Climate Change is NOT primarily man-made!

Where Did The Claim That "97% of Scientists" Believe Climate Change is a man-made, Urgent Problem Come From? Is It True?
Arjun Walia
25 Feb 2023

Is climate change happening? Of course, climate change has always been happening, long before the industrial revolution. Earth has gone through multiple cycles of extreme climate change and so have other planets, like Mars, for example.

But the question today is, how much does human activity influence modern day climate change? The general public has been primed to believe that climate change is predominantly the result of human activity, and that we are headed towards a complete climate catastrophe within the next couple of decades.

The public has also been told that approximately 97 percent of scientists agree with the catastrophe narrative, but is this really true? Where did this number come from?

The truth is, there is quite a large group of climate scientists and academics in the field that disagree with the oversimplified view of climate change that is constantly being spouted, but the public is not told this.

    The whole system revolves around the idea that the majority can be made to believe 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, so long as it is repeated loudly and often. And it works. — NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden

It’s similar to what we saw with COVID-19, where a large minority, or perhaps majority of doctors, scientists, vaccine developers and renowned infectious disease experts opposed lockdowns, mask, and vaccine mandates. Many of them were censored and referred to as “conspiracy theorists.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the mainstream can make the minority feel like the majority, and the majority feel like the minority. Perhaps this is something we’ve seen with this “97%” figure?

The History of Climate Science & The Origins of Doomsday Scenarios

In the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became the sole authority of the global warming agenda. The fund boasts of being one of the first major global activists by citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 creation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

This is when most of the messaging regarding climate ‘alarmism’ began, with consistent articles in the mainstream predicting doom-like armageddon scenarios.

For example, on June 29, 1989, the Associated Press (AP) ran a story containing an interview with Noel Brown, the director of the New York office of the United Nations Environment Program at the time. In it he stated:

“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”

This of course did not happen, yet it resembles the same type of predictions we see happening today. It begs the question, what is driving these 10 year predictions, and are they accurate? Do most scientists agree with them?

When Did The “97 Percent Consensus” Number Enter Mainstream Consciousness?

It appears that an article by Naomi Oreskes, a Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, got the ball rolling.

Oreskes’ 2004 article included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” It stated, “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of man made global warming. She claimed that any remaining professional dissent is exceedingly minor.

Furthermore, in 2010 academic William R. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 “most prolific” writers on climate change believed that man made greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the warming we are experiencing. This received a lot of attention, despite the fact that 200 researchers and “writers” out of the thousands who had contributed to the climate science debate is nowhere close to a consensus.

A 2013 paper by Cook, et al., seemed to be the most significant publication to popularize the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content or a real examination of the science.

The paper looked at 12,000 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that contained the words “global warming” or “global climate change.” It claimed that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the idea that ‘humans are changing the climate.’ It went on to become one of the most popular papers of all time, reaching well over 1 million downloads.

Is There Really A Consensus?

According to Roy Spencera, a meteorologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, who served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and Joseph Bast, a Senior Fellow at The Heartland Institute,  

    The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.”   — Roy Spencera and Joseph Bast, The Wall Street Journal

There is available evidence showing that many experts in the field do not agree that humans are solely responsible for an ‘armageddon level’ climate change type of scenario, and that there are a myriad of factors that are not being considered when it comes to other factors that influence our climate. It appears many scientists who are not actually climate scientists have simply jumped on the bandwagon.

A 2012 survey, for example, found strong skepticism among members of the American Meteorological Society. A petition signed by 31,000 scientists states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of [...] carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." They key word there is “catastrophic.”

    “Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch – most recently published in Environmental Science and Policy in 2010 – have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

    Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.” — Roy Spencera & Joseph Bast

One of the methods used to assert the claim that there is an overwhelming consensus seems to be by asking or polling scientists as to whether they agree that C02 levels in the atmosphere have increased, that the Earth has been warming (albeit only a little) and that man has played some part.

