Klaus Schwab has been someone in the background of global machinations for many decades. He is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) which he formed in 1971 (fifty years ago) as an International NGO (one of the way too many “civil society” partners of the United Nations). The majority of these NGOs are there to promote and embed Agenda 21/2030/The Green New Deal into every country, no matter how small, in the world. Schwab’s WEF was set up to push Public-Private Cooperation, in other words, fascism, across the globe.
Kimberly Amadeo, President of World Money Watch defines fascism as: “a brutal economic system in which a supreme leader and their government controls the private entities that own the factors of production. The four factors are entrepreneurship, capital goods, natural resources, and labor. A central planning authority directs company leaders to work in the national interest, which actively suppresses those who oppose it”.[i]
To simplify and clarify what Public-Private Partnerships PPPs) are:
In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:
During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”
Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.
Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.
Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:
Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.
Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.
Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.
Tom nails it:Public/Private Partnerships = Government-Sanctioned Monopolies
It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.
That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.
Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.
Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.[ii]
For fifty years the WEF has been using these PPPs to cancel any liberty, individual freedom, and take property rights from individuals. Agenda 21! The Public Private Partnerships are a big tool in relieving us of our property, liberty, and control of our nation. PPPs and Regionalism, with its unelected governing bodies, work hand in hand to destroy our Constitution and the rule of law.
As society breaks down, the globalists welcome the anarchy, chaos, and general social unrest. Next, they need a defining event.
What drew Schwab to set up the WEF?
“The most influential group that spurred the creation of Klaus Schwab’s symposium was the Club of Rome, an influential think tank of the scientific and monied elite that mirrors the World Economic Forum in many ways, including in its promotion of a global governance model led by a technocratic elite. The Club had been founded in 1968 by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei and Scottish chemist Alexander King during a private meeting at a residence owned by the Rockefeller family in Bellagio, Italy.”[iii]
The Club of Rome spelled out what they view as the true enemy:
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.[iv]”
Realizing that back in the ‘70s, when the above was written, the masses weren’t yet dumbed-down enough to accept that they needed to join VHEMT, the voluntary human extinction movement. The globalist Marxist Left decided a New Ice Age would fit the bill of a major crisis that only they could fix. Oops, it didn’t happen. So, let’s flip it to Global Warming (to go along with the hole in the ozone. Of course, the Earth wasn’t warming. Tweak that, voila, Climate Change. Ignore the fact that the climate changes four times a year, and sometimes daily.
No matter the science. We are facing an apocalyptic threat.
Maurice Strong, former Undersecretary General of the UN, Sec. Gen. of UN Conference on the Environment, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, was called a visionary and a “pioneer of global sustainable development. He was the secretary-general of the 1992 Rio EarthSummit which unveiled Agenda 21, the culmination of decades of scheming, planning, and cajoling to bring about a global government via the UN. He was also a close friend of Klaus Schwab, George Soros, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and many of the rogues’ gallery of One-World government advocates.
In interviews that Strong did with two reporters in Canada wanting to write about their golden boy, both times he talked about his vision of the future. The early vision focused on the WEF:
“Each year, the Word Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics, gather in February. to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.
What if a small group of these world leaders were to form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse? It’s February. They are all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered a panic using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies. They’ve jammed the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries . . . I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.”[v]
Does this sound familiar? Sure sounds plausible to me. In his second theoretical vision, Strong dreams, “what if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive those rich countries would have to sign an agreement, reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is “no”. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, a group decides ‘isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse’.”[vi]
It’s in the works now; it has been for decades. But a statement that most overlook, but it shows that the people on the Left, the globalists, the Fabians, the cultural Marxists, the Communists are all looking for the right bait, the right evil foe to attack.
Strong and Klaus Schwab were good friends; they were also close with David Rockefeller. They were (are, in Schwab’s case) members of that not so secret, secret society, the Bilderburg Group. The Bilderburg Group is approximately 130 political leaders from Europe and North America who meet once a year for informal discussions about major issues. “The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”[vii]
According to Schwab, the fourth Industrial Revolution provides the potential “to robotize humanity, and thus compromise our traditional sources of meaning—work, community, family, identity.[viii]” He also predicts that it will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness.[ix]” And it will “upend the existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering”. That was a statement from 2015, so don’t think he hasn’t been pushing this for a long time. Now his edicts are getting more definitive, “Even our thinking and behavior will have to dramatically shift. We must have a new social contract centered on Social Justice. We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility (ed. note: PPPs). Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”[x][xi]
While Schwab is predicting that his Industrial Revolution will “lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness”, Dr. Anthon Mueller, a German professor of economics, wrote, “The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030 —because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.”
Johnny Vedmore at Unlimited Hangout writes, “At the Forum’s (WEF) annual meeting in January 2021, Schwab stressed that the building of trust would be integral to the success of the Great Reset, signalling a subsequent expansion of the initiative’s already massive public relations campaign. Though Schwab called for the building of trust through unspecified “progress,” trust is normally facilitated through transparency. Perhaps that is why so many have declined to trust Mr. Schwab and his motives, as so little is known about the man’s history and background prior to his founding of the World Economic Forum in the early 1970s.”
The Global Technology Governance Summit (GTGS) of the World Economic Forum, meeting in Tokyo (and virtual) the first week of April 2021 has a number of documents to be discussed. One, Harnessing new technologies, states:
“Industry transformation: No industry has been untouched by the global response to COVID-19. The world can no longer operate as it has, and as such markets will have to respond to its new and evolving needs. To survive, every business in the world will have to become a technology company. – Government transformation: The transformation of government will be front and centre in the area of digital infrastructure as technology services become an essential public utility comparable to electricity, water or roads.” In simple terms, Pubic Private Partnerships. The government controls, the businesses follow government orders.
In one of the best articles I’ve read on the Great Reset, Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Great Nonsense of “The Great Reset”, is this:
[S]ocialism . . . is . . . the society that must emerge if humanity is to cope with . . . the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment . . . . [C]apitalism must be monitored, regulated, and contained to such a degree that it would be difficult to call the final social order capitalism.” Robert Heilbroner, “After Capitalism,” The New Yorker, Sept. 10, 1990
The above quotation by socialist economist, the late Robert Heilbroner, was written in the context of an article that lamented and mourned the worldwide collapse of socialism in the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. The great debate between capitalism and socialism was over, he said, and Ludwig von Mises was right about socialism all along, said a man who had spent the past half century promoting socialism in his teaching, speaking, and writing. But do not despair, he told his fellow socialists, for there is one more trick up our sleeves, namely, the Trojan Horse of achieving socialism under the guise of ‘environmentalism.’
“The basic strategy was then, as it is now, to constantly frighten the gullible public with predictions of The End of the World from environmental catastrophe unless we abandon capitalism and adopt socialist central planning. This has always been the one constant theme of the environmentalist movement (not to be confused with the conservation movement which is actually interested in the health of the planet and the humans who occupy it) since the 1960s. It ignores the fact that the twentieth-century socialist countries like the Soviet Union and China had by far the worse environmental problems on the planet, orders of magnitude worse than in the capitalist countries.”
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order. David Rockefeller at a 1994 UN Dinner
Can a combination of two fraud emergencies, COVID and Climate Change, be the crises that will usher in the globalist dream of a New World Order? If so, and if the inhabitants of what remains of the free world do not get off their duffs and wake up to this threat, Klaus Schwab et al will have achieved the “global transformation” they have spent 100+ years to achieve.
I for one want to see them fail. We, the useless eaters, the nobodies, can stop them. All we have to do is turn over the rock they are under and let the sun shine in. Most people, if they see the truth, will start thinking.
The World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
Meat consumption will be minimized.
Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
Western values will be tested to the breaking point.
I cannot believe even half of the American people want to live like that.
We must take back our country a city and a county at a time. All the while, we must get our lesser magistrates to ignore unconstitutional federal laws, throw the bums out of office, and we must educate our children with truth, reason, and sound science.
Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.
For nearly thirty years, as some of us have attempted to sound the alarm over plans to reorganize human society into global governance, we have been mercilessly attacked and labeled as radical conspiracy theorists.
Now, as those very plans move ever closer to enforcement, many are beginning to ask questions about the origins of the plans. Who stands behind them, and where will it all lead? Will life be better? Will there be more freedom and happiness? Are we finally going to create a society free of war and strife, as promised by the promoters? Who’s right, the conspiracy theorists or the promoters?
First, a little history. One of the direct results of World War II, which had affected every nation, was the desire to find a way to prevent war. Most of all, the threat of nuclear war truly terrified everyone. This led to the creation of the United Nations as a way to provide a forum where nations could work out their problems in a public forum instead of on a battlefield. That was the selling point, at least.
The fact of the matter is, the United Nations is a club in which nations join voluntarily and pay dues for the privilege. However, from its very beginning, some envisioned a much larger role for the club. They envisioned the end of independent sovereign nations in which they charged were the root of war, strife and poverty. They claimed that for true freedom to exist, everything must be equal, including food, possessions, and opportunity. To achieve that, individual nations must surrender their sovereignty to the greater good – global governance overseen by the United Nations.
