Rees-Mogg taking the piss now too!

I thought more might just come out.

Second part of the video.

More “social distancing at government ‘do’s’: https://www.bitchute.com/video/PsLTfKAaQR2w/

Email to the “angry conservatives”.

Don’t think for a minute these people will ever, truly, challenge the system or the accepted wisdom. They won’t. They’re mice, not men.

The blog referred to: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2021/11/17/the-nexus-a-full-explanation-of-the-construction-of-covid/

The Pandemic Crystal Ball

Who knows how ‘prestigious’ (and in the know) Foreign Policy journal is? And who knows of its connection to the Council on Foreign Relations and, therefore, to the RIIA (or “Chatham House”)?

Here: In your face 20th September 2019. Written one month before Event 201.

But you don’t read these things, do you? You don’t know what these institutions are. You didn’t even know they existed!

So, to all you dismissives out there: Explain it (logically). Can’t wait to hear it!

But I already know what so many of you will say: “Just coincidental timing since people have been speaking about a pandemic event for years now. It just means these guys were the most recent to write about it before it happened!” Or you’ll think “Ah but these are very smart people who can extrapolate extremely well”. But all your justification is just due to your unwillingness to face a far darker but far more likely explanation.

I say read my previous posts showing how, over the past decade or two, they have desperately rewritten the narrative of climate change and fed it into the public consciousness as a health threat. I say that the writing and fear mongering of these others talking about an ‘impending pandemic’ has been purposefully driven by that need to rewrite the climate change narrative. One article in a newspaper somewhere, at some point, doesn’t quite achieve it! It needs to be seeded and then fed over time to grow it and make the narrative live and be viable!

“A new independent report, compiled at the request of the United Nations secretary-general”.

Well his “independent report” told him what he wanted to hear from the ‘crystal ball’ just as his IPCC ‘independent’ scientists tell him what he wants to hear about global temperatures.

The original article: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/20/the-world-knows-an-apocalyptic-pandemic-is-coming/

Blair’s job: Pushing Prince Philip’s Global Eco-Fascism

Copied and reprinted from EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) July 1997….. (originally titled: “Tinny Blair Blares For Prince Philip’s Global Eco-Fascism”)

This report is intended to update the story, and to situate the recent public launching of a series of flagrantly pro-genocide organizations in Canada, the United States, and Britain, that are flooding the Internet with propaganda advocating the elimination of 80% of the human race over the next one to two generations.

You cannot read this and not recognise that it was prescient in its content. I’d say “eerily so” but eerily suggests it’s just luck somehow. It’s not luck, it’s the recognition of the agenda.

The British monarchy’s newly installed mouthpiece, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has wasted no time in launching the latest phase of the Club of the Isles’ drive to reduce world population by 80%, and impose a “green” feudal world order throughout the planet. After successfully wrecking the June 20-22 Summit of the Eight in Denver, Colorado, with a combination of temper tantrums and clever ploys that set his European cohorts against the host government of President Bill Clinton, Blair moved on to New York City, where he addressed the United Nations “Earth Summit II” on June 23. In his speech, and in a follow-up press statement by his Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, the Blair government made it clear that London still considers the very existence of the United States to be a grave insult to the Empire, and that it intends to use an array of pseudo-scientific hoaxes to bring the United States to its knees.

Blair assailed the Clinton administration for failing to capitulate to Prince Philip’s global eco-fascist apparatus, and vowed that Britain will “take the point” in ramming through a series of United Nations ecological conventions and treaties that, taken as a whole, will drive the world economy back to the Stone Age. In the same breath that he was lambasting President Clinton for failing to buy into the green agenda, he lavished praise on his own predecessor, the Tories’ former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, for her sterling efforts on behalf of “the environment.”

The British press made no secret of Blair’s “Green Crusade” against the United States. Beneath a banner headline, on the day of Blair’s UN speech, the London Guardian proclaimed that Blair’s address would be a “thinly disguised attack on America,” for failing to curb so-called greenhouse gas emissions. On the same day, the London Times headlined its coverage, “Summit Clash Between the European Union and the United States,” over the environment.

Blair and Cook prominently flaunted their commitment to forcing a “radical change in lifestyles”–a euphemism for murderous austerity–in accordance with the morass of “global warming,” “ozone hole,” and related anti-science ecology hoaxes. During the Denver summit, Cook, according to the London Daily Telegraph of June 23, had singled out the United States as the worst offender, stating: “At the moment, the biggest single problem is that the American public has not yet grasped, that if it continues with its present lifestyle, then it is going to make it impossible for its children or grandchildren to enjoy the kind of environment, and therefore the kind of lifestyle that the Americans have today.”

Here is an excerpt from the New York Times reporting on the summit:

Paradoxically, the same City of London press shamelessly lied, in attempting to simultaneously paint Tony Blair and Bill Clinton as “two peas in a pod,” who have revitalized the badly damaged Anglo-American “special relationship.” On June 24, the London Times, which had reported on the transatlantic rift in Denver (but omitting the fact that Blair had created it), lied that the personal relationship between Clinton and Blair has become so tight, that Blair has been designated as the “linkman” between Washington and continental Europe.

Indeed, one of the reasons that the Queen’s Privy Council had hand-picked Blair as John Major’s successor, was to soften up President Clinton for the kill. So far, British media lies aside, that effort has been a thorough flop. In Denver, President Clinton barely made time to confer with Blair, while he devoted most of his time on June 20 to long private sessions with several other summit partners, especially Russian President Boris Yeltsin. And when he did briefly sit down in private with Blair, the sole topic of discussion was the situation in Northern Ireland, which has been a sore point in Washington-London relations ever since President Clinton came into office vowing to mediate a settlement of the long-standing crisis. And, in what was publicly explained away as a minor logistical gaffe, there was no chair set out for Blair at the opening heads of state banquet later that evening.

Blair’s filthy efforts in Denver and New York City were not lost on EIR contributing editor Lyndon LaRouche, who, in response to the report that Blair intends to demand enactment of a binding 10% reduction in so-called “greenhouse gases” at the upcoming UN Climate Control Convention in Kyoto, Japan in December, said on June 27, “If Blair were sincere about the emission of noxious gases, he would travel less and stop talking more.” He further commented on Blair in an interview with the weekly “EIR Talks” international radio broadcast of June 24: “Look behind the mask, at the reality. Don’t say, `He’s the new bright guy in the neighborhood.’… He’s not. He’s a nasty reptile, and the sooner that the United States realizes that, the better policymaking will go.”

---

EIR called the shots

Blair’s public performance in Denver and New York City should come as no surprise to regular readers of EIR. For more than a year, this magazine has been writing about the British monarchy’s plans to dump the thoroughly used-up John Major and install a new prime minister, cut in the image of Ramsay MacDonald, the Depression-era prime minister who forged a national unity regime involving his Labour Party, the Conservatives, and the Liberals, with strong, albeit informal support from the British Union of Fascists.

In fact, the principal distinction between the “thoroughly modern” “Tinny” Blair and Ramsay MacDonald is that, today, as the result of a 35-year effort, personally led by Prince Philip and his Dutch counterpart, Prince Bernhard, a worldwide eco-fascist structure is already well-entrenched throughout the globe, particularly within the British Commonwealth, and in the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund bureaucracies, whose stated purpose is to carry out levels of population genocide that would make Adolf Hitler’s crimes pale by comparison.

EIR first documented the role of Prince Philip as the “new Hitler” in “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,” on Oct. 28, 1994. Since then, EIR has published a series of in-depth stories, detailing aspects of the global eco-fascist apparatus and its links to the London-headquartered Club of the Isles financial oligarchy. This report is intended to update the story, and to situate the recent public launching of a series of flagrantly pro-genocide organizations in Canada, the United States, and Britain, that are flooding the Internet with propaganda advocating the elimination of 80% of the human race over the next one to two generations.

---

Her Majesty’s Royal Virus

It is no exaggeration that the Prince Philip- and Prince Bernhard-led worldwide ecology movement is devoted to mass genocide–not to saving dolphins and defenseless furry creatures. Take the British Royal Consort at his own words.

In August 1988, in an interview with Deutsche Presse-Agentur, Prince Phi lip stated:

“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

Earlier, in the foreword to his 1986 book If I Were an Animal, Prince Philip wrote:

“I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated as an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers that it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist…. I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus.”

While there is no evidence that Prince Philip has yet been reincarnated thusly, there is ample evidence that the British Royal Consort and de facto chief operations officer of the London-centered Club of the Isles, has devoted the last 36 years of his life to death and destruction, beginning with his 1961 founding of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), now known as the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Prince Philip’s principal collaborators in launching the WWF as a funding and worldwide operations arm of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, were Sir Julian Huxley and Max Nicholson, both ardent advocates of eugenics and racial purification. In fact, Huxley was president of the Eugenics Society when he co-founded the WWF. First, as head of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (Unesco), and later as a WWF founder, Huxley preached the need to revive race science and the urgent mission of “culling the human herd”–particularly of the darker-skinned races of Africa and South America. In the founding document of Unesco, Huxley had frankly acknowledged the difficulties he would encounter in reviving eugenics, in light of the Nazi genocide. “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,” he wrote, “it will be important for Unesco to see that the … public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

The method Huxley and others devised for forcing people to “think the unthinkable,” was to replace the idea of eugenics with the idea of environmentalism. Huxley, Prince Philip, and the others, however, understood that, in their way of thinking, the two terms were interchangeable. During a 1960 tour of Africa, on the eve of the launching of the WWF, Huxley openly boasted that the ecology movement would be the principal weapon used by the British oligarchy to impose a Malthusian world order over the dead body of the nation-state system, and, most importantly, the United States.

It is no coincidence, in the context of Huxley’s remarks, that the man who helped found the Canadian branch of Prince Philip’s WWF, Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield, would be implicated by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Bloomfield, the wartime liaison of the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, ran the Montreal-based Permindex Corporation, the entity identified in the Garrison investigation as the hands-on controller of the Kennedy assassination plot.

---

The 1001 Club and Other Eco-Fascist Fronts

To further spread the work of the WWF, in 1970, Prince Philip teamed up with a former SS officer, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, already a prominent player in the WWF, to create a permanent funding mechanism for the growing number of ecology fronts being spawned, to scoop up the dregs of the late-1960s counterculture, and deploy them as the storm-troopers of the new “green” fascism.

The 1001: A Nature Trust, known among its members as the “1001 Club,” was created as an adjunct to Prince Bernhard’s well-known Bilderberg Group, the Cold War-era secret society of leading North American and European oligarchical insiders–1,001 close personal associates of Prince Bernhard and Prince Philip were “invited” to join the 1001 Club at an initial fee of $10,000 per person.

The bulk of the members were drawn from the boards of directors of the leading Club of the Isles raw materials cartels, banks, insurance companies, and family trusts (the fondi). Typical of this caste were John Loudon, former CEO of Royal Dutch Shell and chairman of Shell Oil Co., who served from 1977 until his death as president of the WWF; Maurice Strong, head of the Canada-based Power Corporation, and one of the most important of the WWF operators; Baron Aubrey Buxton of Alsa, of Barclays Bank; Bertold Beitz, director of Alfred Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach Foundation; Conrad Black, chairman of Britain’s leading media cartel, the Hollinger Corporation; Peter Cadbury, of the George Cadbury Trust; Anton Rupert, of the South African Rembrandt tobacco interests; Sir Kenneth Kleinwort, owner of Kleinwort Benson, one of Britain’s oldest investment banks; and Henry Keswick, chairman of Jardine Matheson and brother of John Keswick, the chairman of Hambros Bank and a director of the Bank of England.

Maj. Louis Mortimer Bloomfield was a 1001 Club charter member, as were a number of notorious scoundrels, including swindler-bankers Robert Vesco and Edmond Safra.

By the time Princes Philip and Bernhard had assembled the $10 million war-chest, the first of the leading eco-fascist front groups and think-tanks had already been launched. In 1969, a Sierra Club official, David Ross Brower, founded Friends of the Earth, which, several years later, would help spawn such overtly terrorist groups as Greenpeace and Earth First!. The same year, WWF Chairman Sir Peter Scott launched Survival International, originally known as the Primitive Peoples Fund, which, three years later, spawned Cultural Survival.

In 1968, Aurelio Peccei, a former executive of Fiat (Fiat President Gianni Agnelli was a charter member of the 1001 Club), founded the Club of Rome, another by-invitation-only organization, to peddle a new, computer-age brand of Malthusianism. In 1970, with a grant from the Volkswagen Foundation, Peccei hired Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer whiz-kid Jay Forrester, and a team of his students, to prepare a report on the world population crisis, which was published several years later under the title Limits to Growth. Using a fraudulent concept of “carrying capacity” that completely ruled out human scientific discovery, Forrester and his students, Dennis and Donella Meadows, claimed that a combination of overpopulation and resource depletion would wreck the planet. The Club of Rome became not only a leading “establishment” lobby for every wacky environmental hoax; it launched the zero population growth movement, which has now devolved into a demand for drastic world population reduction–i.e., genocide.

“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,

to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,

would not we shatter it to bits and then,

remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

Club of rome: “The First Global Revolution”

We are presently seeing the “shatter it to bits” phase while we are being told that the “remoulding” phase is called “Build Back Better”.

During the same build-up phase, Ford Foundation President McGeorge Bundy launched a joint project with the Soviet government, the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), headquartered in Laxenburg, Austria, to begin the process of peddling the radical ecology, zero-growth mania into the Warsaw Pact. By the time that Mikhail Gorbachov came to power in the Kremlin in 1985, a whole segment of the Soviet nomenklatura had turned from “red” to “green.”

---

Kissinger’s NSSM-200

With the drug-rock-sex countercultural “paradigm shift” under way, in the early 1970s Prince Philip’s minions launched a string of publicity stunts to accelerate the recruitment to their top-down irrationalist movement. In 1970, Maurice Strong sponsored Earth Day, to place a spotlight on the WWF agenda. In 1972, in Stockholm, Strong organized a United Nations conference on the environment, which further accelerated the proliferation of unscientific hoaxes. Out of that conference, the UN launched the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), whose first director was Strong. In 1974, another UN conference, on population, took place in Bucharest, Romania, in which the same cast of characters, using the Club of Rome’s Malthusian propaganda, openly advocated population control.

By this time, Kissinger, the self-confessed agent of the British Crown, was deeply ensconced in both the White House and the State Department, serving simultaneously as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. On Dec. 10, 1974, Kissinger wrote National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM-200), “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security Overseas Interests,” in which he singled out 13 nations for drastic population reduction, in order to secure the uninterrupted flow of vital raw materials to the United States and its allies.

In the 23 years since Kissinger inserted Prince Philip’s genocidal agenda into the U.S. national security doctrine, the World Wildlife Fund and its extended eco-fascist apparatus has been responsible for unprecedented levels of genocide in Africa, Ibero-America, and other vulnerable spots on the planet.