The problem with that is this is something almost all climate scientists can agree on. What’s not agreed upon is the fact that this has no obvious implication of danger, yet that narrative is and has been constantly portrayed as support for catastrophism and alarmism.

    “Our crop plants evolved about 400 million years ago, when CO2 in the atmosphere was about 5000 parts per million! Our evergreen trees and shrubs evolved about 360 million years ago, with CO2 levels at about 4,000 ppm. When our deciduous trees evolved about 160 million years ago, the CO2 level was about 2,200 ppm – still five times the current level.  — Dennis T. Avery, agricultural and environmental economist, senior fellow for the Center for Global Food Issues in Virginia, and formerly a senior analyst for the U.S. Department of State

The Politicization of Climate Science

As a result of alarmism, political policy and major decisions regarding how we live are put into motion, all which seem to further take away our privacy, freedom, and increase the already strong surveillance state which eventually puts more wealth and control into the hands of the already wealthy “one percent.” Some are even concerned that climate lockdowns may be implemented one day in the future.

President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were two of many who repeatedly used the 97 percent tagline. Kerry went so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is still the messaging we get today from big politics.

Furthermore, an important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances.

As Oreskes says in her article, “Often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper[s] do think about global climate change.”

Doomsday scenarios may generate clicks and sell advertisements, but they truly fail to convey that science is nuanced. Apocalyptic predictions are not at all evidence based, they simply contribute to unnecessary panic and fear offering false narratives that can overwhelm readers, leading to inaction and hopelessness, especially among today’s youth.

Where have we seen this politicization before? Several researchers from various academic institutions in the United Kingdom, United States and Canada published a paper in February 2022 titled, “The Unintended Consequences of COVID-19 Vaccine Policy: Why Mandates, Passports, and Segregated Lockdowns may cause more Harm than Good.” In it, they explain,

    “Public and political discourse quickly normalized stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles; for example, a popular news outlet compiled a list of “notable anti-vaxxers who have died from COVID-19” (Savulescu and Giubilini, 2021). Political leaders have singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures.

    Political rhetoric has descended into moralizing, scapegoating, blaming and condescending language using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination.”

There are many examples that can be found to illustrate how politics dominates climate reports. For example, if we go back to the 1995 2nd Assessment Report of the UN IPCC, we can see how much the agenda overshadowed and muted the actual science. The scientists included these three statements in the draft:

    “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

    “No study to date has positively attributed all or part (of observed climate change) to anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) causes.”

    “Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”

Yet, the “summary” and conclusion statement of the IPCC report was written by politicians, not scientists. On many occasions, multiple climate scientists have explained that the rules force the scientists to change their reports to match the politicians’ final ‘summary. Those three statements by scientists above were replaced with this:

    “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.”

The New York Times briefly covered the fact that many “skeptics” were making these accusations, that the report was overplaying and inaccurately connecting human activity to the potential for catastrophic climate change, with no science to back that assertion.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, lead author of Chapter 7, "Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks," of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report on climate change, and retired Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology expresses his concern,

    “How did we get to this point where the science ceased to be interested in the fascinating question of accounting for the remarkable history of the Earth’s climate for an understanding of how climate actually works and instead devoted itself to a component of political correctness. Perhaps one should take a broader view of what’s going on.”

There are basically three groups of people dealing with the issue of climate change. Groups 1 and 2 are scientists, and group three consists of politicians, environmental groups and media.

In the video below, Lindzen does a great job of breaking down of where scientists are really at.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

Final Thoughts

It’s always seemed odd to me that major environmental disasters, like the recent chemical spill/train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, and catastrophic human activity that has led to massive deforestation and the extreme pollution of our fresh water lakes, air, soils, and oceans, continue to be ignored and not presented as urgent. There’s no doubt about it, we are destroying our mother. We have to ask ourselves, do governments really care about the well being of Earth, or are they simply using climate change for selfish purposes and ulterior motives, like big business?

It’s frustrating to watch, because humans have the potential to create a world and an environment where all life can thrive.