Right away, many socialist and communist-run nations grabbed hold of the concept. These were nations where the rights of the people were already determined by those in charge. In short, where government granted rights.
But there was one nation, in particular, that openly opposed this concept, because that nation had been created under the idea that every person possessed their rights from birth and that it was government’s job to protect those rights. Such a concept was completely antithetical to the growing determination to give the United Nations central power over the Earth. The United States was soon seen as the major obstacle to the globalist agenda.
Over time, a “cold war” between the totalitarians of the communist nations and the advocates of free nations erupted and the United States found itself the designated leader of the “Free World.” As a member of the UN’s Security Council, the United States used its single-nation veto power to foil many of the efforts by the communist nations to build a UN power structure. This caused major frustration to those behind the goal of global governance. A solution had to be found to bring the United States into compliance.
Finally, in the 1970s a novel tactic emerged in the form of the illusion of environmental Armageddon by way of the illusion of “Climate Change.” It was the perfect tool to propel the argument for independent nations. “It doesn’t matter what rights you think you have if you don’t have a planet to stand on!” The drive for global governance took hold, full speed ahead. One of the main proponents of the global governance movement, the Club of Rome said, “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. All of these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be over come. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” There it was! The answer. The environment doesn’t recognize political or national boundaries. Just grab control of the land, water and air, and control every nation and every human life.
It didn’t take long for the globalist forces to jump onto the concept. Again, the Club of Rome laid out the party line necessary to grab control: “Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though it may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the task at hand. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” So, according to this concept, in order to replace these leaders which were elected by the people, we are going to enforce global policy created by forces unseen, unknown, and equipped with their own agenda. Yep – that will solve the world’s problems!
It didn’t take long for the communists to grasp the idea. Former Soviet dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, after the collapse of his socialist paradise, quickly set himself up as an environmentalist to promote this new world order. He explained to the State of the World Forum, “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of world government.” And there is was — the real goal, out in the open.
The UN’s Commission on Global Governance went further to explain how it would all come about as it reported, “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Now, how to set it all into place…?
The UN began to sponsor a series of international meetings, specifically focusing on the environment and how to “save planet Earth.” After a series of such meetings where private, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), officially recognized and sanctioned by the United Nations, met with government leaders, diplomats, and various bureaucrats, began to draw up a plan for using environmental issues as the basis for regulating human activity – all through the noble guidance of the United Nations, of course. Finally, in 1992, more than 50,000 NGOs, diplomats, and 179 world leaders, including U.S. President, George, H.W. Bush, met in an “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Here, they introduced a series of four documents and treaties for the world to accept as guidelines for UN-led reorganization to save the planet.
Most significant of these plans was one designed to create a global plan of action for the 21st Century. It was named Agenda 21, and its supporters promoted it as a “Comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.” All 179 world leaders signed onto the document, including President Bush, and promised to bring its goals into national policy.
Here’s a quick overview of the Agenda 21 plan:
There are four parts: Sections 1 is titled Social and Economic Dimensions. Details include, international cooperation to accelerate sustainable development policies, combat poverty, changing consumption patterns, protecting and promoting human health conditions, and promoting sustainable development by integrating environment policy into development plans.
Section 2: is titled Conservation and Management of Resources for Development. This section outlined plans for promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development, integrating those policies into planning and management of land resources, enforcing sustainable policy into every body of water from seas to rivers and lakes, waste management, and conservation of “fragile” ecosystems, .
Section 3: is titled “Strengthening the Role of Major Groups. Here we get into who was going to promote these policies in a divide and conquer tactic. First, the infamous NGOs who wrote the document gave themselves a major role under the chapter entitled “Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development.” But we were also to have “global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development.” Next, children were specifically targeted to be promoters of sustainable development. Another chapter outlined how to pull in local elected officials to promote support for Agenda 21 initiatives. Each chapter in this section of the Agenda 21 document focuses on more and more individual interest groups needed to push the agenda, from business and industry, to science and technology to farmers. No stone was left unturned in this outline to reorganize human society.
Section 4: titled Means of Implementation. Here, finally, are the details on how it was to be accomplished. As all of the individual groups are brought under the umbrella, now the enforcers would focus on the necessary financial resources, transferring environmental technology into decision making, and focusing on education process, not only for schools, but also for “public awareness and training.” And then, of course, there are the necessary “International legal instruments and mechanisms.”
Here it is, a complete and comprehensive outline for the agenda to completely transform all of humanity under the umbrella of globalism. And of course, it was urgent that the agenda be enforced as quickly as possible because, we were facing an environmental Armageddon caused by selfish, uncontrolled, ignorant humans, unfettered in unenlightened nation-states.
First Global Warming, and then later Climate Change became the focus of the looming disaster. And it simply did not matter if there was no true science to back up the scare tactic. As the Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, openly admitted, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” There is was! The truth. This whole charade wasn’t about saving the environment, but about changing the world order with a new gang in charge.
Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation, further enforced that fact when he said, “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” There it is again – “economic policy!”
And finally, there was Paul Watson, a co-founder of the radical Green NGO called GreenPeace. He summed it all up very nicely, saying, “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” No muss, no fuss, just get in line and don’t question us!
However, there was still a skeptical world that had to be indoctrinated to follow the party line. So, it was important that the language, while keeping the urgent tension of environmental crisis in the forefront, used soft-peddle words to promote the policies. For example, soothing, reassuring comments such as, “we are just concerned about the environment, aren’t you?” “We want to help those less fortunate, living in poverty. Don’t you?” “Imagine all the people sharing all the world.” Nothing to worry about here, just a giant, loving, world-wide group hug. So, the agenda moved forward, with few questioning its details, motives, and true goals.
Meanwhile, forces inside the UN were determined to hurry along the real agenda — global governance. As we moved closer to the year 2000, many insiders saw the start of the new Millennium as the perfect opportunity to launch a full-scale framework for global politics. In preparation, the UN planned to sponsor a Millennium Summit to plan the future for the world. A document was prepared for presentation at the Summit called the Charter for Global Democracy. In the UN’s words, the document contained “detailed, practical measures which set out an ambitious agenda for democracy in international decision-making, now increasingly known as ‘global governance.”
The Charter contained 12 principles or goals. It would consolidate all international agencies under the direct authority of the United Nations. In addition, the UN would regulate all transnational corporations and financial institutions, along with the establishment of a new institution to establish economic and environmental security by insuring sustainable development. The Charter called for a declaration that Climate Change is an essential global security interest that requires a “high level action team” to control carbon emissions. And, the Charter called for the cancellation of all debt owed by the poorest nations, global poverty reductions, and for “equitable sharing of global resources,” including land, air and sea, plus various wealth redistribution schemes. Under the Charter for Global Democracy there would be no independent, sovereign nations, no private property or free enterprise. All would be controlled and regulated by UN edict – all in the name of environmental protection, of course.
But there is more. To establish a government, three main ingredients are necessary; a revenue taxation system, a criminal court system, and a standing army. Principle 3 of the Charter for Global Democracy demanded an independent source of revenue for the UN. Proposed were taxes on aircraft and shipping fuels and licensing the use of the global commons. The “global commons” are defined to be “outer space, the atmosphere, non-territorial seas, and related environment that supports human life.” In other words, the UN claimed control of the entire planet, its air and water, even outer space, and the power to tax use of it all.
Principle Number 5 would authorize a standing UN Army. Principle Number 6 would require UN registration of all arms and the reduction of all national armies “as part of a multinational global security system” under the authority of the United Nations.
Principle Number 8 would activate the International Criminal Court, make the International Court of Justice compulsory for all nations, and give individuals the right to petition the courts to remedy what they deemed social injustice, meaning redistribution of wealth based on emotional tirades rather than the rule of law.
There you have it, all the tools necessary to make the United Nations a full- fledged global government, a government over the whole world. But, the Charter for Global Democracy broke one major rule in the UN’s plans to dominate the world – it was too honest. It lacked the soft sell and, instead, marched brutally forward, revealing their true agenda. It was never officially presented to the Millennium Summit for world leaders to approve in front of the cameras. However, it remains a shadow agenda, with parts included in other documents. The Criminal Court does exist and there is still a drive for an environmental court. The UN continues to push for full ratification of the Law of the Seas Treaty that would give it full control of the waters of the planet. While the United States has not officially ratified the treaty, Congress has promoted regulations through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce many of the same goals.
Meanwhile, the UN has continued to add more details, a little at a time, through documents released at yet more international gatherings. The Millennium Summit did issue 8 goals, mostly focusing on eradicating poverty, respecting nature, and “Protecting the Vulnerable.” The goals are there, just not the direct wording of the Charter. Peace, Brother!
In 2016, the UN issued Agenda 2030, containing 17 goals. They are all the same as Agenda 21 and the Millennium Goals, however each new document issued reveals a little more detail as the UN moves ever closer to enforcing all 12 principles of the Charter for Global Democracy.
Most recently, however, the Sustainable forces again took off the gloves of misdirection, and this time they have gotten away with it. This latest version is called the Green New Deal and it didn’t come as a declaration or a suggestion from another summit. This time it came as actual legislation introduced into the U.S. Congress and has been openly accepted as the center of political debate across the nation.
