by Matt Nilsson
from WhatAboutTheRoads Website
October 9, 2020
While much of the world remains held hostage by their governments there are impending signs of both hope and doom for the future.
Across the United States the courts are overturning emergency orders enacted by governors, in Europe crowds continue to gather in huge numbers in protest of lockdown measures, while others reopen with "pre-covid" standards.
These terrifying trends are now being coupled with calls for what are being dubbed "climate lockdowns" to avert further destruction. In her article, professor Mariana Mazzucato calls for a total and radical overhaul of society molded by the hands of the government because of climate change.
We'll address the science she uses to justify these measures later. Nowhere does the article mention that the professor receives funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and the Open Society Institutes or explain how that may have swayed her conclusions.
This comes as more and more data disrupts the narrative that COVID-19 requires pandemic status.
Since March we've learned that PCR tests are unreliable, that the science behind masks is doubtful at best, that the virus still hasn't been isolated, and that places that didn't lockdown (Sweden, South Dakota, Nicaragua, etc) are faring just fine.
The rise in protests and condemnations of lockdown policies makes complete sense in this context but a more alarming question still remains: why are so many governments stubbornly refusing to end lockdowns or even doubling down on these policies?
Perhaps it is because these measure were never about protecting the public's health.
The narrative of COVID-19 as a tool of control is very well-documented at this point but with climate lockdowns emerging as part of the story it's worth focusing in on the environmental movement and seeing what tools of control have been deployed here as well.
The idea that humans should be good stewards of the planet is not being questioned but the origins and evolution of environmentalism, and some of the key players involved, require close scrutiny as there is a dark side of this movement that can't be ignored.
The Apocalyptic Origins of Environmentalism
Modern environmentalism can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s as scientific communities, grassroots organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and eventually governments became more engrossed in man's relationship with the planet.
On the plus side there was more attention placed on cherishing the natural world, respecting animal life, and reversing environmental degradation but there also emerged an apocalyptical view of the future where mankind would destroy the planet.
In 1968 Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb was released and warned of the impending death of hundred of millions in the coming decades due to resource depletion and food shortages brought on by overpopulation.
This was his take on mankind's growth:
Some of these decisions included eugenics-based solutions like forced sterilization and gene-editing.
Though the theories in this book are now largely discredited it went on to become a best-seller and planted eugenics-based solutions in the public consciousness.
That same year the Club of Rome was founded. A group of industrialists, politicians, scientists, and academics met in Italy with dreams of ushering in a new global order.
In 1972 they further popularized theories of a human-driven ecological collapse in The Limits to Growth which has been translated into dozens of languages and sold tens of millions of copies worldwide.
The book echoed Ehrlich's vision of a world of depleted resources, environmental destruction, and rampant food shortages in and around 2020 due to overpopulation.
Subsequent publications would expand on the organization's dismal view of humanity's potential and echo Ehrlich's mankind-as-cancer metaphor.
In 1975's Mankind at the Turning Point they open their work with a lovely epigraph from a Rockefeller-funded scientist named Alan Gregg who believes,
Almost two decades later in 1991 The Club of Rome published another report, The First Global Revolution which proposed a plan for navigating the 21st century.
The authors believed that humanity was on the verge of global societal change largely brought on by anthropogenic climate change and that current forms of government were not suited to find resolutions. Instead they proposed that a global system of interlocking non-governmental institutions above the nation state level be created.
In order to convince the public that surrendering much of their sovereignty was worth it they needed to create a common enemy to work in unison against.
This is what they came up:
It's easy to dismiss these passages as the reflections from a small group of people from a different time.
However, this isn't just a fringe activist group; the men and women of The Club of Rome have shaped the 20th and 21st centuries.
Members have included,
The influence these members carries extends into the United Nations, halls of governments around the world, major philanthropic organizations and environmentalist NGOs, prestigious universities, and other prominent think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
There is truth in this line of thinking.
