Today I’m going to pretend like I haven’t spent the last two years buried in research and reporting on the secret global cabal that is actively trying to enslave us all.
Because that sounds so… shall we say… extreme?
Instead, I’ll pretend like I’m simply a curious citizen who accidentally stumbled upon some new information and discovered there is more going on than meets the eye.
It all started with this interesting trend I’ve observed in the Biden administration, where they’ve moved from banning gas vehicles, to banning gas cook stoves, to now banning gas furnaces. As a casual observer, clearly it appears they are concerned about climate change… but the timing of the roll out… and the sequence… hmmm.
Banning gas vehicles will significantly restrict our mobility.
Banning gas cook stoves will impact how we consume our food.
Banning gas furnaces will translate into some cold dark nights.
Now, I understand that some people are excited about the “electrification” of society. These people believe that electric vehicles, electric stoves, and electric heat will make these concerns a moot point. They also believe that all of this “going green” is going to save the planet. However, regardless of what they believe, that doesn’t make sense.
How is scrapping billions of perfectly functional appliances good for the environment? How is placing that much more demand on the already faltering electrical grid even going to work? Remember when California had to issue an emergency alert for people NOT to charge their electric vehicles so that their electric grid did not collapse—right after they announced that everyone was going to have to have an electric vehicle? That is the height of irony, is it not?
Furthermore, all of these targets are aiming to complete this electrification of society some time between 2030 and 2050 — per the UN Sustainable Development Goals, Agenda 2030, and the Paris Climate Accord. Is it even possible to achieve these ambitious goals by then? Is it wise to even try? How much deep earth mining, extracting of rare minerals, raw materials, and heavy industrial processing of these precious natural resources will it take to make this happen? How much transportation? How much construction? How much pollution will all of this cause?
Doesn’t the whole process of electrification—the building of infrastructure, the manufacturing of batteries, etc—seem like it would significantly outweigh any potential positive impact? For sure it would massively spike the output of harmful emissions and significantly deplete limited resources in the short term. What about the long term? Just about the time everyone had to have electric everything, the batteries would need to be replaced, the grid would need to be updated, and so on—and that would require the whole process to start all over again, wouldn’t it?
No, it does not seem logical to think that this so-called “electrification” is going to solve anything. It is certainly not going to reduce pollution—think about all the waste!—and thus, there is really no rational reason to think any of this will benefit the planet in any way whatsoever. Which begs the question: what is this really all about?
What’s really going on here?
Again, as just a curious casual observer, it doesn’t make any sense. That’s why I went looking for answers and started really thinking it through. Top of mind, I was wondering: where are these ideas coming from anyway? I mean, if you think about it, most people aren’t sitting around thinking about getting rid of their favorite car, furnace, or gas cook stove. Similarly, most people aren’t sitting around thinking about how they can “save the planet” or electrify society.
So where do these ideas come from? Who is pushing these ideas? Who benefits from these ideas? Who is demanding that everyone on the planet accept these ideas?
(In the spirit of pretending to be a casual observer, I won’t say the global cabal.)
Since this craze over electrification seems to be a worldwide phenomenon, it seemed like there had to be some sort of globally coordinated messaging campaign. Naturally, that led me to look into organizations like the United Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Economic Forum—all of whom seemed to be presenting a unified message on the importance of sustainability for the sake of saving the planet.
That’s when things really started clicking together.
The WHO has a Global Plan for the Decade of Action (2021-2030) that strongly pushes the need to, in their words, #RethinkMobility. They calculate that “more roads with more lanes equal more cars” and then state “such expansion is unsustainable.” The WHO claims we pay an “unacceptable toll for our mobility,” suggesting that modern mobility causes some 1.3 million deaths and 50 million injuries each year, and all of our driving around leads to heart and lung diseases and poor air quality.
The solution? Putting safety first.
“Governments everywhere need to act on making vehicles and roadways safe. …
Making way for safe walking and cycling can impact favorably on health and the environment, allowing people to reap the rewards of being physically active and breathing clean air. …
In addition, the Global Plan highlights that a shift towards people-centered roads and road networks – those that are planned, designed, built and operated to eliminate risks – would save lives.
Such roads consider first and foremost those most at risk of injury: children and adolescents, people with disabilities, pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport.
At its best, mobility can help drive positive social change in many areas of society.”
What is not directly stated in the above excerpt is the elimination of gas powered vehicles, though it is implied in the vision and found elsewhere in their plans.
Interestingly enough, the United Nations is pushing the exact same plan, as it ties directly into their Sustainable Development goals. The point to be made here, is that both organizations are working toward a common agenda—the WHO from the angle of public health and safety, the UN from the angle of sustainable development.
Taking it a step further, connecting the dots between these global initiatives and U.S. federal policy, it should be obvious where the Biden administration is getting its ideas. In fact, the WHO and UN just released a report (yesterday, June 6th) that indicates they are not on track to reach Goal #7, which includes the electrification of society, largely because there are some “2.3 billion people reliant on harmful cooking fuels.” Hence, the U.S. government trying to ban gas stoves.
Another key realization is that these initiatives “help drive positive social change in many areas of society.” In other words, they are changing public habits and shaping public perspectives in ways they’ve arbitrarily deemed to be “positive.” Skeptics might point out that all of this ultimately restricts individual liberty, freedom of movement, and even how we cook our food, which gives the government more and more control over how we live our lives. That’s really the whole point.
It’s all about control.
While the UN and the WHO continue to push their agenda, and the Biden administration continues to adopt it, the bankers are licking their chops at the thought of all the profits. In reality, the central bankers are the ones bankrolling all of this so-called sustainable development. Their plans are cloaked in altruistic trappings, as always, but the World Bank’s recent 354 page report—Thriving: Making Cities Green, Resilient, and Inclusive in a Changing Climate—makes it abundantly clear that they intend to pay for “the science,” control the flow of information, write the public policies, and demand international compliance with the climate agenda.
Anyone who doesn’t fall in line doesn’t get the money, period.
The World Bank states that, “When it comes to emerging climate risks, perception versus reality is important. It is not only access to information that matters, but also how that information influences behavior and policy making.” Obviously people need to be getting the right information, so they can start making the right decisions, like getting rid of their gas cars, gas stoves, and gas furnaces, in order to save the planet, enrich the elite, and further fund the consolidation of power at the global level.
At least that’s my personal interpretation.
When it comes to emerging climate risks, perception versus reality is important.
This issue of “perception versus reality” is also very central in the World Economic Forum’s recent Digital Safety Risk Assessment (May 2023), which is essentially a fifty page justification for government censorship, to ensure that the public can only get the “right” sort of information that supports the “right” sort of social change.
Having dug through all of this, when I see headlines out today about New York City having the most polluted air of “any city on Earth” and how the Canadian wildfires have led to “air quality alerts” in 13 different states, my mind skips to the “big picture” as presented by the globalists:
It makes me wonder if this “catalyzing cooperation on air pollution” has anything to do with the headlines. Surely the massive Canadian wildfires just spontaneously sprung up, and they are only coincidentally driving the worst air pollution on the planet, at the exact same time that the administration is aggressively pushing the globalists’ agenda to get rid of gas powered everything in order to reduce air pollution.
To connect the dots and try to suggest otherwise would be pure conspiracy.
But it is a curious coincidence, isn’t it?
Stay curious friends!