Even though the word “green” is in the title, it, too, is not an environmental policy. The Green New Deal is an economic plan to reorder society away from free enterprise, private property, and limited government. Gee, where have we heard that before? Oh yes, Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Millennium Declaration!
The Green New Deal is divided into four pillars. First is the Economic Bill of Rights, demanding full employment, guaranteeing a living wage, Medicare for all, tuition-free education and the right to affordable housing. Can you find any issue there that is designed to save the planet?
Pillar 2 is labeled the Green Transition. Surely here is where we will find concerns expressed for clean rivers and air, right? Nope. We find money and tax schemes for global corporations who agree to play ball and spread the sustainable propaganda. This helps to fill their pockets as it kills competition from small, independent businesses. There’s also the usual attack on cars along with schemes to end shipping of food and products by truck or air. Each community, you see, will be responsible for providing all of its needs for the local population.
Pillar 3 called Real Financial Reform, turns banks into public utilities run by government, doing away with the stock market, all leading to higher taxes and the end of freedom of choice for your financial needs.
Pillar 4 is called a Functioning Democracy. It calls for the creation of a “Corporation for Economic Democracy” that will basically combine government agencies, private associations, and business enterprise into one big corporation, all to be controlled by one, central ruling authority. The last time I checked on such an idea it was called communism.
My colleague, climate change expert Paul Driessen, produced a very clear picture of what life will be like under the Green New Deal. Are you ready America? According to Paul’s analysis, the GND would, “control and pummel the jobs, lives, living standards, savings, personal choices and ecological heritage of rural, poor, minority, elderly and working classes.” Says Paul, the GND would turn middle America into vast energy colonies. Millions of acres of farmland, wildlife habitat, and scenic areas would be blanketed by industrial wind, solar, and battery facilities. Windswept ocean vistas and sea lanes would be plagued by towering turbines. Birds, bats, and other wildlife would disappear. As you are forced to rip out exiting natural gas appliances from your kitchen, replacing them with electric models, electrical power would only be there when its available, rather that when you need it. And don’t forget, as the GND moves to ban petroleum, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, plastics for computers would all be gone, along with millions of jobs. Not to mention that the cost of near non-existent energy would soar.
This, then, is the future offered to us by the power-mad control freaks now plotting every day to “reorganize human society.” These policies now dominate political debate and are becoming established in more and more states and communities, yet any attempt to reveal the true goals are immediately labeled “conspiracy theories” and those sounding the alarm are called extremists.
Meanwhile, as we have all suffered through the COVID lockdowns, the forces behind these policies have been busy planning ways to use tactics they have learned from enforcing the pandemic to move forward with a “Green Reset” to tackle the so-called climate crisis. In a recent issue, Time magazine announced the “Great Reset,” asserting “The COVID-19 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want… to share ideas for how to transform the way we live and work.”
Bill Gates said that large-scale economic shutdowns are “nowhere near sufficient” to curtail climate change. Rather, we need “to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors.” He went on, “Simply shutting down (the economy) is not going to get (us) to our goal. So just like we need innovation for COVID-19, we also need to get rid of emissions from all the different sectors and bring down climate change.” Are you ready to live in a cave with no heat or running water to satisfy Bill Gates’ demands to reorganize society? What else would be the alternative if we must completely shut down our entire infrastructure of transportation, industry, buildings, electricity, etc?
Green New Deal advocates, like Gates, see the COVID-19 outbreak as a signal to the international community that it is necessary to reform humanity’s relationship with nature, pointing to concerns that “as habitat and biodiversity loss increase globally, the coronavirus outbreak may be just the beginning of mass pandemics.” That’s the new scare tactic – piled on top of climate change. Just as the Club of Rome prediction declared decades ago, the real enemy is humanity itself. So there it is, now facing us like never before – the interconnection of climate change, the Green New Deal, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Step by step, changing and controlling human society.
The COVID-19 lockdown has been the master experiment as to how much manipulation people will accept out of fear. It has been the grand experiment to get us to stop driving, reducing energy use, and change our living habits. All called for in the Green New Deal. Arn Menconi, an environmental activist and recent candidate for the Colorado state senate said, the “coronavirus has proved we can afford the Green New Deal and Medicare for all.”
But there is much more planned for the reorganization of human society that few have counted on. Take careful note of the growing manipulation of the free market, a main target of Agenda 21/GND policy. Global corporations, such as Amazon and Walmart, that have agreed to join in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) with government to promote the Sustainable policies, have been allowed to continue near normal operations and they are thriving in the lockdowns. Meanwhile local, small, independent businesses have been forced to close their doors. As those small business jobs are lost, employees are left with little alternative than to seek positions in the global behemoths or accept government handouts. Soon, we will begin to see the corporations demanding that employees accept Bill Gates’ mandatory COVID vaccines or lose their jobs. That means that more and more will have no choice but too march in lockstep with the dictates of their masters. Free thought, free market competition, and free expression will no longer exist anywhere but in the minds of those old enough to remember “when”. These are all the enemies of totalitarianism and must be curtailed.
They’ve managed to find the perfect scare tactic to get us all to “voluntarily” give up our liberties, allow government to shut us in our homes, kill our jobs, stop our schools, and destroy human contact. They have finally achieved the vision of British monarch, Prince Phillip who once said, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” Never tell these people a joke, because they will eventually turn it into global policy!
How do we stop this drive to destroy our way of life? One thing the COVID lock-down has proven, is that we must regain control of local and state governments. It was mayors and governors who led the way to enforce most of the draconian controls over our ability to move about, go to work and church, see our doctors, and open our businesses. That’s why it’s imperative that those concerned about stopping this transformation must become active on the local level, organizing, researching, speaking out and running effective local government campaigns.
One major obstacle standing in the way of the forces of freedom to stop this drive for global governance is that too many on the Right have ignored the threat, joining in the chorus against we who have been sounding the alarm. Not one mainstream, Washington, DC-based conservative organization will even mention the words Agenda 21 or the many issues connected to the global agenda. Many Republicans in Congress lamely accept many of the environmental positions, instead offering lighter, “more reasonable” positions. Once they do that, they’ve already lost the argument. Today’s mainstream Conservative movement has changed little of their tactics from those used 50 years ago, when they were fighting Soviet communism. Yet, as the environmental movement takes over the American beef industry and leads the way to destroy private property rights and single-family neighborhoods, little action is taken. We cannot win if we ignore the massive loss of property in cities and farms. We cannot win if we fail to stand with the growing number of Americans who are suffering from the radical environmental assault. We have to change the debate and appeal to the growing legions of victims. And we must learn that the most effective place to begin the fight is on the local level in our communities – not on Capitol Hill.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 49 states. Think about that when you look at today’s election results. When that happened, the Left said “never again” and they began to organize. They focused on the local level and not just city council and county commission races. No position was too small or unimportant, including appointed boards, and even city hall jobs. These are the places where policy is decided and regulations, licensing, and government attitudes are prepared and carried out. When was the last time a local Republican group discussed the importance of the office of City Attorney? Yet these are the positions of power that have enforced the COVID lock-downs. After this most recent election don’t you wish we had some influence over voter registration and Board of Elections? This is how the Democrats have managed to turn formerly red states blue. Pure determination.
Every freedom-loving American must become vitally aware that we now face the most powerful, determined force of evil to ever threaten humanity. To defeat them we must become equally determined to do the dirty work which our side has ignored for fifty years. This includes, local organization of precincts, finding viable candidates to run, and controlling the debate over issues as they appear, making sure our side is heard. We must decide to relentlessly focus on the three pillars of freedom, including protection of private property rights, taking necessary steps to help small business thrive, and assure that government is a servant of the citizens rather than citizens submitting to government.
Take such actions to secure your community as a Freedom Pod where these rights are the backbone of every decision made by your local government. If you are successful, the idea will get the attention of neighboring communities and another Freedom Pod will be planted there — and then the next and the next. These are the actions we must take to “flatten the Socialist curve” and take America back! As Winston Churchill said, “Never Give In, Never, Never, Never.”
Tom DeWeese is one of the nation’s leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, private property rights, personal privacy, back-to-basics education and American sovereignty and independence.He is also the founder of The American Policy Center.He is the author of several books.
Conservatives were once a lonely band of freethinkers
In the early 1950s, liberal intellectuals shaped the American zeitgeist, while conservatives, to quote Yale professor Willmoore Kendall, manned “tiny outposts” over a broad front, rarely communicating with one another.
When 39 American and European conservative intellectuals, calling themselves “traditional liberals,” formed an organization in the spring of 1947, they did not meet in America but thousands of miles away in Mont Pelerin, Switzerland. Their mood was somber, for statism had permeated the governments of Western Europe while communism ruled in Eastern Europe with a little help from the Soviet Army. Led by the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek, these free-market scholars described their goal, rather grandly, as “the preservation and improvement of the free society.” Economist Milton Friedman contented himself with saying the meeting demonstrated that “we were not alone.” All too alone were conservative academics such as University of Chicago English professor Richard Weaver, Duke political scientist Ralph Hallowell, Louisiana State University political philosopher Eric Voegelin, Harvard historian William Y. Elliott, and UC Berkeley sociologist Robert Nisbet.
