Sir Roger Scruton: 1944-2020, A Great British Conservative Thinker

One of Britain’s greatest modern conservative thinkers, Sir Roger Scruton, sadly passed away last month at the age of 75.

Scruton died after learning in July 2019 that he had lung cancer and underwent chemotherapy treatment in the half year that followed. Incredibly widely read, Scruton was active in the fields of aesthetics, art, music, political philosophy and architecture, both inside and outside the academic world, he dedicated himself, perhaps above all, to nurturing beauty, “re-enchanting the world” and giving intellectual rigour to conservatism. He put is faith in the natural, the evolved, the organic.

He used the term ‘England’ to “conjure a charmed Shakespearean past” free of top-down control. Scruton painted a picture of an energized British future independent of EU membership, even while praising the EU’s environmental policies.

It is said that when asked about the role of a conservative thinker in the modern world, he answered that “the role of a conservative thinker is to reassure the people that their prejudices are true”. By this he meant prejudging new events on the basis of past experience. He understood that life would be impossible if we approached each new situation from first principles, ignoring what Edmund Burke had called “the wisdom of our ancestors”.

When addressing the roots of conservatism, he stated that “Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created. This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it. In respect of such things, the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious and dull.”

The day following his passing, Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted: “We have lost the greatest modern conservative thinker — who not only had the guts to say what he thought but said it beautifully.”

Sir Roger Scruton FBA FRSL was an English philosopher and writer who specialized in aesthetics and political philosophy, particularly in the furtherance of traditionalist conservative views.

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan called him “the greatest conservative of our age”, adding: “The country has lost a towering intellect. I have lost a wonderful friend.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid referred to Scruton’s work behind the Iron Curtain: “From his support for freedom fighters in Eastern Europe to his immense intellectual contribution to conservatism in the West, he made a unique contribution to public life.”

If only these so-called ‘conservatives’ had actually conserved what was left of Britain, as Scruton would have wanted. Their lamentations seem to be but idle and empty gestures. The modern Conservative government has failed to conserve anything for decades. The two major parties in British politics are indistinguishable on major policies – their strings pulled by moneyed globalist ambitions at the nation’s expense. Today’s Conservatives are doing nothing to overturn Marxist-globalist victories on the nation state, the law, education and the family.

Scruton’s life

Scruton was born in 1944 in Buslingthorpe, Lincolnshire, he studied philosophy at Cambridge University.

A turning point in his life came at the age of 24, when he witnessed the French protest events of 1968 from a first-floor window in Paris, but, unlike his friends, was disgusted by the protesting students’ self-indulgent iconoclasm. “I suddenly realized I was on the other side … wanted to conserve things, rather than pull them down.” He began to read Edmund Burke, who “summarized … all my hesitations about progress”, and defended authority and obedience. As students ripped up cobblestones from the street he found himself turned off by their destructive impulses and talk of Marx.

He and his second wife, Sophie Jeffreys, and their children, Sam and Lucy, eventually settled down in what he sometimes dubbed ‘Scrutopia’, near Malmesbury, in Wiltshire, where he resided until his death.

He was an ardent Green and countryside supporter – as well as a keen huntsman – declaring that, while environmentalism has all the hallmarks of a leftwing cause, it is in fact about conservation, equilibrium and “oikophilia” (love of home), therefore “quintessentially conservative”. On the UK and the economic model of perpetual growth, he argued that “We have too much prosperity. It’s one reason why we are consuming the world in such a rapid way. And we shouldn’t be wanting always to be more prosperous and wanting to grow.”

In his life he published scores of books on a dizzying number of topics, ranging through politics, art, music, the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant, religion, and fox hunting.

He spearheaded video documentaries such as “Why Beauty Matters” (2009), that challenged modernist-utilitarian architecture, and called for a rediscovery of the importance and transcendental nature of beauty.

His early written works included Art And Imagination: A Study in the Philosophy of Mind (1974), The Aesthetics of Architecture (1979), The Meaning of Conservatism (1980), and The Politics of Culture and Other Essays (1981).

Other works include, but are not limited to, The Aesthetics of Music (1999), Beauty (2009), How to Be a Conservative (2014), and Fools, Frauds and Firebrands: Thinkers of the New Left (2015).

He also wrote fiction, including the novels Notes from Underground and The Disappeared and the collection Souls in the Twilight. He composed an opera (The Minister) and a handful of songs.

