hemp: And most if not all 'global warming' "science" is partisan propaganda.
In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome: "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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism.
What would be the benefit to democrats in making up global warming? You can say whatever you want about the Club of Rome but any society, overt or covert, should want to survive into the future and climate change is a threat to that. So what if it unites people? The problem is that conspiracy theorists can't get their fears straight. Those who are religious actually want a one world government and believe it will happen under Jesus. The Jews actually want a one world government and those who are religious believe it will happen under some future messiah. The bible has always supported this idea. However, the fear is anyone ELSE doing it.
And let me be clear. I'm not advocating for a one world government. The EU didn't even work for everyone and now Britain is trying to get out. Power brokers and billionaires probably wouldn't want it because part of the reason they take their business outside the US is because its cheaper and less regulated. If there was one government they couldn't escape and they couldn't play one government against another for added benefits. The American government has legalized bribes in the form of lobbying. The situation is already incredibly beneficial for the powerful elite. The likelihood they would retain the same level of power in a global system is not good. In order for other governments to submit to this idea there's no way they would give up sovereignty without huge concessions from other countries, especially the US. The military concessions alone would be enough for most people to give up the idea completely. We can't even get a 2 state solution for Israel and Palestine. So who do you think is having a serious conversation about having a one world government that goes beyond the power of the UN?
quote:In response to the invasion, Bush and his foreign policy team forged an unprecedented international coalition of thirty-four countries, including many members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the Middle Eastern countries of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Egypt, to oppose Iraqi aggression. Bush hoped that this coalition would herald the beginning of a “new world order” in which the nations of the world would work together to deter belligerence.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory2os2xmaster/chapter/a-new-world-order/
Bush's NWO reference was about ALLIES. It wasn't about one empire controlling everything. But conspiracy theory rhetoric takes what people say and implants a new conspiratorial definition as if its the only possible interpretation. If that's what Bush meant he wouldn't have said it publicly. But Conspiracy theorists ignore this obvious fact as if it was some kind of slip of the tongue. Just like Bill Gates. He said what he said on purpose because he didn't mean what Conspiracy theorists think he meant and what THEY are talking about when they say "new world order". The assumption that everyone must use the same terminology in the same way as the conspiracy theorists is part of the problem. If you're not into conspiracy theories or keep track of them its hard to know which terms to even avoid. So basically, its pure spin. Conspiracy theories put a certain kind of fear based spin on information in order to present an inaccurate depiction of the world and global events. And this becomes something that can be harnessed for personal gain if you are either (1) a true believer because of the amount of conspiracy theories you've consumed or (2) if you are willing to lie to make money. And let's be realistic. The motive to lie to make $10 isn't the same as the temptation to lie to make $1M. Most people would lie for a million dollars. The only question is how much.
Not only is there no credible evidence supporting a one world government agenda, anyone who follows politics and has a decent understanding of geopolitics and diplomacy will tell you that it simply isn't possible. And its actually better to have allies and trading partners. The conspiracy theory view of the NWO is like a rich man marrying a thousand women. No matter who is "in charge" there is no way he could claim that these thousand women have no access or right to his money. In America, you marry one woman and unless you have an agreement she can take half of whatever you gained while together. This is why a lot of men would rather not get married and simply have close and intimate friendships.
But people have this idea that you can control the world. And they figure this must be the goal of the most powerful. As if the most powerful are waiting to control everyone on earth before they really try to control anyone. You would think that if they wanted that kind of control they would start with a smaller area. Also, total control over the most powerful government is better than control over all governments because many governments have different problems and control would mean sharing responsibility to solve those problems. You think powerful people really want that? The reason they seek power is mainly to increase their own wealth, not distribute their wealth to poor people world-wide. Explain the benefit they would get out of this and I'll change my position. The people who think of global domination tend to be religious people. Because outside of being able to tell everyone who to worship it doesn't make much practical sense.
But of course you have no evidence for this approach. You're using the desire to organize against climate change as evidence of a NWO without establishing the existence of such an agenda. The fact is that climate change is a global issue. The Paris Accord wasn't one nation telling everyone else what they needed to do and everyone grudgingly going along with it. It was an agreement that everyone would TRY to meet certain goals because not doing so affects every other nation, not just their own. The fact that this is happening outside of any NWO type of ask should be enough to tell you that it isn't being used to create a one world government. There isn't enough time to do that before tackling climate change in a meaningful way. And this is to the frustration of the vast majority of scientists. But again... because conspiracy theorists are conflating two very separate issues they are afraid of real solutions because they're denying there's a problem.
However, if I was one of these powerful conspirators you imagine. I wouldn't use fabricated hoaxes because as soon as one of them is proven to have been faked I would lose credibility. Instead, I would use REAL problems that exist globally and offer solutions but that part of those solutions involves business interests that I control. Kind of like a trojan. You're not going to get a majority of scientists to put their own credibility on the line to make up climate data that can be checked and rechecked by scientists in other parts of the world. If there is global consensus its a safe bet that there's a global problem. Pretending there isn't a problem just because you're scared how it will be used is not a solution or a scenario in which we all live happily ever after. And, as usual, conspiracy theorists constantly overestimate the reach and influence of what they perceive to be a conspiracy. You CANNOT have a great number of people involved in a lie without someone leaking. Therefore it would be stupid to try. You CAN involve a great many people in the RESULT of a lie.
Example: Iraq has WMDs. Whoever came up with this must have kept the lie among a very small group. Then you put out the lie to people who aren't in a position to know otherwise and trust you with that information. The people you lie to then turn around and lie to other people until it gets told to the whole country. News outlets report on what you say but cannot verify it. And that's exactly what happened. That's why the country was always split on whether or not this was true because it wasn't reported as a fact but rather as a claim of the administration. And when it turned out to be false they pounced on it. But that's why you need strong journalism. So that you can find out the truth. It just wasn't fast enough in the time provided to allow the American public to reject the pretext for war. And if I remember correctly it was used as an excuse for the president to act without Congressional approval which his allowed to do if there is an immediate threat.
But that's the correct way to conspire. You don't conspire with 5,000 people. That's ludicrous. And you tell a lie that many people in a whole field of study would know was a lie as soon as you told it. You can't tell a lie that goes against corporate profits where they can easily sponsor studies to find out the truth and so on. And in this case we actually have had corporations going against their financial interests because the studies they funded actually showed that global warming was real. People aren't spending millions of dollars investing in solutions to a made up problem.
Not only that but a lot of the big money guys have their money in oil and gas. The last thing they want is everyone trying to go green while they're trying to sell heavy trucks and SUVs. Conspiracy theorists have a lot to learn about money and financial interest. A far less expensive hoax would be to say that aliens have contacted us through SETI and issued a threat. Of course that would still be difficult because you would have to fake the data but that would be a whole lot easier than something that people can keep testing because the evidence is simply the entire atmosphere.
Lying about the atmosphere is like lying about the shape of the planet. Only an idiot would lie about that in the modern age and those who believe its flat are not too bright either. But it just shows that people who don't trust the government can believe ANYTHING someone else tells them.
|
|