---

A New Phase Today

In EIR’s “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor” report, we exposed the direct hand of the WWF in triggering the outbreak of “tribal” warfare in the Great Lakes region of Central Africa. Nearly three years later, that genocide continues unabated. As you will read in this present report, one of the architects of the mass killing, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, is a prominent figure in the WWF apparatus, hob-nobbing with Maurice Strong protèé and current World Bank President James Wolfensohn, and chairing one of the leading ecology “study projects,” 2020 Vision.

As part of the depopulation and chaos fostered by Prince Philip’s green legions, has come the biggest raw materials grab in modern history–led by the Club of the Isles cartels. In effect, Prince Philip, his underling Tony Blair, et al. have launched a new British imperial revival, modeled on the eighteenth- and nineteeth-century British East India Company, with its private armies, and its corporate sovereignty over large tracts of land, ripped from the hands of nation-states. Today, relics of the heyday of the British Empire, such as Crown Associates and the Corps of Commissionaires, are directly running the affairs of state for such London puppets as Museveni, and are deploying private armies made up of “former” British SAS officers, now employed by companies such as Executive Outcomes, Defense Systems, Ltd., KAS, KMS, etc. Under the new imperial mandate, the agenda is now explicitly the depopulation of the globe.

Barry the Bullshitter!

Meet Barry.

Barry is the biggest bullshitting prick on Planet Earth. I say that because I don’t think he can be stupid for, if he is, then he is the most monumentally stupid prick on Planet Earth!

Barry wears his hair in an ‘Einsteinian” fashion to make himself appear intellectual. Barry is an intellectual! But I’m about to explain why that word doesn’t account for much.

Barry is an Emeritus Professor at the London School of Economics (‘Emeritus’ meaning retired. Past his sell by date). Barry really is a ‘useless eater’.

Before getting into the “meat” however, let me make sure you’re acquainted with the LSE: London School of Economics. All you need to know in a nutshell.

Now, I know you’ll wonder at the following and why I include it. Well it’s simply because this literature and other media would not have references to the LSE as they do unless they had their basis in fact and those who are in the know would pick up on the “in jokes”.

Then you have this guy who is a “God” to those in the LSE. So, from terrorists to financial terrorists who wish to restructure society, the LSE has them all!

And no, your majestic one, the LSE would have never seen it coming as I will soon explain!

Ok. Now back to Barry and his arbitrary dispensary of dysentery…

Barry is the ‘father’ (or one of them) of “Securitisation theory” which readers of my blog will be well acquainted with by now.

A fundamental tenet of Securitisation theory, within the sphere of International Relations (IR) is:

“A ‘threat’ can be socially constructed by a ‘Speech Act’ given by a perceived authority figure, figures or institution and, if successfully transmitted/broadcast such that the ‘audience’ accepts it, it can be considered ‘securitised’. This ‘securitisation’ of the threat however, does not mean that there exists an actual, objective threat. The ‘threat’ need not be real but simply accepted as a threat by the audience which, usually in such circumstances, will trust the authority.”

Here is an article written for “International Affairs” (Chatham House) in September 2019. It is clear and precise.

This process follows the securitizing logic of the Copenhagen School,⁷ according to which any issue can be perceived as a security threat ‘not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as a threat’ to a receptive audience.⁸ Thus, the key to this understanding of health securitization is not the actual ‘threat’ of a pathogen but a successful speech act or narrative ‘through which an intersubjective understanding is constructed within a political community to treat something as an existential threat to a referent object by a securitising actor, [generating] endorsement of emergency measures beyond the rules that would otherwise bind’,⁹ or a suspension of so-called ‘normal politics’. 

I really do not know how to make this clearer to people.

Please read the segment in bold, above, again and again, if need be, until it sinks in.

“any issue can be perceived as a security threat ‘not necessarily because a real existential threat exists but because the issue is presented as a threat’ to a receptive audience.”

“Intersubjective” means an agreed and accepted understanding between people (the Actor and his audience). Each individual being a ‘subject’ so “intersubjective”.

“Referent object” is the object under threat. i.e. in the case of a pathogen, the population.

Now, to drill this “it need not be a real threat” home: You will remember the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Tony Blair’s “dodgy dossier”. I intend to post. something on that later but the reader should note that the steps taken by Blair in the run up to the Iraq war, were securitisation moves. It was, ultimately, successful in that he got his war but, while the parliamentary audience approved the war, the public did not. As it turned out, there were no WMDs at all! A ‘constructed threat’ by Blair and his ‘speech acts’ to an audience composed of the UK Parliament and the wider public. The public were not on his side (although, to a degree, accepted Saddam was a ‘bad man’) and Blair’s and the Parliament’s ignorance of the public in this securitisation, led to Blair being depised and called a war criminal.

Echoes, then, of today. Yes, overall, today’s public appear to support the securitisation of Covid 19 (if we believe what we hear, read and see in media) but the public are losing faith and patience as more and more are waking up to the totalitarian regime, or structure, which is being put in place with Covid as the excuse. Again, ‘we’ accepted the fundamental: There were WMDs – sorry, I mean “Covid 19”. That acceptance is all they need. You can debate vaccines and who gets them and masks and social distancing etc etc etc all you wish but the sheer fact you’ve accepted there is a real virus is all they need.

Ok. Back to Barry:

Don’t simply assume Barry is just some old, retired LSE professor. You’d be seriously underestimating his influence. See here:

And here:

No need to watch the entire lectures. The above are just to demonstrate who he speaks to and if you wish to hear him speak on the New Global Order to a military audience, by all means do so.

But, to get right to the crux of this post:

Barry Buzan, together with Ole Weaver and Japp De Wild, is a “founding father” of securitisation theory. Do not be confused by the word “theory” in this case. Securitisation ‘theory’ simply describes the happenings, events, speech and reactions to those who wish to construct a threat (particularly an “existential threat”) and achieve ‘buy in’ to the reality of that threat by the audience being told it is a threat. In the case of Climate Change and Covid 19, the audience is us, the global population.

The referent object in the case of Covid, is the global population. The referent object in the case of climate change is not the earth itself but, really, the balance of life within the biosphere since, the story goes, if the seas rise, the ice caps melt, the temperature rises and there is an increase in infectious diseases (the latter coming to the fore in the ‘story’ just over the recent decade) then animals, plants and human life are all at risk. That is the ‘story’.

So Barry knows all of this. He understands that the construction of any threat to be securitised need not be a real threat at all. However Barry and his crowd of academics (and students) have bought into the climate change/sustainability agenda hook, line and sinker. Therefore, to raise the idea that Covid is simply the climate catalyst to Barry and his ‘army’, is akin to heresy. They cannot acknowledge this because they want the results (i.e. significantly increased momentum of the climate agenda) of what Covid has provided.

So, because of his own philosophy and politics and people who share such views, even if they know or suspect that Covid is fake and has been constructed as a threat while being no threat at all, they must hold the idea that it is, in fact, real because it entirely supports their climate change agenda and their wishes. It is similar with Dr Colin Alexander, whom I previously posted about. His University (just like Barry’s and Imperial College and most, if not all, others) support and promote the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). To support them, they have to justify that support. The justification is we have the threat of global warming/climate change. For someone like me to come along and say the threat is fake and has been catalysed by another fake called Covid, is anathema to them. Acknowledgement of my ‘thesis’, or even consideration of it, would have these people jumping through hoops to try and support their theses and discount my thesis at the same time.

So, here we have Barry making some points on climate change at an ‘event’ hosted at the LSE last week and which I ‘attended’ by Zoom. He can’t see the wood for the trees! I ask a question but they dare not ‘table’ it….

LSE Event video: https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/buzan:4?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf

Imperative you listen to it all but note at 10.19: “Preferably involving the deaths of a lot of rich people”.

If you or I were to write this on a post on. twitter or facebook/instagram etc, what do you think the outcome might be? But a lefty academic, paid by these rich people (indirectly he is) because he is promoting the right causes, can come right out and say it. However, let’s hear the names Barry. Let’s hear the names in your head. You sickening, delusional old bastard.

“Darling, there’s an elephant in our front lounge!”

Barry: “Oh don’t be such a Conspiracy theorist dear!”

“You’re one to talk! Jabbering on about non existent threats!”

Barry’s controlled by his own self importance and by the wish to maintain his ‘tenure’ and gravitas within the world of academia and he knows that, while he will speak, objectively, about securitisation and that there need be no real ‘threat’ involved, he dare not speak subjectively about that securitisation process being applied to his pet ‘love’ of Sustainability and climate change or of Covid 19 and demonstrating that the ‘threats’ in these two instances are fraudulently constructed. He would never get his paid invites back to the LSE, to the Middle East and to speak to the Norwegian military. Barry would be a ‘nobody’ once again and be demonised and cast adrift from the very life he has become accustomed to.

Barry, it turns out, is exceptionally stupid after all, however. While he fantasises about the rich being killed by “Climate Change”, he refuses to recognise the obvious: The people promoting his “Climate Change” are comprised of the richest capitalists on the planet! Silly Barry!

They do say socialists are just dumb communists after all!

And that, your Majesty, is why the LSE never saw the 2008 crash coming! They can’t see their own theories in practice!

Don’t be like Barry! Barry’s a useful idiot!

Academia’s full of them: Neil Ferguson, Barry Buzan and Colin Alexander. So far up their own arseholes they swallow their own bullshit.

But while Barry will speak in abstract terms about Securitisation, he will never say “There it is!” I wonder why?

Ahh! That could possibly be why!

THE POWER OF HEROIC DECEPTION 101

What do Jonathan Van Tam and his cohorts in this Covid deception have in common with the ex “Mrs Earthling”?

Far back in the mists of time, in Singapore, I underwent a divorce which was filled with constructed lies (perjury) by the other party who said at the time “There’s no smoke without fire”. What she was referring to was the construction of a ‘big lie’ which she and her lawyer agreed to state to the court so as to seed the idea that I was hiding vast sums of money in banks around the world. Some of the perjury she came up with was proven by me (not that it mattered to the court) and some couldn’t possibly be. This was one which couldn’t.

In 2005, while I didn’t exactly trust government and politicians, I never would have believed in the ‘big lie’. I hadn’t even heard of it. It wasn’t until later that I read “Mein Kampf” and understood what it was and, for that, I thank Adolf Hitler for explaining it. By the way, it is generally submitted that it was Adolf who used the ‘big lie’ but, in actual fact, if one reads “Mein Kampf” one can clearly read he was speaking of others who used it to their advantage. I need not say who those “others” were.

So, the ex “Mrs Earthling” and her legal representative conjured up the lie that I had various, hidden bank accounts across the world. She knew it was a lie but they knew that even the suggestion of it would have the court consider the possibility: “No smoke without fire”.

There are so many parallels I can call up from that time and relate them to this time, it’s uncanny but they have their basis in sheer deception.

What has this got to do with Jonathan Van-Tam and all the others in this “Covid game”?

Well, how does one prove a negative? One can’t. It’s practically impossible. How would I prove I had no hidden bank accounts? I would have to write to every single bank in the world to have them reply “No, Mr Earthling has no bank account with us”.

Here we have an article from July 2021…..

Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam said of the data: “That’s truly massive (that 60,000 deaths and 22 million infections have now been prevented by jab protection). The benefit of vaccines is in that kind of secret work that you never see because if people don’t go into hospital and they don’t die, you never see that.”

It’s an odd assertion he makes because I know of many, such as myself, who haven’t had one jab and have never practiced wearing a mask or social distancing during this entire previous 2 years and we have not gone to hospital or died. Proof, if proof were needed, that it is not the vaccine which has protected us.

But, again, just like “Mrs Earthling”, Jonathan Van-Tam’s assertion is based upon proving a negative.

Let me make things even clearer:

Unknown to you, the reader, or anyone else, I, in fact, own an island in the Pacific and on that island, is an extinct volcano where I have stored 666 Intercontinental ballistic missiles. I have a team of scientists and engineers who maintain the facility and last night, at 23.00 hours Pacific time, we launched three missiles to intercept and destroy a large asteroid hurtling toward earth which would have, point blank, hit Manhattan island, cause destruction to the entire eastern seaboard of the United States; Create secondary earthquakes out to the San Andreas fault and cause a tsunami which would have obliterated the United Kingdom, most of western Europe and the western edge of the continent of Africa. All Caribbean islands and people – gone; Mexico decimated and the eastern seaboard of South America – gone. There would have been deaths in the region of 1 billion people or more.

The only reason these 1 billion people are still alive is because I, Earthling, destroyed that asteroid before it hit the earth’s atmosphere.

I deserve a hero’s medal and the freedom of all cities of the world plus a Nobel Prize for humanitarianism. There should be monuments erected globally in my name for I am actually a hero.

Sorry? You say what? I didn’t do that at all and I am just telling one ‘big lie’? PROVE IT! You owe your life to me!

Just like Jonathan Van-Tam, Bill Gates, Chris Whitty, Dr. Fauci, Boris Johnson and all the other leaders who are protecting millions from death and hospitalisation, I did my bit also. The only reason you can’t recognise the benefit of what I did last night and my secret work is because nobody died.

But there’s “no smoke without fire” you know!

And that narrative of wearing your masks and taking the vaccine, thereby “saving lives”, makes you a hero too! And everybody wants to be a hero, right?

So do as we say and the virus will go away.

Oh wait! Another asteroid incoming! Catch you all later, I have work to do! Be afraid! Be very afraid!

Ka-ching!

Ghislaine’s in the jizz lane of the government paedo network.

“Too sensational and impure” my arseum! This is a matter of “national” and “international” security and protecting the very high crimes of the very high and mighty. As it always is.

This is why you’ll never get anything out of this trial except those who they may wish to hang out to dry and my guess is, she’ll walk and, if she doesn’t, she will anyhow. She and her intelligence buddies have too much dirt on Washington not to. Same applied to Epstein who I do not believe is dead.

Alex Belfield: It’s no use folks, people are dumb!

I’ve been keeping an eye on this twat’s youtube channel during the “Covid time” just to get a feel if he or his audience would work it out. He hasn’t and perhaps, just perhaps, only a very few of his audience have – and I mean a few! Out of 350K subs, I’d reckon a handful actually have a handle on all of this.

So here’s a couple of Belfield videos from the last 24 hours. I’ve started them for you at the relevant points so you don’t have to listen to the dross he intersperses with what’s important.