Time and time again governments have failed to do what is right in the name of the environment but this is the result of corruption, collusion, and incompetence which does not necessitate even more centralization and unaccountability from a supranational bureaucracy.
The names and institutions mentioned above are the same ones supporting the tyrannical handling the current so-called pandemic, when they begin issuing demands for climate lockdowns,
Environmentalism as Religion
In the last 40 years environmentalism has taken on many elements of a religion.
Fewer and few people identify as traditionally religious in the western world but there is speculation that the human brain is hardwired for faith so it follows that in the absence of conventional religious devotion the mind would grasp for something else to believe in.
This is of course not true of everyone who wants the earth to be habitable for future generations but for many devotees the parallels are uncanny.
Religious imagery from the Book of Genesis like the Garden of Eden evoked by climate activists when they envision a paradisiacal future where humanity acts in harmony with the planet once again.
Should we fail to live up to this destiny divine retribution will come for modern man like it came for the sinners in Sodom and Gomorrah.
The findings in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are used in green sermons, much like passages in the Bible, Koran, or Torah are in houses of worship.
Holy sites like Jerusalem and Mecca are for religious pilgrims what Antarctica and Glacier National Park are for the environmentalists claiming they wish to see climate change in action.
When it comes to religion we already know what happens when dogmatic thinking goes too far...
The environmental movement is relatively new but, as has already been seen in extreme cases, it can be hijacked by orthodoxy and blinded by apocalyptic visions.
It is this sort of emotional thinking that allows for proponents of climate lockdowns to propose an,
We've Reached the Tipping Point
Climate change goes by many names.
Ad executives are working on rebranding the phenomenon and it may soon be known as The Great Collapse or Climate Collapse.
The convenience of all of this does much to remove the veneer of global warming climate change being an infallible scientific doctrine, free from the subjectivity of man's own desires.
It's what makes it possible for Mariana Mazzucato's to casually drop,
Depending on who you ask we have seen many so-called tipping points come and go for decades now so they need to be taken with a grain of salt, as do the uncited claims she makes.
First let's head north into the Arctic...
When she says that the ice is shifting she presumably means that the climate itself is shifting which is resulting in less ice.
Yes, ice in parts of the Arctic have been on a downward trend (noted in the link above) over the past couple of decades but this trend is only correct if you stop looking at data from before 1979.
There is no context given by Mazzucato here and when we find for example that the Greenland Ice Sheet is between 5,000 and 10,000 feet thick and the melt has only been 10 feet in the past 30 years we have to be careful of jumping to conclusions that this constitutes whatever a tipping point is.
The wildfires in the western U.S. and Australia are unpleasant to watch and tragic for those who live in those parts of the world.
But, it's worth stressing wildfires in these areas are absolutely natural phenomenon that have been going on long before the advent of climate change.
It's true that man has played a role in these situations but this has more to do with mismanagement than anthropogenic climate change.
In Australia government policies have done much to prevent prescribed burns and other wildfire management techniques from happening which bona fide scientific researcher Jo Nova sees as the catalyst for the disaster of 2020.
In August, Greenpeace released a report on found two methane leaks off the coast of England, the result of Exxon Mobil and Sweden's Stena Drilling Company drilling for oil in 1990.
While this isn't good news Greenpeace's own report explains that,
Their own findings show that government incompetence, and potentially collusion with Exxon, allowed this problem to continue on unabetted for three decades and yet, Mazzucato believes this justifies climate lockdowns for all of humanity as retribution.
Once again, the attempt here is not to throw the baby out with the bath water and denounce the environmentalist movement outright.
Absolutely nobody denies that the climate changes and yes, the world is absolutely impacted by human presence and sometimes quite negatively.
The way forward should be with open science, transparent dialogue, and accountability at all levels of society because otherwise it will be left to the elite to call the shows for the rest of mankind and we know that doesn't usually go in mankind's favor.
October 16, 2020
As we saw in Part I above, the environmental movement has a dark streak running through it.
