Thread by @clim8resistance

I can only wonder what the other leaders at the UNSC really made of an ancient British man they'd never heard of (he is a voice over artist, and they speak other languages), lecturing them on Gaia's imminent wrath, they having only just seen their populations emerge from poverty.

https://twitter.com/thegwpfcom/status/1364859772638552069

I'm talking about him, again, of course, who the UK government wheeled out in an attempt to align the global security agenda with the green agenda.

Why?

Imagine it... You're the leader of a country with a population getting close to 1.4 billion people... You've actually witnessed western Malthusians running amok in your country for decades, to no good effect... And now for the first time, your working population has a chance...

And then, some degenerate TV star, from some tiny degenerate country that was a big deal a century ago tells you that slightly different weather makes people poor and causes war.

Now, I don't claim that those leaders are good people. Far from it. But they're a damn sight closer to reality than the top strata of the British political establishment.

"Go home, Britain, You're drunk!"

It is HMG's 'jumping the shark' moment.

Half the world's population have now joined the global middle class...

And the UK government says "hold on a sec...".

7.5 billion heads turn to a mop-haired idiot...

"Who the **** are you?", they ask.

The mop-haired idiot says, "Sorry, guys... I'm gonna level with you. You can't be as rich as us, 'cos it'll start wars. Here's a leader of a country we've bribed after ignoring them for decades to tell you why."

The leader of a Caribbean country rises to speak. In his hand, a script -- a condensed version of decades of fake academic 'research' that has attempted to link conflict with global warming, that has been rejected as 'alarmist' even by the IPCC.

The 'research' has cost the British taxpayer tens of £millions. An army of multi-disciplinary 'researchers', from a constellation of 'research' organisations has been working on this for decades. All for this moment.

How to make the world's armies Gaia's soldiers?

What does it *mean* to make global warming a "security" issue?

It's worth noting that the IPCC has offered an extremely mixed picture on the putative "link" between global warming and conflict. And it's easy to see the political influence in its statements.

Here's what the 2014 WGII SPM says:

But the SPM is a political document.

The full Assessment Report tells a VERY different story...

"The literature urges caution...".

"...the research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflict..."

Wealth changes society, such that "...the impact of changes in climate on armed conflict is negligible...".

It contradicts the SPM and the UK government and David Attenborough...

But do you know what the IPCC does find to be a cause of conflict?

You won't believe it...

Climate change policy causes war!

".... climate change mitigation and adaptation actions can increase the risk of armed conflict...".

I have no doubt whatsoever that the next IPCC AR will try to delete this research, and to replace it with statistical sleight of hand to 'prove' that a 'link' between slightly different weather and conflict exist.

The UK government *wants* it to be true, and wants it to be the basis of "global governance". It has therefore sunk very many £millions, perhaps £billions into research that shows it to be true, excluding any scepticism from Britain's "research" organisations.

Environmentalism is to the British political establishment as Islam is to the Taliban.

It's hard to see what the ultimate purpose of the UK government's desire to green the global security agenda actually is.

It might just be a desire for the alignment of global political institutions.

But it might be more suspect. I.e. to further the agenda using force.

If global warming is a global security issue (it isn't, but if they believe it is, then they can act as though it is) then what are the limits of a government's planet-saving interventions?

Can a state go to war against another, in Gaia's name?

Can a military be turned against a domestic population?

Can secret services be used to advance ecological ideology?

I'll say it again: the British government is nuts. Don't rule anything out.

The *point* of internationalising the green agenda is to put politics beyond democratic control.

That is what it means to build global political institutions.

There is no way to sustain a domestic green agenda without a global political institution.

As Chris Huhne put it, channelling Joe, "you can't have environmentalism in one country".

(No kidding.)

Huhne: "All through human political history, you have had governments that have tried to set up particular objectives and have realised they can only go so far so fast without the rest of the world going along with them."

Why?

Because people don't want what governments want.

The UK government, and all politicians from the political parties that have been in government, do not want to take instructions from the UK public.

We should be suspicious of their global ambitions.

We should be EXTRA suspicious of their attempt to link climate and security.

The end.