Common Sense in the Smog of Green Deception

Citizens Rule Book: A Palladium of Liberty (Download) #InfoWars 🇺🇸

“It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error.” – Thomas Paine

In the summer of 2023, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres proclaimed that “the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.” The apocalyptic alarm rang out across headlines worldwide. We are told that every heatwave, flood, or storm is proof of a planetary emergency caused by humanity’s sins of industry and carbon. Dissenters are branded heretics against an alleged scientific “consensus.” Governments and corporate elites insist that to save the planet, we must accept unprecedented controls over our lives – from what energy we use, to what we eat, to how we travel.

This is climate $cientism, not science. It is a politicized dogma draped in the lab coat of “expertise,” used to justify a new global authority over production, economy, and even population. As Thomas Paine warned in The Age of Reason, “infidelity does not consist in believing or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what one does not believe.” Today, infidelity to truth abounds: dire climate predictions that repeatedly fail, computer models that ignore reality, and a technocratic elite professing climate concern while accumulating power. The mainstream narrative of man-made climate catastrophe has hardened into an orthodoxy – one might even say a Hoax – that demands we surrender liberty and prosperity in exchange for the promise of “saving the Earth.”

In this feature, we will unravel how the climate change narrative is rooted not in sound science but in pseudoscience and ideology. We will expose how influential global elites – from the Club of Rome to United Nations agencies and World Economic Forum technocrats – have for decades used environmental fears to advance a blueprint for technocratic global governance. This blueprint entails replacing democratic self-rule with rule by unelected experts, replacing free markets with energy rationing (carbon credits and energy “currencies”), and replacing national sovereignty with global digital control systems (such as universal digital IDs and surveillance of personal carbon footprints).

Far from a spontaneous response to an ecological crisis, the climate agenda represents the culmination of old elitist ambitions. Its intellectual pedigree traces back to Malthusian population alarmism, eugenics, and the 1930s Technocracy movement that sought to run society by scientific diktat. Its policy program is a high-tech revival of feudalism: a world where ordinary people’s behavior is micromanaged “for the greater good,” while an aristocracy of experts and billionaire philanthropists congratulate themselves on “saving humanity.” If this sounds extreme, consider that as far back as 1972, one of the earliest climate-doomsday computer models – commissioned by the Club of Rome – openly contemplated scenarios of population collapse. Consider also that in 2022, Dennis Meadows, co-author of that very 1972 report, coolly mused that the world’s population “could be ~80% lower” in the future and hoped this can be achieved “peacefully” under a benevolent dictatorship. The mask slips: behind the rhetoric of “sustainability” lies a chilling ambition to engineer society and even cull the population in line with elite preferences.

The Malthusian Roots: Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth and the Population Control Agenda

To understand today’s climate alarmism, we must revisit the early 1970s, when a group of industrialists, politicians and scientists calling themselves the Club of Rome set the template for marrying environmental fear to authoritarian policy. In 1972 this club published The Limits to Growth, a report based on computer models from MIT researchers, which predicted that exponential economic and population growth would lead to catastrophic resource depletion and societal collapse by the year 2000 if “business as usual” continued. The study’s scenarios – generated by feeding data into a primitive computer program – showed lines on a graph where population, food, and industrial output all plunge into a death spiral in the 21st century. Though packaged as cutting-edge science, Limits to Growth was essentially doom-laden guesswork. As one analysis years later noted, Limits to Growth became “the mother of all apocalyptic forecasts”, and “time has not been kind” to its “alarmist, fear-mongering predictions of… disaster.” None of the specific collapse scenarios foreseen by the 1972 model came true by 2000 – global famine did not occur; vital resources did not run out; society did not implode. Yet the mythos of imminent collapse was deeply planted in the public consciousness, and it has proven politically useful ever since.