First we have him posting this, saying “how powerful” it is. It actually isn’t because it’s simply a pleading to our captors but, nevertheless, Alex thinks it is and Alex is “on our side” and “gets it”…..

https://youtu.be/p4UM4nLGkfM

But then we have this. “Prince William agrees with me that we need fewer babies”. What an inept bastard Alex is. He is supporting the entire end goal of what Covid and Climate Change is all about yet has you believe he’s ‘on the ball’ and anti the agenda. He doesn’t even know what the bloody agenda is!

https://youtu.be/-q1HANc7nco?t=254

And while Boris tells us, a few years back, just how scared the political establishment are of raising the subject of fertility and human numbers (because it will give the game away)….

It has been “no go” territory for decades within the UN and global politics because of the backlash they would face from the global population. They had no justification for it. But now, they do and even while the politicians are still very careful about raising it publicly (even though NGOs and multiple websites do as well as speeches in Parliaments over decades), Prince William is now entirely confident of stating it – like his father before him and his father before him – because ‘people like Prince William. He’s a ‘nice boy’ – and, not only are the monarchy “above politics” (remind you of ‘securitisation’ by any chance? Above democratic politics? ;-)) but they have also hit a point now, with Covid followed by COP 26, where they feel the majority believe “Climate Change” is happening (or are, at least going along with it) and, this being so, inserting the prospect of reducing childbirth in the plebian population will also be accepted to ‘Save the Planet’.

As for Alex (and so many more like him): They can’t grasp it or they dare not even consider it for fear of crossing the rubicon into territory that would instil even greater fear in them than a fake pandemic.

And watch Philip, the “Virus Prince” that Belfield loved.

https://youtu.be/3MDJTvuoXxY?t=50

Then you have Charles: Prince Of Darkness – https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/princeofdarkness:1?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf

But no, Alex, it hasn’t been the plan for decades, has it? You STUPID, INEPT little man!

Why do you think they let the elderly die last year (and continue to) Alex? And perhaps even purposefully killed them with midazolam.

“I don’t know, Earthling”

Because, from their perspective, the elderly are nothing but a burden and the UK, like the west in general, has a demographic deficit since the elderly proportion of the population is growing and the number of babies being born is contracting.

“Ok, but we need less babies because of climate change!”

So, if we have less babies, Alex and we also kill our elderly, where does that leave us?

“With a far lesser population”

Yes, but where does it end and who is it that needs to contract the population? The Johnsons? Father and son, 12 kids in total (and counting). You don’t have kids, Alex, do you? You’re too busy shagging prostitutes. I can see why you’re not too bothered about them wanting to stop people from having them. But back to the elderly and babies in the UK: Without ‘killing grandma’,

what other ways, do you think, we could convert our demographic deficit into a demographic dividend?

“By having more babies, I guess?”

Yes! But they want a reduction in overall global population. What do you think legalised abortion has been all about? And now, introducing the idea of euthanasia, in addition. Good timing eh? But there’s another way of achieving a demographic dividend, Alex. Haven’t you figured it out? You talk about it enough!

“What’s that?”

‘Dinghy Divers’ Alex! Migration, of working age people, from countries which already have a demographic dividend and you apply the narrative that the migration is caused by “climate change”. So, while you consistently drivel on about the migrants, you don’t have enough brain matter to work out the reasoning behind it! You bleat and moan about it but that’s what most of the bloody population does every day about everything rather than apply themselves to figure out the “why?”. You preach to your audience but give them diddly bloody squat in terms of any insight! But you know your audience and know that the vast majority are clueless but at least they hear someone bleating about the same things who is as clueless as them!

You’re a mug, Alex! And, indeed, the mug you have to sell suits you to a tee: You’re most certainly a Clear Undisputed National Treasure!

Mainstream Senior Lecturer in Political Communications: “The coming genocide?”

I don’t wish to scare anyone but….

I have been invited to attend this lecture and I will. However, I attended one of his previous lectures regarding Covid 19 and I find that he, like many other ‘academics’ tend toward being “the big guy in the room’ and it’s only their narrative which counts. However, for a man who speaks about the propaganda used by the UK government and follows that up with a lecture on a “coming genocide” of antivaxxers, I don’t think, from a government perspective, we need “Conspiracy theorists” any longer because, if mainstream British academics can be lecturing to their students about this sort of thing and the UK government allows them to do so, we’re in deep merde!

Dr Colin Alexander: “Propaganda is ok to discuss but not securitisation” https://www.bitchute.com/video/qVsV6Hj9bPrn/

Think about it: How can the UK government and media disparage and vilify members of the public questioning the entire official narrative while allow a University lecturer to broadcast that the government are both, propagandising the public and their being, potentially (“definitely” in my view) willing to ghettoise, while moving on a trajectory toward ‘genocidal activity’?

I smell a rat and why? Because anyone in the science or medicine fields or in the climate change “denier” field, is shut down – fast and hard. This guy, meanwhile, they have no issues with, while he postulates genocide on the part of the government.

This is not a drill!

Psychopath, Michael Gunner: https://www.bitchute.com/video/VEcnxeYbHrUU/

But let me tell you this: The wider public will never, under any circumstances, care to take onboard the reality of what is going on until they literally see bus loads or train loads of people who ‘disappear’ or who are shot in the street. Even then, it will take thousands or more before the penny drops.

What they will never accept either is that, once the unvaccinated are taken care of, next is the vaccinated because “Covid” was never anything to do with a virus.

Yes, there will be a ‘pause’ in all of this at some point. It will make the vaccinated believe they are ‘safe’ while they go about their daily business, unlike the rest of us. However, just as Austria decided on an unvaccinated lockdown and are now set to change that to a total lockdown (so much for freedom on being vaxxed Austrians!), the real agenda will come to the vaccinated, also.

If the vaxxed do not stand with the unvaxxed and stop this, I don’t care if you’re a doctor, a nurse, an MP, a policeman, or whatever else; You will be affected by this. Somewhere down the road, this will deal with you in one form or another.

“At first they came for…..” Oh the bloody irony of that quote!

Too Many “Hitlers”

In 2015, the New York Times magazine posted the following tweet:

This question has been raised countless times and used in movie and tv plots such as this “Twilight Zone” episode:

I think we can honestly say we are living in the Twilight Zone as we speak, correct? After all, the vast majority of humans didn’t see the present day coming.

So, it’s an interesting question. However, whatever may be your answer is not for debate here. What is up for debate is the following question:

Would you kill those who are currently creating a dystopia which Hitler would never even have dreamed of? You can theorise about Hitler as much as you like (I know my position) but the people presently creating today’s situation are simply the descendants of those in the 1930s who projected their own beliefs, desires and plans upon Hitler and his party.

Today, we have multiple “Hitlers” in multiple countries; Ironically, specifically the countries which created what was called the “Allied Powers” which the world is brainwashed, since WW2, to believe were “the good guys”. Oh what a lovely deception!

Adolf spoke of “The Big Lie” in Mein Kampf. It is consistently referred to as if Adolf promoted the idea when, in fact, he was speaking emphatically about the propensity of his opponents to utilise “the big lie” because it is such a monstrous lie that the normal, everyday man could not imagine those who tell it could possibly create such an evil deception. He realised most people are good people and would not be able to fathom such deceit on such a scale.

So, I present you this. A ‘mosaic’ of many of the existing “hitlers” of today. A Time Machine would not be needed but the question, nevertheless, is asked. After all, those who say they would go back in time to kill Hitler need to ask themselves: “Do I see the early 1930s on a much grander scale today?” and, if so, “Why would I not ‘kill Hitler’?”

There will be some of you who’ll say “Oh not him (or her), they’re nice!”.

My answer: You’re ignorant!

Every last one of them (and so many many more I’ve missed out – as I say “thousands more”) all willing to lock you up, shut you down, control you and kill you.

And here’s the thing: Many people answered the question about killing Hitler when he was a baby in the negative. These people are not babies! They have no excuse unless, like homosexuality, transexuality and paedophilia, psychopathy is given a new designation as just a part of “diversity” and “normality”. Then again, we know we are surrounded by psychopaths and in which arenas they tend to flock:

Now, I don’t think it takes me or any academic study to tell you you’re run by psychopaths. I think that is clearly seen by all today as you watch and listen to them drooling with their power over you on your TV.

So, here’s the thing: If you enjoy this dystopia (or agree with it) well carry on regardless (and you will be added to the list) but, if you want your freedom back, do you really think petitioning or protesting to a group of psychopaths is going to achieve it? Or do you think they may, perhaps, need to be dealt with in another way altogether?

I do!

Hey Greta! Your nightmare will never happen!

I’ve just written, at length, about how the “THREAT” of “Climate Change” has always “been coming” and “on the horizon” but never actually arrived. It’s a bit like when you’re having sex and you really want to get to the climax but your mind keeps wandering off and you can’t stick to the “narrative”. Or, she told you she’d take you to heaven but keeps stopping just as you’re getting there! Ever experienced that?

Well Prince Charles could never be accused of premature ejaculation! He CONTINUOUSLY puts the Climax of Climate Change off into the future as if he has some control over it! HOW ODD!

The Prince knows when the poles are going to disintegrate and the seas are going to rise and the polar bears drown. He even knows the date of the next pandemic (I’m sure of that one!).

He doesn’t extend “doomsday by 10 years though, or even 20 or 30, but by 33! That’s quite an exact number now isn’t it?

Now Charlie, here, continuously harps on about “for our children’s and grandchildren’s future” but nobody ever inquires who “our’s” are? THAT is the deception because it isn’t yours. You have meant to have fewer children if any at all!

When these people refer to “our” you must, must remember it means their, not your! Even “our democracy” or “our planet” or “our security”.

So Greta, is there any chance old Charlie had a fling with your mother? After all, if you’re not his, you don’t count, honey. Sorry!

Then again, you could be lucky if his brother, Andy, wants to “inject” you! I’ve heard he likes to ‘jab’ girls of your age!

But then my post heading would be in error: Your nightmare might still happen! At least a nightmare!

“Climate Change”: The “threat” which ‘Mother Earth’ keeps on delaying. Reminds me of ‘our’ “return” to the moon!

Listen to the professionals

Meanwhile, I’ve heard of trans state but not trans federal. And what a state it is! “Trans federal” would have to mean “global” wouldn’t it? Or am I just getting the whole thing confused?

A man who thinks he’s a woman: Assistant Secretary of Health. Obese too, by the way. They literally are taking the piss folks!

Now, if health personnel would only listen to the Lancet. It is, after all, the world’s premier medical journal (and is on the side of climate change, ironically).

“Addressing COVID-19 means addressing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer.”

“…no matter how effective a treatment or protective a vaccine, the pursuit of a purely biomedical solution to COVID-19 will fail.”

“COVID-19 is not a pandemic“

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32000-6/fulltext

Read it carefully.

When people ask me why I’m “exempt”, I just tell them. “I have a medical condition related to my brain”. If they probe further and ask what it is, I simply say “It works”.

You see, a condition is a condition. Something may be in good condition and something perhaps, in bad condition. Both are “medical conditions”.

But as for the obese nurse: What do you think her carbon footprint is? There must have been a good few burgers eaten and that 4% of total UK carbon emissions, by the NHS, must have a good percentage related to her alone!

Then you have to think of her contribution to the carbon emissions of air travel should she be sitting next to you. That plane needs to use up extra fuel to carry excess baggage so it is only right that we have a tiered carbon credits criteria, right? Or, even better: Vaccinated or not, the obese just don’t get to travel!

But here’s the thing: Unlike the vaccinated obese who would take great pleasure in stopping the unvaccinated from travelling, I’m far too kind. I’m just taking the piss and would never support such a measure. That’s the difference between them and I. I don’t despise them for their obesity or their trans federality; I despise them for their being total bastards.

THE NEXUS: A full explanation of the construction of ‘Covid’.

Preface: This is a LONG read. However, please do not let that put you off. It took me weeks to research and compile and days to write. It needs to be long because, to make things as clear as possible, I needed to include as many data points, through documents and articles, as possible. “Conspiracy Theorists” are consistently dismissed (very often, quite rightly) for coming to conclusions based on scant evidence and I am not one of those.

I attempt to present this in a way which can be read easily by anyone but it still requires the reader to have the patience to take the time to consider, reflect and concentrate on the many details (some course, some fine) included.

This does not go into any detail regarding anything medical wrt Covid because the fact is, such is unnecessary. If you want ‘medical’, watch John Campbell however, Mr Campbell is still tied up so much in believing everything he reads in medical journals, stats and Doctors who all speak as though “Covid 19” was real, that you will conclude that, in fact, it was real. It wasn’t!

Furthermore, you are now being led to believe in the “Lab Leak” theory. Such was considered “Conspiracy” during 2020/2021 and perhaps even 2022. What changed? Well let me explain quickly: To cover up truth, it is a well established tactic, or strategy, to ‘cloud’ an issue in multiple ‘theories’ while, for some, using ‘reverse psychology’ such as suggesting one theory, one day, is “ridiculous” and, the next day, making it ‘leak out’ and become mainstream, therefore having people believe that, while it was attempted to keep a lid on it, we “now have the truth”. But you don’t. What you have is a story, purposefully held back and then released to have you think you have the truth. Similar ‘clouds’ of purposefully planted disinformation were utilised on and after 9/11.

I am not saying the Wuhan lab was not funded by NIH and that there was Gain of Function experimentation going on. What I am saying is there was no Covid “Lab Leak” which caused an airborne pandemic. What was going on in Wuhan, in conjunction with the NIH and with North Carolina, was very probably, work on “vaccines” which carried the Covid 19 spike protein and it is that they do not want the global public to understand.

So, with that out of the way, let’s begin…..

Let me be blunt (and I’ll be somewhat more professional afterward): If anyone you show this to doesn’t get it, they’re not too bright.

Ok, now let me continue…

Once upon a time, there was a Prince who had his wife murdered because he had been in love with an old hag even well before he married the Princess but the old hag was already married plus he and his family wanted offspring with good genes. So he married the beautiful Princess who, obviously, had bad taste.

Prior to marrying the Princess and having her murdered however, the Prince was brought up in a family which considered themselves “blue bloods” unlike the riff raff they lorded it over. They had needed the riff raff as canon fodder and to mine coal and keep their lights on however so they put up with them. However, the riff raff were multiplying far too much and, frankly, due to significant advances in technology and the advent of AI (Artificial Intelligence) the family realised there was really no need for so many of the riff raff anymore and, when the Prince was a boy, he was conditioned to this same belief by his parents and, in 1968, the young Prince started in his life long crusade to deplete the planet of the riff raff who no longer played any useful role for the blue bloods.

Of course, the Prince couldn’t make his crusade public! But he searched out those within his circle who, while either part of the ‘old money’ rich or the ‘new money’ rich, held similar views as his old man who, just before dying last year, saw his dream come true: A ‘deadly’ virus to cull some of the human population.