On Der Ring des Nibelungen (The Ring of the Nibelung)

He described Richard Wagner’s The Ring of the Nibelung (1874) as “one of the greatest works of art created in modern times”, expounding on how Wagner’s fascination with the old Norse gods and ‘The Twilight of the Gods’, also known as ‘Ragnarök‘, illustrated how “In absence of gods to maintain the moral order, the burden of it falls entirely on our shoulders. ‘The Ring’ shows how gods come into existence, conjured by our need for them.”

Wagner’s work can be paralleled to the similarly titled fantasy epic, ‘The Lord of the Rings’ by J.R.R. Tolkien, which took some inspiration from the ancient Norse myths Wagner retold.

The Icelandic eddas tell of the Viking gods, who’s king Odin builds the fortress of Valhöll (from Old Norse meaning “hall of the slain”) in order to fend off the day of Ragnarök – when the gods will be destroyed in their final battle; such a time’s advent will be inevitable. Yet Odin struggles unceasingly to evade it. He therefore wonders on the face of the earth, seeking knowledge that might boost his bid for immortality.

In Wagner’s musical work, the plot follows that power is meaningless until constrained by law, and that a world governed by law makes possible all that we most intimately value – personality, freedom, respect, and domestic affection. However, the rule of law is not self-sustaining, and Wotan must pay the price of his sovereignty, and only one character in ‘The Ring’ can supply that price, namely Alberich, the great industrial producer – who’s enslaved workforce has created a hoard of treasure, sufficient to pay for the castle of Valhalla to fend of the mortality of the gods.

By a trick, Wotan obtains the treasure, ring included. But the dwarf Alberich curses the ring with so powerful a curse, that all love and law thereafter, become precarious. This curse will be lifted, only when the ring is returned to the Rhine – by the free being who has no interest in using it. The ingenious plot in the cycle consists in the search for that ‘free being’, who will release the gods from their chains.

The gods come about because we idealize our passions, and it is by accepting the need for sacrifice on behalf of another that our lives acquire a meaning. Seeing things that way, we recognize that we are not condemned to mortality, but consecrated to it. Yes, the gods must die, and we ourselves must assume their burdens, but we inherit their aspirations too. Freedom, personality, love, and law. There is no way we can achieve those great goods through politics, which if we put too much faith in it – will inevitably degenerate into the kind of totalitarian power enjoyed by the dwarf Alberich.

“I have loved The Ring and learned from it for over 50 years and for me, it is quite simply the truth about our world – but the truth expressed by means of music of unquestionable authority and supreme melodic and harmonic power”.

He often praised, discussed, and shared classical works of artistry in their many forms. He had also listened to “quite a bit of heavy metal” which led him to conclude that Metallica were “genuinely talented.” He also confessed to finding Elvis “irresistible” even though “it is all below the belt with Elvis.”

He criticized the “mass production of sound” as responsible for devaluing musical taste, and lowering the bar for entry to musicianship. He saw modern music valued as only a perpetual background sound, saying that “it is not so much listened to as overheard”, describing “mechanical rhythms, (and) the stock harmonies recycled in song after song.”

Throughout his life, Scruton voiced his eloquent opposition to feminism, liberalism, egalitarianism, homosexuality and anti-racism – although he toned down certain elements of his beliefs to avoid total alienation, as the ‘cancel culture’ climate became increasingly hostile to conservative speakers in his latter years.

Sir Roger particularly honed in against Islamic culture’s many incompatibilities with the West, and said that the question of identity was one high on the agenda of ordinary people throughout Europe.

Scruton suggested that representative government was being jeopardized “not only by the global economy” (corporatism), but also by “unprecedented levels of migration of people with other languages and other customs, other traditions and other loyalties.”

He said: “Our political class today has fallen under the goal of globalism” in which the “old idea of self-contained nations with borders was seen as some kind of anachronism.”

His position on the largely Jewish role in globalism was never fully developed; at least it wasn’t clear in the public sphere. He said of Jewish billionaire George Soros that “anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts.” Soon after, Scruton dismissed claims that his use of phrases such as the “Soros empire” were a coded attack on alleged Jewish power. Besides this, his indirect (but perhaps intentional) references to Jewish influence are few.

He said of China and its government that “They’re creating robots of their own people… each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one and that is a very frightening thing”.

