to live freer, happier lives, we need less government. But what we’ll get is more government. XR is part of that process.

      XR’s demands, if acted upon, will turn us all into neo-liberal serfs. Since the industrial revolution, the increased capacity for production has increased the capacity for consumption. Because economic expansion entails the increased freedom of how to make your money, and crucially, the increased freedom of what to spend your money on. By trying to curb the latter, we will curb the former. Therefore, the only way we can reduce consumption is through central planning and an aggressive authoritarianism, which has been the plan from the start.

      By reducing economic liberty, we reduce individual and collective liberty. That process has long started – culturally and economically. We are in its latter phases. XR is a very small part of the puzzle. It’s part of the normalisation process.

      People live more by virtue of what the system does for them than by virtue of what they do for themselves. Society is the sun that exerts a strong gravitational force upon us all. If people want real change (for the better) they need to start living what they preach – which they mostly don’t – rather than relying on society to make changes. If people desire to make real change they must strive for cognitive autonomy. Because a mass of instinct is always swallowed up by something larger – the political world is like a series of multicoloured and impotent Russian dolls. The same was true 100 years ago and the same will be true 100 years from now.

      The reality is that people are not saving the environment for future generations. They will merely leave them with a tyranny we haven’t seen in the western world for centuries. And they’re too blinded by ideology to see the difference.

      Thanks again for your reply.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The (Cocaine Import Agency) CIA were responsible for the creation and sustaining of ISIS (Muslim “useful” idiots) so as to give pretext for more war (all wars are bankers wars). Just like 9/11 was an inside job (mountains of evidence that the globalist /Bankster MSM do not report and denigrate as conspiracy theories).
        There is not climate crisis (again real facts are in the public domain). XR are low information “useful” idiot pawns for the globalist /Banksters.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Brian, humanity is facing an environmental crisis as evidenced by all manner of unsustainable (and sometimes irreversible) impacts to the world’s marine and terrestrial environments. The impacts of our increasing rates of material consumption will also undoubtedly affect human population growth more and more as it reaches the earth’s “natural” limits.

        Restricting the discussion about societies’ environmental impacts to whether or not the “climate-crisis” is real, severely limits the conversation that humanity needs to have with itself. You and Eddie wish to undermine XR, as well as the idea of human-induced-climate-change because you see it used as a “pawn” by globalists to further commandeer the earth’s resources. However, the environmental crisis needs to be thrust into the political sphere to raise awareness, enable us to critically engage with these problems, discover solutions, and change our behaviour, consumptive culture, and/or socio-economic governance. I would argue that focussing on whether humans cause climate change goes a long way in sowing dissent, deflecting meaningful discussion, and undermining any political movement’s attempts to create a unifying vision that enables people to collectively ( i.e., using human capital to) confront environmental issues.

        I would go further to argue that the media, as well as individuals or groups focussing on climate-change could equally be construed as “pawns”, used by the global elite to fracture opinion and divide and rule society unchallenged.
        Chris

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Brian, couldn’t agree more! But now, the main war is on people (350,000 to be exterminated every day, as per UN’s plan) and not only banksters are in on it – Big corporations like big pharma and big tech want their slice too – we reached the Age of Technocracy. The wet dream of all billionaires, was finally made possible by technology, turning all people into serfs and ensuring full control of each one, at any moment in time.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I believe it is the same group of international criminals that are really behind the geoengineering which the media tries to mask as Co2 climate change. In 2020 they plan to add 5G from space to the soup of chaos.

    God bless

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s