The Prince found people like Bill Gates, Ted Turner and, of course, the Rothschild and Rockefeller clan and all their hangers on (of which there are many) but, even before Gates and Turner turned up, there were other – so called ‘malthusians’ – who felt the same such as Paul Ehrlich and Aurellio Peccei, Alexander King, Dennis and Donella Meadows, various academics and other “blue bloods”. These ‘originators’ – although the wish to depopulate goes even further back into history than 1968 – came up with a useful little ‘computer model’ courtesy of MIT (Massachusetts Institute of technology) – SHIT IN, SHIT OUT – which provided a set of graphs which demonstrated that, by 2030, the population and resources of the earth would drop dramatically. The model, while significantly criticised, is used to this day to justify the need to act. But act on what?

The model and the graphs it produced are NOT a forecast – although the malthusian set would have you believe that – but a plan.

If one has had any experience with Project/Programme management or business plans or any type of forecasting, one knows that, over time, it is a feedback loop. No plan is perfect and, over time, there are elements which do not go to plan and the effect of these elements need to be re-input to the system to adjust the anticipated output and generate a revised plan. NOT, however, in the case of the graphs generated in 1968 by the MIT scientists for the Club of Rome. They have never been adjusted since the “forecast” was, apparently, perfect.

“Limits to Growth” graph by the Club of Rome/MIT.

“Limits to growth” graph by the Club of Rome/MIT

Again, let me repeat: These graphs were generated by a computer in @ 1972/73 – if not slightly earlier – and have never been adjusted since. That is because there is no feedback loop with new input (by, you would imagine, trying to mitigate them). In addition, the computing power they had at this time was – well, think of the “moon landing” (alleged); We are told that the Apollo computer had the same power as a pocket calculator of the 90s. It had 32Kbits of RAM and half a megabyte of ROM memory.

It is absolutely imperative to understand that all of the people working on the project, were ardent environmentalists plus they were chosen to create the model and its output/results by the Club of Rome – a group which wished to capitalise on the results while completely re-starting the world’s economic, political and social structure.

In fact, their entire ethos is written in the follow up book to “Limits to Growth” called “The First Global Revolution. In the pages before even the foreword, they quote the following verse from “The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam”:

“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would not we shatter it to bits and then,
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”

What we are experiencing, today, is the shattering of the ‘existing scheme’ as wished for by the Prince, while the ‘remoulding’ is sold to us in the slogan, “BUILD BACK BETTER”

Also in the same book, the Prince’s father – the Greek Prince who wished to return as a deadly virus no less – is quoted:

“No generation has ever liked its prophets, least of

all those who point out the consequences of bad

judgment and lack of foresight.

The Club of Rome can take pride in the fact

that it has been unpopular for the last twenty

years. I hope it will continue for many years to

come to spell out the unpalatable facts and to unsettle the conscience of the smug and the apathetic.”

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Message to the Twentieth Anniversary
Conference of The Club of Rome
Paris 1988

Now, the reader must also recognise the “coincidence” that the present Prince of Wales commenced his environmental crusade the very same year as the formation of the Club of Rome – 1968.

There are no ‘coincidences’!

Anyhow, to progress: I read, last year, the Lancet’s Chief Editor, Richard Horton, making the point that “Covid 19 is not a pandemic”, in which, he states that no vaccine will help. See here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32000-6/fulltext

He goes on to say that it is a “syndemic”. Read the link to understand what he means by that. It is very clear that “Covid 19” does not exist as a singular disease of its own. I can assure you further, that “Covid 19” does not exist at all! Why do I know that? Because I have read the entire lead up to “Covid 19” by way of an immense number of documents and articles over the last 10 years coupled with my own knowledge of the agenda which has been at play for decades. The manipulation of Covid stats, the manipulation of death certificates: Here is an example (see 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 alone):

“But my (insert father, mother, daughter, son, cousin, sister, brother, friend) died of Covid! How dare you!”

No, I’m sorry for your loss, but they didn’t. They died of an underlying issue/noncommunicable disease and, when they did, “Covid 19” was inserted on the death certificate along with 4.3, 4.4 or 4.5 (and possibly others). You heard as well as anyone that all deaths (ALL deaths) within a 28 day period of a positive PCR test were labelled “Covid deaths” no matter what and you also know (or should) that the PCR tests were, and are, never meant to be used as a diagnostic plus they initially used approx 45 cycles to amplify material such that an orange, grapefruit or squirrel could test positive. Meanwhile, the media were pumping out “Covid fear” at such a rate that everyone (with few exceptions) were getting tested so the likelihood that someone had been tested 28 days prior to them dying of a motorcycle accident, was a given.

From all that has transpired since, removing people’s rights etc, if you don’t yet recognise what is going on, you’re a special kind of stupid.

They didn’t need a real pathogen or pandemic. They just needed the ‘threat’ of one and then follow that up with a pathogen in the vaccine to ‘treat’ the ‘threat’.

Richard Horton’s “syndemic” comes to life by the insertion of “Covid 19” along with deaths which would have happened anyway.

While many will never have heard of the term “syndemic” before, as you can see below, the idea was suggested, in 2013, that we may well see such in the near future. Now why would they think this? Well, it’s very simple. The “Climate Change” narrative of polar bears and ice caps along with sea level changes was not capturing the public’s and businesses attention. They needed a ‘shock’ and lo and behold, they got it! How convenient, huh? A little like PNAC in the 90s saying they needed a New Pearl Harbor.

Further, the ‘threat’ was consistently having to be put back into later and later decades (it was all meant to manifest during the 2000’s, then it was the 2010’s while now, they are saying 2040/2050’s. Why? Because it never was, or is, coming. It’s fear only and that fear is to get you to believe that they need to entirely destroy the economic, political and social fabric to then “remould it nearer to their heart’s desire.

And the world is complying just nicely!

However, due to the failure of the “speech acts” and “securitisation” of the “Climate Change threat” based upon the narrative of polar bears etc, it was imperative they conjured up another, more imminent and dramatic threat which directly impacted all of us and which could be linked to “climate change”. That was (and is) infectious diseases.

“Speech Acts and Securitisation”? What the hell are they?

Well, they are TOOLS. While they had to feed you a new narrative for “Climate Change” they also had to protect that narrative from criticism. In normal, every day politics and media, everything is up for debate. However, when something is “securitised” by a “Speech Act”, it’s like a huge padlock has been applied which disallows any counter narrative, debate or criticism or just. plain disbelief to be cited by anyone on the veracity of the fundamental narrative. Yes, you can debate masks and even the need for vaccines and whether kids should be in school etc etc etc etc. That’s all fine and why? Because you haven’t questioned the fundamental and that is what they need desperately to protect and preserve. They can deal with everything else through steering debate and providing statistics etc BUT if the fundamental was shown to be a lie, they could do none of it.

Let me put this very simply:

YOU are an audience.

THEY are the Actors.

THEY make “Speech Acts” just as an actor does on stage (they ARE on stage, effectively).

THEY need you to believe their speech act so they present you with personalities from Chris Whitty to David Attenborough and Bill Gates to Tony Fauci who they know you consider “authoritative” voices.

THEY give you Boris Johnson and the “we are at war” narrative both, to scare you and to make you think “we’re all in this together and we all have to chip in old sport”.

YOU, however, have to accept the narrative for them to then implement the measures they could never have implemented without the narrative being accepted by the public.

THEY, however, ensure you, the public, do not get the full picture nor do you get a balanced view of whether that fundamental narrative is real or not. That is why people who try to speak out are chastised and dismissed or demonised.

YOU, therefore, have accepted the narrative and acted accordingly in your compliance with the directives.

“Securitisation Theory” is a subset of International Relations.

Securitisation is a well researched, understood and used method of creating a threat out of something which may not be a threat at all. It is not, necessarily, an objective threat but is “socially constructed”. It is socially constructed by the Actor who makes the “speech act” and by the audience who accepts the ‘threat’.

Here’s a VERY simple example of a “speech act”:

You’re 16 and at school in the playground. One of your friends approaches you and whispers in your ear:

“You better deal with Jimmy right now or he’s going to get his mates together and they’re going to beat you up after school”

That is, essentially a speech act by your friend, an “actor”, and you have to decide whether you believe that narrative he’s telling you, or not. You’re the audience and you are also what is known as the “referent object” which is the object which requires protection from the impact of the “threat” which is Jimmy and his mates.

Now, the reality could be that your friend simply hates Jimmy and knows you have the potential of giving him a good beating and that Jimmy has no intention of beating you up after school with his mates. However, your friend is a “friend” and, as such, you view him as an ‘authoritative voice’ because he wouldn’t tell you a lie, would he? So you accept his speech act; Jimmy gets a pounding yet he was totally innocent. There was no conspiracy between him and his mates to beat you up.

The above is exactly what has transpired with Covid 19. There is no threat but your “friends”, Bill Gates and Boris and Chris Whitty and Prince Charles etc etc are all ‘whispering in your ear’ that Covid is going to get you because climate change is having the effect of introducing more and more infectious diseases into our lives UNLESS WE DEAL WITH IT NOW!

To further get a feel for how long this agenda has been worked on, here are a series of articles, the first from Chatham House no less – The Royal Institute of International Affairs (I hope I don’t need to explain who these people are?) dated 1st September 2019.

The issue with asking people, who just simply have no interest in learning what is oppressing them (although they may say they do but actually can’t be bothered to apply themselves to do so), to read all of this carefully is that they want short, sharp little videos on youtube or elsewhere which give them little glimpses of hypocrisy and things they can complain about and comment on with many others bleating the same way, saying how unfair everything is. What they don’t want is to have to read bland, boring detail from academic writings and have to use their FUCKING BRAIN!

Sorry, I lost the “professionalism” there for a second. I’ve calmed down now so let’s continue….

You will see from the above that “the key to this understanding of health securitisation is not the actual ‘threat’ of a pathogen but a successful speech act or narrative ‘through which an intersubjective (intersubjective means existing between conscious minds; shared by more than one conscious mind. i.e the audience and the actor, together) understanding is constructed within a political community (in this case, the world population) to treat something as an existential threat to a referent object (again, the world population in this case) by a securitising actor (Bill Gates, Boris Johnson, Prince Charles, Chris Whitty et al and all their compliant media) generating endorsement of emergency measures beyond the rules that would otherwise bind, or a suspension of so-called ‘normal politics’.“

There need be no actual threat. A pathogen need not even exist. ONLY the acceptance of the speech act socially constructs the threat as ‘real’.

And all of that has been achieved through fear and an unquestioning belief in authority and that, for some reason – even though the world is well aware that politicians and the elite are deceitful scum – “our states and governments wouldn’t harm us”.

Oh yes, they would!

So, here is a New York Times article from 2012. A “baffling” nexus. Why baffling? Could it be because they had not, as yet, fully planned it all out and settled on their narrative?

So read the article and I’ll comment on the big takeaways from it below….

Well, the takeaways come in the last few paragraphs. “Public health also remains a less politically contentious subject than climate change….” which is precisely why they reframed the climate change narrative. They needed ‘buy in’ and weren’t achieving it with polar bears and ice caps, 2 degrees hotter and a rise in sea levels. People and business weren’t buying it (and neither should they). So “Covid 19” was the Public Health event of the century to be introduced as the “spoonful of (bitter) sugar to catalyse and gain support for the bitter medicine of climate change policy. A policy they knew they could never have pushed through unless the global public PERCEIVED a threat.

“Tying things that are good for sustainability to short term benefits for vulnerable kids…. a potentially strong policy motivator” which the public, in their ignorance of the agenda and belief in the constructed ‘threat’, would fully support.

And, as you can see, the introduction of the policies were a few years off while federal and state agencies got all their ducks in a row to launch it successfully.

So, from 2012 to 2018:

” With just over 10 years…. a nexus approach could unlock solutions to multiple challenges simultaneously.” It makes me laugh just how they tell you, in 2018, exactly the plan in a few words and why that ‘nexus’ was created. The ‘nexus’ of Covid 19 (health) and Climate Change”.

“But there’s one missing link the commission could add: Climate and health…..connecting the other 3”.

“Expanding the reach of the hippocratic tenet of “first do no harm” [to]… even the planet itself”.

Now, let me show you what extending the tenet to the planet itself meant:

FLATTEN THE CURVE!

But they had you believe it was a curve related to increasing virus cases and deaths while they let old people die by the thousands in care homes!

It was never a virus curve. It was the curve related to the increasing carbon emissions from the NHS itself and to “first do no harm” to the planet, they needed to flatten that curve.

I assume you heard “Her Majesty’s” Queen’s speech earlier this year? If not, have a listen….

https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/hospitalbeds:d?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf

“Patients will receive more tailored and preventative care closer to home”.

Why would that be considered as “more beneficial”? Because it reduces, dramatically, the carbon emissions associated with the NHS: Ambulances, patient and visitors using transport to and from hospital, the carbon footprint associated with the utilities (heating, gas, electric) and machines and technology needed in the hospitals, etc. All of the new measures then flattening that curve.

Is this overall picture becoming clearer for you?

To build momentum up to the introduction of “Covid 19” in 2020, they needed to ‘feed’ the health/climate nexus into both, the health community globally and also feed it into the minds of the public. The Prince, of course, and his band of merry corrupt business leaders who wanted to know what was in it for them, had to ‘negotiate’ and the latter be convinced that by hopping onboard, they’d do well out of it. That is where the Prince’s ‘Business Leadership forum’ comes into play.

For business leaders around the globe, it’s all about money, opportunity and profit while, if they don’t play ball and ‘go green’ they’ll find their businesses die because investment will be cut off to them just like if you don’t take the vaccine, you’ll be cut off. The difference with businesses is that they are non living entities while the business leaders’ entire raison d’etre is to make a profit for the business (and gain nicely, thank you, in the process). The Business leader isn’t thinking about Human Rights and, therefore, the business leader is creating a dystopia for his/her children without a care in the world.

https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/education/executive-education/bsp

“…business leaders increasingly being focused on solving problems we are facing rather than debating the cause of those problems.”

Do you see it? Clear as day once more. He doesn’t want debate on the cause because:

1. There is no consensus on the causal reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming or Man-made Climate Change.

2. If the cause was thoroughly researched (and it has been but those who are dissenting are silenced due to?…. Securitisation!) perhaps we’d find there is no cause at all because it is a constructed/manufactured threat, from which, he himself is placed to make a proverbial royal mint out of it.

Here are some examples of the ‘feeding’ of the ‘threat’ nexus of health/climate change into the intersubjective mind-space. All of it published prior to Covid:

And, from 2016:

Everything listed in the above picture was targeted (“affected” by) “Covid 19”. The policies introduced (even the culling of mink in Denmark) then morphed into policies targeting the overall. effects of “Climate Change”. There is a simple reason for that. “Covid 19” (a fake, statistical disease) was introduced into the global public consciousness as a catalyst for the “Climate Change” agenda – another fake ‘threat’.

Of course, there is a never-ending number of such but, if I continued, this post would be a book!