There were scattered conservative publications, with small circulations compared with those of established liberal journals such as The New Republic and The Nation. Human Events was a weekly eight-page political newsletter. Firmly anti–New Deal, it described the changes in American government since 1932 as “revolutionary” and called on Republicans to roll back the “iron curtain” that separated Washington from the rest of the country. But its call to action had attracted a circulation of only 5,000.
The one conservative youth group was the newly born ISI, with its paradoxical name, the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists (now the Intercollegiate Studies Institute). Encouraged by a $1,000 check from oil executive J. Howard Pew, ISI’s organizers argued that the push toward socialism in America had begun in the early 1900s with the formation of Socialist Clubs on college campuses. ISI’s plan was to “foment the organization of campus cells for the study and discussion of individualistic ideas.” The libertarian language reflected the ideology of its founding father, Frank Chodorov, who never met a government program he didn’t want to dismantle. With William F. Buckley Jr. as president, ISI reached 600 members in its first year and then quadrupled over the next several, revealing a campus appetite for at least some conservative ideas.
There were conservative newspaper columnists, such as George Sokolsky, and radio broadcasters, such as Fulton Lewis Jr., but liberals undercut their influence by linking them whenever they could with a “militant right wing.” CBS’s Mike Wallace, for example, invited his viewers one evening to listen to Lewis explain “the attraction the far right has for crackpot fascist groups in America.” Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
When The Conservative Mind was published in 1953, liberals joked that the title was an oxymoron. But they stopped laughing when they read Kirk’s synthesis of the thought of leading conservatives from the late 18th century to the 20th century, including Edmund Burke, John Adams, Daniel Webster, Benjamin Disraeli, George Santayana, and T. S. Eliot. The work established convincingly that there had been a conservative tradition in America since the Founding. Kirk made conservatism intellectually respectable. In fact, as NR publisher William Rusher pointed out, he gave the conservative movement its name.
As George Nash has written in his indispensable study The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, there were three reactions to the Left in the aftermath of World War II. The first, as represented by Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, consisted of classical liberals and libertarians, resisting the threat to individual liberty posed by the collectivist state. The second was the revolt of traditionalists, such as Weaver and Kirk, who urged a return to time-honored religious and ethical beliefs and a rejection of moral relativism. The third was, in Nash’s words, “a militant evangelistic anti-Communism,” shaped by ex-communists such as Frank Meyer and Whittaker Chambers, author of the powerful autobiographical work Witness.
Bill Buckley’s special genius as a master fusionist was his ability to keep these dissimilar, disputatious intellectuals on the same masthead for years to come. Why were there so few defectors? Because of Buckley’s extraordinary skill at harmonizing the conflicting voices of the conservative choir. Because he persuaded his fractious colleagues to concentrate on their common enemy — the Soviet Union — and set aside for the time being their undoubted differences. And because he helped them realize they were part of something historic — what Buckley would call “our movement.”
Lee Edwards is the distinguished fellow in conservative thought at The Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics. A leading historian of American conservatism, Edwards has published 25 books, including “Just Right: A Life in Pursuit of Liberty.”
Karl Marx insisted that “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (Theses on Feuerbach, XI). Chuck Schumer of the Socialist/Democrat Party regurgitated Marx’s mantra: “We are going to change America.” This is what Barack Obama had in mind when he called for the “fundamental transformation of America.” He was not schooled in Marxist philosophy for nothing.
If a Biden presidency indeed occurs America will see why Black Lives Matter, a proud Marxist organization which is about destroying the nuclear family, supported Biden. Now America will see why Antifa, a violent-mongering communist organization, has rioted for Joe Biden. Now America will see what “social justice” really means.And if this election stands, Trump will be the last conservative Republican to see the oval office.
President Donald J. Trump is the most pro-American, pro-family, pro-Christian, pro-USA and anti-United Nations World Socialist Government president that we have ever seen – or will ever see–in our lifetime. This is why the world socialist leaders controlling the United Nations have been banging the war drums for the removal of Donald Trump.
Consider Jeffrey D. Sachs. He is professor for “Sustainable Development”; professor of “Health Policy and Management” at Columbia University; Director of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development and the UN Sustainable Solutions Network. His works are extensive in which he calls for the complete end of the free-market system. He has served as Special Advisor to three UN Secretaries-General.
Sustainable Development is a top-down controlled economy by which the United Nations will ration goods, services and resources around the globe—in the name of “fairness.” Sachs has continually spoken of the necessity of removing Donald J. Trump from office. It is a World Crisis to the Marxist-Globalists if America cannot rejoin such things as the Paris Climate Accord and pay billions of dollars to foreign nations for Climate Sins. America must help the world become “sustainable.”
Marxism has you in its crosshairs. The common-sense American who supports Making America Great Again. But first, the angry party of the Democrats must get Donald J. Trump. This does not simply mean defeating him in the election. According to Business Insider,
Lawmakers armed with subpoena power could also turn up information that federal prosecutors might not know about as the Justice Department under Joe Biden weighs whether to pursue a criminal case against Trump, who as a former president will no longer have immunity from such matters.
Columnist Luis Miguel notes, these are the same hypocritical Democrats who kept our government continually in turmoil with bogus investigations into Donald J. Trump while he was in office and who chirped that it was “inappropriate” for a President to investigate a political rival—remember Hunter Biden and the Ukraine phone call?
Former Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan highlighted the start of a “Trump Accountability Project” intended to “make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.” You can read the article by Daniella Byck at Washingtonian.com.
Sevugan served as national press secretary for the Democratic National Committee and worked as deputy campaign manager for former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg. He tweeted last Friday that White House staff had begun looking for jobs and added that “Employers considering hiring them should know there are consequences for hiring anyone who helped Trump attack American values. Find out how at the Trump Accountability Project.”
Their website headlines, “We must never forget those who furthered the Trump agenda … those who took a paycheck from the Trump Administration should not profit from their efforts to tear our democracy apart.” If you wish for peace in America, you must REPENT, according to the Trump Accountability Project.” “Coming together starts with acknowledging the truth: These individuals (Trump supporters, Trump administration officials, bl) have shattered laws and norms that hurt our democracy …”
At the bottom of the page is this headline: “We should not allow the following groups of people to profit from their experience: Those who elected him; Those who staffed his government; Those who funded him.”
Are honest-minded Americans going to idly sit by and allow this to continue? Once they have Trump, they are coming after you. Marxists are throwing down the gauntlet of war here and promising what they intend to do.
You in the Crosshairs
The anger and vitriol from the left knows no bounds. You are the target. The left has been “heathens raging” (Psalm 2:1) ever since the American voter threw into reverse to the Marxist/Socialist final takeover of America by Barack Obama by the election of Donald J. Trump. Now with Joe Biden set to take the presidency, they are back on track—but not without unabashed furor against American patriots for getting in their way.
Jake Tapper promises blacklists against principled patriots. “At a certain point one has to think to only about what’s best for the nation (peaceful transfer of power) but how any future employers might see your character defined during adversity.” Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, not to be outdone, calls for “lists of Trump supporters.” These have had “complicity in the future.” Here the communist barmaid turned power-broker in Congress shows the hand of the left. Trump supporters have destroyed their future socialist plans. Only for a short time, however—but still–complicity.
Neocon columnist of the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin, spells it out. Those who supported Trump should never be allowed to hold public office, serve on corporate boards, or participate in other avenues of society. One Antifa leader is launching a new website with addresses and locations of Trump supporters. Lawenforementtoday.com posts this “URGENT” message. “Website lists Trump supporters and their home addresses just days before the election” is the warning issued by author Chris Elliot. The website is designed to “stalk and harass Trump supporters.”
Then there is the former Obama staffer, Michael Simon who tweeted that he wants “retribution” against anyone who worked for the Trump administration. Add to that actress Jonelle Monae who stated in cursing language that she wants all Trump supporters “to burn.”
The founder of George Soros’ funded Transition Integrity Project, Nils Gilman, actually called for the execution of former Trump national security advisor, Michael Anton. He called him the “Robert Brasillach of our times” who “deserves the same fate.” Brasillach was a French author and journalist executed for “intellectual crimes” against the state.
Too many conservatives shrug this all off by thinking, “they can’t do all that.” Tell that to Gen. Michael Flynn. Tell that to Trump confidant Roger Stone. Tell that to national reporters such as James Rosen whom Barack Obama harassed. No, you just keep your head down, cower in the bunkers of local issues and all will be well. Allow these Marxists to finish their coup for America and keep your mouth shut. That’s the message that is being played.
It is undeniable that Bill Gates gives lots of his own money to causes around the world, causing many to dub him a philanthropist. But his causes and motives are questionable.