Many of the architects of the movement hold a Malthusian, eugenics-obsessed view of the world and their fingerprints are all over the growing call for a global climate lockdown.
A movement based on the best of intentions is once again being hijacked to centralize power and eviscerate human rights.
With that established it is time to closely examine what exactly Mariana Mazzucato is proposing when she threatens a climate lockdown. In her view, and those on whose behalf she writes, humanity must be willing to undergo a total restructuring of society at the hands of the elite in order to save the planet or continue to live in lockdown.
The brave new world she envisions is a sort-of technocracy, a government based on the management of society by unelected technical experts.
Ultimately, this vision is less about driving electric cars and switching to a plant-based diet and more about a hostile takeover of the world's resources.
The Calls for a Climate Lockdown Begin
With Mazzucato's questionable climate science already addressed it's time to move onto investigating her criticisms of society as we know it.
But first we need to understand where this message is coming from...
Mazzucato's story comes to us from Project Syndicate, a news organization which distributes,
The publishing of these commentaries is made possible by funding from,
Let's just say her view doesn't exactly represent the disenfranchised or any grassroots movement.
Mazzucato's opinion piece is more of a threat than anything else.
She believes we are living through a series of crises during the "disease of the Anthropocene," an anti-human echo from her environmental forefathers, that center around the climate, economic and social inequality, and public health.
Neither government nor the private sector are capable of addressing such catastrophic situations in her estimation so we must undergo a "green economic transformation" or else be locked down like prisoners until the problem is resolved.
What she has to say on what would happen during a climate lockdown itself is actually quite brief:
The brevity of this proclamation is curious as these propositions for reducing carbon emissions and "going green" are nothing new.
Environmentalists have been advocating for these changes for decades now, though notably without the need for literally confining people to their homes.
The bulk of the article is dedicated to the overhaul of the economy, revealing her true message to the masses.
The Future in Her Eyes
This transformation entails building whatever an "inclusive, sustainable" economy is and requires that government assistance to the private sector be reigned in.
Not by stopping the public-private revolving door, upholding justice through the legal system, enabling a free market, or simply ending taxpayer bailouts, but continuing all of these practices so long as the government attaches strict conditions to how that money is used.
Governments should also add new taxes on raw materials and legislate "job guarantees" into existence somehow.
Under this system the political and economical elite still siphon off money from the lower classes, but by dictating that,
The state must also continue to steer the course of finance through investments.
When the financial crisis hit in 2008 it wasn't the cozy relationship between Washington and Wall Street that kept money circulating through the financial sector rather than entering the larger economy, but "bad investments" on the government's part.
Bad because they didn't invest long term in eco-friendly energy like wind power or support green infrastructure projects according to her.
She gives no explanation as to how these investments would allow money to flow into Main Street.
When looking for positive examples of state investments she cites New Zealand's "Wellbeing Budget" and the Scottish National Investment Bank (SNIB).
The Wellbeing Budget is the name given to the New Zealand government's fiscal budget for the year 2019 and represented a shift away from making monetary decisions based on GDP and towards spending based on "wellbeing".
It made for an excellent public relations move which portrayed a government concerned about the wellness of its people but in reality transferred many budgetary decisions to experts and bureaucrats rather than elected officials, a hallmark of a technocratic society.
The SNIB is set to launch by the end of 2020 and while she doesn't mention it in her article, Mazzacuto has played a key role in developing this institution. This state-owned institution will offer grants, soft loans, credit guarantees and co-investments to companies in pursuit of certain missions.
These missions are still being finalized but aim to mimic the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals which center around climate change, shifting demographics, and economic inclusion.
Like New Zealand's Wellbeing Budget, the SNIB framework ultimately takes power out of the hands of the public and into the hands of a technocratic elite.
The figures who will run the SNIB and direct it's funds will be unelected and unaccountable to the public but will use taxpayer funds to steer the direction of the economy nonetheless.
These examples are the blueprints all nations should be using according to Mazzucato.