Now, let’s turn to Imperial College

You remember this guy?

So Neil, as you know, is an Imperial College guy. He provides models (some of which are decades old and he just re-jigs them) to all the malthusian, genocidal maniacs around the world to support their propaganda; One of which is the World Economic Forum and here, in early 2019, you can hear it stated that Neil provided the model for this simulation related to “Disease X” – the disease the WHO, the UN and all our wonderful malthusian, genocidal maniacs want to use. “Disease X” is just. a placeholder however. It is the term they use while they work on it before releasing it. You could consider “Covid 19” as being an early version of “Disease X”. Again, remember, “Covid” doesn’t exist and, perhaps, neither does “Disease X” have to. They can achieve all they wish to by other deceptive means and statistics.

All of this is pure propaganda, created to “feed the mind” with fear.

So Neil is “Mr Fear” 21st Century style (he’ll get a huge kick out of it all and seeing himself as having the power and the money which goes with it, to support and justify his genocidal masters’ wishes). However, before Neil, in the 20th century, the OG “Mr Fear” was Alexander King – AGAIN, Imperial College and a founding member of the Club of Rome.

You can decide to listen to it all or, I suggest, even the first 5 minutes of Alexander King….

IMPERIAL COLLEGE EH?

Let’s hear more from our ‘helpful’ academics at Imperial College….

So, while Neil Ferguson, today, is the “go to” guy for the virus models, other divisions of Imperial College ‘advise’ the government (and governments) of how to develop and write the right narrative for the public to instil the right type and level of fear and ‘nudge’ them into the right behaviours.

From the Imperial College paper (written 2016) “TOWARDS A UNIFYING NARRATIVE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE”

As far back (and even before) as 2016, they were aware of the “Action Gap”; i.e. while they had presented a narrative over decades about rising seal level and increasing temperature with dying polar bears and melting ice caps, they were not achieving any action on the part of the global public and business at large. Neither were they convincing many national governments and there was also the issue of – in democratic societies – the continuous change of leaders and governments – some supportive, some not.

So what you see above is a bunch of bullet points describing why there existed the “Action Gap”. All that ‘science’ didn’t hit the spot. So what would?

They needed that “compelling strategic narrative”. Something which resonated with the public. Something the public could see happening on their TV screens then and there. Something big and scary! A sort of “Close Encounter” with something that just might kill them. It would have to be ‘real’ though!

A little like this….

Damn! So what do we do???

We need something which will impact the consciousness of every living soul on planet earth! No single national government can have any affect on a ‘global threat’ like Climate Change so we need to create something compelling to stimulate or ‘catalyse’ every government and every last human into action. We need a catalysing event like a “New Pearl Harbor”. Now where have I heard that before?

It is difficult, so what do we do? How do we change the narrative of “climate change” to get everyone onboard?

How do we get them to appreciate how it will affect them? How can we crystallise the ‘threat’ in terms they can relate to? I mean there’s only so many people out there who care that much about the plight of the Polar Bear!

You see, the problem is that the politicians (and the IPCC scientists) all know it’s not really about ‘climate change’ and anthropogenic global warming. They know it’s about completely reinventing the global economy; creating parity between east and west (or the Global North and Global South) while, overall, reducing the consumption of resources by all except the elite and, to do that, there is the need to reduce, certainly, the growing global middle class and reduce population overall. So what Greta sees going on is actually correct (although she plays a useful part) when she says “they talk but don’t do” because the entire thing is a global negotiation – nothing more, nothing less. Zero to do with saving a planet. It is why we see the hypocrisies of masks and the hypocrisy of allowing China and the global south to still use coal and pollute. Because there IS no real climate change. You don’t negotiate terms and money if the planet is dying! You must be a total retard not to see this.

“Strategic narratives are the ‘public face’ of strategy”. What on earth could that possibly mean?

Well, it’s simple: The strategy was already in place (documented in a significant number of policy documents) to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions through policies ranging from the change from fossil fuels in aircraft, motor vehicles etc to flattening the carbon emissions of the NHS (“flattening the curve”); From attacking the hospitality industry (consumption of alcohol and the manufacturing process and ingredients of it due to its carbon footprint) to huge reductions in meat consumption.

A good chance of Victoria, Australia having been among the harshest of lockdowns, in my view, being the following:

But, to achieve the behaviour change (and operational changes within various industries) and action those policies was never going to happen UNLESS there was a cry of help from the global population. How do you create that cry of help where “polar bears” are now not the concern?

Well, over a number of years, you need to feed a narrative again and again so that it becomes part of the culturally accepted ‘landscape’. “This climate change business just never goes away! They’re teaching our kids all about it in school now. My kids are coming back home telling me how worried they are and according to all these IPCC scientists who are funded by the UN and global governments plus NGOs etc, the threat seems to be real and I can’t argue against it with my kid now, can I? Perhaps Prince Charles was right all this time? And look at him. He’s so nice and he continuously speaks about the future of our children and grandchildren. He obviously cares!”

And would you look at that! They’re even kind enough to include, in the document, that the “narrative is a socially constructed story, which could of course be completely divorced from reality”which, indeed it is!

So “Climate change has not been talked about in the right way”. It’s not been effective. Again, we need something far more compelling which shocks the population into action to close that “Action Gap”. Plus, the mass media is an extremely useful tool for supporting the SYSTEM’s PROPAGANDA without OVERT coercion! Not WITHOUT coercion but without coercion the public can see! Even most of the people involved in the media will not see it.

So, from the above: As you continue to see the policies rolled out over the course of the next years, remember they are supported by the narrative that “climate change” has caused them and caused the “Covid 19 disease”. They are in context with one another; They are related and they provide the “frame” which justifies (and has justified) the policies we are now seeing and that we are about to see. You now ‘understand’ why you should care about “Climate Change” since it is now more personal and the ‘tangible benefit’ is that the ‘solutions’ (policies) will appear to address the problem. You are constantly being told that your obedience and compliance in wearing masks and taking the jab is alleviating the Covid problem however, there are still those pesky “anti vaxxers” who, through their selfishness and stupidity may infect some of you and will be to blame for us having to introduce more lockdowns etc. But you know this is to protect you! We do need to deal with them, however.

Note the comments on the ‘Polar Bear’ narrative. “It’s not the planet that’s in danger, but humanity itself”. Where have I heard that before?

The Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. 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.

From:

And make no mistake about it, Alexander King and friends commenced, 50 years ago, the events leading up to what you are experiencing today.

Also from the book:

“Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would not we shatter it to bits and then,
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”
Omar Khayyam

In fact, that quote is the very first thing you read other than the title. You are experiencing the ‘shattering’ while COP26 and WEF negotiate the ‘remoulding’ or Build Back Better!

Now back to the Imperial document:

Regarding democracy and maintaining “choice” and “freewill” – SURE they will give you that (and are) but if your choice is not to accept “science” in the case of “Covid 19” and vaccines, social pressure and social actors will provide the ‘social cues’ to ensure the promotion of ‘good citizenship for the common good’ while offering “Your choice, your loss”. Case in point:

“If you don’t accept my view and forego all other medical intervention, which may be needed to save your life for any problem you may have at all, because you have entirely within your rights, decided to decline a single ‘vaccine’, then you are not a good citizen. Any health issue you have at all, just accept it and die”

The evil inherent within what Esther Rantzen has stated, is simply incredible but, for me, it comes as no surprise and regular readers of my blog will understand why. It is for the reason it is forbidden to state but enough to say Esther belongs to a tribe. Whether you wish to accept that as the reason why she can be so callous and evil in intent, is no concern to me.

Created like this, for instance…..

And this….

Perhaps this…?

And this?

Or what about this…. stated clearly by Johnson & Johnson:

Then the strategic narrative is consistently pumped into the public consciousness over time and, over time, the public starts to accept it….

Then comes the high level discussion and strategy toward how to frame the issue and what works and what doesn’t. They clearly do a ‘deep dive’ into the psychology behind making the messages toward the public ‘hit the mark’.

To ensure the public, then, accept the securitisation process and policies (in the public’s total ignorance that they are being fed a total deception and that their reactions and subsequent behaviour has been studied to the nth degree), the narrative is relentlessly fed to them across all sectors – media, education, government, science, ‘authoritative organisations and people’ etc. It is a continuous flow of propaganda to ensure the psyop is successful.

And BOY have they made mistakes! Their messaging is all over the place!

Read the middle paragraph above once more. And yes, the public have high expectations about the behaviour of of public agencies AND the people within them. Such as Neil Ferguson and Dominic Cummings and then all of those who attended COP26 without being vaccinated and the embarrassingly obvious “photo ops” with masks etc. That is what you get when the people trying (and succeeding because the public are entirely ignorant) to control you know the entire thing is bullshit.

“This bigger picture focus might mean that some of the strongest narratives that drive climate change might not focus on climate change for some, or multiple, audiences focusing on, for example, energy security or health co-benefits instead.”

Again, “polar bears and ice caps” just weren’t working.

When you study disinformation at this level Colley does, you know how to utilise it also. In fact, that is the entire reason of studying it!

The Imperial College document: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-institute/public/publications/briefing-papers/Towards-a-unifying-narrative-for-climate-change-Grantham-BP18.pdf

So what’s the “Nexus”?

Well, you can look at the “Nexus” from two angles:

1. The Nexus wrt what it is which links Covid 19 and Climate Change in terms of overall goal(s)
2. The Nexus wrt the people promulgating it and who, clearly and unambiguously, have the same goal(s) in mind.

Let’s consider number 1 first:

You will be stunned to read just how far the issue of controlling population goes. The “Gods” of philosophy: Aristotle and Plato even consider it in a time where the population of the earth was a fraction (so we are told) of today’s at approximately, 160M – 200M in Plato and Aristotle’s time of between 400BC and 300BC.

Those exact same arguments are being espoused today by the “Aristotles” and “Platos” of today.

The “Nexus” for Covid and Climate is population control and reduction. The adherents to this philosophy grasp the outdated belief (and wrong even in his own time) and ‘teachings’ of one Thomas Malthus (hence the term “Malthusian”) who simply based his reasoning on the linear growth of agricultural capability to feed the population and the exponential growth of the population itself, outstripping that capability. It was proven to be wrong in his timescale and it is wrong now. However, that “philosophy”, as I said, is still pushed by all of the supporters of depopulation for the purpose of having a form of justification of their motives and their policies.

If by fiat I had to identify the most consequential ideas in the history of science, good and bad, in the top 10 would be the 1798 treatise An Essay on the Principle of Population, by English political economist Thomas Robert Malthus. On the positive side of the ledger, it inspired Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace to work out the mechanics of natural selection based on Malthus’s observation that populations tend to increase geometrically (2, 4, 8, 16 …), whereas food reserves grow arithmetically (2, 3, 4, 5 …), leading to competition for scarce resources and differential reproductive success, the driver of evolution.

On the negative side of the ledger are the policies derived from the belief in the inevitability of a Malthusian collapse. “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race,” Malthus gloomily predicted. His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics, resulting in draconian measures to restrict particular populations’ family size, including forced sterilizations.

In his book The Evolution of Everything (Harper, 2015), evolutionary biologist and journalist Matt Ridley sums up the policy succinctly: “Better to be cruel to be kind.” The belief that “those in power knew best what was good for the vulnerable and weak” led directly to legal actions based on questionable Malthusian science. For example, the English Poor Law implemented by Queen Elizabeth I in 1601 to provide food to the poor was severely curtailed by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, based on Malthusian reasoning that helping the poor only encourages them to have more children and thereby exacerbate poverty. The British government had a similar Malthusian attitude during the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, Ridley notes, reasoning that famine, in the words of Assistant Secretary to the Treasury Charles Trevelyan, was an “effective mechanism for reducing surplus population.” A few decades later Francis Galton advocated marriage between the fittest individuals (“What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly man may do providently, quickly and kindly”), followed by a number of prominent socialists such as Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Havelock Ellis and H. G. Wells, who openly championed eugenics as a tool of social engineering.

We think of eugenics and forced sterilization as a right-wing Nazi program implemented in 1930s Germany. Yet as Princeton University economist Thomas Leonard documents in his book Illiberal Reformers (Princeton University Press, 2016) and former New York Times editor Adam Cohen reminds us in his book Imbeciles (Penguin, 2016), eugenics fever swept America in the early 20th century, culminating in the 1927 Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell, in which the justices legalized sterilization of “undesirable” citizens. The court included prominent progressives Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the latter of whom famously ruled, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” The result: sterilization of some 70,000 Americans.

Science writer Ronald Bailey tracks neo-Malthusians in his book The End of Doom (St. Martin’s Press, 2015), starting with Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 best seller The Population Bomb, which proclaimed that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over.” Many doomsayers followed. Worldwatch Institute founder Lester Brown, for example, declared in 1995, “Humanity’s greatest challenge may soon be just making it to the next harvest.” In a 2009 Scientific American article he affirmed his rhetorical question, “Could food shortages bring down civilization?” In a 2013 conference at the University of Vermont, Ehrlich assessed our chances of avoiding civilizational collapse at only 10 percent.

The problem with Malthusians, Bailey writes, is that they “cannot let go of the simple but clearly wrong idea that human beings are no different than a herd of deer when it comes to reproduction.” Humans are thinking animals. We find solutions—think Norman Borlaug and the green revolution. The result is the opposite of what Malthus predicted: the wealthiest nations with the greatest food security have the lowest fertility rates, whereas the most food-insecure countries have the highest fertility rates.

The solution to overpopulation is not to force people to have fewer children. China’s one-child policy showed the futility of that experiment. It is to raise the poorest nations out of poverty through democratic governance, free trade, access to birth control, and the education and economic empowerment of women.

However, while Scientific American admonish malthusianism, they still adhere to the idea that population is a problem! Population is only a problem because the billionaire elite class do not wish to have to share ‘their’ “Elysium” earth with the rest of us.

Meanwhile, this absolute fool, and self proclaimed gobshite, thinks (and will promote) that he’s the guy to have found out the “single major impact on climate change” within the last week or so….. the EGO of the man and yet he speaks of the egos at the BBC. He was BBC, has all those mirrors but, obviously, never looks in them! Just listen to this….

https://youtu.be/JWPCKXjFO5U

I wrote to Mr Bellend in July this year and this is, in part, what. I said to him (with zero reply or acknowledgement):

If they can (as they are) destroying the family and using the “gay agenda” to achieve it, it all helps to reduce population. The UNPF and “Population Matters” in the UK and many others are all working toward this. It is “Population Matters” which presented Harry and Meghan with the award for having just two children!
Now, I want to repeat this from January 2020:
“Would you convert to a plant-based diet to stop climate change? Have one fewer child?”
“Such sacrifices may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies,” they wrote.
https://karmaimpact.com/shock-to-citizens-may-be-needed-as-climate-change-fight-fails-deutsche-bank-says/

“Shock” to Citizens May Be Needed as Climate Change Fight Fails, Deutsche Bank Says – KarmaWould you convert to a plant-based diet to stop climate change? Have one fewer child? Sadly, while personal sacrifices are commendable, they haven’t been enough to curb global warming. “A big-picture holistic solution” regarding global transportation, industry and electricity generation is needed, and the necessary changes might inevitably bring economic trade-offs, suggested a Deutsche …karmaimpact.com

Meanwhile, the “Climate Change” enthusiasts decided to “REFRAME” the climate issue as an ‘infectious disease’ issue going back as long as 2009/10 or longer because the ‘climate change’ threat was not working! There is a mountain of documentation I can point to supporting this fact. 
Please understand the information is all there if you look! And that you know what to look for! 