He has already subjected America’s children to educational quackery as the main sponsor of Common Core, and he has gathered more data on you and every American than you could imagine. Now, as this article will show, one of the world’s leading population-control zealots wants to inject you, your whole family, and every single person on the entire planet with an as-yet undeveloped and untested vaccine — supposedly to protect against coronavirus. Then he wants to track you using technology that sounds like it comes out of a science fiction movie. And unless and until everybody on Earth submits to his vaccination demands, the technocratic globalist has declared repeatedly, society cannot and will not return to normal. That man, of course, is Microsoft founder Bill Gates — perhaps one of the most controversial people in the world right now, despite media adulation.
With all Gates’ connections, media appearances, and demands, one might be forgiven for thinking that he was emperor of the world. And if humanity is not careful, the agenda Gates represents may well succeed — potentially in the near term. That means liberty, health freedom, the family, self-government, much of the population, and the economy are in mortal danger.
Simply put, Bill Gates is potentially dangerous because he has great wealth and great influence, both of which he uses to try to make the world follow his dictates. Gates is so powerful that he was able — almost single-handedly — to impose the national education standards known as Common Core on almost the entire nation. (Elite private schools such as those his children attended proudly rejected it.) Gates put more than $2 billion of his own money into the scheme, backed by the Obama administration. Pointedly, he pushed the installation of Common Core though there were indications that it would lead to reduced educational quality. In fact, Common Core’s Validation Committee refused to sign off on the plans because they were so bad. And Gates himself claimed to be unsure about its success. “It would be great if our education stuff worked, but that we won’t know for probably a decade,” the tycoon admitted in 2014. Since then, multiple studies of U.S. students have confirmed that the standards led to scores cratering across the board, making American children less educated than ever before.
Despite Common Core’s failures, with help from the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Gates’ educational vision is going global. In 2004, Gates was in Paris to sign an agreement with UNESCO on behalf of Microsoft to work on global standards, guidelines, curriculum, and technology. The UN agency had already been working on centralizing control over education for decades. And the UN’s educational goals don’t seem to be about making children into critical thinkers; among other schemes, it peddled the World Core Curriculum. Written by Assistant UN Secretary-General Robert Muller, the scheme was based on the teachings of Lucifer Publishing Company founder Alice Bailey, an advocate of world government and a one-world religion merging many of the world’s religions together under one banner.
On the global health front, Gates’ activities are as ill-advised and harmful as his education schemes — perhaps more harmful. Now that Trump has put on hold U.S. contributions to the World Health Organization, Gates is the world’s largest single donor to WHO — an outfit literally run by a Communist Chinese-backed Politburo member of an ethno-Marxist terror organization from Ethiopia. He is the world’s largest single financier of vaccines, too, vaccines that are notorious for their harmful side effects.
Most of the major media fawn over Bill Gates, portraying him as some sort of nerdy, self-made business genius turned selfless and benevolent “philanthropist” simply working to “save” and “help” humanity. The reality, though, as this article will show, is much different. Gates, afflicted with the same messianic complex so common among the global elites, is pushing an agenda of globalism, technocracy (rule by scientific elites instead of self-government), forced vaccines, dangerous indoctrination, and totalitarianism. And one does not need to dig deep to find the abundant evidence.
What Does Bill Gates Believe?
Perhaps the issue that has defined Gates’ giving and efforts more than any other is population control — in particular, the Malthusian idea that there are too many people on the planet for “Mother Earth” to sustain. In his public statements and in his “charity,” Gates and his wife, Melinda, have focused on “overpopulation.”
It appears this passion was instilled in him by his father, Planned Parenthood bigwig Bill Gates, Sr., a prominent former attorney. Gates, Sr. still advises Junior, despite being in his mid-90s.
“When I was growing up, my parents were always involved in various volunteer things,” Gates, Jr. said in a 2003 interview with Bill Moyers on PBS. “My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating; at the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing, and almost treating us like adults, talking about that.” In short, Gates, Sr. was a eugenicist.
Like father, like son — the younger Gates has picked up where his father left off, showering hundreds of millions on abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood and other abortionist groups. At a 2017 “Global Family Planning Summit” in London, Gates’ wife announced that the Gates Foundation would be spending almost $400 million on population-control schemes through 2020 — much of which has and will, at least indirectly, finance the killing of pre-born babies. She also called for sex education to begin “very, very early.” Gates has also been a major donor to the UN Population Fund, the pro-abortion UN agency that specializes in reducing the human population and has been exposed in Congress working with the Communist Chinese government on forced abortions and forced sterilizations.
Gates also thinks contraception should be ubiquitous, if not mandatory. In 1997, Gates and his wife started pouring money into various forms of birth control. And Gates-funded contraception hasn’t only meant fewer babies, it has also led to other dangers and deaths. For instance, Gates funded and peddled the contraceptive Depo Provera — especially to Third World women. Aside from preventing pregnancy, sometimes by inducing abortion, it was blamed by experts for causing or at least contributing to cervical cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, stroke, heart attack, sterility, and miscarriages. It also encouraged the spread of HIV/AIDS, chlamydia, and other debilitating and deadly venereal diseases. The Gates Foundation spent $2.6 billion buying and giving this drug to 100 million African women.
On politics, while Gates normally remains quiet, he has spoken out against President Donald Trump and has come down firmly on the side of Democrats and the establishment for years. During the 2016 election, he funded three Democrat campaigns for Congress. In 2012, the tech billionaire hosted a fundraising dinner for Barack Obama’s campaign, charging attendees almost $13,000 per plate.
He has also been outspoken about his desire to see a more powerful federal government and president. “Right now it feels like I wish there was slightly more power in the presidency to avoid some of these deadlocks,” Gates was quoted as saying, adding that he wished America had a system more like the United Kingdom. “So I think what [Obama] wants to do and what he’s actually able to do, the gap is so big there that it’s hard to know in some ways.” More on Gates’ wishes for more command and control later.
Patrick Wood, author of two key books exposing the global elites’ push for technocracy, blasted the Microsoft founder and highlighted his crucial role in the push for global governance by experts and technocrats. “Bill Gates exhibits the mind of a Technocrat in three key areas: education, vaccines and population control and data,” said Wood, who worked with the late Antony Sutton to expose the Trilateral Commission. “Every single initiative that he is involved in today is central to the implementation of Technocracy on a global scale, including the drive for a permanent ID for every human on planet earth.”
Vaccines for Population Control?
Despite being highly counter-intuitive at first glance, even Gates’ obsession with vaccines fits into his population-control agenda. Indeed, Gates, the world’s largest financier of vaccines, is notorious for peddling the idea that vaccines will be a crucial tool in reducing the population.
During a 2010 “TED Talk,” for example, Gates made clear his belief that a lower population was necessary to save the planet. After he told the audience that human emissions of carbon dioxide would have to go down to zero to avoid killing the planet, he totaled up emissions from each person and said, “Probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty near to zero.” He added, “The world today has about six billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, and reproductive health services [contraception and abortion], we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Did you catch that? Vaccines, “healthcare,” abortion, and contraception are all part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce the number of people on Earth.
The next year, he was singing the same tune. In a 2011 interview, he told CNN’s Sanjay Gupta that he was hoping for “unbelievable progress in both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them.” “We only need about six or seven more — and then you would have all the tools to reduce childhood death, reduce population growth, and everything — the stability, the environment — benefits from that,” he continued. (Emphasis added.) Again, notice that Gates ties vaccines to reducing the population, and says that fewer people will be good for “stability” and the “environment.”
Now, apologists for Bill Gates argue that what he really means is that by vaccinating everyone, more parents will choose to have fewer children. Gates himself has suggested that this is what he meant with his cryptic comments about using vaccines to reduce the population. “A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth,” he claimed. But the track record of Gates’ vaccination programs suggests that in reality, the vaccines themselves will be used to thin the population — and not by encouraging parents to have fewer children.
Gates’ Vaccine Programs
Consider a 2014 “tetanus” vaccination campaign in Kenya targeting women and girls by the UN’s WHO and UNICEF that was financed in large part by Gates — this in a nation that had recently been targeted by the UN Population Fund in a report for drastic population-control efforts. Concerned about the vaccines, the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association obtained multiple samples of the vials and sent them to independent labs for testing. They found that the vaccines were laced with beta human chorionic gonadotropin immunogen, which causes the body to stop a pregnancy from coming to term. Women become infertile because their own immune systems attack the critical hormone hCG. WHO discovered in 1976 this “birth-control” vaccine and injected the substance into women in other nations, including Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, and beyond.
“This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but [is] a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine,” explained Dr. Wahome Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association. “The unfortunate truth is that the vaccine was laced with hCG [immunogen] just like the one used in the South American cases. Further, none of the girls and women given the vaccination were informed of its contraceptive effect.” Shortly after this, the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops released a statement signed by every Catholic bishop in Kenya warning people to avoid the vaccines, saying, “We are convinced that it is indeed a disguised population control program.” This incident was one of several highlighted recently on the floor of the Italian Parliament, with MP Sara Cunial criticizing Gates for sterilizing large numbers of African women and calling for him to be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.