In a follow-up interview with the Irish Times, she makes it unambiguously clear that central economic planning is the proper role of government:
Given her connections to some of the world's most powerful people it is highly unlikely that "we" refers to the common man.
Mazzucato's final claim, dropped out of nowhere and without citation or follow-up, is that an economy centered around renewable energy is the antidote to our otherwise disastrous future.
She then menacingly reminds the reader that "radical change is inevitable," so either go along with their plan, or face climate lockdowns while they do it anyway.
How have Lockdowns Impacted the Climate so Far?
With much of the world under house arrest, carbon dioxide emissions declined in the first half of 2020 as one would expect.
Correspondingly, air pollution dropped off in many industrialized areas. This was touted as a victory for the climate, especially when photos of the Himalayas, free of their usual smog in India, went viral.
This was a relatively short-lived victory however as numbers began rising again in the second half of the year.
Takeout dining has been a staple for many during lockdown which has meant single-use plastics have become more prevalent and sadly ended up in in the sea in increased numbers as well.
More studies and information will surely come out in the months and years ahead but as of now this is the picture we have of the climate in a locked down world and it isn't very convincing that by continuing these practices the world will be free of man's impact on it.
The desire for clear skies, clean air, and habitable oceans are all noble and improvements can and will be made but the idea that in order to achieve these things we need society reshaped at the hands of a shadowy elite, is still insane and speaks to a larger agenda at play...
The Big Picture
When looking into the environmental impact of lockdowns there is a chilling refrain in the mainstream media.
The initial decrease in emissions is cheered on but the rebound is seen as a sign that while the current lockdowns are doing some good it just isn't enough (see here, here, here, here, here, and here to see that message repeated).
What is needed according to these writers and groups is a reengineering of society.
This Great Reset will come,
In the below final installment of this series we will see how climate lockdowns and the reconfiguration of society fits perfectly into the big picture that the elite have in mind.
October 20, 2020
The time has come to step back and look at the bigger agenda of what's behind climate lockdowns.
The groundwork for Mazzucato's proposals have already been laid and seeded into the public consciousness.
This agenda goes by many names and has many faces but at it's core it is a deception which promotes sustainable development to combat climate change through organizations like the United Nations.
The deception rests on the successful deployment of the Hegelian Dialectic, also known as problem, reaction, solution.
In this case,
It is through these central pillars that we will conclude this series and present solutions for derailing this dystopian vision of the future.
The Truth about Sustainable Development
Though her work is presented as an opinion piece, Mazzucato is simply promoting a larger agenda.
The agenda is pushed through everything from The Green New Deal and The Paris Agreement to The Great Reset crafted by the World Economic Forum and the United Nation's 2030 Agenda (formerly Agenda 21).
These are the instruments which serve as tools for the elite to spread their globalist philosophies.
Those familiar with these organizations and accompanying legislation are rightly skeptical of presidents and prime ministers mixing with hedge fund managers, CEOs, European royalty, unelected technocrats, and career bureaucrats to dictate the future of the world.
Supposedly this is done in the interest of saving the planet but a closer look at what's behind these agendas tells a very different story.
The United Nations and it's acolytes in the mainstream media promise a world where economic growth still flourishes without harming the environment, so long as the world adopts their 17 goals for sustainable development - page 12.
These goals include,
When presented in this simple way it is difficult to find issue with those goals.
After all, who doesn't want a world where poverty has been eradicated and children aren't going hungry?
While photos of smiling African children or wind turbines against a pastoral background usually accompany reporting on the goals there is little context given to the history or players involved in their creation. How these goals will actually be achieved is a question mostly left unanswered as well.
Once these issues are addressed one really wonders if this agenda is what they say it is, or if there's more to the story.
So where did the term sustainable development come from and how did it become the core of the United Nation's goals for the future of mankind?
In 1983, Agenda 21 began taking shape in the UN as part of the Brundtland Commission who's goal was to unite the world on a path towards sustainable development.