Religiously, Scruton aligned with Anglicanism, even if not entirely, which he described as “my tribal religion – the religion of the English who don’t believe a word of it”, but it is a moot point whether or not he was an atheist (as most of his secular friends insisted) or whether, for him, God was part of what he called “the web of seeming”, the “life-world” (Husserl’s Lebenswelt). He described the Anglican Church as the forlorn trustee of an architectural and artistic inheritance that remains one of the treasures of European civilization. The King James Bible and the Book of Common Prayer are the sources from which much of our national identity derives. He wrote a book on the subject, Our Church: A Personal History of the Church of England (2012).

On education, he liked to quote Thomas Masaryk, the Czech statesman, on the dangers of “half-education”. The upper echelons of government, he believed, were awash with people who had received just enough schooling to fill their heads with faddish ideologies, but not enough to give them wisdom. These sentiments, of course, made him a Eurosceptic Long Marcher – one of the few conservatives to criticize the EEC before Margaret Thatcher’s Bruges speech in 1988.

Scruton relegated knowledge of behind-the-scenes reality to science, and declared that the most important task for philosophy now is to “re-enchant the world”. Because it attempts “to explore the ‘depth’ of human beings”, science “threatens to destroy our response to the surface”.

And for that, if but a brief and sweeping summary of his life’s work, he ought to be remembered, celebrated, and taught for generations to come.

The Wuhan Coronavirus: Biowarfare, The Depopulation Agenda, or Just Poor Hygiene?

As stormed global headlines in the past week or so, but was mysteriously suppressed in other publications, even with Twitter not showing the ‘#coronavirus’ in its trending results – the Wuhan novel coronavirus has gripped China, the number of known cases of the new virus rose by nearly 60 percent overnight, currently 106 people have died according to official reports, with the known infected to be quickly nearing 5,000 at the time of writing – with other reports suggesting 44,000 infected. A shortage of test kits has led experts to warn that the real number may be far higher.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) declared a national emergency for China, but has presently held back from declaring a worldwide emergency.

WHO issued a statement on its website:

“On 31 December 2019, WHO was alerted to several cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. The virus did not match any other known virus. This raised concern because when a virus is new, we do not know how it affects people.

One week later, on 7 January, Chinese authorities confirmed that they had identified a new virus. The new virus is a coronavirus, which is a family of viruses that include the common cold, and viruses such as SARS and MERS. This new virus was temporarily named “2019-nCoV.”

WHO has been working with Chinese authorities and global experts from the day we were informed, to learn more about the virus, how it affects the people who are sick with it, how they can be treated, and what countries can do to respond.

Because this is a coronavirus, which usually causes respiratory illness, WHO has advice to people on how to protect themselves and those around them from getting the disease.”

The virus belongs to the same family as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). SARS affected China in 2003. By the time the SARS global outbreak was contained back then, the virus had spread to over 8,000 people worldwide and killed almost 800. The current outbreak is rapidly approaching those numbers.

Where did it all begin?

Mainstream reports seem to all confidently state that the new coronavirus probably emerged from exotic animals as a zoonotic transmission (bats and snakes are rumored sources) in the notoriously unsanitary, non-refrigerated, humid, ‘wet markets’ of Wuhan, in the Hubei province of central China.

This wet market origin explanation is plausible, as Chinese culture is notoriously unsanitary, with many abiding by baseless generational superstitions that claim consuming certain exotic animals is especially good for your health.

However, while the virus can be linked to bats and snakes with some certainty, this still doesn’t entirely account for the virus’ actual origins. You cannot rule out the fact that this could have been artificially assembled in a laboratory using recombinant DNA molecules to bring together genetic material from multiple sources (species) to make it appear naturally occurring. A later section of this article will explain why this type of disease looks very manmade. By drawing from multiple sources (via recombination), you can bypass vaccines and other medicines developed for more conventional diseases, as well as create something totally alien to the human immune system – and develop a powerful bioweapon.

The hygiene argument, on the other hand, is strengthened by the fact Chinese people often openly spit, as it is believed to ‘expel toxins’ from the body. This is worsened by how the Chinese government’s propaganda makes people believe Chinese culture is superior to others for national morale and social solidarity. This means not much has changed in bringing the country to better standards of hygiene.

The Chinese government also has a record of not revealing the true extent of diseases spreading for the sake of good publicity and trust in the government, general morale, and to avoid mass hysteria. This makes epidemics more likely to take hold, whereas a more honest authority might be able to address matters faster.

One article references the supposed zoonotic origins of the novel coronavirus, but doesn’t observe the possibility this also could have been cultivated and designed in a laboratory:

“2019-CoV is what’s known as a recombinant virus. This means it bears the genetic material of both bats and snakes, suggesting that the virus jumped from bats to snakes in the wild – and then, of course, to humans.”

