UN Terrifies Youth To Push 'Polycrisis'

TV naturalist Chris Packham says it’s time to break laws to save Earth

• Campaigners decry lack of action on Climate Change; yet leaders talk of little else

• Far from solving emergencies, ‘polycrisis’ seeks order out of chaos

• ‘Losing faith’ in politicians – is exactly what the globalist bureaucrats want

• The UN says conflict, climate and Covid create many simultaneous crises

• Is this a genuine debate on the need for action, or catastrophe role-play?

• In this scenario, climate crusaders play the role of a Greek chorus of doom

• Sole focus on Climate Change hides multiple crises, chaos makers and profiteers

• Military shots; mass resettlement; arson; energy loss; economic collapse and war

• By warning, yet letting it happen, the powerful advance their interests

• This is not incompetence nor politicians failing; ‘cascading crises’ are linked

• The same person who sells you the problem, sells the solution – at your expense

• Like the mobster who offers to protect your shop from window breakers

• Save the environment, but stop mixing up different issues

• Do not give in to ‘polycrisis’ or fear; stop grovelling to government

• The outcome is likely to be grim. After the paywall.

“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?

Climate Change is much bigger than the environment. And there exists an alternative to blind obedience.

Are the bodies, from the UN and WHO to the Vatican, seriously planning Agenda 21 without checking whether the mineral resources exist on planet Earth to meet their sustainable development goals or SDGs?

The Green energy plans as stated are unworkable — which begs the question: are they joking or is the Green agenda a cover for something else?

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.”

See also Follow The Consensus To Your Demise (Aug 9, 2023)

(4,100 words or 19 minutes of company).

Orchestrated chaos is older than the hills. Front to back: Conquest, War, Famine and Death. Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, by Viktor Vasnetsov (1887)

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,” writes Politico — 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 a year or two 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 took 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 Change? 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 its purpose.

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)?

Could they imagine that the Bolsheviks, had they the ability to make videos like this to justify the dispossession of the bourgeoisie, would have used the same plentiful emotion and absence of detail? For 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 - Ed].

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 an unrelated Moore, Michael, who supported the Jeff Gibbs documentary, Planet Of The Humans (2020) which asked essential questions — not about Climate Change but about the honesty of much 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!”

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.

It is a red flag when any journalist gets stuck on the issue of “denier” and fails to progress to the solutions. The Guardian for years has suggested “climate denial” should be akin to “Holocaust denial” and that deniers be denied a platform.

“...moving on from propaganda in general, to catastrophic and man made climate change, do we simply stop using fossil fuels? When? Tomorrow? This afternoon? How?,” writes the excellent Steel City Scribblings. [7]

Catastrophe is the means to an end. The so-called response is a lie.

To explain: society could transition gradually to less energy use, and local energy generation. It would require a massive feat of social engineering and it would entail a dispersion of control.

In contrast, changing society through a climate emergency, or any emergency, as we see with ULEZ and SMART meters, carbon taxes and proposals for central bank digital currency (aka rationing) — centralises control.

Secondly, the energy crisis was caused, in part, by the centralised control of energy.

The owner-investors claim they are serious about ending the use of petrol and diesel-fueled engines are a location independent form of distributed energy, with an efficient power-to-weight ratio — in other words calorific-intense. Yet the owners’ answer is to further centralise the control of energy by limiting access and range.

Media Lens dismisses as boneheaded the suggestion that “the BBC and the Guardian are a propaganda system serving elite power” or that the media’s focus on Climate Change “serves an elite agenda of increased taxation and control.”

Does Media Lens address “increased taxation and control?” No! They take issue with propaganda. It is their straw man: the alleged conspiracy theorist who sees propaganda everywhere.

They say the media cannot possibly be pushing wall-to-wall propaganda because it “has to tell at least some of the truth”if only on less pivotal issues.

This is like observing that Wikipedia tells the truth about arthropods, spiders, daddy long-legs and scorpions. Of course it does — not to retain credibility, but because those issues do not affect the distribution of wealth and power.

The media spoke with one universal voice during the Covid response and the uniformity was stunning to behold, precisely because it was so dangerous, and subsequently shown to be so wrong. Of course this does not mean every word is propaganda, or that every inconvenient truth can be censored.