Meanwhile, WHO was exposed by The New American in January of 2019 training medical professionals to lie about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Declaring that “vaccine hesitancy” was one of the greatest threats to “global health,” the Gates-funded UN agency created a training guide for health workers. It gives strategies for convincing parents to comply with vaccination programs that include using manipulation and even providing misleading or downright false answers to possible questions parents might ask. “Can vaccines cause harmful side effects, illness and even death?” a hypothetical hesitant parent in the program asks the doctor. “No, vaccines are very safe,” the health worker is instructed to say, even though that is demonstrably false. Every vaccine maker in the world acknowledges that vaccines can cause harmful side effects, illness, and even death — that is why they successfully lobbied the U.S. Congress for a total exemption from all liability, forcing U.S. taxpayers to pay billions of dollars in damages to victims of vaccines.
Even WHO admitted last year that most of the polio paralysis around the world was actually caused by the Gates-funded polio vaccination campaigns in Africa and Asia. According to an Associated Press report published on November 25, 2019, “Global health numbers show there are now more children being paralyzed by viruses originating in vaccines than in the wild.” The WHO-created “Independent Monitoring Board” also warned in a report that month that the vaccine-derived polio virus was “spreading uncontrolled in West Africa.” And it described the attitude of WHO and its “partners” to this news as “relaxed.”
In India, Gates is also blamed for unleashing hell on the population under the guise of “vaccination” programs. Writing in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, Indian doctors Neetu Vashisht and Jacob Puliye blamed the WHO/Gates polio vaccination programs for causing almost 50,000 additional cases of paralysis in children in just one year. Almost half a million cases of paralysis attributed to the vaccines occurred between 2000 and 2017, according to doctors cited by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and other prominent vaccine skeptics. Indian authorities eventually got involved and worked to stamp out Gates’ influence, but the damage was done. Gates-backed trials of HPV vaccines, given to tribal children in rural India without parental consent, also killed and injured many victims, according to media reports of lawsuits that went all the way to that nation’s Supreme Court. The scandal eventually concluded with the government being forced to make drastic changes to its vaccine permissions, including restrictions on foreign groups; however, Indian law had no provisions to penalize ethical and legal violations in trials. In addition, an all-party parliamentary investigation accused Gates’ operatives of unethical practices in a bid to make profits for Big Pharma, an allegation the Gates-funded group behind the schemes denied.
Now, Gates wants to vaccinate the world against coronavirus. “The thing that will get us back to the world that we had before coronavirus is the vaccine and getting that out to seven billion people,” Gates said in one of many similar public statements, echoing propaganda being pumped out by the enormous network of think tanks, propagandists, pharmaceutical companies, and organizations that he funds. “Once you have a safe and effective vaccine and get that out to almost all of the people on the planet … we will go back to normal, and economies will recover.”
On April 30, Gates claimed on his blog that the idea of using drugs to treat COVID-19 was unrealistic and said that the only way to “go back to the way things were” will be to make sure that “almost every person on the planet has been vaccinated against coronavirus.” “Humankind has never had a more urgent task than creating broad immunity for coronavirus,” he claimed, adding that it should be given to newborns. “Realistically, if we’re going to return to normal, we need to develop a safe, effective vaccine. We need to make billions of doses, we need to get them out to every part of the world, and we need all of this to happen as quickly as possible.” The WHO will need to give its “approval,” he added, painting the UN outfit as a sort of global health ministry.
Global Tracking and Tyranny
But Gates really isn’t offering his vaccines as much as he is demanding people get them: Gates has been calling for everyone to receive a “digital certificate” proving that he or she has been vaccinated. In March, Gates said on his blog that the “question of which businesses should keep going is tricky,” but eventually “we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.” Fauci at National Institutes of Health has echoed Gates’ rhetoric on having “coronavirus immunity cards” for everyone, and he was quoted in Politico saying this was “being discussed.”
This idea is hardly new. For years, Gates and other globalist billionaires, including multiple Rockefeller foundations, have been peddling the “ID2020” scheme. According to the effort’s website, the plot seeks to mandate that everyone on Earth have a “digital identity” that would follow them from birth to death. It would keep track of all sorts of data, including health and vaccine information, enabling governments and globalists to keep people everywhere under control. This has been a major focus of Gates’ work: Everyone must be identified, vaccinated, and tracked. A Gates-backed biometric ID for 1.2 billion Indians was the test run.
Starting in 2016, Gates funded research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to develop “a novel way to record a patient’s vaccination history: storing the data in a pattern of dye, invisible to the naked eye, that is delivered under the skin at the same time as the vaccine.” In a press release about the scheme released late last year, MIT said the technology “consists of nanocrystals called quantum dots.” This tattoo-type scheme would “remain under the skin where it emits near-infrared light that can be detected by a specially equipped smartphone.”
More recently, Microsoft published a patent for a “cryptocurrency system using body activity data,” which is now registered with the UN World Intellectual Property Organization. With the war on cash accelerating, this technology to obtain currency with a piece of technology embedded in the body could be used to implement a digital currency regime that would end privacy and put every individual at the mercy of the powers that be. The patent number on it is WO-2020-060606-A1. The numbers 2020 and 060606 (666) have been widely picked up online, fueling endless speculation and theories about their possible significance.
Much the same has happened regarding Gates’ funding of NIH research into the use of luciferase and luciferin, bio-luminescent compounds, in medical applications. In fairness to Gates, those two terms, which were invented before he was born, are used in biotechnology for their scientific meanings, not in reference to the prince of darkness.
“Contact tracing” schemes to track everyone under the guise of stopping the coronavirus, which are being rolled out worldwide, are also being funded by Gates, along with George Soros. Everything from hiring an “army” of contact tracers to using smartphones as tracking devices is now under way. According to top local, state, and even WHO officials, the tracing schemes will also be used for splitting up families if a member of the family is suspected of having been exposed to COVID-19.
Former U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, a medical doctor, has been highly critical of these coronavirus efforts, making a good case that these are totalitarian actions. “If government can force individuals to receive medical treatment against their will, then there is no reason why government cannot force individuals to buy medical insurance, prohibit them from owning firearms, dictate their terms of employment, and prevent them from taking arguably harmful actions like smoking marijuana or drinking raw milk,” he said. “Similarly, if government can override parents’ wishes regarding medical treatment for their children, then there is no reason why government cannot usurp parental authority in other areas, such as education.”
He added that Americans should “reject this ‘deal.’ Instead, they should demand an immediate end to the lockdowns and the restoration of individual responsibility for deciding how best to protect their health.”
Preparing Well — or a Little Too Well?
Propagandists in the establishment media have been fawning over Gates and his supposed foresight, noting that the billionaire technocrat has been warning about a looming pandemic for many years. And it’s true — he has been. In fact, the preparations and statements he has made over the years were so eerily similar to the way things played out under COVID-19 that they have more than a few critics crying foul. Clearly, Gates and his allies at the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) were getting ready to use a pandemic to remake the world to suit their technocratic vision.
In October 2019, Gates and the WEF put on Event 201 at the “Bloomberg School of Public Health” at Johns Hopkins University. The program simulated an “outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic.” The pathogen and disease “are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms.” Key figures from Big Government (including China’s), Big Business, and Big Pharma all participated. In the scenario the nightmare only ends when a vaccine comes along. And naturally, tyranny is the preferred response — everything from censoring social media to autocratic control over the public were celebrated as necessary.
Such planning isn’t anything new, though. A decade earlier, the Rockefeller Foundation issued a report headlined “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development.” The report featured four scenarios that could help pave the road toward the world order envisioned by globalists. One was a future pandemic scenario, dubbed “LOCK STEP,” in which the United States suffers huge losses from an outbreak due to a lack of tyranny, while Communist China fares much better due to its ruthless totalitarian system with no constraints on government power.
The Rockefeller Foundation’s LOCK STEP scenario goes on to outline the expected results of this pandemic. Citizens everywhere will demand “top-down direction and oversight” over whole nations and economies. The scenario also touts, among other policies to supposedly deal with the outbreak, “biometric ID for all citizens,” “tighter regulation of key industries,” “a suite of new regulations and agreements,” and other power grabs allegedly needed to “restore order and, importantly, economic growth.” In fact, reading the decade-old report feels very much like reading the news today, with the very same “solutions” being advanced that all tend to erode liberty.
Speaking with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Gates praised China’s response to the coronavirus, while attacking the United States. “China did a lot of things right at the beginning,” Gates claimed, one of countless pro-China statements made by the billionaire over the years. “Some countries did respond very quickly and get their testing in place and they avoided the incredible economic pain, and it’s sad that even the U.S., that you would have expected to do this well, did it particularly poorly.” Meanwhile, Gates blasted criticisms of Beijing’s response, including the fact that its regime covered up the outbreak, as a “distraction.”
Interestingly, Gates was also a chief financier of the two outfits that provided the projections of mass death that panicked governments around the world into pursuing the policies that Gates was peddling. The first was the Institute for Health Metrics Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle, which was launched with a $100 million grant from Gates. The other was the Imperial College of London, which normally specializes in producing climate-change hysteria and sustainable-development propaganda. Both organizations warned of millions of coronavirus deaths, with the Imperial College even projecting a potential 2.2 million deaths just in the United States under one scenario. Both organizations eventually acknowledged that their numbers were wildly out of touch with reality, though policymakers apparently never got the memo. And both organizations were heavily funded by Gates, as were companies all over the world that received investments by Gates to find vaccines for the coronavirus.
