UN Terrifies Youth To Push 'Polycrisis'
TV naturalist Chris Packham says it’s time to break laws to save Earth
UN seeks order out of chaos and so does nothing to solve emergencies
Campaigners decry lack of action on Climate Change, yet leaders talk of little else
Globalist bureaucrats want you to lose faith in politicians so they can take over
State of Exception, defined by Third Reich’s Carl Schmitt, is the model
Emergency measures imposed to preserve constitutional order
Saving democracy and elections by subverting them
UN says conflict, climate and Covid create simultaneous crises
Yet there is no effort to shift gradually from the intensive use of hydrocarbons.
Intended catastrophe is exposed by the lack of genuine debate
By warning, and letting it happen, the powerful advance their interests
Military jabs; mass resettlement; arson; energy loss; economic collapse and war
The same person who sells you the problem, sells the solution – at your expense
The young might embrace a new start if it was presented to them.
Did you hear anything like that from politicians or corporations?
Instead, the state corporate media and the banks have them running around in Che Guevara shirts demanding, “we want a mortgage, and we want it now!”
See also
Germany May Ban Opposition Party - Globalists desperate as their narrative Babel breaks down (Jan 21, 2024)
Follow The Consensus To Your Demise (Aug 9, 2023)
(4,100 words or 19 minutes of company).
Sep 24, 2023
The United Nations “Climate Week” just happened. Globalist journal Politico noted the failure of presidents and prime ministers to attend. [1]
Campaigners often complain that politicians pay little attention to the climate. There remains a “massive lack of international climate financing,” it writes, echoing the UN’s SDG Report that it’s falling behind on its 2030 targets.
UN under-secretary Li Junhua said conflict, climate and Covid had slowed progress: “we have entered an age of polycrisis.”
Stop right there. Is crisis the obstacle — or the opportunity declared three years ago?
Even if the pandemic “just happened” organically, the response had been planned over decades and rehearsed in detail at Event 201 in Oct 2019. King Charles and numerous leaders said in Jun 2020 that Covid was a golden opportunity to fix the climate, to implement Sustainable Development Goals, and to reset the social and economic system.
While the UN can’t decide if it loves crises or hates them, campaigners and journalists form a Greek chorus of doom, their hands fluttering like Extinction Rebellion’s ladies cloaked in the crimson silks of blood.
Television wildlife evangelist Chris Packham stole the headlines when he called for legal protest: “If you’re an activist that’s made a decision to break the law, as long as no one is hurt and there’s no lasting environmental damage. Then you’ll have my support.” [2]
A predictable row ensued.
The beef seems to be that politicians and the powerful maintain a “deafening silence” on climate change. That’s strange. Because everywhere we look, Climate Change is the justification, for:
arson and wildfires
pandemics and viruses jumping from animal to human,
the replacement of Covid lockdown with a Climate lockdown,
quarantine and the need to stay home, now called 15-minute cities,
vaccine passports and QR, now called online safety and age verification,
demands to limit CO2, which creates oxygen, and H2O, the ultimate renewable,
phasing out of coal, oil, gas power stations, and internal combustion engines,
not investing in energy infrastructure, while demanding electric everything,
restrictions on car transport and air travel, and shutting airports by 2050,
seizing farms and closing them, killing cattle and rewilding land,
food shortages, supply chain disruption and rationing,
universal basic income and central bank currencies.
Tell 3,000 Dutch farmers that politicians have a deafening silence on Climate Change. Farmers are committing suicide in unprecedented numbers as they are forced to shut down in the name of reducing nitrogen and carbon dioxide emissions.
How do campaigners and commentators honestly conclude that politicians are silent on climate? What precisely should politicians be doing that they are not? Outlets like the otherwise excellent Media Lens do not say except, it seems, “govern me harder.” This is characteristic. [3]
Rebel without a cause
This may sound partisan but that’s not how it is intended. It is an appeal for people to think beyond political constructs and preconceptions.
Packham’s breathless, TikTok-style delivery, begins with the emotional screams of a young woman, talks of disaster, conflates rising temperatures and pesticides, which is presumably what he blames for the loss of wildlife in his documentary, “Chris Packham: Is It Time to Break the Law?” (Channel 4) [4]
“We should be on a war footing, because this is going to act like war,” says John Gummer, now Lord Deben, chairman of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. “A whole generation of people are waking up to the fact that we have destroyed their future.”
Yet listen to the documentary and read The Guardian review and you will see little mention of what it is, exactly, that is not being done.
There is lots of dialectic and division: demonising the unbelieving elders, and demanding that “something must be done.”
But what, precisely? Only the insistence that politicans should act “yesterday, already!” Why not a documentary that seeks to persuade; that brings together arguments and supporters. That is not how the eco movement rolls.
Leave aside the justice of the cause. Will young television viewers spot the unlikely paradox of a “rebel” allowed to rouse them to revolt on state corporate television controlled by the same interests whom he says are ignoring the crisis?
That would come dangerously close to admitting that the Gettys, Rockefellers and oil interests finance much of the environmental movement. It would expose much: the lack of a societal plan to transition to renewables; the fact that the wealthiest class profits from the renewable projects, heavily subsidized by the taxpayer; which conserves oil and gas in the hands of those same families — see “Planet Of The Humans.”