But the official narrative doesn’t quite make sense, or at least should be questioned, as the consumption of bizarre, even live, animals has been going on for a very long time in China, why would this disease only emerge now? Fruit bats, snakes, rats, cats, and so forth are delicacies in Chinese culture, even consuming aborted babies is acceptable in some cases for the ‘rejuvenating effects’ they supposedly offer – but despite all other speculation, it could just be a new strain of coronavirus that organically emerged and was transmitted to patient zero.

Chinese authorities are aiming to build a thousand-bed hospital in ten days, a second one is planned also. Numerous cities in the country are in lockdown. Mongolia also recently closed its borders with China.

Chinese New Year has made the virus far more dangerous

The fact the new coronavirus outbreak occurred just in time for Chinese New Year is an unfortunate (and suspicious) coincidence.

This is a time in which hundreds of millions of Chinese are moving around inside and outside China, to and from countries around the globe. This is the perfect time for a highly contagious virus to gain considerable mobility and spread.

To make things worse, five million people (nearly half of Wuhan’s population) left the city before the quarantine came into effect, meaning the Chinese government hardly have the situation under control. The fact the official numbers of infected and deceased are so low with a response so intense suggests that the official numbers aren’t representing the real situation.

Doctors have stated the incubation period for the disease is a few weeks, meaning it lies dormant and unnoticed upon initial infection, and is still able to spread further in this time, before it is symptomatically even noticeable. This ‘sleeper cell’ characteristic means reliably tracing and addressing the illness will be extremely difficult.

Another complication is that the virus is said to be contractible through the eyes.

Renowned Chinese doctor Wang Guangfa, who caught the coronavirus, claims its very possible:

“Your eye connects to your nose through the lacrimal duct. If you suffer from allergies and if your eyes run, so will your nose. Or if you put medication in your eyes, you’ll taste at the back of your throat.”

Wuhan is a center of Chinese bioweapons research

Wuhan, interestingly, has two laboratories linked to the secret Chinese biowarfare program.

In a Washington Times article, Dany Shoham, an Israeli biological warfare expert pointed out the covert virus research laboratory known the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The laboratory is the only declared site in China capable of working with deadly viruses.

It seems all too convenient that a deadly virus outbreak would occur near China’s virology institute, was this virus a plant by Western-Israeli operatives?

Is this a bioweapon designed to aggressively tackle overpopulation? China is a center of massive overpopulation. Was it a Western disruption tactic to send the Chinese economy into disarray? Will it foreshadow a forced vaccination schedule? Or is this all just an unfortunate consequence of poor hygiene practice?

While there is no clear evidence of biowarfare taking place, the occurrence of the outbreak during Chinese New Year and the far reaching impact this could have on the Chinese economy is unprecedented.

Virologist Dr. Alan Cantwell wrote at the time of the similar 2003 SARS outbreak that “the mysterious SARS virus is a new virus never before seen by virologists. This is an entirely new illness with devastating effects on the immune system, and there is no known treatment.” Dr. Cantwell also noted that the genetic engineering of coronaviruses has been occurring in both medical and military labs for decades. He wrote that when he searched in PubMed for the phrase “coronavirus genetic engineering”, he was referred to 107 scientific experiments dating back to 1987.

To quote Dr. Cantwell:

“I quickly confirmed scientists have been genetically engineering animal and human coronaviruses to make disease-producing mutant and recombinant viruses for over a decade. No wonder WHO scientists identified the SARS/coronavirus so quickly. Never emphasised by medical news writers is the fact that for over forty years scientists have been “jumping species” with all sorts of animal and human viruses and creating chimera viruses (viruses composed from viruses of two different species). This unsupervised research produces dangerous man-made viruses, many of which have potential as bioweapons. Certainly SARS has the hallmarks of a bioweapon. After all, aren’t new biological warfare agents designed to produce a new disease with a new infectious agent? As in prior military experiments, all it might take … to spread SARS is an aerosol can…”

Almost immediately upon receiving the genome sequence, several Russian scientists suggested a link between SARS and biowarfare.