Troubling Associations and Connections
Gates’ affinity for totalitarianism is also evidenced by his close ties to globalists and totalitarian leaders.
Indeed, in 2017, he joined the “elite” Chinese Academy of Engineering, an organ of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China headed by Communist Chinese “Premier” Li Kequiang.
Recently, Gates wrote a letter to Chinese dictator Xi Jinping — whose government has a well-documented history of imprisoning and murdering political dissidents, even going so far as to harvest their organs and put them up for sale — about the coronavirus. In the letter, which was reported by Communist Chinese propaganda organs, Gates boasted that his foundation “has committed up to 100 million U.S. dollars in emergency funding, much of which will help China bolster epidemiological research, emergency intervention, and the research and development of drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics,” reported the state-controlled China Global Television Network.
Xi responded to Gates with a fawning letter of his own. “I support your cooperation with relevant Chinese institutions, and look forward to enhanced coordination and concerted efforts in the international community for the sake of [the] health and well-being of all,” he said.
Gates’ choice of associates demonstrates that, to him, the ends justify the means — no matter what — and that any association that can forward the cause is therefore a suitable one. Case in point: Gates’ very close links to Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous child-trafficking pedophile who supposedly killed himself in prison. According to the New York Times, Gates repeatedly visited Epstein’s home and even flew on one of his private jets — one of which was known as the “Lolita Express” owing to the perversion and child rape known to have been ubiquitous on board. To the point, unlike other associates of Epstein, such as Bill Clinton, Gates only began his relationship with Epstein after the pervert was convicted on child-prostitution charges in Florida that forced him to register as a sex offender. Gates’ employees also regularly visited Epstein’s mansion. And Gates’ former science advisor, Boris Nikolic, was listed as a back-up executor for Epstein’s will, according to media reports.
As for globalist associations, while Gates himself is not listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Microsoft Corporation is listed on its website as a corporate member. In 2003, the Gates Foundation also gave a grant to the group to establish a “Senior Fellowship” in “Global Health and Foreign Policy.” Then-CFR boss Leslie Gelb explained the purpose like this: “Global health issues must be integrated, in study and in practice, into U.S. foreign policymaking. This will be the chief mission of the new Senior Fellow in Global Health Policy Studies.”
It worked. Just a few years later, the Obama administration launched the “Global Health Initiative,” showering billions of U.S. tax dollars on contraception and $63 billion on “improving global health.” Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that the CFR tells her “what we should be doing, and how we should think about the future,” was crucial in the scheme, too. If globalist billionaires funding “senior fellowships” at the CFR can hijack U.S. policy so easily — and they can — just imagine how easy it is for them to control bankrupt and corrupt Third World kleptocracies to advance a New World Order.
Gates also wrote an article in the CFR mouthpiece Foreign Affairs promoting “gene editing” technology to engineer organisms, bio-tech developments that will be important in his coronavirus vaccine schemes. Before that, Gates’ wife gave a speech there in 2008 praising the CFR for the “indispensable work you do.” “Your work benefits every American,” she claimed about the organization, which has been instrumental in surrendering U.S. sovereignty and eroding constitutional government. Melinda also said, “I would like to acknowledge a special debt to the Council,” adding that the “success of our efforts” depends on “informed decisions by policymakers” whom the CFR influences.
Gates has also been an attendee at the infamous Bilderberg summits, the semi-secret group of about 120 to 150 extremely influential (mostly) Americans, Canadians, and Europeans that meets once per year behind heavy security. The shadowy group, whose members have admitted to plotting global policy and working toward world government, has started releasing lists of attendees. On at least one occasion, Gates was not listed but was spotted sneaking in by reporters outside. Critics have suggested that American participants — business tycoons, politicians, officials, bankers, and more — ought to be prosecuted under the Logan Act, which prohibits Americans from working on policy with foreign governments without having official authorization to do so.
Another Gates group with less-than-noble aims is known as the “Good Club.” In 2009, the Times of London reported on a secret meeting of top globalist billionaires aimed at reducing the population. The article, headlined “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation,” reported that “some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population.” The summit was “convened on the initiative of Bill Gates,” the report said, and the billionaires “discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.”
Others in attendance included New World Order architect David Rockefeller, who boasted in his memoirs of “conspiring” “against the interests” of his own country with a “secret cabal” to create “a more integrated global political and economic structure — One World, if you will.” Also among the “Good Club” are Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, and Oprah Winfrey. Aside from their fervent desire to reduce the population, all of the members seem to have an infatuation with Chinese dictator Xi and a vitriolic hatred of President Trump.
Can He and His Cronies Be Stopped?
On the bright side, the public appears to be waking up. All over America, protesters showed up at state capitols to demand a restoration of liberty and an end to the lockdowns. Outrage against Gates and his agenda is boiling over too. A petition on the White House website calling for investigations into the Gates Foundation, “for medical malpractice and crimes against humanity,” gathered 500,000 signatures in just three weeks — more than five times the number of signatories needed to get a formal response from the president.
“As we look at events surrounding the ‘COVID-19 pandemic,’ various questions remain unanswered,” the petition reads. “On Oct. 18th of 2019, only weeks prior to ground zero being declared in Wuhan, China, two major events took place. One is ‘Event 201,’ the other is the ‘Military World Games,’ held in none other than Wuhan. Since then a worldwide push for vaccines & biometric tracking has been initiated. At the forefront of this is Bill Gates, who has publicly stated his interest in ‘reducing population growth’ by 10-15%, by means of vaccination. Gates, UNICEF & WHO have already been credibly accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines. Congress & all other governing bodies are derelict in duty until a thorough and public inquiry is complete.”
A thorough congressional investigation of Gates and his foundation, along the lines of the 1952 Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations, is long overdue. The Senate Environment Committee scratched the surface with its 2014 report on the “Billionaires Club” behind the “green” movement. But the Gates, Rockefeller, Ford, Soros, Bloomberg, and other foundations are clearly up to no good — and they are using their oftentimes ill-gotten wealth to hijack government and undermine freedom.
Even more alarming is that he is not done yet. Not only has he claimed that we cannot get back to normal until there is a new coronavirus vaccine, but he is also assuming that the current coronavirus pandemic will not be the only one. “No one who lives through Pandemic 1 will ever forget it,” he warned. How Americans respond to “Pandemic 2” may well determine whether freedom and self-government survive.
Recorded Thursday, April 9, 2020:American Liberty with Bill Lockwood
(1) Study of Communism. Particularly in light of the UN’s WHO which has covered up China’s COVID-19 culpability; whose chairman (Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus) is a communist. Why are Americans allowing a communist to tell us what to do? Why do we support it as much as we do?
(2) Interview with Dr. Ralph Reed, founding director of Christian Coalition and founder of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, about the need for Christians to support Donald Trump. He is the most Pro-Christian president we have ever had.
Nothing more clearly demonstrates the pagan religious orientation of the left than the recent effort by Democrats to begin turning our entire economy Greenward as their input into the recent COVID-19 stimulus package. According to Jeff Brady of NPR, “Clean energy and climate advocates say the huge stimulus bill Congress is negotiating should address not only the economy, but also climate change.” To Democrats, the Corona Virus pandemic is not about helping the American people—it is about fundamentally transforming the American economy.
For example, eight Democratic U.S. senators also called upon fellow lawmakers, according to NPR news, to tie financial help for airlines and cruise lines to new environmental requirements that would reduce their carbon footprints.” According to Michael Greenstone, who served as the Chief Economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “We can both stimulate the economy … and we can lay the foundation for a lower-carbon future.”
The Green Agenda, sponsored by all socialists and Democrats, is not about science. It is more nearly akin to a paganistic religious belief which jettisons real science in favor of doctrine. Like the Canaanite paganism of the Old Testament which involved itself in nature-worship and sacrificing in “sacred groves”, the New Green Deal advocates root themselves in a false ideology.
In what was called the “Eco-shot heard ‘round the world,” Berkeley historian Lynn White, before the American Association for the Advancement of Science over 30 years ago, frankly admitted that the source of our environmental “crisis” was the “victory of Christianity over paganism.” Plainly siding with ancient Canaanite paganism, he went on to say that “Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of detachment to the feelings of natural objects …Christianity bears a huge burden of guilt.” He went on to predict that “more science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion.”
Note carefully the Environmental Activists were sounding apocalyptic alarms over 30 years ago. They haven’t changed. Noteworthy it is as well that it is all about religion.
The same thing is true according to Green Grandfather Al Gore. His infamous book Earth in the Balance made a frontal attack on the Genesis account of creation by re-writing the entire first few chapters of Moses’ account. The end result was a complete VALUE SHIFT from a human-centered world view to what the Clinton Administration called A Biocentric Worldview. This tells us that humans are seen as merely another species inhabiting a democratic “ecosystem.” No more value a human being than a bug.