Did viewers recognise the timing that coincided with UN Climate Week and comes months before COP28 in Dubai (Nov 30-Dec 12, 2023)?
Just think if the Bolsheviks had had the ability to make videos like this to justify the dispossession of the bourgeoisie, using the same plentiful emotion and absence of detail?
Actually they did. Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin is a masterclass. The youth were manipulated then, as now.
Packham hones in on Just Stop Oil, the activist group that is frequently protected by British police, while claiming they “challenge authority.”
“What do you do if you have lost confidence in politicians to deal with this crisis?,” Packham says.
Presumably the same as Bill Gates and the World Economic Forum advise: put the corporations in charge. The “philanthropic” foundations led by Gates and Tony Blair, and the academics who argue that Constitutions are no longer fit for purpose (more below), seek to replace government with assemblies and public-private partnerships.
It’s the response, stupid
We often hear from the self-described Left that Climate Change is a crisis of capitalism, the decline of imperialism, which explains the finance capitalists’ failure to address it.
Yes, it’s capitalism. Yes, it’s imperialism. But for other reasons, which we’ll come to.
From Conservatives we may hear that Climate Change is a hoax, or a tool of class division whereby the rich get richer through subsidies [oh, the irony].
But to see the debate as red versus blue is a false dichotomy.
A leading critic of Net Zero is co-founder of Greenpeace Dr Patrick Moore. It was another Moore, Michael, who supported the Jeff Gibbs documentary, Planet Of The Humans (2020) which asked essential questions — not about Climate Change but the honesty of the policy response.
The truth is that politicians talk about climate all the time. If they don’t do anything, that is by design. Actions always speak louder than words. The Center for Government says “It’s easy to think of ‘inaction’ as simply the lack of action, but it isn’t that simple. Inaction is an action. It’s a conscious choice to maintain the status quo.” [5]
What campaigners rarely acknowledge is the glaring absence of any plan to gradually shift from the intensive use of hydrocarbons.
We would have to live differently. Build homes with different layouts and materials, that cool or retain heat. Change traditional living patterns, share utilities. Grow our own food, to save on supermarket deliveries. Capture and filter water locally. Teach children at home, or at least locally, so that we no longer need costly high schools.
The young might embrace such a new start if it was presented to them.
Did you hear anything like that from politicians or corporations?
Instead, the state corporate media and the banks have them running around in Che Guevara shirts demanding, “we want a mortgage, and we want it now!”
State of Exception
This confusion of Millennials and younger — hurry up and wait; hope and change; protest yet demand to be a debt slave like your parents — is to keep them on the credit treadmill and precisely to exclude social change that would threaten the wealth, control and power of the owner investors.
Instead, the governments offer cascading crises, permanent emergency. We are seeing it with the Great Shutdown — of farms, oil pipelines, gas stoves and heaters, internal combustion engines and, later, we are told air travel.
Politicians are not trying find an alternative way of life. They intend to shut it down. They do not see emergency as a call to action. They see it as a means to an end.
We wrote in the previous newsletter about the State of Exception, defined by Carl Schmitt, legal theorist of the Third Reich. He based it on the dictatorships of classical Greece and Rome: emergency measures intended to preserve a constitutional order.
The word “tyrant” did not have a negative connotation in those times. A tyrant was someone who gained executive power by unconventional means — by securing the support of different factions of a deme, or a political subdivision of a polis — to restore order. It did not imply a cruel and oppressive ruler, but rather an influential opportunist who ruled outside of the law.
Schmitt transformed this historical experience of temporary dictatorship into a messianic deliverance from the constraints on a leader’s action, overturning a constitutional republic as flawed and outdated. We hear the same claims today from some politicians that the U.S. Constitution is not needed.
Democratic lawmakers increasingly say the U.S. Constitution is outdated. “The Constitution is broken and should not be reclaimed,” say legal scholars Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn of Harvard and Yale respectively, as do Harvard profs Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. [6]
The first pair argue that Republicans have lost respect for the Constitution and are manipulating bodies like the Electoral College to gain power unfairly. The second pair argue that the Constitution belongs to a pre-democratic era that believed certain rights were sacrosanct and existed outside and above the legislative process, and that this should end.
Based on such zeitgeist thinking, and often depending on private foundations and NGOs for ideas, our politicians and corporate leaders have fallen for a secular religion, sounding increasingly Messianic and charismatic (from the Greek word charisma, or gift).
They claim to know what the future holds, and what is best for the people, without the desire or ability to explain it. Have you noticed they also speak in tongues, changing the meaning of words?
From ‘Climate Emergency’ Would Be Step Closer To Dictatorship - Hate laws will censor all dissent (Sep 21, 2023)
Unlike Mr Packham’s law breaking I am not suggesting a tyrant. You don’t have to favour coups and dictators to know there exists an alternative to blind obedience.
The lie is the response
You see that I have not questioned the Climate Change narrative nor objected that many of the “wildfires” have been set by arsonists, and I haven’t challenged the argument that Climate Change is “essentially a product of a global capitalist mode of production.”
I do not need to question those premises in order to refocus the argument on the failure of the response. Like Covid, in order to understand Climate Change you need not debate whether a virus or Climate Change is happening. You only need to look at the response to acknowledge that it does not do what it says on the tin.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Moneycircus to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.