What came out of this commission was a work called Our Common Future which popularized the term sustainable development and defined it as,
Short, sweet, and without substance...
It was headed by,
The United Nations' Plans for The Future
The agenda was updated and made public in the form of a 300-page document in 1992 at the UN's Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and was adopted by 178 governments.
The agenda was expanded upon in the 1995 report, Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA) which elaborates on,
These works leave no stone unturned when it comes to reshaping the world but there are three factors that are of particular use for creating a control grid:
Perhaps the most far-reaching transformation is with regards to private property which will largely be prohibited.
They explain that,
This in essences,
One interpretation of Agenda 21 includes population control as part of the equation.
To maintain current standards of living in North America the authors of the GBA estimated that the world population would need to be one billion, two to three billion if "frugal European standards" were desirable.
The implicit choice there is that either those standards of living must become a thing of the past or that much of the world's population will need to be done away with.
The authors do not mention how we would return to those levels but with eugenicists like the Rockefellers in support of this agenda it is frightening to imagine the possibilities.
The ability to inventory the world's production and consumption of any and all resources was a desired but far-off dream of the technocrats of the early 20th century.
This dream was closer to being possible in the mid-90s when the GBA stated their goal to:
The language used here makes this sound like a boring exercise in record keeping but this banal language, when put in the context of a plot like Agenda 21, becomes much more nefarious.
Researcher Rosa Koire has been studying the UN's environmental agendas for decades and calls this cataloging,
In today's technologically-driven world, and with the growing Internet of Things, this is a very real possibility.
It became clear in 2015 that 2021 was un unrealistic goal and the agenda once again received a facelift and became Agenda 2030.
The agenda outlined in Agenda 21 was reframed as the UN's Sustainable Goals, 17 interlocking items meant to serve as the blueprint for a sustainable future.
They can be read about in great detail and are very appealing on the surface.
The catch is that the technocrats in charge of pushing this agenda have to be trusted and as has been outlined previously, and well-documented in other places, this is a huge ask.
A Look at The Green Economy
These technocrats are also asking to be in charge of world finances.
Both the World Bank and International Monetary Foundation were spawned from the United Nations and represent, among other institutions and central banks, the financial arm of the elite.
Those in support of this agenda perpetually claim that capitalism has failed us and that along with this reorientation towards sustainability the foundations of our economy will need to change.
Patrick Wood, in his seminal book, Technocracy Rising outlines how this will work in the green economy of the future:
The elite know this is coming and have already positioned themselves accordingly.
As a matter of fact, a bank (discussion begins at 39:41) has already been set up to facilitate this transition into a new economic paradigm.
With most private property rights gone, bodily autonomy in the hands of the ruling class, and complete centralization of the economy there is really nothing outside of the grasp of the elite in this system.
How to Derail Sustainable Development
The cynicism held by those behind this agenda is astounding.
They believe that humanity is so distrustful and irresponsible that every facet of their existence must be restricted and controlled. This doesn't even touch on the eugenicist beliefs held by many within their ranks who would rather see most people simply done away with so they can live in a world unspoiled by their inferiors.
While the fight against such an overarching plan may seem impossible there is a part each person can play in resisting this nightmarish takeover of the world.
If the problem is framed as a battle of David v. Goliath, in which the dismantling the UN or wresting away the fortunes of the Gates and Rockefellers of the world are the goals, then the task seems insurmountable.
The much simpler resolution to this problem, and one which allows everyone to do their part, is to just opt out and build anew...
There are problems in society that need addressing and there are certainly environmental issues that need fixing but these can be handled in a decentralized fashion.
Once this is understood on a wide scale the work can begin on a large scale.
However, nobody has to wait that long as there are already individual tasks that can be done.
This list is hardly exhausted and will mean different things to different people but that's really the point. Nobody is better suited to direct your life than you.
As we all learn, share, and grow this destructive agenda can be dismantled while a beautiful new chapter of humanity begins.