Sergei Kolesnikov, a member of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, said the propagation of the SARS virus might well have been caused by leaking a combat virus grown in bacteriological weapons labs. According to a number of news reports, Kolesnikov claimed that the virus of atypical pneumonia (SARS) was a synthesis of two viruses (of measles and infectious parotiditis or mumps), the natural compound of which was impossible, that this mix could never appear in nature, stating, “This can be done only in a laboratory.” And Nikolai Filatov, the head of Moscow’s epidemiological services, was quoted in the Gazeta daily as stating he believed SARS was man-made because “there is no vaccine for this virus, its make-up is unclear, it has not been very widespread and the population is not immune to it.”

It wasn’t widely reported, but it seems the final conclusion of the Chinese biochemists was the same, that the SARS virus was man-made. This conclusion wasn’t a secret, but neither was it promoted to the international media since they would simply have used the claim to heap scorn on China, dismissing this as a paranoid conspiracy theory. The Western media totally ignored this aspect, except for ABC news who reported that the SARS “Mystery Virus” was possibly “a Chinese bio-weapon that accidentally escaped the laboratory”. Nice of ABC to notice, but their story, if true, would be the first example of a nation creating and releasing a race-specific biological weapon designed to attack exclusively itself.

Notable is that while SARS spread to about 40 countries, the infections in most countries were few and deaths almost zero, and it was exclusively (or almost exclusively) Chinese who were infected, those in Hong Kong most seriously, with Mainland China suffering little by comparison.

This appears to be precisely the case with this new virus, in that most of the infected persons (sofar) are Chinese. News reports speak of infections appearing in Thailand or the US, but those (at least to date of writing) were all Chinese who had been to Wuhan. There have been no cases so far of infected Caucasians.

As with SARS, this new virus appears to be tightly-focused to Chinese. At this stage it is too early to draw specific conclusions.

We might in other circumstances pass this off as an unfortunate coincidence but for some major circumstantial events that serve to alter our focus. One of these is the history of American universities and NGOs having come into China in recent years to conduct biological experiments that were so illegal as to leave the Chinese authorities enraged. This was particularly true when it became known that Harvard University had surreptitiously proceeded with experiments in China that had been forbidden by the authorities years earlier, where they collected many hundreds of thousands of Chinese DNA samples and then left the country.

The Chinese were furious to learn that Americans were collecting Chinese DNA. The government intervened and prohibited the further export of any of the data. The conclusion at the time was that the ‘research’ had been commissioned by the US military with the DNA samples destined for race-specific bio-weapons research.

In a thesis on Biological Weapons, Leonard Horowitz and Zygmunt Dembek stated that one clear sign of a genetically-engineered bio-warfare agent was a disease caused by an uncommon (unusual, rare, or unique) agent, with lack of an epidemiological explanation. I.e. no clear idea of source. They also mentioned an “unusual manifestation and/or geographic distribution”, of which race-specificity would be one.

Recent disease outbreaks that would seem to possibly qualify as potential bio-warfare agents are AIDS, SARS, MERS, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Hantavirus, Lyme Disease, West Nile Virus, Ebola, Polio (Syria), Foot and Mouth Disease, the Gulf War Syndrome and ZIKA. And in fact thousands of prominent scientists, physicians, virologists and epidemiologists on many continents have concurred that all these viruses were lab-created and their release deliberate. The recent swine flu epidemic in China has the hallmarks as well, with circumstantial evidence of the outbreak raising only questions.

There was another curiosity in this case, in that additional to the usual criticisms of China being inactive or secretive, several US media replicated accusations from “a senior US State Department official” claiming Washington was “still concerned” about transparency in the Chinese government on the Wuhan coronavirus. Other articles claimed the US CDC was “concerned that Chinese health officials have still not released basic epidemiological data about the Wuhan coronavirus outbreak, making it more difficult to contain the outbreak.” There is no substantial reason that officials at any level of the US State Department should concern themselves with a virus outbreak in a foreign country.

Their criticisms were surprisingly detailed, demanding specifics on the number of infections directly from contact with the Wuhan market, the number of person-to-person infections, the precise incubation period from exposure to the onset of symptoms, the point at which persons become contagious. The questions were presented in benevolent terms of helping the Chinese medical authorities deal with the virus, though it was already self-evident China had no need to be lectured on such basics.

As of the date of writing, details are still too scarce to form definitive conclusions but, in every such case, once the smoke clears there are many unanswered questions that challenge the official Western narrative, but it’s old news and the media have already staked out their ground so the matter dies in the Western public mind, but not in China.

How far this will spread is yet to be known. In the modern globalized world with blurred borders, we are all living in a big communal petridish – and big diseases on the other side of the planet could, in reality, be just around the corner.