There is, as a friend said, a depressingly tendency in part of the alt media towards “theatrical oppositional argument,” as Monty Python displayed in their skit.

“As with Covid, they say, ‘The media just aren’t talking about it!’ (They talk about it all the time!)

“‘We must engage in ACTION!’ (Exactly the same action the media are encouraging!)

“‘Those who sneer at activists are armchair critics!’ (This coming from an armchair critic who cheers on ‘activists’ who are embarrassingly obvious stooges!)”

Imperialism, but in decline?

Is it true that we witness the “decline of western imperialism as a system of super exploitation”?

The war in Ukraine, and those to follow, will seize the resources they need to build the SMART Cities and electric everything.

This is hardly the decline of imperialism: the finance capitalists say they want to clear the lot of us off the land, repeating the Clearances and Enclosures in Britain of the 19th century, to get at the resources and rewild the best parts. It was an earlier land grab in England, the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the 16th century, which drove the capital creation that enabled mercantilism and imperialism.

The BBC says the war has prompted a “fossil fuel rush” that will likely lead to a permanent increase in hydrocarbon usage and the consequent neglect of climate change targets.

It is almost as if they are looking for an excuse now that the fuel crisis has exposed how threadbare is the talk of energy security and the inadequate state of Green energy.

The European Union and United States refused financial help for smaller nations to cut hydrocarbon use, at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference. It may have emboldened China and India to block plans to phase out coal — they agreed only to “phase down.”

It is more likely that their intelligence services already knew of the risks of war in Ukraine, and that gas, oil and coal were about to be in greater demand.

None of this realpolitik bothers the state corporate media, and the lack of informed debate is about to get worse.

This month Britain was the latest Western government to pass “hate speech” legislation, otherwise known as the Online Safety Bill. One entrepreneurial individual ran the bill through Chat GPT and then queried it, finding 26 individual measures that violate free speech. [8]

The infiltration of social media companies by military intelligence (which helped establish Google, Facebook, Oracle etc) and the implementation, and the passing of “hate laws” will only increase censorship.

Reality check

Climate Change is much bigger than the environment.

Are the bodies, from the UN and WHO to the Vatican, seriously planning Agenda 21 without checking whether the mineral resources exist on planet Earth to meet their sustainable development goals or SDGs?

The Green energy plans as stated are unworkable — which begs the question: are they joking or is the Green agenda a cover for something else?

Perhaps we are unfair to demand reporting that corresponds to reality. The Club of Rome, named after the Rockefeller retreat on Lake Como, admitted as much in The First Global Revolution, (Club of Rome, 1993):

“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 and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

One possibility is that these central planners mean something else by words like sustainable. If there is to be less energy, food and water, one way to make it sustainable is to have fewer people. In other words, code for depopulation.

This underlines that there is no serious plan to “transition” to Green energy. There is only what president Joe Biden called “cascading crises,” or the hyperbolic language of emergencies. UN chief António Guterres last month warned the era of “global boiling” had arrived. This week he said “the gates of hell” are at hand as Climate Change intensifies.

U.S. politician and billionaire John Kerry again called for farms to be closed to meet Net Zero, as the United Nations kicked off a week of talks on the environment. [9]

Kerry, who is the U.S. climate envoy, proposed a new carbon credit scheme run by the World Bank. Carbon credits at the mechanism by which the rich would continue to enjoy life, offsetting their yachts and private jets by purchasing the “allowance” of the poor, creating new castes of people. Let alone denying developing countries the ability to “catch up” with the rich. Talk about imperialism.

China’s top climate official said the phasing-out of hydrocarbons is not realistic and that they must continue to play a role in maintaining global energy security. [10]

Split or scheme?

Is this truly a division between countries that reduce their use of conventional fuels, and those who “selfishly” choose to develop? Is it even a struggle between competing vested interests"? Or are these globalists working together, to permanently shift the industrial hub to Asia, following the orchestrated shutdown of energy in Germany, and the move of BASF to China?

An emergency can be created deliberately, as the Maui fires showed, by failing to maintain infrastructure, failing to repair overhead wires and trim grass; failing to supply enough capacity of water to put out fires; failing to activate sirens; and simply failing to respond.

What would the other emergencies look like?