Importantly, the ideological DNA of Limits to Growth was old-fashioned Malthusianism – the belief that human population growth must inevitably outstrip resources, and that humanity is a plague upon the Earth. This pessimistic creed, pioneered by Thomas Malthus in 1798, had influenced earlier 20th-century movements advocating eugenics (selective breeding and sterilization to curb “undesirables”) and coercive population control. By the late 1960s, fears of a “population bomb” were mainstream. Biologist Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb warned of mass starvation and called for draconian measures to limit births. Ehrlich – mentor to future White House science advisor John Holdren – even suggested adding sterilants to water supplies. Such was the zeitgeist in which the Club of Rome’s dire model emerged. The report gave a scientific sheen to the agenda of those who felt the world had “too many people.” As the Cato Institute observes, Limits to Growth and Ehrlich’s book together “helped spread fear that overpopulation would deplete resources and result in disastrous shortages”, a fear that directly “funneled money towards population control” programs in the 1970s. India, for example, received tens of millions in loans from the World Bank and UN to carry out mass sterilizations, even suspending civil liberties to do so. In 1975 alone, India’s government sterilized over 6 million people by force. In 1979, China’s brutal one-child policy was instituted – explicitly “inspired by The Limits to Growth” according to archival evidence. A straight line connects the Club of Rome’s pseudo-scientific modeling and some of the most coercive population control campaigns in history.

While Limits to Growth crunched numbers on resources, its subtext was always population and power. One of the Club of Rome’s founders, Aurelio Peccei, was an avowed neo-Malthusian. Another leading member, Sir Alexander King, later reflected on the Club’s strategy in a 1991 report titled The First Global Revolution. In a particularly candid passage, the authors admit “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that… the threat of global warming … would fit the bill.” This remarkable statement (often downplayed by the media) reveals how deliberately climate fear was identified as a useful narrative. The “enemy” would not be a rival nation or ideology, but humanity itself– or rather, the activities of industrial civilization. By demonizing carbon dioxide – the invisible gas we all exhale and which sustains plant life – the architects of the climate agenda found the perfect pretext to justify a sweeping control grid. After all, if every human action (breathing, eating, moving, procreating) affects the climate, then nothing lies outside the purview of regulators. It is the ultimate blank check for social engineering.

Chillingly, the anti-human bias of this elitist ideology has been voiced by its own high priests. Dennis Meadows, co-author of Limits to Growth, was filmed in 2022 reflecting on the prospect of global population being a fraction of current levels. “Our planet can support maybe a billion people, maybe two,” Meadows said, lamenting that 7+ billion is far too many. He then added: “I hope that it can occur in a civil way… under a smart dictatorship.” The casual reference to dictatorship as a means to quietly eliminate five out of six people on Earth is as shocking as it is revealing. In truth, Limits to Growth was never just about the environment – it was a manifesto for depopulation. Under the guise of “sustainability,” influential figures have long promoted what scholar Robert Zubrin calls “the ideology of antihumanism – the belief that human beings are a horde of vermin… and that tyrannical measures are necessary to constrain humanity.” Club of Rome and its successors dressed up this grim worldview in computer graphs and ecological terminology, but it remains a starkly political project: concentrate power in elite hands to “solve” the “problem” of humanity.

Half a century later, we see the legacy of Limits to Growth in every aspect of the climate change narrative. The doomsday deadlines are periodically revised (we’re currently told we have “5 or 10 years to save the planet” – a refrain heard for decades). The specifics of the catastrophe keep changing (global cooling, then warming, then generic “climate change,” now the nebulous menace of “climate crisis” or “global boiling”). But the prescription is always the same: give up your freedom, entrust more power to centralized authorities, and maybe – just maybe – we’ll avert the apocalypse. It’s a familiar bargain, one that history’s tyrants always offer and never honor. As Paine would remind us, “it is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government” – and today, from global oligarchs who speak in the name of “the planet.”