I gave him much more than the above (I will post later the entire email) but Alex has only one thing on his mind: Building his audience. While he criticises the government and the BBC etc, he obeys every rule and regulation (he will get a booster if it means he can get to Las Vegas and his strippers). Alex found himself an audience and he’s sucking it dry. A Clear Undisputed National Treasure he is, in fact.

Here’s just a few articles from prior to Covid, pointing out the obvious which Alex thinks he’s just discovered. Well HE has but the bloody arrogance in promoting he’s bringing us the news!

However, they are aware they cannot (at least until now) come straight out and say it: That they demand we have lesser children. It is political suicide (or has been) and, to an observant eye, they’ll have displayed their hand. In addition, people will look at Boris Johnson and his father (and others like them preaching their bile) and say “Ok for you with 6 kids a piece. Not walking your talk again, I see?” And the reason they don’t is because this “Climate Change” and “Covid” is not for them, it’s for you! You have got to be a special kind of moron not to have this penny drop by now!

You can read clearly, in the above that population control is a hot button! And sure it is. They have been scared to admit that this is the reality behind “Climate Change” and is, in fact, why the threat of “Climate Change” was introduced in the first place!

Even Boris admits the politicians (as he now is) are too scared to talk the real talk:

It is as clear as day so what the hell is wrong with people’s mental faculties who just cannot grasp it? The fat bastard’s own words from 2007!

What do you do when you want to stop the rise of population and, particularly, focus in on stemming the impact (and a threat to you, the ‘elite’) of a growing middle class which will demand access and use of resources that you want for yourself?

You create a “threat” which, once your audience – the global population – accepts the ‘threat’ as real, you can implement policies (and vaccine certificates) which significantly reduces the ability of that middle class to enjoy such resources.

A lot of people in the alternative media and elsewhere, are getting it all wrong. They seem to think that this ‘elite’ will shoot themselves in the foot with all this control and putting people out of work. Not at all! It is what they have now decided they want! They don’t need us. They will have AI soon (actually now but a growing presence) and putting people out of work reduces the use of resources and energy and punctures the middle class bubble.

My God! This is all so transparent and yet, even after reading this blog, the average ‘Joe’ still won’t get it. It blows my mind how mind numb the vast majority are!

So, to bring this section to an end:

The first securitised “threat” to the global state (spearheaded by, in the main, western monarchies, old dynasty money and more recent billionaires) was, in recent times (circa 1960s), raised as “GLOBAL POPULATION”.

The second securitised threat was then created throughout the 1970s and introduced to the public consciousness in the 1980s/90s and that was “Climate Change”. “Climate Change” told us that we were the problem through our use of resources based on hydrocarbons/fossil fuels and our general abuse of the earth. However, the main culprits are the very people telling you that YOU are the problem! “Climate Change” then supported the Malthusian theory and pointed (subtly and now not so subtly) toward the solution: LESS PEOPLE.

“Climate Change” however, as a ‘threat’ did not work. Yes they securitised it (and have now, post Covid successfully) but, pre Covid, the securitisation was not successful. They needed something (an event) to crystallise the ‘threat’ in the global consciousness and catalyse the climate policies. They had to change the climate narrative and they did so by aligning it with health and a global public health threat: Covid 19. This also had to be in place by 2020 as is consistently referred to in their literature.

It is then important to also understand that they did not need an actual airborne pathogen to achieve their goal however, on successfully introducing the threat of one which we, on the whole accepted, they could then start the vaccinations and it is highly likely there is a protein pathogen in the vaccines. That is where I readily admit I cannot prove this but it is unnecessary to prove it if you understand the foregoing.

So, the “Nexus” is that Covid and Climate fuse together when you realise they are both for the purposes of justifying Population Control. In addition, “Climate Change” and Sustainable Development level the global playing field economically for the globalists, between the ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’. This paves the way for a global marketplace (“Economic Area”) and a global currency and governance (not necessarily ‘Government’ as such isn’t actually needed but, to a great extent, already exists through the UN, IMF WHO etc).

THREE MAJOR STEPS (OR STAGES) TO TODAY’S TOTALITARIANISM: THREE COMPUTER MODELS TO JUSTIFY EACH STEP.

The stages to Covid 19 over 50 years. The next 20 – 30 years will see the consolidation phases and it won’t be pretty.

The number 2 of the Nexus (the people promulgating it) has been, to a degree, covered by names given in this post but to elaborate on it further, I think will require another post in the future.

They’re coming after the Parliamentarians now….

I have, over the course of this last year or so, written to MPs individually and as a group, about Covid, Climate change etc. In those emails, I have asked repeatedly, whether they think they’re protected from all of this in the long term since they are paid so well and get their pensions etc?

However, what I missed to point out is also their being allowed to act as highly paid consultants to business and the other perks they get.

All I now wish to say to the Desmond Swaynes and the Damian Greens and the rest of them is: “Oh dear, oh dear!” 😉

Of course, the chosen few (and it will be a small few) will still make their £millions but it’s not the chosen few (who play the elite game and support all of the policies now being put in place) I’m talking about. It’s the run of the mill parliamentarians who, to the elite, are as much a waste of space (when you want a non democratic, totalitarian system anyhow) as you and I.

I did warn the inept bastards while I also exposed Damian Green in this “advisory” bullshit years ago. But then, of course, I’m just a “Conspiracy blogger”.

See from 13.57 in the video on this post: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2017/11/05/ahh-damian/

And from an email just a few weeks back:

“It is laughable in the sense that you are turkeys voting for Christmas because, in the long term, this agenda is going to affect you and your families and friends too. You may view yourself as ‘above any impact’ due to your present positions but you couldn’t be more wrong. Anyhow, that will be for you to find out in time.”

Email to Parliament: https://earthlinggb.wordpress.com/2021/11/01/email-to-parliament/

BUT, they’re so slow and thick and simply refuse to accept there is what I tell them there is (i.e. an overall, all encompassing agenda) that they will never put 2 and 2 together to make 4. They’re really not intelligent people, I promise you that! Again, I’ve met and talked to quite a few now. They’re grey, inept, inconsequential and incapable. Why we elect them to their positions beats me but then I guess it doesn’t. After all, why people still fall for this Covid shit beats me too! I guess the country as a whole ain’t too bright and so, the parliamentarians come from the same population of not too bright people so what should one expect?

Beginning to feel the heat you dumb bastards? Being the MP isn’t the road to riches you thought it would be now, is it? 🙂

And do you know why that is? It’s called the Global Covenant of Mayors! I did a video on that on youtube but youtube banned me so I was just made aware of a site which has archived most of my previous YT videos and here it is:

Covenant of Mayors: https://s3.wasabisys.com/billgateswantstokillus.com/index.html#/videos/Earthling/The_Covid_Covenant-Xo3VILlKhQM

How Mayors and Governors who play ball (and that’s most) are now running the show and will replace democratically elected, National Parliaments.

It even affects Brazil (and every other country on earth). Listen to what he says about having no power when it comes to Covid policy:

Bolsonaro re Governors and Mayors: https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/Bolsonaro:b8?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf

Bye Bye MPs! Your time is up!

SECURITISATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE: HOW THE UK DEVELOPED THE “THREAT”

Imagined Risk

All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous.
Widespread imagined risk was to be expected as the end of the twentieth century (the end of the second millennium) approached. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that “the end of the world is nigh” unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time.
Global warming proponents call for reduced CO2 emissions and this equates to a call for cuts in the use of energy, but the energy industries have done more to benefit mankind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And global warming proponents often call for use of ‘renewables’ to replace fossil fuels, but that is a call for a return to preindustrial society: the industrial revolution occurred when fossil fuels replaced biomass and windpower. It is physically impossible for wind and solar energies to supply the energy needs of the developed world, and the peoples of the developing world are insisting on their right to develop too.
The past prophets of doom have all been wrong, so it is reasonable to expect today’s doom-mongers to justify their arguments. And this is especially the case when they attack something so clearly beneficial to mankind as the use of fossil fuels. But imagined risk is not rational, so reasonable expectations do not apply. The simple fact that it is physically impossible for CO2 emissions to cause man-made global warming has no effect on imagined fear of global warming. (It is a simple fact that a mouse cannot eat a person, but some people try to jump on chairs at the sight of mice.)
Also, some global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. Their behaviour is similar to that of the ‘snake oil salesmen’ in the nineteenth century. Snake oil salesmen sold snake oil that did not require real snakes to make it. Global warming propagandists are selling fear of man-made global warming and that does not require real man-made global warming to make it.

Covid propagandists are selling fear of a deadly disease and that does not require a real disease, or pathogen, to make it.

Meanwhile, the two fears are inextricably linked to achieve the same end goal. The latter fear (“Covid”) being the catalyst to kick start the policies to “mitigate” (ostensibly) the former (“Climate Change”). Both for the purposes of dealing with the highly sensitive reality of the agenda behind it all:

As yet, Boris has not dared repeat this. You can see why in the first few paragraphs of his self penned article from 2007, above.

His father, however, has no “filter”: Stanley Johnson https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/stanley:d?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf

The success of the global warming propaganda has induced some observers to argue that a conspiracy has created the imagined risk in the public’s perception (e.g. Böttcher, 1996). But consideration of the origins of the global warming scare deny the existence of any such conspiracy. Interests coincided and supported each other. And a coincidence of interests usually has a more powerful effect than a group of conspirators. The origins of the scare are political and have resulted in political policies that now threaten serious economic damage for the entire world. However, from that ‘coincidence of interests’ lay the potential for those who are conspirators for their own purposes, to adapt, guide and use these interests to achieve their own goals of global depopulation and control.

“I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country,”

[US President] Obama said. “And so we need to act, and we need to act now.” (NBC News 2015)

In 2007-8, four global crises were purportedly in swing: financial, energy, food and climate crises. This was from a decidedly parochial OECD perspective; while there were food riots in several countries, much of the world’s population may well have had rather different daily concerns or, in the case of Brazil, was on an upswing. In policy circles, however, declaring a crisis of global proportions legitimised extraordinary interventions, such as unprecedented public financial injections and the saving of large banks, which would otherwise be very hard to get accepted. Here, we focus on the ‘selling’ of one of these four crises, the ‘climate crisis’ to intended key audiences, both in the international domain and at home. We look into the mechanics of crisis framing, the audience, and the resonance that the frame had, as well as development over time by the UK addressing the UN Security Council.

For this, we apply the conceptual framework from critical security studies and securitisation, with contributions from the domains of crisis and disaster studies. While all policy issues can be said to be framed, securitisation theory stipulates that the framing of an issue as existential, as a crisis or disaster, has major impact on how it is handled. A crisis or disaster can be a focusing event, opening a policy window that can be used to insert a certain agenda that would otherwise be hard to promote (Cohen, March and Olsen 1972; Kingdom 1984; Birkland 2009; Lowry 2006; Buzan et al. 1998). There may be a (collective or particular) interest in pushing that window open or open it wider when ajar. For the purposes of this essay, disaster, crisis and emergency will be treated as within the same lexical field. The defining characteristics of a crisis are: “a serious threat to the basic structures or fundamental values of a social system, where a limited decision-making time span and a high degree of uncertainty require taking critical decisions. It involves a sense of danger, urgency and ‘surprise’” (Rosenthal 1984). Some disaster studies experts stipulate that for an event to be a disaster, there needs to be a minimum number of victims, injuries and losses, and requiring non-routine interventions and coordination between different organisations. Others however have argued that a hazard only turns into a disaster when it crosses a critical threshold (tipping point) where the challenges exceed coping capacity (Quarantelli 1986).

As Balzacq (2010) indicates, insecurity is not wholly imaginary but short of a hurricane vortex on the horizon, the ‘clear and present danger’ is not unequivocally there. Many dangers are imaginary, potential, and we worry about them before they happen, seeking a ‘way out’ in anticipation to retain a sense of agency.

Securitisation

With the fall of the Berlin wall, the security agenda changed radically. The Cold War over, new security threats were identified and anticipated, including civil wars, terrorism and violent environmental conflict. Preventing violent ‘green’ (environmental) conflict, especially ‘water wars’ (see 1990s publications by Starr/Stoll, Bulloch/Darwish, de Villiers), became a security policy priority, leading to the creation of a US departmental division and deployment of military advisors in potential environmental conflict ‘hotspots’ such as the Nile basin. At the same time, European studies made a constructivist turn, indicating that threats are not objective, measurable phenomena, but constructions in the minds of policymakers and the public. Different domains of study discovered similar territory. Ophir, a philospher, elevates the catastrophisation as a “anxiety disorder”; known in psychology at the individual level, to the level of society. A catastrophist sees “catastrophe is imminent”, normally without concrete empirical evidence. To invoke exceptionality, he claims, agents in the humanitarian realm are prone to ‘catastrophising’. They then seek to mitigate the catastrophe by way of Disaster Risk Reduction. But they cannot, or will not, eliminate the catastrophe; rather, they keep it ‘in suspense’ (Ophir 2010).

In the policy sciences, it is noted that the framing of an issue as existential, as a crisis or disaster has major impact on how it is handled. Rochefort and Cobb (1994) note that defining policy problems not only involves identifying but also typifying them. Labelling them as crises and emergencies, using the rhetoric of calamity, lifts them out of the ordinary and signals the need for quick action. Boin et al (2009) identify the same phenomenon as one of three ‘crisis frames’ that may be in contest when something happens or is feared to happen: presenting a crisis as an apocalypse, in contrast negating or denying a crisis, or presenting crisis as an opportunity to radically change course. A crisis or disaster can be a ‘focusing event’, opening a policy window that can be used to insert a certain agenda (Lowry 2006). There may be a (collective or particular) interest in pushing that window open or open it wider when ajar.

