A Path to Understanding
In the previous three articles, I have brought attention to several items which contradict the narrative regarding mobility, energy sources and the real history of innovation.
- We brought to light the fact that the first electric vehicle was created around 1828 by Hungarian Ányos Jedlik.
- We posed the question of “why”, if in the early 1980s a Volkswagon Jetta diesel was able to get about 50 MPG, why so many vehicles today in 2022 are unable to achieve this simple metric.
- We brought to light the inefficiencies of modern electric vehicles, covering a variety of items including cost, environmental degradation and safety.
- We pointed out the numerous manufacturers and variety of electric vehicle models available in the 1800s.
- We gave examples of numerous methods of mobility available in the past including those powered by water, natural gas, wood and even tequila.
- We pointed out the public statements by “thought leaders” like Claus Schwab which are in opposition to freedom of mobility and private property.
I would have liked to connect these data points in a more structured method, but these first articles were to peak your interest. The fact is that the direction the world is moving is intentionally going to restrict your mobility, quite severely. Part of this will include the disruption of the petroleum economy toward something far more centralized.
When we speak about mobility, yes I am speaking quite literally, but also, in later articles we will talk a little about social mobility and the way restriction of freedoms (including those of physical mobility) impair one’s freedom in the present, and the chances for freedom of our children and those that follow in the future.
If you are anywhere near a cell phone, laptop, desktop or tablet screen during your day, you may be aware of a fairly heavy push toward electric vehicles. This push began in the 1990s.
To summarize the direction of this plan, you may want to look at the covers of “The Economist” magazine, a publication owned by some very influential parties. The illustrations of this magazine are often the subject of lengthy articles, but the main aim here is to eliminate the current scale of the petroleum economy. Why? Lets get some background first.
It [The Economist] is partly owned by the Rothschild banking family of England and its editor-in-chief, John Micklethwait, attended several times to the Bilderberg Conference — the secretive meeting where the world’s most powerful figures from the world of politics, finance business and media discuss global policies. The outcome of those meetings is totally secret. It is therefore safe to say that the people at The Economist know things that most people don’t. Looking at The Economist magazine covers over two decades, will give you the impression that indeed, the future was planned long ago.
Towards a Green Revolution
To understand how we arrived where we were in the 1990s we need to go further and understand the usual suspects. Some of the names in this background information may be familiar.
We must go back to 1968 when David Rockefeller and friends created a movement around the idea that human consumption and population growth were the major world problem. Rockefeller, whose wealth was based on oil, created the neo-Malthusian Club of Rome at the Rockefeller villa in Bellagio, Italy. Their first project was to fund a junk study at MIT called Limits to Growth in 1972. (excerpts from https://www.sgtreport.com/2021/02/the-great-zero-carbon-criminal-conspiracy/ by F. William Engdahl, New Eastern Outlook)
A key organizer of Rockefeller’s ‘zero growth’ agenda in the early 1970s was his longtime friend, a Canadian oilman named Maurice Strong, also a Club of Rome member. In 1971 Strong was named Undersecretary of the United Nations and Secretary General of the June 1972 Stockholm Earth Day conference. He was also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation.
Maurice Strong was a key early propagator of the scientifically unfounded theory that man-made emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise which threatens civilization, so-called Global Warming. He invented the elastic term “sustainable development.” (excerpt from https://thealterofdeceit.net/2021/09/06/the-great-zero-carbon-conspiracy/ courtesy of https://thealterofdeceit.net/)
As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to “save the environment.” Some years later the same Strong stated:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
This is the agenda today known as the Great Reset or UN Agenda 2030. The propaganda of UN Agenda 2030 is very effective, clothed in language which appeals to the decency in humanity, but its goals are anything but decent.
(excerpts from F. WILLIAM ENGDAHL
Maurice Strong went on to create the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a political body which advances the unproven claim that manmade CO2 emissions were about to tip our world into irreversible ecological catastrophe.
Co-founder of the Club of Rome, Dr. Alexander King, admitted the essential fraud of their environmental agenda some years later in his book, The First Global Revolution. He stated:
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 these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.
King admitted that the “threat of global warming” was merely a ploy to justify an attack on “humanity itself.” This is now is being rolled out as the Great Reset and the Net Zero Carbon ruse.
Regarding the following information, I encourage readers to do some homework to better understand what we, as humanity are up against when it comes to human freedom.
After “Limits to Growth”, they released a Report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System” which was part of their “Strategy for Survival Project”. It put forth the goal of submerging nation states into 10 Global Regions for the administrative convenience of a World Government: http://tinyurl.com/b8d8rrl, http://tinyurl.com/amh4hcy, http://tinyurl.com/atllseo
Plans for the evolution of Globalism were put forth in the Club of Rome texts “Mankind at the Turning Point” and “RIO: Reshaping the International Order”. Relevant excerpts from these texts are available here: https://www.scribd.com/document/74348236/Set-of-Main-Articles-From-Knowledge-Driven-Revolution
A follow up text, “Goals for Mankind” was released in 1977. An overview of it is provided here: http://www.archive.org/details.php?identifier=GoalsforMankindareporttotheclubofromebyErvinLaszlo
“Global 2000”, a U.S. policy document along these lines, was written in 1979. It was very much like the text “Limits to Growth”, creating extreme fears about the “threat” of “overpopulation”. Pages 702–703 called for an “intensively managed world” and fertility reduction in order to offset these perceived threats: http://tinyurl.com/7o4jwrt
Many of these people have used these arguments as an excuse to increase governmental power.
