‘The Technocrat tango is shifting into high gear to force the world to dump Capitalism and Free Enterprise and adopt Sustainable Development in its place. Global warming deniers would face penalties comparable to war crimes.When climate alarmist Al Gore said in 2015 that “deniers deserve to be punished” everybody chuckled. Well, chuckle no more. Under this proposal, President Trump could be prosecuted for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accord; leaders of “Conservative think-tanks” and other activist organizations that question climate science would be included; widely-read journalists who influence the public to question phony climate science would be individually prosecuted – that would ostensibly include Technocracy News & Trends and its publisher, Patrick Wood.
This proposal is pointedly directed at the United States, but I can also see Australia and Brazil in the cross-hairs as well. Technocrats know that their plan for global Technocracy will NOT WORK until the US is neutralized, which is why we are under a full spectrum attack by climate fanatics.
This is a deadly serious matter that should immediately rejected by national leaders. Readers are strongly urged to read my books, Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order andTechnocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.
Note that the article below appears on the official UNESCO website but the author is not writing as an employee of UNESCO. A tiny Disclaimer link in the footer of the UNESCO page states, “UNESCO does not warrant that the information, documents and materials contained in its website is complete and correct and shall not be liable whatsoever for any damages incurred as a result of its use.” ⁃ TN Editor
Climate denial has increased the risk of catastrophic global change. Should international criminal law be used against those who promote this dangerous trend? Economic and political leaders can no longer pretend it is business as usual. Whether they actively induce environmental harm or just ignore the existential threat against the survival of the human species, states and corporations must be held accountable for their actions or inaction regarding climate change.
A fire has started in the theatre, from which there are no exits. Unchecked, the fire will kill and injure many in the theatre, starting with those in the cheapest seats. Many people can smell the smoke, but some others have not noticed it yet. Some people are trying to warn everyone so that the fire can be contained before it spreads out of control. Another group – sitting mainly in the most expensive seats – is trying to shout loudly that there is no fire, or that it is not serious, or that there is plenty of time left to put it out. This group uses emotive language and insists that the other group is not to be trusted.
Many people in the theatre are confused by these conflicting messages or convinced by the fire-deniers. There are enough people in this combined set to significantly slow down the efforts of those listening to the accurate warnings, those who are trying to put out the fire. In this scenario, those shouting “No fire!” ought to be silenced, because there is a fire that requires urgent and immediate action to prevent it from spreading and becoming uncontrollable. But the fire is not being tackled properly because many of the people in the theatre do not know whom to believe.
Can we compare those who deny the reality of climate change to the group that occupies the best seats in the theatre? The answer seems obvious: yes.’