For this essay we will predominantly rely on Buzan, Waever and de Wilde (1998) who have coined the term securitisation in their publication ‘Security: A New Framework for Analysis’ to theorise this same phenomenon. It laid the groundwork for the securitisation theory that we now refer to as the Copenhagen School. The Copenhagen School defined Securitisation as a speech act: an issue is presented as an existential threat, thereby allowing for the endorsement of exceptional measures to deal with the identified threat, making it so (Buzan et al., 1998). Securitisation, then, is a successfully launched security frame, in which an issue is presented and dealt with as if being a matter of top security, legitimising the breaking of ‘rules that would otherwise bind’ (Buzan et al., 1998: 5). Spoken from a position of authority in the right context, a crisis label may enable extraordinary measures, the sidelining rules, procedures and accountability that otherwise would not be permitted. A ‘securitising move‘ seeks to kick an issue into a hallowed space over and above everyday politics, scrutiny and cost-benefit analysis.

Check this Netflix predictive programming in January 2020 (excellent timing) and keep your ears open for the term “existential threat” being used. They know what they’re doing! https://odysee.com/@Earthling:5/nastyflix:4?r=Ca93BhvPPjvSC6LxPus5591n3dKrfYAf

Saying ‘security/catastrophe’ however does not make an issue a security issue unless it resonates with a core audience. (Buzan et al. 1998: 25). To promote its acceptance, security discourse needs to be spoken from a position of authority (Buzan, Waever, de Wilde 1998). A shock event is only actually a disaster when someone who is authorized to say that it is, does so (Green 2003). Thus, a serious event that nevertheless remains unpronounced never make it to the authoritative ‘EM-DAT’ emergencies database, compiled by the Centre of Research on the Epidemology of Disaster (CRED). The power to declare or ignore an emergency however extends beyond public officers. The popular press has proved is a highly influential ‘authority’ declaring disasters and crises, forcing politicians to take action. NGOs may also declare a crisis on behalf of mankind, assuming a moral authority. It is even possible to “speak security” from a subaltern position (Aradau 2004).

In fact, officially calling a crisis, a disaster, an existential security issue is not enough – the crisis needs to be declared successfully, that is, such that is followed up. The securitising move needs to resonate with its intended audience(s) and followed up. This works better if the threat has been faced in the past, so that invoking it brings a response, such as saying ‘Spanish flu’ to evince huge numbers of deaths as experienced during 1918 – 1920 pandemic.

Its success is thus ‘contingent upon a perceptive environment’, and is no simple consequence of just saying something is a matter of security (Balzacq (2005;2011). Context matters when shaping a security discourse and in influencing its success (Balzacq 2005;2011; Boas 2015). A ‘crisis’ is a thus a discursive construction of a situation or an event with serious social and policy implications. As a consequence, not all major events are labelled catastrophe, while not all publicly declared catastrophes are major events. For a constructivist, whether or not something is a crisis is a social decision. There is no need to pass judgment about whether there ‘objectively’ is a crisis, or whether a molehill has been made to look like a mountain. Many ‘dangers’ and ‘crises’ are ambiguous. Framing what the crisis is about intervenes in determining what will count as a proper crisis response (Dewulf 2016).

Presenting threats as a catastrophe may even be (seen as) instrumentalised for ulterior, political (or moral) ends. Up to a degree, crises can be constructed, manufactured through representing the event as catastrophic, or non-catastrophic, or backgrounded. As a result, the authority of the narrator of the frame may also be doubted, as having by ulterior political motive. There is, therefore, political capital in presenting a crisis and its solution as a national or even global rather than a particularist concern.

The assumption that framing can be actively instrumentalised to resonate with particular audiences to obtain a particular outcome suggests a kind of ‘social marketing’ targeting particular publics needed for their legitimisation. The speaker calculates what metaphors and arguments are most likely to persuade the intended public. Calling a crisis constructs the kind of persuasive storyline that legitimises the political generation of catastropheⁱ and mobilizes people to take part in it. The political consequence is to legitimise coercive measures that are impossible in normal times. Seeking to have a situation or event declared as a disaster may be perceived as serving humanitarian but also utilitarian, political instrumentality, to tackle the deficiencies in the status quo ante (Boin 2002) and to enable measures that are unfeasible in normal times – calling a crisis to force change. Desecuritising moves may contest and defuse the ‘security’ frame, aiming to shift ‘issues out of emergency mode and into the normal bargaining processes of the political sphere’ (Buzan et al. 1998: 4). Effective contesting of securitisation means the rethorical move is unsuccessful. Then again, securitisers can never fully anticipate who their audience is, who acts upon a securitising move, as discourses are diffuse and can travel across contexts (Stritzel 2011).

Climate change as a special threat

Climate change is perceived as a global environmental mega-crisis (Wada-Endter and Ingram). Unlike a force conquering territory, climate change is a special domain of emergency, that of ‘threats without enemies’ (Prins 1993).

Buzan et al. have indicated that environmental securitisation is an uncertain domain for securitisation. In climate change, the burden of evidence is especially tricky. It is hard for the invisible phenomenon of climate change, as a source of anticipated disasters that have yet to happen, to compete with visible weather events in the ‘attention economy’ (Hamblyn 2005). While the academic community is by and large convinced of ‘clear’ anthropogenic climate change, other publics are not (Trombetta; Salter), and within the academic community, there is no ready consensus that a climate change crisis is already ‘present’, and if so, that it can be successfully averted through a particular course of action.

HENCE: The introduction of a new narrative based on health frames. The burden of evidence for climate change was too tricky because it was invisible and continuously “in the future”. They needed something acting now and they needed to tie it to climate change. They, therefore, tied infectious disease to climate change and introduced Covid. Still, in reality, invisible but happening now and with media and statistics and fraudulent death certificates to support it.

That does not stop some from trying to securitise climate change. The memory of disaster quickly fades (Hiuber 2004, Hartmann 2012), and thus momentum is easily lost. Securitising Climate change has been a move to put Disaster Risk Reduction and climate action back into the frame. (e.g. ADB 2015; Boas 2015). In the case of climate change, such measures can take shape as a type of “confrontational politics,… with the Security Council adopting resolutions to impose emissions targets, and even military action against polluting factories; and surveillance systems to monitor individual emissions” (Trombetta, 2008: 599). An overemphasis on security reduces democratic accountability (Coaffee et al. 2008). As we will see, in 2007 and 2011 the United Nations Security Council indeed pronounced climate change as a security issue (Boas 2015). Some scholars have warned that a security framing of global warming may result in aversive policies in the field of climate change, such as (in an extreme case) a larger role for the military to cope with the effects of climate change like climate-related migration (Deudney 1990; Hartmann, 2010). Indeed issues that can affect military capability, such as pandemics, stand a better chance of securitisation than those that don’t (Fidler 2007).

Another peculiarity of climate change however is the absence of a ‘saviour’. The army can defeat an invading enemy, civil engineers and water manager can stop the flood, but no single actor can stop climate change. A pitfall of climate securitisation therefore is that of precipitating ontological insecurity in the intended audience. Presenting an apocalyptic picture without a ‘way out’ upsets people’s basic sense of security and trust in the world around them, it instils a feeling of helplessness in the recipients of the message, a lack of agency, leading people to ignore the issue and stick to a false sense of security in their home and community (Harries 2008). Alarmist articulation of climate change is dramatized to such an extent that it produces an image of political actors incapable to respond to the threat of climate change, subsequently placing the responsibility and trust of governance with piecemeal and technocratic policy measures. The security discourse on climate change ‘is so exaggerated that it prompts the opposite: routine and micro-practices of risk management’ such as measures aiming to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions (Methmann and Rothe, 2012: 337). The threat is presented as too big and too all-encompassing that we cannot do anything, even something exceptional, to stop it, and therefore our only option is to try and manage it. Thus, despite the alarmist manner in which climate change has been discussed, it has not resulted in securitisation (Corry, 2012; Methmann and Rothe, 2012; Oels, 2012; Trombetta, 2008; 2011; Boas 2015).

Is climate securitisation even taking place in Europe? While demonstrating how US politicians and policy-makers use security language to enhance the domestic political and public traction to the issue of climate change, Hayes and Knox-Hayes (2014), argue that such securitised language is ‘minimal in the construction of climate policy in the EU’ (Hayes and Knox-Hayes, 2014: 92). By contrast, the present article shows that the UK and the Netherlands, but also the EU as such, have been amongst the most active actors in advocating a climate security discourse internationally to achieve a more ambitious climate policy.

This article, then, shows how a security narrative is strategically constructed and played on by political actors to ‘sell’ climate policy under the UNFCCC. The next section will examine such discursive strategies on climate change and security through the case of the UK’s FCO’s climate diplomacy in the international policy arena.

2. UK: A security narrative as a diplomatic strategy on climate change

The FCO has been amongst the leading actors in portraying climate migration as a matter of security, both within the UK and internationally, as part of a wider narrative on climate change and security (Trombetta 2008; Boas and Rothe 2016). The FCO was for instance the UK ministry that thought of the idea to hold a debate on the topic of climate change (including climate migration) in the UN Security Council in 2007 and pushed for it to happen, both domestically and internationally. It was tasked to convince the international community that climate change was an important and urgent matter to be addressed in the UNFCCC. It is in that context that innovative strategies, such as securitising moves on climate change, emerged to endorse low-carbon development and a global climate agreement amongst the international community that would succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

A security narrative on climate change was introduced in the FCO in the early 2000s. It was a time that the topic climate change was granted a higher profile in the Labour Government. Prime Minister Tony Blair for instance made climate change a key priority at the UK’s presidency of the G8 and the EU in 2005 (Blair, 2004; 2005). As a consequence of these developments, climate change obtained a central position in the FCO’s environmental diplomacy (FCO, 2004: 84). The FCO’s Environment Policy Department (established in 2000) subsequently changed into the Climate Change and Energy Group in 2004 (renamed into the Climate Change and Energy Department in 2010) (FCO, 2005: 8). The FCO’s climate change diplomacy was tasked to achieve greater action among the international community towards the mitigation of climate change, with an emphasis on achieving a low carbon global economy. There are two pathways through which the FCO tries to achieve this policy objective: through a binding international agreement under the UNFCCC and motivating individual countries to take voluntary steps towards a low-carbon economy (Ashton, 2011: 7; FCO, 2013: 11).

In order to effectively conduct this climate change diplomacy, the FCO officials strategically searched for narratives that could support these endeavours. In the early 2000s, the security argument on climate change emerged as such a narrative. It warns of climate-related conflicts and mass climate migration to amplify the negative consequences of inaction on climate change mitigation. John Ashton, head of the Environmental Policy Department from 2000-2002, and the FCO’s Special Representative on Climate Change from 2006 until June 2012, played a particular prominent role in this regard. His perspective was that the FCO cannot change what governments think about climate change through negotiations under the UNFCCC. Instead, he argued that the FCO needs to influence the domestic political conditions that inform a government’s political agenda and strategic priorities in order to increase action on climate change. Therefore, he proposed to highlight the economic impact of inaction, to emphasise business opportunities associated with low-carbon development, and to exemplify the security implications of unmanaged climate change. Such arguments were hoped to move up climate change on domestic political agendas of other statesⁱⁱ.

FCO’s concern resonated in the UK and abroad as at the time climate change was more frequently presented through lenses of national security, survival, conflict and instability in the press, reports and by prominent speakers. For instance, in 2004, David King, the UK Government’s chief scientific advisor at the time, described climate change as being ‘a far greater threat to the world’s stability than international terrorism’ (BBC, 2004). A number of UK-based think tanks and NGOs raised concerns about insecurity caused by climate change (see e.g., Smith and Vivekananda, 2007). This widespread presence of such ideas on climate change and security provided a conducive discursive space in which the FCO could develop, strengthen and employ its security narrative (Trombetta, 2008: 594-595). As argued by Ashton: ‘It seemed to us…that if you wanted to push up ambition and urgency in responding to climate change then it would be a good idea to make the climate security discourse more prominent in the broad debate’.ⁱⁱⁱ

The security narrative on climate change became particularly prominent when Margaret Beckett became Foreign Secretary in 2006. Prime Minister Tony Blair had asked Beckett to promote climate up the international agenda,^iv with the Copenhagen UNFCCC Conference of December 2009 approaching. Climate change became an official strategic priority for the FCO under the banner of ‘delivering climate security’ (FCO, 2007: 70) and Beckett actively promoted a security narrative on climate change on an international level, raising the issue of climate security in Berlin, India, Mexico, the US and in the UN Security Council (see FCO 2007: 71). The debate at the UN Security Council was particularly considered a high profile move, as demonstrated by the high amount of attention by the press, and by follow-up debates in the UN General Assembly in 2009 and in the UN Security Council in 2011 (UNGA 2009; UNSC 2011b; 2011c). The debate was aimed to grasp the attention of heads of states and to create additional momentum to make action on climate change a key priority. It functioned as part of a wider diplomatic strategy by the FCO towards the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. The aim was to keep climate change high on the political agendas of other states and to mobilise action. As commented by a FCO official:

‘It is like the old water wars debate. Arguing that climate change is going to cause security problems helps you gain more international attention. This in turn can generate pressure on States to make the difficult compromises needed to agree on a successful post-Kyoto framework.’^v

In the Spring of 2009, a security discourse on climate change even became institutionalised when FCO instated a Climate Security Team as part of its Climate Change and Energy Department. In September 2012, the name of this team changed into the Global Strategic Impacts Team, in order to engage with a wider range of narratives than just those on climate change and security. The Team’s primary task was to mobilise greater action and agreement on climate change through the narrative of climate security. Security arguments on climate migration were for instance uses perceived as an effective vehicle to achieve the key objectives of climate change diplomacy:

‘I think the migration strand is quite useful, because when you are trying to persuade other governments that this [climate change] is an important issue, migration is a very visible thing, it is a political thing, a thing that the electorate cares about. So, depending on the country, it can be a good avenue to engage politicians.’^vi

As argued by Ashton, the FCO’s Special Representative for Climate Change until June 2012: ‘The security constituency is always a powerful one and if the security constituency becomes agitated about something then by and large it increases the chances that something is being done about it’.^vii With a view to this, the FCO, in collaboration with the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD), created a UK Climate and Energy Security Envoy in 2009, a position that ran until the end of 2012. The Envoy’s primary assignment was to engage ‘the defence and security community [within the UK and those of other states] on climate security to help create the political conditions necessary for a global deal on climate change’ (FCO, 2010: 21).

The debate also managed to attract other state actors to the issue of climate security. Germany for instance provided clear support to the discourse by initiating the second UN Security Debate fully focussed on climate change, held in July 2011 (UNSC, 2011). The Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have actively promoted the climate security discourse since the 1990s, also in the Security Council debates. They have played on particular climate security storylines to raise concerns and fears amongst the broader international community. For example, Papua New Guinea has argued that global warming is ‘as likely to cause massive dislocations of people as past and present wars’ (UNSC, 2007: 28), playing on images of millions of climate refugees destabilizing international security. The FCO sees such states as ‘message multipliers’.^viii By strengthening the climate security coalition, more pressure is put on those states still needing to make ambitious mitigation commitments under the UNFCCC. The primary countries the FCO aims to target are therefore the US and the emerging developing countries (see e.g., FCO, 2007: 71).