Steven C. Rockefeller of Middlebury College, a theology professor and environmentalist, explains: “In a biocentric approach, the rights of nature are defended first and foremost on the grounds of the intrinsic value of animals, plants, rivers, mountains, and eco-systems rather than simply the basis for their utilitarian value or benefit to humans.”
This biocentric approach was formally adopted by the Clinton Administration. Alton Chase, in his book In a Dark Wood: The Fight Over Forests and the Rising Tyranny of Ecology, describes the new faith of the elite, as it sprang to life in the Clinton Administration. “The Administration, under the rubric of ‘reinventing government’ … adopted biocentrism as the guiding philosophy of all federal land management.”
Recent COP25 Conference
In December of last year the United Nations sponsored a COP25 conference in Madrid, Spain. Attendee Alex Newman writes that the “cult-like nature of climatism was on full display.” An alternative conference occurred in Madrid which was totally ignored by the Main Stream Media. It was called “Climate Reality Conference” hosted by a coalition of environmental groups that reject climate alarmism, including The Heartland Institute, the CO2 Coalition, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), and the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE).
The Climate Reality Conference featured numerous scientific experts which totally debunked the UN Global Alarmists. But what is particularly interesting is that a number of these world-class scientists likened the Green Agenda to so much religious propaganda.
William Happer, for instance, an international renowned Princeton physicist, put it plainly. “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end.” MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen has frequently referred to the Global Warming crowd as a “cult” because they refuse to change their beliefs in response to evidence and proof. (See Alex Newman, “Dangerous Climate ‘Cult’ Ignores Science,” in The New American, 2-17-20).
Lindzen even stated it this way in a 2015 radio interview: “Think about it: You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Dr. Ivstan Marko, a chemistry professor at the Catholic University of Louvain and head of the European Chemical Society, told The New American magazine that “the climate cult had perverted Christianity to develop its dangerous theology. Instead of repenting of sins, climate cultists want you to believe that you must repent of your ‘carbon footprint.’”
“It’s a new religion going on,” Marko explained. Many other top scientists and political leaders are also calling the Green Agenda pushed by Democrats and soft-shelled Republicans a religion. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott as well as Eco-activist Stuart Scott have so likened it.
The entire Green debate illustrates the throes of a religious conflict occurring in America. Unless enough American Christians, oriented and educated sufficiently in the Holy Scriptures to combat the growing forms of ancient Canaanite religious beliefs, engage in the cultural wars, America has seen its better days.
The inspiring ideals enshrined in the founding documents of our nation include a limited government that allows maximum personal freedom, equality of opportunity, and equal justice under the law. These are founded upon the pillars of inalienable rights, including the fact that all men are created by God as equal. But we have gone about “as far left” as socialist policies can take us if the Democratic debates are an indication of where America will be tomorrow.
“Our job,” Bernie Sanders spouted in the Iowa debate, “is to build the United Nations.” Not surprising from a socialist who has been photographed enjoying toasts with the leader of the old Soviet Union’s gulag communistic state. But frightening that he maintains substantial support in the Democratic Party.
The United Nations has been from its inception a design for socialistic world government. In its most recent COP 25 climate summit in Madrid, Spain, Executive Director Stuart Scott called for the UN to implement drastic population-control policies and “family planning” such as control the Chinese. Other plans include a massive transfer of wealth from “western countries” (read, “United States”) to third world poorer nations in the form of “climate reparations.” The UN is a world dictators’ dream. This is what Bernie Sanders favors. National Socialism is not brave enough—we need International socialism.
It is inescapable, however, that we have already lost so many of our freedoms that have made America the envy of the world. Whether due to taxes, to regulations on our businesses, farms, homes, cars, to our activities, to our speech, and to our abilities to exercise without government interference our religious liberty—our American heritage has dwindled.
So the issue is whether we will preserve even the semblance of our once-cherished ideals of limited government, the sovereignty of the States, the protection of life and property that is so nobly enshrined in our founding documents? Will we maintain any semblance of our freedom over our own health care or will we capitulate to the totalitarian proposals of the Democrats by which the government becomes a monopoly funded 100% by the American taxpayer? Will we continue the path to a more limited government under president Donald Trump or listen to the siren song of socialists?
“The modern trend is in the direction of greater concentration of power in the hands of government. The problem of individual freedom within the framework of a more or less regulated economy will have to be fought out in our age, just as the question of political liberty and the free market were the issues in Jefferson’s day. … Jefferson felt that without liberty, life was not worth living. …In the difficult years that undoubtedly lie ahead, Americans will have to gather all their moral forces for the preservation of their way of life, their liberties, and their opportunities.”
MADRID — Inmates at government schools in Canada and beyond are being absolutely terrorized with “climate” alarmism, to the point that some of them were convinced that they will die in just 8 years unless the United Nations is given more power and money. Scientists have compared the tactics and hysteria to those used by cults and dictators.
The poor children were absolutely terrified. “We are gonna die! I don’t want to die!” screamed one little child during a propaganda session on “climate” forced on 2nd and 3rd graders at a public school in Toronto. A concerned parent who reached out to FreedomProject Media about the scandal, Lejla Blazevik, said her 8-year-old daughter told her the rest of the class had joined in, too.
Her own daughter, Joylaea Blazevic, got home from school after the indoctrination and recounted what happened at school that day: “She’s like: ‘Mommy, they said that we’re going to die in eight years.’” Even believers in the man-made global-warming hypothesis, including child psychologists, told media outlets reporting on the traumatic incident that it was “inappropriate.”
Among other things, the video featured Swedish girl Greta Thunberg scolding adults. The video included the now-infamous remarks: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairytales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!” After that, a clock counting down 8 years was shown to the students, causing panic.
Ms. Blazevic vowed not to give up in this fight. “Again, my concern is for the 7- and 8-year-old children in this grade 2nd and 3rd class who may still believe that they’re going to die,” the mother told The Newman Report in an email before the story became an international scandal following an article in Canada’s National Post. “Also, the parents of these children need to be notified.”
School officials have issued contradictory responses to the scandal, ranging from denying and downplaying it, to apologizing and claiming it was for the children’s own good. On several occasions, according to emails obtained by The Newman Report, administrators claimed that it was just one student who yelled about dying. School officials also later claimed that the student in question had a habit of shouting that.
But not according to Ms. Blazevik, who wondered which of the contradictory statements by school officials were lies. “It was most of the children in the class who exclaimed ‘I don’t wanna die’ and not only one child,” she told The Newman Report. Indeed, the concerned mother spoke to a 7-year-old girl from her daughter’s class in front of that girl’s father, “and she said that she was happy that she’s going to die soon because that meant that she didn’t need to get married,” Blazevic recounted.
School officials also later claimed that students were “debriefed” and that the “nerves” of the children were “likely calmed” by re-assurances that they would not die from supposed man-made warming in 8 years. “My daughter is the best student in class, she attends school regularly and she is sure that the class was never corrected, not even on that day, during the presentation,” Blazevic said, expressing concerns that government-school employees were misleading parents and students.
School officials claimed the purpose of the propaganda video was actually to help the children to “resolve” the supposed problem of man-made climate doom. “Once again, we regret the impact the video and clock had on Joylea,” Prinipal Michael George told Blazevic in an e-mail obtained by FreedomProject Media. “Our intent is always to create critical thinkers & problem solvers with a perspective of contributing to the well-being of our global community.”
Meanwhile, in Germany, outraged citizens protested after the state-broadcaster showed video footage of young school children being taught to sing that their grandmothers are “pigs” for eating meat and driving gasoline-powered cars. “Every day my grandma fries herself a pork chop,” the seemingly happy children sing. “She does it because discount meat costs nearly nothing, my grandma is an old environmental pig!”
All over the United Nations COP25 “climate” summit in Madrid in December, meanwhile, brainwashed children ran around screaming about the alleged need to dismantle free markets, patriarchy, the economy, Western civilization, and more. They also demanded that the UN loot Western taxpayers, ban airplanes and “fossil fuels,” restrict meat consumption, and much more.
Leading scientists in Madrid, such as Princeton physicist and Trump advisor Dr. William Happer, warned that this was the behavior of a dangerous “cult.” “I hope sooner or later enough people recognize the phoniness of this bizarre environmental cult and bring it to an end,” said Happer, who added that the UN and governments were “wasting our time talking about a non-existent climate emergency.”
Clearly, though, the children are being prepared for something big. Former Vice President and discredited “climate” guru Al Gore, for instance, was quoted in the UN’s propaganda book “Rescue Mission Planet Earth: A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21” calling for a “worldwide monitoring system staffed by children … designed to rescue the global environment.”
The mass-murdering totalitarian regimes of the 20th century such as those of National Socialist (Nazi) Adolf Hitler and Chinese Communist butcher Mao Tse-Tung relied on remarkably similar tactics to those now being deployed against Western children. With a combination of fear-mongering, indoctrination, and propaganda, these savage regimes drove a wedge between parents and their children, turning the children against their families to facilitate the destruction of liberty.
The results were deadly and catastrophic. Indeed, those tyrants collectively slaughtered hundreds of millions of people and enslaved billions more. It is time for parents to step in and put a stop to it — now — before it gets too far out of hand.