The 1930s Technocratic Dream: Rule by Experts, Energy as Currency

Long before “climate change” entered the lexicon, an earlier movement laid the groundwork for technocratic globalism– the replacement of democratic governance with rule by technical experts. During the Great Depression, in the early 1930s, a group of engineers and economists in North America championed a radical new system called Technocracy. They argued that elected politicians and market-driven economies were hopelessly inefficient. Instead, society should be managed scientifically by engineers who would distribute resources not by money, but by energy units. In essence, they envisioned turning the entire economy into one big machine calibrated by energy consumption – with people’s livelihoods allocated in “energy certificates” rather than dollars.

It sounds like dystopian science fiction, but for a brief moment Technocracy had mass appeal. The movement’s founder, Howard Scott, and prominent allies like engineer M. King Hubbert (who later developed the peak oil theory) recruited perhaps half a million followers at its height . They published tracts, held rallies, and even donned a distinctive gray uniform with a Monad emblem. At the core of Scott’s vision was an “energy theory of value”: since energy underlies all production, “the sole scientific foundation for the monetary system [should be] energy”. Money and prices would be abolished, replaced by a system of accounting where each citizen receives an allocation of Energy Credits – equal shares of the nation’s productive capacity – and expends them to obtain goods and services. These credits would expire periodically (preventing saving or accumulation of wealth). Private property and free enterprise would be supplanted by central planning by a board of technocrats – essentially, engineers as an unelected “Soviet of Experts” governing society.

If this sounds like a Marxist five-year plan, Technocracy was in some ways even more extreme. The Technocrats openly stated that their system was “the most radical movement to the left of us” – more revolutionary than Soviet communism. They despised politicians and capitalists alike. Thorstein Veblen, a mentor to Scott, quipped that under Technocracy, Congress would be replaced with a “National Board of Technicians.” Scott himself said political democracy was outdated; in the coming technetronic era, decision-making would be too complex for the average voter. Democracy would be replaced by “scientific administration.” In fact, critics in the 1930s immediately recognized that Technocracy demanded sacrificing political democracy in favor of technological elitism. As one historical account noted, the public ultimately balked because “the idea of political democracy still represented a stronger ideal than technocratic utopia… goals that technology made possible could be achieved without the sacrifice of existing institutions and values.”

Yet the technocrats persisted. They formalized their ideas in a 1934 Technocracy Study Course, a hefty manual detailing how to reorganize society. Some of the proposals were strikingly Orwellian. For example, Scott and Hubbert envisioned universal surveillance of consumption: “Provide specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.” Every citizen would be tracked in a central database noting all their energy expenditures and personal info – a concept eerily familiar today in the age of Big Data, credit scores, and smartphone tracking. The Technocracy blueprint would have required an enormous bureaucracy armed with data on every aspect of citizens’ lives, using it to engineer social outcomes. Dismissed as utopian (or dystopian) at the time, the movement faded by the 1940s, surviving only in small pockets. However, the ideology of Technocracy never disappeared – it merely bided its time.

Fast forward to the 21st century: Is it not remarkable how closely the emerging “sustainable development” regime mirrors the old Technocratic dream? Today we have central bankers and climate officials talking about implementing personal carbon allowances (a direct analogue to energy credits). We have proposals for allocating each person a limited amount of CO₂ emissions or energy usage, tracked via smart meters and digital IDs, with penalties for overuse. We have calls to discard gross domestic product growth as a goal and adopt “degrowth” – essentially a planned contraction of material consumption to fit ecological limits. This is Technocracy reborn for an age of environmental panic. In the 1930s, technocrats lacked the computing power and digital infrastructure to realize their control grid. But they prophetically anticipated many instruments of modern surveillance and control. As the Mises Institute notes, Scott and Hubbert’s vision included “monitoring everything” and eliminating privacy in economic life. They even toyed with ideas of universal basic income (but in energy units) and dissolving the price system entirely.