But these emerging countries are precisely those who have overtly rejected the security narrative on climate change. In the UN Security Council debates on climate change of both 2007 and 2011, leading developing countries criticised the move to discuss climate change in the Security Council and expressed great scepticism regarding alarmist security framings on climate change. To counter the security discourse on climate change, the Brazilian delegation for instance argued: ‘…utmost caution must be exercised in establishing links between conflict and the utilization of natural resources or the evolution of climate on our planet (UNSC, 2007: 20)’. Similar sceptical comments were made by other emerging developing countries, such as China and India, and has been supported by other developing countries who see climate change as a matter of sustainable development (Sindico, 2007). In particular, emerging developing countries with no special voting powers in the UN Security Council – such as India and Brazil – have been highly sceptical of these moves and thus prefer climate change to be discussed in forums where they do have decision-making power. In the 2011 debate, a number of emerging countries that were generally sceptical of a security framing of climate change – China, Russia, Brazil and India – were considerate of the precarious situation of developing small island states (SIDS). Brazil, for one, commented that the ‘rather indirect relationship between security and climate change in no way diminishes the urgency of supporting countries and populations that are most vulnerable to climate change, in particular small island developing States, many of which face truly existential challenges’ (UNSC 2011: 8). The emerging developing countries however accused the West of intending to change the terms of the debate by making climate change a subject of the UN Security Council, risking the further polarisation of the climate debate.In addition to these problems, the alarmist climate security narrative was also unable to maintain support within the UK itself in recent years. The tide has changed somewhat since the Coalition Government came into power in 2010 and the promotion of climate action in the UNFCCC was given a lower level of priority. In the 2010 National Security Strategy and the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review produced in the time of the Coalition Government, the need for a multilateral deal on climate change mitigation is only mentioned once (Cabinet Office, 2010: 18), and a security narrative had not been employed to promote efforts towards such action. The policy constituency within the UK fizzled out, making space for alternative and related framings (Boas and Rothe 2016).

Thus, in line with Robert Putnam’s ‘two-level-game’, governments match the expectations of their negotiation partners with the expectations of domestic ‘winning coalitions’ needed to ratify cooperation agreements at home (Putnam 1988).

Discussion and Conclusion

Securitisation has two sides: an existential, life-and-death threat and its corollary: an extraordinary course of action the only way out.

The UK FCO Case Study discussed show a dramatic securitising move, where climate change is presented as the source of great potential crisis that will harm us all, unless we take urgent action – either for mitigation (the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions) or for adaptation. The securitisation of climate presents the environment as a threat rather than an asset. While successfully placed on the agenda of priorities, however its effect has been lacklustre. In line with arguments advanced by scholars such as Trombetta (2008), Corry (2012) and Methmann and Rothe (2012), we note the urgent action promoted here sits within the ‘mundane’, everyday realm of climate policy: the mitigation of GHG emissions via carbon markets and technological innovation without major implications for the world economy. Whilst endorsing an exceptional discourse with grave predications about climate crisis and the use of terms such as ‘war’ and ‘chaos’ and nods to disasters, the securitisers ultimately sought to endorse “a rather piecemeal and technocratic approach” (Methmann and Rothe 2012: 324).

Since the FCO’s securitising move was strategic and instrumental, it used alarmist warning messages to raise the urgency of mitigation measures rather than to endorse, consciously at least, exceptional measures such as military intervention and martial law. Even its actions within the UN Security Council remained mundane, as FCO primarily used the Council as a platform for raising further awareness, rather than to actually institutionalise climate change within the UN Security Council, which would have been a more exceptional move.

The FCO case furthermore illustrates that security language does not necessarily help to increase the urgency of climate action. Apocalyptic discourses risk fuelling public disengagement with climate change and promote a sense of fatalism or scepticism. It leads ‘to denial of the problem and disengagement with the whole issue in an attempt to avoid the discomfort of contending with it’ (O’Neil and Nicholson-Cole 2009: 371). The FCO’s securitising move fuelled further mistrust and scepticism amongst key target audiences within the UN Security Council debates. It made emerging countries more sceptical of the UK’s intentions on climate change and felt pressured through scare stories that were unfounded.

All in all, the analysis illustrates that particularly in the domain of climate change, where the future remains uncertain and many of discussions focus on issues of risks and potentialities (Corry 2012), securitisation is complex. An audience is not easily persuaded when hearing that something is an urgent threat – such a discourse needs to resonate with a context giving some indication that the doom scenario might come true. The debate on climate change and security is in many respects ‘dominated by its futurology’ (Baldwin et al. 2014: 121), making it an easy target for politicians to play on but also a difficult one to successfully securitize.

Given the lack of an immediate threat, the time element easily works against climate securitisers. Climate change was ‘hot’ for some years, but was both ‘out-securitised’ by other concerns such as the economic crisis and the Arab Spring, while the political climate changed priorities as well. By the 2010s the momentum created after Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, started to unravel. A prominent IPCC member, prof Richard Tol, took distance from the summary of the alarmist summary of the IPCC report – though not of the more nuanced report itself. EU industry commissioner Verheugen lambasted the ‘climate hysteria’ taking hold of Europe. It seems plausible to say that the climate alarmism worked up in both cases under scrutiny here indeed boomeranged. A different strategy may well be needed to restore climate on national and international agendas.

And that different strategy was a “shock” called “Covid 19” and we were told that shock was coming in January 2020:

Margaret Thatcher and the “coincidence of interests”

The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not. Then, in 1979, Mrs Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue.
Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she came to power in 1979. Then, she was the first female leader of a major western state, and she desired to be taken seriously by political leaders of other major countries. This desire seemed difficult to achieve because her only experience in government had been as Education Secretary (i.e. a Junior Minister) in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974. She had achieved nothing notable as Education Secretary but was remembered by the UK public for having removed the distribution of milk to schoolchildren (she was popularly known as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’.)

Sir Crispin Tickell, UK Ambassador to the UN, suggested a solution to the problem. He pointed out that almost all international statesmen are scientifically illiterate, so a scientifically literate politician could win any summit debate on a matter which seemed to depend on scientific understandings. And Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry. (This is probably the most important fact in the entire global warming issue; i.e. Mrs Thatcher had a BSc degree in chemistry). Sir Crispin pointed out that if a ‘scientific’ issue were to gain international significance, then the UK’s Prime Minister could easily take a prominent role, and this could provide credibility for her views on other world affairs. He suggested that Mrs Thatcher should campaign about global warming at each summit meeting. She did, and the tactic worked. Mrs Thatcher rapidly gained the desired international respect and the UK became the prime promoter of the global warming issue. The influences that enabled this are described in Figure 1 and the following paragraphs.

Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher’s campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that – although scientifically dubious – ‘global warming’ could be economically important. The USA is the world’s most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician.

Mrs Thatcher could not have promoted the global warming issue without the support of her UK political party. And they were willing to give it. Following the General Election of 1979, most of the incoming Cabinet had been members of the government which lost office in 1974. They blamed the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) for their 1974 defeat. They, therefore, desired an excuse for reducing the UK coal industry and, thus, the NUM’s power. Coal-fired power stations emit CO2 but nuclear power stations don’t. Global warming provided an excuse for reducing the UK’s dependence on coal by replacing it with nuclear power.
And the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines. Unfortunately, the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology. Then, privatisation of the UK’s electricity supply industry exposed the secret that UK nuclear electricity cost four times more than UK coal-fired electricity. Global warming became the only remaining excuse for the unpopular nuclear power facilities needed for nuclear weapons. Mrs Thatcher had to be seen to spend money at home if her international campaign was to be credible.

So, early in her global warming campaign – and at her personal instigation – the UK’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research was established, and the science and engineering research councils were encouraged to place priority in funding climate-related research. This cost nothing because the UK’s total research budget was not increased; indeed, it fell because of cuts elsewhere. But the Hadley Centre sustained its importance and is now the operating agency for the IPCC’s scientific working group (Working Group 1). Most scientists’ work depends on funds fully or partly provided by governments. Also, all scientists compete to obtain their share of this limited resource. Available research funds were shrinking, and global warming had become the ‘scientific’ issue of most interest to governments. Hence, any case for funding support tended to include reference to global warming whenever possible. Much science in many fields may be conducted under the guise of a relationship to global warming. Activities which have obtained funds by this method include biology, meteorology, computer science, physics, chemistry, climatology, oceanography, civil engineering, process engineering, forestry, astronomy, and several other disciplines. Now, funds for this work are provided to most UK Universities and several commercial research establishments.

Much peer pressure deters scientists from damaging potential sources of research funds. There is especial pressure – loss of future career – to avoid being the first to proclaim the scientific truth of global warming and thus damage the research funding of colleagues. But failure to proclaim the scientific truth does not mean that many scientists believe in the global warming hypothesis. In 1992 – at the height of the global warming scare – Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicise the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment. Also, the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995 and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.

The global warming issue is political. It induced the ‘Earth Summit’ that was attended by several Heads of State in Rio de Janeiro during June 1992 and is the reason for the Kyoto Summit in Japan in December 1997. Governments have a variety of motives for interest in global warming. Each government has its own special interests in global warming but, in all cases, the motives relate to economic policies. In general, the USA fears loss of economic power to other nations while this is desired by those other nations. Universal adoption of ‘carbon taxes’, or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, would provide relative benefit to the other nations. Unfortunately, if a few nations adopted the changes they would increase their manufacturing, transportation and energy costs and thus lose economic competitiveness and industrial activity to all other nations. Developing nations cannot afford technological and economic advances that would benefit them and also reduce their increases to CO2 emissions as they develop, so they are seeking gifted technology transfers and economic aid from developed countries.
The press are interested in selling papers and the TV companies want to gain viewers. Threat of world-wide disaster makes a good story, and the statements and actions of politicians together with great increase in scientific publications gave global warming an apparent authority. The media began to proclaim the worst imagined horrors. For example, massive floods were predicted due to melting of polar ice. and one UK TV programme went so far as to assert that the polar bears would die out because their habitat would melt. The public rely on the media to provide them with their information, so they came to believe the global warming scare because they were only given one side of the story. Politicians respond to public concern, so the politicians actions began to gain popular support.
On face value global warming is an environmental issue. Many environmentalists joined the bandwagon. Governments were offering money and the public were concerned at global warming. Any environmental issue which could be linked to global warming was said to be involved in the matter. But the environmentalist interest was aroused by the impact of the issue. Contrary to common belief, environmentalists did not raise awareness of global warming, they responded to it. Simply, environmentalist organisations were part of the general public and decided to use the issue when it became useful to them.

Aspects of the global warming issue began to feed on each other. Many positive feedback loops exist in the system and the major ones are shown in Figure 2. The system amplifier is the politicians’ support of global warming. The issue is assisted by gaining political approval each time it passes around a loop shown in Figure 2.
The UK Government lost interest in global warming when Mr John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher as Prime Minister. The flow of Government money began to stop for conduct of global warming research. UK scientists then began to speak out in denial of the global warming hypothesis. It seemed that the issue was dying a natural death. Then the ‘coal crisis’ arose in October 1992 when the public protested at the scale of pit closures. This gave the UK Government a new need to find an excuse for its policy of closing coal mines. Global warming fitted this need and so the Government committed £16,000,000 to an advertising campaign which scaremongered about global warming, and re-established the funding priorities for climate research.
Later, at the start of May 1997, the Conservative Party lost office to the Labour Party and Mr Tony Blair became UK Prime Minister. The UK had initiated the global warming issue and a change of UK policy may have had a significant effect on the widespread imagined risk, but by then the global warming issue had become important in its own right. Many countries had a stated global warming policy, 122 of them had signed a declaration of intent to reduce CO2 emissions at the Rio Summit, and the Kyoto Summit was scheduled. The UK was one of the very few countries that had reduced its CO2 emissions since the Rio Summit because the UK had replaced coal-fired generating capacity by gas-fired generating capacity. This provided the UK with a position of authority in this international affair, and Mr Blair committed the new UK government to strict action to cut CO2 emissions.

Governments’ global warming policies

Man-made global warming has become a major international political issue. The imagined risk has become a real risk in the form of proposed government policies to inhibit CO2 emissions. The Rio Summit in 1992 proposed actions to constrain the emissions and the Kyoto Summit in December 1997 is intended to establish binding agreements that will commit nation states to the constraints. Although there are no real and potential risks of the global warming, the effects of the constraints will cause real and severe economic damage.
All industrial and economic growth requires an abundance of available energy supply. Anything that inhibits energy supplies reduces economic activity. At Kyoto, governments will be pressured to reduce CO2 emissions to far below their 1990 levels. This requires cutting fuel supplies and, therefore, economic activity. The effects would be much more severe than the ‘oil crisis’ in the 1970s because the constraint on fossil fuel usage would be greater, the increases to energy costs would be larger, and energy demand has increased since then.
Already, OECD countries (Europe, Japan and the US) have agreed in principle to adopt the ‘Berlin Mandate’ that requires them to cut their CO2 emissions to 15% below their 1990 levels by year 2010. The US Department of Energy (DoE) estimates that this would increase US domestic energy prices by between 80 and 90% and would increase the coal price to US consumers by 300%. Also, the DoE study determines that the Berlin Mandate would not reduce world-wide emissions of CO2. Energy intensive industries would be forced to move from the US to places where the emission constraints did not exist or were not enforced. This could even result in an increase to the emissions because the less-controlled places are likely to have less energy efficient industries. The DoE study goes further by saying that its findings are not specific to the US but apply to every industrialised country.
The US DoE study is supported by a similar study commissioned by the German government. That determined the cost to Germany of fulfilling the Berlin Mandate would be about US$500 billion and the loss of 250,000 jobs.
Industrialised countries would not suffer alone. The economy of every country is affected by the performance of the world economy. The economic disruption in the developed world would harm economic activity everywhere. The largest affects would be in the developed countries because their economies are largest. But the worst effects would be suffered by the world’s poorest peoples (people who are near to starvation are starved by economic disruption.).
A rational assessment of appropriate policies would include cost/benefit analysis, but imagined risk is not rational. All the proposed responses to the imagined risk of man-made global warming would increase starvation and poverty while inhibiting economic development throughout the entire world. And CO2 emissions would not be reduced and may be increased. In practice, politicians are accepting the predictions of climate models as being predictions of the future, and they are acting to change that future. This is similar to the behaviour of people who believe horoscope predictions of future harm so they avoid situations where that harm could happen.

This blogpost uses material from https://www.scielo.br/j/asoc/a/d9Z9w7zGPJSCKBRVWXkPVyK/?lang=en# and http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

So many thanks to the work of the above.