Furthermore, ground breaking technologies that are 100 percent environmentally friendly continue to be ignored. You can see a few examples we’ve covered here, and here.

The complex science behind the CO2 narrative specifically is a topic for another article. The correlation between C02 and temperature has many holes in it.

Another quote from Lindzen stressing this point:

    “Now here is the currently popular narrative concerning this system. The climate, a complex multifactor system, can be summarized in just one variable, the globally averaged temperature change, and is primarily controlled by the 1-2% perturbation in the energy budget due to a single variable – carbon dioxide – among many variables of comparable importance. This is an extraordinary pair of claims based on reasoning that borders on magical thinking. It is, however, the narrative that has been widely accepted, even among many sceptics. This acceptance is a strong indicator of the problem Snow identified. Many politicians and learned societies go even further: They endorse carbon dioxide as the controlling variable, and although mankind’s CO2 contributions are small compared to the much larger but uncertain natural exchanges with both the oceans and the biosphere, they are confident that they know precisely what policies to implement in order to control.”

Lindzen mentions that believing in the CO2 narrative is pretty close to believe in “magic.” How could such an expert in the field, and thousands of others, come to this conclusion? And why is there such a polarizing viewpoint from big media and politicians?

Perhaps he and many others are wrong, but the point is that there is never a discussion or presentation of opposing viewpoints within the mainstream. Instead, scientists who speak out against the status quo viewpoint are constantly demonized, ridiculed, character assassinated and censored.

During a World Economic Forum (WEF) anti-disinformation panel in September last year, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, announced that they "own the science.” She was specifically referencing their new climate change agenda, and their efforts to censor “misinformation.”

From my perspective, all I see is dogma due to political actors and others seeking to exploit the opportunities that abound in the multi-trillion dollar energy sector, and leaders that hide behind the guise of actually caring about our planet. But perhaps I am wrong.

I’ve been a big advocate for clean energy technologies and the preservation of our planet for many years. It’s the main drive behind my work. I am all for clean green initiatives, but the consciousness and intention behind these initiatives is what concerns me.

What type of world will we create if we can’t discuss basic ideas? What type of world will we create when we choose to run, hide and censor as opposed to having important conversations? How can we stop identifying so deeply with positions, so that we can be more free to shift ideas when new information helps us understand things better?

Regenerate, Beyond The C02 Narrative

I’d like to point you to our documentary, Regenerate, Beyond The C02 Narrative. One of the most important aspects of Regenerate is that we are looking at our environment from such a limited point of view that we can’t identify the real issues we face, and that our level of thinking, or consciousness, is completely disconnected from the solutions required to truly shift our relationship with our planet. Thus, we are creating solutions that don’t truly address making the environment cleaner or better long term.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dM7wE4CETr8

Putin is in Cahoots with the Globalists!

Putin is not as smart as the western media try to make out of him. Either he is ignorant about the motives of the West or he is misinformed by his aides...

Is Putin in Cahoots with the Globalists?
Interview with Riley Waggaman
By Riley Waggaman and Mike Whitney
Global Research, October 13, 2023

Mike Whitney (MW): In many parts of the world, Vladimir Putin is admired for his outspoken defense of national sovereignty. But on the domestic front, many of Putin’s policies seem to align with those of the Western globalists. As you note in a recent post at Substack Putin just “signed a decree on the creation of a ‘digital’ domestic passport,” which many people think will pave the way to technocratic tyranny. Am I exaggerating the risks of digital ID here, or does this development pose a serious threat to personal freedom?

Riley Waggaman (RW): Imagine if the United States started issuing digital driver’s licenses that could be used as an official form of ID. What would the reaction be? I suspect a lot of Americans would feel “worried”, for lack of a better term. And not without good reason.

The digital passport system being implemented in Russia is deserving of the same skepticism.

First some context: Russia has a “domestic passport” that basically functions as a national ID. You use your domestic passport to open up a bank account, and for when you have to interact with the local bureaucracy. It’s an important document that you need to do ordinary, everyday things.