Alex Jones reports on The Bill & Melinda Gates NGO’s involvement in the coronavirus before the outbreak

Very strangely, in October of 2019, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation held a drill which simulated a viral pandemic outbreak that started in China and killed 65 million people – and now that real virus seems to have actually emerged.

Bill Gates warned a conference hosted by the Massachusetts Medical Society that a pandemic was likely to occur soon. In the conference, Gates unveiled an exhaustive study by the Institute for Disease Modelling which demonstrated how 33 million could die worldwide in the first six months.

Apparently the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation funded another shadowy organisation, The Pirbright Institute, that incidentally patented a coronavirus vaccine a few years ago in 2018. Although the institute has claimed it only has a patent for use of a ‘weakened’ version of the coronavirus.

Predictive programming: The ‘Pandemic’ documentary

The rabbit hole gets deeper, as for the last six months, a Netflix documentary/docu-series called ‘Pandemic’ has been in development, with funding from Bill Gates.

The plot of the documentary shows Bill & Melinda Gates as the ‘heroes’ after they fund a doctor who finds a unified cure to all flu in a single vaccine solution (clearly this vaccine will contain a hidden depopulation substance).

This documentary is the elites’ way of declaring their plans for depopulation in the near future, and to prepare the masses, with fear, to openly accept the vaccine solution – with the documentary also highlighting the ‘threat’ of anti-vaxxers.

“When we talk about another flu pandemic happening, it’s not a matter of if, but when.”

National Security State Department Memorandum 200

There’s a stated planetary goal for population reduction.

Promoting gender equality gets more women in the workforce and not having children, for example. Contraception removes the risk of unwanted conception and encouraging promiscuity ensures more people don’t want families.

Viral pandemics are just another more aggressive method in their arsenal, as the report states, more civil methods are deemed ‘not a complete answer to the population problem’.

Anthony Steele, an expert on 5G technology, claims 5G will be used to suppress our immune systems and allow a viral pandemic to become even more deadly

  • LED post-modulated non-diffused lights are a suppressor of melatonin.
  • 5G millimeter wave technology emissions suppress melatonin and cause oxidative stress. It’s an immune system suppressant.
  • Melatonin is crucial. It tackles deleterious cells and is protective against all types of cancer.
  • 5G is a soft-kill technology. It will weaken your immune system over time (and can be turned up on demand), predisposing you to death in the case of a pandemic – where usually only elderly people would die under normal circumstances.

The Age of Green Finance

Ever since the combined advances in science, medicine, and the seismic boom of the industrialized era was sparked in Victorian Britain in the 19th century, global society has accelerated dramatically, and reached a point where it can comfortably sustain an ever-increasing population and its burgeoning, unending demands for upward class mobility. Free market economics allowed every nation and people open access to these advances, regardless of the implications of this on the environment. This blind expansion will continue until all available natural resources are exhausted, and demographic stasis and eventual recession occurs.

Third world races have been equipped with first world technologies, which most are using irresponsibly at the expense of the environment. These nations cannot be expected to seriously fall in line with globalist climate goals – they therefore cannot be reasoned with in diplomatic terms, so other forces must be employed. In mainly first world, majority white nations, it is a different story – over 1250 local government and 25 countries have made climate emergency declarations (as of 5 January 2020).

In order to mitigate a steep, unprecedented collapse that may occur if society exhausts natural resources at its current pace – globalist de facto central planners headed by big players in global government and NGOs have banded together as humanity’s ‘saviours’ to ensure this does not occur, but also use this ‘necessitated’ restructuring process to their sole benefit. The Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, United Nations, International Monetary Fund and other major groups have assembled to pursue these aims.

They believe closer worldwide political organisation is required to grant them the license to more directly manage human affairs in order to prevent this ‘inevitable’ climate crisis event horizon. The real crisis is reckless and insatiable human proliferation, consumption, and pollution; but also the unmanageable, dispersed nature of the global populace – far too widespread to centrally manage.

It is proven that anthropological climate change does not exist as is emphatically claimed. Over 100 scientific papers state anthropological CO2 has minuscule effect on climate. Therefore, one can safely assume that this fabricated climate argument being used to push an ulterior agenda (cunningly mixed with lies, half-truths, and some actual truths).

To scaremonger about global catastrophe is to set the stage for creating that catastrophe and blaming it on climate change.

MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric sciences emeritus professor behind more than 200 different scientific papers, said that climate alarmists’ voices seem to get louder and louder as the climate changes less. He also noted that in a 2007 paper, the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it’s not possible to predict future climate states.