One such example is Arnold Toynbee, director of studies for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, who, addressing these issues, said in that:
“In all developed countries a new way of life — a severely regimented way — will have to be imposed by a ruthless authoritarian government” (cited by Arthur Miller in an article in the Washington and Lee Law Review, Volume 41, Issue 4, p. 1262): http://tinyurl.com/6n726qr …
Many of these people have put forth plans for massive population reduction (as shown in the Cobden Clubs papers above). Numbers vary, but there are admissions from influential policy planning think tanks that there are plans to reduce Earth’s population by up to 80%.
In the text “The First Global Revolution”, leading “intellectual elites” in the Club of Rome admitted that they manufactured the threat of anthropogenic global warming as a “unifying external threat” that would place the blame on humanity (and this would obviously make people sympathetic to the Globalist rhetoric of “global problems requiring global solutions”), and that appointed bureaucracies must replace any vestige of democracy as a governing force. The relevant chapter is called “The Vacuum”. Excerpts are as follows:
“It would seem that men and women need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together; in the vacuum such motivations seem to have ceased to exist‚ or have yet to be found.
The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. States have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by designating external enemies. The scapegoat practice is as old as mankind itself. When things become too difficult at home, divert attention by adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose….”
The Common Enemy Of Humanity As Man Himself
The following excerpts come from publications cited, we were warned, but very few listened. The ones who cried out in the wilderness were labeled as “extremists”, “conspiracy theorists” and “fascists”, meanwhile the world moved on, or so it seemed.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely, mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” (Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York : Pantheon Books, c1991), pp. 107–108, 109–110, 115)
Mikhail Gorbachev was part of a Globalist trend that combined Communism and International capitalism into a new synthesis: https://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/865
After the “collapse” and convergence of the Soviet system in 1991, he founded Green Cross International, and co-wrote the Earth Charter with Maurice Strong (a collectivist document that, along with Agenda 21, came out of the initial events George Hunt exposes). He stated that the Earth Charter should replace the Ten Commandments (http://tinyurl.com/2bdejz3)
He also stated: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” (http://tinyurl.com/72qtoqq)
The Rio Summit 1991–1992
The discussions on climate change took place from February 1991 to May 1992 and concluded with a framework convention agreed to by more than 130 countries. The United Nations has apparently decided to market its new climate report with the slogan,
“On a warming planet, no one is safe”
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was
(UNFCCC) adopted at the Rio Summit in 1992 and reaffirmed its Kyoto Protocol of 1997.
As stated above, regarding current events a major figure in the “human caused” Global Warming thesis also known as Anthropogenic Global Warming has been the late Maurice Strong.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)was founded by Maurice Strong in 1973. Strong was the father of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
“In order to save the planet, the group [GIM] decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about? This group of world leaders [GIM] forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.”
Maurice Strong — regarding Generation Investment Management LLP
Who is Generation Investment Management (GIM)? The UK firm manages over 24 Billion in assets as of 2021. What has GIM been promoting? Well, they have been spearheading the ESG movement. ESG stands for “environmental, social, and governance”.
Hopefully the references above allow one to see that there is no point in denying what these systems have had planned for humanity, they publish, hold conferences and fund media outlets which willfully propagandize their talking points and narratives to the world population.
If these acronyms and blatant manipulation make you recall George Carlin’s rants on soft language and bullshit, you are not alone. What the heck could they be hiding, evading and squirreling away from public scrutiny with this type of soft “green washing”?
The CIA doesn’t kill people anymore, they neutralize people, or they depopulate the area. The government doesn’t lie, it engages in disinformation. The pentagon actually measures radiation in something they call sunshine units. Israeli murderers are called commandos. Arab commandos are called terrorists. Contra killers are called freedom fighters. Well if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part of it to us, do they?
And some of this stuff is just silly. We know that. Like when the airlines tell us to pre-board. What the hell is pre-board? What does that mean? To get on before you get on?
They say they’re going to pre-board those passengers in need of special assistance …cripples! Simple honest direct language. There’s no shame attached to the word cripple I can find in any dictionary. In fact it’s a word used in Bible translations. “Jesus healed the cripples.” Doesn’t take seven words to describe that condition. But we don’t have cripples in this country anymore. We have the physically challenged. Is that a grotesque enough evasion for you? How about differently-abled? I’ve heard them called that. Differently-abled! You can’t even call these people handicapped anymore. They say: “We’re not handicapped, we’re handy capable!” These poor people have been bullshitted by the system into believing that if you change the name of the condition somehow you’ll change the condition. Well, hey cousin … doesn’t happen!
To end here is likely a relief. What I’ve summarized above is not easy to read.
These concepts are not “new”, my hope is that after reading this article, these concepts are brought into better light. What you may be feeling right now is known as “cognitive dissonance”.
Causes of Cognitive Dissonance
There are a number of different situations that can create conflicts that lead to cognitive dissonance.
Sometimes you might find yourself engaging in behaviors that are opposed to your own beliefs due to external expectations, often for work, school, or a social situation. This might involve going along with something due to peer pressure or doing something at work to avoid getting fired.
Sometimes learning new information can lead to feelings of cognitive dissonance. For example, if you engage in a behavior that you later learn is harmful, it can lead to feelings of discomfort. People sometimes deal with this either by finding ways to justify their behaviors or findings ways to discredit or ignore new information.
People make decisions, both large and small, on a daily basis. When faced with two similar choices, people often are left with feelings of dissonance because both options are equally appealing.
Once a choice has been made, however, people need to find a way to reduce these feelings of discomfort. People accomplish this by justifying why their choice was the best option so that they can believe that they made the right decision.
I hope this article brings new information and hopefully sparks some lively conversation, wherever you are.