The digital passport has been billed as an electronic copy of the domestic passport, accessible via smartphone (via the State Services portal, Gosuslugi). The government is still deciding in what situations/scenarios the digital passport will be accepted as a valid form of ID.

Proponents of this digital document say it’s more convenient than a paper ID, and perhaps they’re right. The problem of course is that modern conveniences can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness, and with time these unpleasant things can even become “normal”.

The fact that this ID will be linked to the State Services portal (Gosuslugi) is certainly cause for concern and it’s easy to imagine how digital passports could be used (and abused) by the Russian government — or any government, for that matter. All in the name of convenience.

Of course, the authorities promise that digital IDs will never be made mandatory. Well, I’m old enough to remember when the Russian government promised that Covid vaccination would be 100% voluntary.

MW: Russia appears to be spearheading the transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC) with its creation of the “digital ruble”. In your opinion, what are the potential pitfalls of such a plan?

RW: Excluding the possibility of imposing a full-spectrum digital gulag, the digital ruble has no obvious benefits. I would say the same of all CBDCs, of course.

Some claim that the digital ruble is a very necessary, prudent, and brilliant way to bypass Western sanctions. This is untrue. The Bank of Russia has a fully functional Financial Messaging System (SPFS) that operates independently from SWIFT. Here are a few RT.com headlines for your consideration:

    March 2017: “Russia’s banking system has SWIFT alternative ready”
    February 2018: “Russian banks ready to switch off SWIFT – official”
    October 2019: Russia, China & India to set up alternative to SWIFT payment system to connect 3 billion people”

All of these articles are about SPFS and were published long before the Bank of Russia announced its intention to develop the digital ruble in October 2020.

I’m puzzled as to why so many westerners who claim to understand the dangers of CBDCs think the digital ruble is somehow “different”. The Bank of Russia’s CBDC has been almost unanimously condemned by the country’s most prominent commentators in the alternative/conservative media space. Even mainstream outlets like Tsargrad have published scathing take-downs of the digital ruble.

Meanwhile, in English-language “alternative media”, we are blessed with the profound postulations of deep thinkers like Simplicius who write nipple-hardening purple prose about how amazing and anti-globalist the Bank of Russia is, and why the digital ruble is super hip and cool.

I just don’t understand why English-language commentary (all non-Russian commentary, actually) is so far removed from what patriotic Russians living in Russia are saying about their own country, in Russian.

By the way: The Bank of Russia has already reneged on its promise that it will never, ever “color” digital rubles so that they can only be used to purchase certain items. The central bank’s deputy chairman recently said that placing restrictions on how digital rubles can be spent is a real possibility — and one that will be explored in the future. (link)

The digital ruble hasn’t even entered circulation yet, and the Bank of Russia is already open to “exploring” how this fun new tool of total control — endorsed by Davos, the IMF, the G20, – can be used to curb and stomp on basic human dignity.

MW: Is Russia moving closer to mandatory vaccinations?

Note: Here’s a quote from one of your recent posts:

Russia’s Ministry of Health wants to amend the National Preventive Immunization Calendar so that COVID vaccination could be mandatory for “vulnerable categories of citizens” whenever the country’s benevolent health authorities believe the “epidemiological” situation warrants another round of coercive injections…..

Of course, any new mandatory vaccination decrees would also apply to state employees, including teachers, doctors, military personnel, etc. Edward Slavsquat, Substack

RW: If Russia’s enterprising health ministry — which works tirelessly to safeguard public health — decides that “Covid” is “spreading” at an unacceptable rate, various categories of citizens will have to choose between getting vaxxed or losing their jobs. This is of course still voluntary vaccination because Russians get to choose whether they want to be employed or inject themselves with an unproven genetic goo developed in cooperation with AstraZeneca.

There are many highly intelligent intellectuals — like Aussie Cossack — who continue to pretend that Russia never had mandatory Covid vaccination, which is very brave considering that as of January 2023, there were still hundreds of Russians who were barred from working because they refused to be injected.