By the estimation of mysterious Georgia Guidestones (The Devil Went Down to Georgia), global planners want to reduce the world’s population dramatically to around half a billion – “Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature”. The last time humanity stood at that half-a-billion figure was the year 1500.

However, quite ominously, there is no indication of the specific time frame in which they say this reduction will happen – or the exact means by which they hope to reverse a rapidly increasing global population that currently totals around 7.8 billion people.

The Georgia Guidestones’ inscription on planned population reduction.

In what ways could central planners stimulate global support of their ‘Green Finance’ plans to restructure our global society and economy? Beyond the relatively peaceful Greta Thunberg/Extinction Rebellion ‘climate crisis’ propaganda route – covert mass weather modification programs designed to spawn false flag weather events to shift public perception of the ‘crisis’, manufactured diseases, deliberate inhibition of regional ecosystems causing a restriction of pollinators and the global food supply, directed energy technologies such as 5G used against both people and the ecosystem, causing plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death of wildlife and plantlife, chem-trail dispersion programs ‘to reflect sunlight as a cooling agent’, and so forth.

By 2100, the world’s population is projected to reach approximately 10.9 billion, with annual growth of less than 0.1%, in other words, that’s the estimated plateau, by which the world’s population reaches parity with the available resources that can sustain it. If we allow the population to get to this point, we will very quickly totally exhaust the earth’s natural resources, risking a sharp population collapse as a consequence as the ecosystem collapses, especially as there will not be enough responsible environmental practice in the third world to retain finite resources indefinitely. In fact, this cataclysmic decline may occur far before the 2100 estimate.

The globalist UN’s agenda 21 is nearing, agenda 2030 is another milestone in the near future, all the policies in these plans are shrouded in flowery, indirect language and are not easy to decipher for the layman. Ultimately, there seems to be a core plan here. The plan is the financialization of the entire world economy using fear of an end of world scenario to reach arbitrary aims such as “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” The real result is a ‘necessary’ form of global governance.

Green Finance

Several years before Al Gore and others decided to use a young Swedish school girl to be the poster child for climate action urgency, or in the USA the call of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a complete reorganization of the economy around a Green New Deal, the giants of finance began devising schemes for steering hundreds of billions of future funds to investments in often worthless “climate” companies.

In 2013 after years of careful preparation, a Swedish real estate company, Vasakronan, issued the first corporate “Green Bond.” They were followed by others including Apple, SNCF and the major French bank Credit Agricole. In November 2013 Elon Musk’s problem-riddled Tesla Energy issued the first solar asset-backed security. Today according to something called the Climate Bonds Initiative, more than $500 billion in such Green Bonds are outstanding. The creators of the bond idea state their aim is to win over a major share of the $45 trillion of assets under management globally which have made nominal commitment to invest in “climate friendly” projects.

Bonnie Prince Charles, future UK Monarch, along with the Bank of England and City of London finance have promoted “green financial instruments,” led by Green Bonds, to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects. A key player in the linking of world financial institutions with the Green Agenda is outgoing Bank of England head Mark Carney. In December 2015, the Bank for International Settlements’ Financial Stability Board (FSB), chaired then by Carney, created the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD), to advise “investors, lenders and insurance about climate related risks.” That was certainly a bizarre focus for world central bankers.

The links between the world’s largest financial groups, central banks and global corporations to the current push for a radical climate strategy to abandon the fossil fuel economy in favor of a vague, unexplained Green economy, it seems, is less about genuine concern to make our planet a clean and healthy environment to live (although it is a big part of it). Rather it is more an agenda, intimately tied to the UN Agenda 2030 for a “sustainable” economy, and to developing literally trillions of dollars in new wealth for the global banks and financial giants who constitute the real powers that be. This will mean in the new centrally planned world that arises from the turmoil of the ‘climate crisis’, they will be the unmistakable winners.

This climate plan has been carefully devised to outlaw, or sanction, economic systems of industry and commerce that allow a massive unplanned, decentralized world population divided into separate autonomous developments to both sustain itself and continue to rapidly increase. While it is clear to see the positive arguments for responsibly managing the world’s population, it’s less clear to see how in this process, these oligarchical climate-cause progenitors will not undoubtedly seize yet more power, with the potential to abuse it.

In February 2019 following a speech to the EU Commission in Brussels by Greta Thunberg, then-EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, after gallantly kissing Greta’s hand, appeared to be moved to real action. He told Greta and the press that the EU should spend hundreds of billions of euros combating climate change during the next 10 years. Juncker proposed that between 2021 to 2027, “every fourth euro spent within the EU budget go toward action to mitigate climate change.” What the sly Juncker did not say was that the decision had nothing to do with the young Swedish activist’s plea. It had been made in conjunction with the World Bank a full year before in September 26, 2018 at the One Planet Summit, along with the World Bank, Bloomberg Foundations, the World Economic Forum and others. Juncker had cleverly used the media attention given the young Swede to promote his climate agenda.

Back in 2010 the head of Working Group 3 of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr Otmar Edenhofer, told an interviewer, “…one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.” Since then the economic policy strategy has become far more developed.

The Rockefeller family’s founding role in the climate movement

Beginning in the 1980s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund became leading advocates of the global warming agenda. In their Sustainable Development Program Review, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund boasts of being one of the first major global warming activists, citing its strong advocacy for both the 1988 formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the 1992 establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Besides the Rockefeller’s role in its founding, the IPCC was founded by Think Tanks, like the Club of Rome, the World Watch Institute, etc., people who have a different interest in the whole question. They invented the myth of CO2 in order to have a common enemy defined – which is humanity itself.

What is important, however, is to acknowledge the role of the Rockefeller family – which historically was the architect of “Big Oil”– in supporting the Climate Change debate as well as the funding of scientists, environmentalists and NGOs involved in grassroots activism against “Big Oil” and the fossil fuel industry.

There is an obvious, and interesting, contradictory relationship: Whereas “Big Oil” is the target of Global Warming activism, “Big Oil” through the Rockefeller Family and Rockefeller Brothers Trusts generously finance the worldwide climate protest movement. Ask yourself why? Because those that ascended to power through big oil have seen this economic model has run its course and needs to change, but they intend to hold onto their power in the new ecologically responsible model that they will both devise and promote.

The Rockefeller crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy in well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations – the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol – to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers et al, continue to promote their self-serving “clean energy” policies throughout both the federal government and general public.

Climate rhetoric has spiked in advance of the Agenda 21 deadline in 2021

Through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities, they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.

As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21. With the immeasurable influence that accompanies mass wealth and power, the Rockefeller empire has proven an effective puppeteer of advancing its main objective: the destruction of the fossil fuel industry to increase its clout over the energy sector.

Agenda 21’s looming deadline is next year.

The specific plan, ‘United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development’, was a product of The Rio Conference held at Rio de Janeiro from June 3 – 14, 1992. It was to be implemented worldwide in order to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. As such Agenda 21 marked a new beginning for the U.N., a decisive point of departure for the world organization.

Agenda 21 contained twenty-seven principles warning against a mode of growth that was leading to the extinction of life on earth. Based on two fundamental ideas, development and environment, Agenda 21 was introduced as a cooperative task and challenge for world nations toward this goal: to establish the basic principles that must govern the conduct of nations and peoples towards each other and the Earth to ensure a secure and sustainable future.

Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences, left this warning for humanity:

“Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that ‘the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.’ Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”

As more American city, county, and state governments are duped by the global warming fanatics (alarmists) into initiating new harsh laws and removing individual freedoms, the public can no longer afford to ignore U.N. Agenda 21 and all its tentacles into our lives.

The true extent of the climate change program

On October 17, 2018, days following the EU agreement at the One Planet Summit, Juncker’s EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Breakthrough Energy-Europe in which member corporations of Breakthrough Energy-Europe will have preferential access to any funding.

The members of Breakthrough Energy include Virgin Air’s Richard Branson, Bill Gates, Alibaba’s Jack Ma, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, HRH Prince Al-waleed bin Talal, Bridgewater Associates’ Ray Dalio; Julian Robertson of hedge fund giant, Tiger Management; David Rubenstein, founder Carlyle Group; George Soros, Chairman Soros Fund Management LLC; Masayoshi Son, founder Softbank, Japan.

Make no mistake. When the most influential multinational corporations, the world’s largest institutional investors including BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, the UN, the World Bank, the Bank of England and other central banks of the BIS line up behind the financing of a so-called green Agenda, call it Green New Deal or what, it is time to look behind the surface of public climate activist campaigns to the actual agenda. The picture that emerges is the attempted financial reorganization of the world economy using climate, something the sun and its energy have orders of magnitude more to do with than mankind ever could—to try to convince us ordinary folk to make untold sacrifice to “save our planet.”