The Gamaleya Center continues to “update” its Covid vaccine, and the Russian government continues to shill this dangerous and barely tested trash to children. Whether Covid vaccination will become as ubiquitous and “normal” as the annual flu shot (which is even shoved into the little arms of Russian children every year; I know because I had to sign a document forbidding the kindergarten nurse from injecting my 6-year-old son) is an open question.

But you have to be impressively credulous to believe that the Russian government wants to keep Covid vaccination a purely voluntary affair. Russia’s health bureaucracy has a very poor track record when it comes to calling out Big Pharma/WHO scams. Did you know that you have to get an HIV test (an old school 1980s Fauci scam) to get a work visa in Russia? Well, now you know.

MW: Here’s an excerpt from one of your recent posts that will surprise many readers who think that President Putin actually opposes the Davos crowd and their globalist agenda:

“To defeat globalism, Moscow is reluctantly but responsibly adopting the globalist agenda….

There is no way to stop the technological “progress” promoted by Davos, the G20, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, and the WHO, which is why Moscow must closely collaborate with all of these globalist organizations in order to maintain globalist parity with the Collective West — otherwise Russia won’t be able to protect herself from the globalists.”

And, here’s more from another post:

“…almost every joint declaration Moscow signs (whether it be a G20 Declaration, a BRICS Declaration, or just some word salad authored with the help of Beijing) includes a passage praising the vital roles of the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, and the International Monetary Fund? This seems like relevant information.

The Russian government has repeatedly said it has no intention of withdrawing from the WHO, the WTO, or even the IMF. It would be nice if Cerise could update his article to reflect this undeniable reality. Edward Slavsquat, Substack

You appear to be saying that — even though Russia is fighting the western oligarchy in Ukraine — it is still marching in lockstep with the globalists on matters of social policy. Can you expand on this a bit? And how does Putin fit in with all of this? Is he an unwitting accomplice or an eager participant?

RW: Is Moscow fighting the western oligarchy in Ukraine? Gazprom has been pumping gas across Ukraine since Day 1 of the Special Military Operation (SMO). And that’s not the only natural resource that Russian “entrepreneurs” are desperately transiting through Ukrainian territory.

I have yet to read about a western-backed Ukrainian oligarch having his home vaporized by a Russian missile. Actually, it’s doubtful that a single western oligarch, anywhere, has been inconvenienced by the SMO. On the contrary, it has been a wonderful money-making opportunity — for Russian oligarchs as well.

But to address the second part of your question: Anyone who follows Russian-language media knows that Moscow is in near-total lockstep with the West when it comes to soul-crushing technocracy and other forms “safe and convenient” societal progress. Actually, an objective observer would recognize that Russia is far ahead of the West in implementing “digitalization” shilled by Davos and other celebrated globalist organizations.

Putin has done nothing meaningful to slow this process down. Actually, by allowing glorious patriots like Herman Gref to spearhead AI, biometrics, QR-coded cattle-tagging, facial recognition systems, “sustainable development”, and other trendy tech-development in Russia, Putin is an unapologetic accomplice in all the unsavory madness pestering Russia and every other country.

Seriously, just look at how the Russian government treats school children (like diseased, suspicious cattle), and you will begin to understand where this country is headed. Children are the future, after all!

MW: Can you summarize your views on the Covid-19 vaccine?

RW: It’s bad.

MW: You say that “Russians are not too keen on Russia’s Central Bank chief Elvira Nabiullina”. According to you: “The socialists, the monarchists, the neo-soviets, the conservatives, the military hardliners — with few exceptions,… all despise Elvira and her digital rubles.”

Later in your article you say: “(Elvira) Nabiullina is a symbol of pursuing an economic policy contrary to Russia’s interests.”

That’s pretty harsh criticism. Can you explain what’s going on? Why would Putin re-appoint someone to such an important position who – many feel – is implementing a globalist agenda?

RW: The second quote is actually from Nakanune.ru, which is a left-leaning independent news outlet based in Yekaterinburg. Excluding state-funded media, every news outlet in Russia hates Elvira Nabiullina and thinks she’s a globalist stooge who is actively working to destroy Russia. The conservatives, the Orthodox hardliners, the Communists, the Neo-Bolshiviks, the nationalists — they all despise Nabiullina. This is a fact and why it is never conveyed to non-Russian “alternative news” consumers is a massive mystery.

I haven’t the slightest idea why Putin nominated this Yale World Fellow graduate for another term as the Bank of Russia’s governor, even though she is awful and nobody likes her. Probably this is part of Putin’s ingenious strategy to defeat the globalists with a programmable CBDC 100% controlled by an IMF-obedient central bank that operates independently from the Russian state.

MW: In our last interview, you delivered a stirring summary of our current epoch saying:

“I am often reminded of that unsettling line from Alexis de Tocqueville: “I go back from age to age up to the remotest antiquity; but I find no parallel to what is occurring before my eyes: as the past has ceased to throw its light upon the future, the mind of man wanders in obscurity.”

With each passing day it seems we are being forcibly severed from our own past. We are being “retrained” to accept a new civilizational model. It’s happening at the local, regional, national and global level. It is tearing apart families.

I do believe we are facing an evil that has no equal in human history.” Edward Slavsquat Substack

Judging from the response, I think there are a great number of people who feel the same as you do… My final question to you is this: Do you still feel as pessimistic as you did then?

RW: Mike, I would like to thank you (again) for that interview — it remains the most-read post on my blog. As you probably recall, the realities of Russia’s “public health” policies lacked “accuracy” (I’m trying to be charitable here) in 2021, and I think our internet exchange paved the way for a more fact-based, nuanced discussion about Russia’s “Covid response”.

Actually, I’m quite optimistic in the sense that I have accepted that there isn’t a 5-dimensional omnipotent white hat Twitter account that will save me from the Western Satanists, and I will have to save myself — which is actually relatively painless, easy, and even fun. I would even describe my current outlook as hopeful. But I fully understand the pessimism of someone who is sick of the US government, or any western government; someone who looks longingly at the Russian government as an alternative.

The problem with this curious way of thinking is that according to official data, around 30% of Russians live on less than $10 a day, Russia is facing a catastrophic demographic crisis (and it’s hard to think of a more basic metric for gauging the health and of a nation), and the Russian government is a fanatical proponent of policies that are chipping away at the last vestiges of basic human dignity.

But again, I am an optimist. I have been able to connect with like-minded individuals here in Russia, and all over the world, and my life has greatly improved as a result. I am able to live the life I want to live without having to make obscene excuses for the inexcusable.

We should all be guided by truth, friendship, and love, and why the so-called “alternative media” is so obsessed with carrying water for governments who offer the world nothing but more of the same (sadness) is truly amazing. Enough already. We have everything we need.

*

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State. He initiated his career as an independent citizen-journalist in 2002 with a commitment to honest journalism, social justice and World peace. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Riley Waggaman is a Moscow-based writer. He worked for Russia Insider, RT, and Press TV. He contributes to Russian-Faith.com and Anti-Empire.com. He writes regularly about Russia on his Substack account: Edwardslavsquat.substack.com

https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/is-putin-in-cahoots-with-the-globalists/

Western democracy is fraudulent!

The Fraud That’s Called ‘Democracy’ In The West
Written by Eric Zuesse
28.07.2023

The clearest example of this is today’s UK Government as described by a renegade former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, headlining on July 19th about the next general election there between the conservative Keir Starmer who leads the Labour Party versus the conservative whomever will be leading the Conservative Party; he headlined “Has Western Democracy Now Failed?” and demonstrated that, and how, it has failed, and that it is, in fact, fraudulent, and represents ONLY the super-wealthy. The UK’s Government is an aristocracy, instead of a democracy: it is one-dollar-one-vote, instead of one-person one vote. Its billionaries rule there. He opened:

Keir Starmer’s determination to use his refusal to alleviate child poverty as the issue with which to demonstrate his macho Thatcherite credentials, has provided one of those moments when blurred perceptions crystallise.

A Labour government in the UK under Starmer will bring no significant changes in economic or foreign policy and will make no difference whatsoever to the lives of working class people.

If dividends were taxed at the same rate as wages, that alone would bring in very many times the cost of lifting the two-child benefit cap. But that would hurt the owners of capital and be redistributive, so it is firmly off Starmer’s agenda.

Starmer, [Rachel] Reeves and [Wes] Streeting [two other Deep State Labourites] have no intention of attempting to bridge society’s stunning and ever-growing wealth gap.

Rather they seek to emphasise “wealth creation” and return to trickledown theory. Alongside “wealth creation” they talk of “reform”, by which they mean more deregulation and more private, for profit provision of public services.

The Labour Party has not only abandoned all thought of securing a capital interest for the worker in the enterprise where they work. The Labour Party has also abandoned the ideas both of state intervention in the unequal dynamic between worker and employer, and of facilitating and supporting self-organisation of Labour.

Tory anti-union legislation is to remain, and who can forget Starmer banning Labour MPs from official union picket lines?

The Labour Party in power is also not going to repeal the hostile environment for immigrants legislation, or the Tory attacks on civil liberties and the right to protest.

What precisely therefore is the purpose of the Labour Party? An extension to which question is, what then is the purpose of the next UK general election?

What’s important is not how many Parties there are, but whether or not ANY of the Parties that has enough money, to do an effective campaign, actually represents the public, instead of the aristocracy (the super-rich).

In all of the Western countries the truthful answer is no. They are all ruled by corruption. They are all, when one gets right down to it, one-dollar-one-vote Governments, just like any corporation is, instead of one-person-one-vote Governments, just like any authentic democracy is.

What, then, is the purpose for the fraud that asserts the contrary?

This fraud enables each one of these Governments to lie and say that it is a ‘democracy’, so that it can then point to whatever foreign Government is next on its list to be regime-changed, and label it to be an ‘autocracy’ or a ‘dictatorship’ or ‘authoritarian’ in order to fool the suckers — both liberal and conservative ones — into being willing to pay taxes to fund the enormously profitable armaments manufacturers which depend upon that Government and its ‘allies’ for most, if not for all, of its sales-volume.

A hundred billion dollars more for war in Ukraine, please? Now, that’s something which ALL of the Parties in The West can endorse! And it has repeatedly been shown by scientific studies to be the case in the United States.

Furthermore, throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries, the nation’s leader has vastly lower public approval rating than is the case in each one of the two countries that the U.S.-and-allied regimes are now especially trying to regime-change (overthrow and replace): namely, in China, and in Russia. This is what would be expected if the dictatorships aren’t the Governments that The West is trying to defeat, but are instead the Western Governments themselves.

Anyone who uses such a phrase as “Western democracies” is either a liar or a fool. If any countries are democracies, the evidence points to China and maybe also to Russia and to India, but definitely NOT to any in The West. And here is why.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

UN lays out its plan for One-World Government

George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.

George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:

“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.” — George Christensen

The UN lays out its plan for One-World Government
Nation First delves into the UN's plans for the creation of an 'Emergency Platform' that will allow the body extraordinary control over nations.
George Christensen
31 July 2023

    United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has proposed a plan for countries to surrender sovereignty to the UN in the face of global crises.

    In a document titled Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform, Guterres outlines his strategy to enhance global responses to shocks, central to which is the “Emergency Platform”.

    This platform could be activated by the Secretary-General at any time during “global complex shocks”, demanding nations become subordinate to the UN.

    The proposal could permit the UN to exercise martial law powers during crises, superseding national government policies and imposing its own will instead.

    This proposal could be exploited by globalist figures like Bill Gates and George Soros, undermining national sovereignty and centralising power within the UN.

    No single agency exists to gather stakeholders in the event of complex global shocks. The United Nations is the only organization that can fulfill this role. And we must take the [tough] decisions that can enable it to do so. – Antonio Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General

The globalists have dispensed with the idea of keeping their plans for a one-world government secret.

What seems straight out of a movie plot, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has demanded that countries cede their sovereignty to the United Nations (UN) to better allow the world to tackle emerging crises.

In a document titled, “Strengthening the International Response to Complex Global Shocks – An Emergency Platform,” the UN Secretary-General provides his “action-oriented recommendations” on how the world can better respond to global shocks.

Central to his argument is a set of protocols he refers to as the “Emergency Platform” which could be activated by the Secretary-General at any time in the advent of “global complex shocks”.

This simply won’t be a mechanism to better coordinate a global response – it actively would demand subordination of countries to the UN, which would have been granted the “ability to secure (their) commitments”.

An excerpt from the document reads (at length):

    Recent complex global shocks have shown that, at the global level, our existing, conventional crisis response mechanisms are not up to the task of responding coherently and effectively to global shocks that have an impact on multiple sectors simultaneously. We lack the necessary forums at the global level to tackle multidimensional threats with a multidimensional response. Our existing response architecture, while appropriate for specific events, is too fragmented and sectoral to respond effectively to complex global crises. Our global response is too often hampered by the absence of incentives for multilateral entities to contribute to collective results, and accountability mechanisms and mandates that do not encourage collaboration and joined-up efforts. We are often too slow to convene the right actors at the right level, and we lack the means to collaborate and coordinate across sectors and communicate clearly on what needs to be done. In respect to some specific types of shock, our global response mechanisms are weak or underdeveloped.

    We must fill these gaps, learn the lessons from recent shocks and take a different approach – a multidisciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach that can enable us to better respond to future, complex global shocks. We need a more formal, predictable and structured approach. When the world faces a complex global shock, we must ensure that all parts of the multilateral system are accountable for contributing to a collective response. No single agency exists to gather stakeholders in the event of complex global shocks. The United Nations is the only organization that can fulfil this role. And we must take the decisions that can enable it to do so.

    Building on the ideas in Our Common Agenda and learning lessons from these recent crises, I propose that the General Assembly provide the Secretary-General and the United Nations system with a standing authority to convene and operationalize automatically an Emergency Platform in the event of a future complex global shock of sufficient scale, severity and reach.

Essentially, this could grant the UN martial law powers in times of crisis, allowing it to override a national government’s policies and instead impose its own will.

Politicians would be made accountable for acting on the UN’s demands, instead of being accountable to the people who elected them.

Think about that for a moment; the possibility of your country’s fate, especially in a time of crisis, being decided not by your vote but by unelected bureaucrats in Geneva who think they know what is best for you.

Through the use of the “Emergency Platform”, the Secretary-General would also be able to bring on board any non-state actor to help design the UN-led response.

In all likelihood, it seems to be a vehicle that allows globalist billionaires like Bill Gates and George Soros to have a direct say over the internal matters of erstwhile sovereign nations.     

The Secretary-General justifies this by claiming that “the (COVID-19) pandemic showed that national governments and the global multilateral system were ill-equipped to deal effectively” with global emergencies and so a “more formal, predictable and structured approach” is needed.

Let’s just conveniently forget it was the recommendations by these globalist organizations that did the most damage; forced lockdowns, promotion of dangerous medical practices, and use of untested vaccines may have killed more people than the virus ever could.

If implemented, the UN and its globalist benefactors would be quick to exploit the “Emergency Platform” to further erode away countries’ autonomy and centralise power within the organization.

We cannot allow this to happen.

This proposal will be put to member nations of the UN in the so-called “Summit of the Future” to be held next year.

Until next time, God bless you, your family and nation.

Take care,

George Christensen, with a Nation First staff writer

P.S. Check out this video I did a while back on the UN’s secret agenda
https://youtu.be/88wFVDogbFE