Most tellingly, Technocracy was explicitly anti-democratic. It aimed to “replace [capitalism] entirely” and put society “under the supervision of a ‘Soviet of Experts’”, with “politicians and capitalists gone”. The public, in their view, would simply follow the rational commands of this scientific managerial class. Democracy was an inconvenience that stood in the way of efficient resource management. Herein lies the connective tissue to today’s climate agenda: in the name of saving the planet, we are asked to accept that unelected experts should dictate our lives – how we heat our homes, whether we can drive cars, what kind of food and how much meat we eat, how many children we may have (indeed, climate activists now openly consider having babies “selfish” due to carbon footprint). It is a green-tinted echo of Technocracy’s thesis that personal freedoms and elected governance are incompatible with the “science-based” management of society.

Lest this sound like hyperbole, consider the words of one modern technocrat par excellence, Dr. Jacques Attali, a French economist and former advisor to President Mitterrand. Attali in 2009 mused about a future of “ecological dictatorship,”writing that “in order to save the planet, we will need to evolve out of democracy.” Or recall Christiana Figueres, former head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, who praised China’s one-party system for “getting things done” on climate, implying liberal democracies might need to become a bit more authoritarian to meet emissions targets. The tone of the climate technocrats is consistently disdainful of debate and individual consent. During the COVID-19 pandemic (another crisis that turbo-charged technocratic controls), we heard academics suggest climate lockdowns could be a model – temporarily halting economic activity and personal mobility to reduce emissions, by decree. Such measures are entirely congruent with a technocratic mentality that sees people not as citizens with rights, but as components in a machine to be calibrated.

Thomas Paine wrote with fiery passion against the divine right of kings; today we must just as fervently reject the divine right of “experts.” Neither kings nor self-anointed technocrats have legitimate authority to dictate the destiny of free peoples without consent. Yet technocratic globalism advances under the radar of crisis – using fear (of climate catastrophe, of pandemics, of whatever next “emergency” arises) to suspend debate and implement controls that would otherwise be intolerable. In Paine’s vein, we might say: “These are the policies that try men’s souls.” And we have only begun to see what they intend.

From Global Cooling to Global Boiling: A History of Manufactured Climate Panic

“The sky is falling!” – so cried Chicken Little in the children’s fable. In the realm of climate, the role of Chicken Little has been played by the media and certain scientific authorities for over half a century, with ever-shifting narratives. It is instructive to recount this history, as it lays bare the pattern of exaggerated predictions and convenient rebranding employed to maintain public fear.

In the 1970s, the buzzword was Global Cooling. Yes – cooling. It comes as a shock to young people today, indoctrinated on warming dogma, that in April 1975 Newsweek ran an alarming story about signs of a new Ice Age. The article began: “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically…”, warning that continued cooling “could cause a drastic decline in food production”. The New York Times and other outlets ran similar pieces reporting that many climatologists saw evidence of a cooling trend since the 1940s and feared it might worsen. Indeed, some reputable scientists like Stephen Schneider (who later became a prominent global warming advocate) endorsed books on the coming cooling. A 1975 National Academy of Sciences report even suggested that “a wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.” In effect, “climate change” originally entered public discourse as climate cooling – with the proposed solutions including spreading soot on arctic ice to melt it or building giant absorbent pads to increase CO2 and warm the atmosphere.

Of course, the Ice Age scare fizzled out. By the late 1980s, the narrative did a 180-degree turn. The hot summer of 1988 and testimony of NASA’s James Hansen in the U.S. Senate put Global Warming on the map. Hansen famously stated, “Global warming is here,” claiming a high degree of certainty that greenhouse gases were driving up temperatures. The media now had a new story: not an encroaching freeze, but a world overheating because of human industry. Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, “global warming” was the ubiquitous term. But as the years went on, there were inconvenient wrinkles. Some regions experienced colder-than-expected winters; overall warming was modest and climate models often over-predicted it. After 1998, a powerful El Niño year, global average temperature rise slowed (the so-called “hiatus”) even as CO₂ levels kept rising – a perplexing development for the doomsayers.

Around this time, the terminology subtly shifted to “Climate Change.” This was a masterstroke of propaganda: whatever happens – warmer, colder, wetter, drier – could now be framed as human-caused climate change. A climate activist could claim a heatwave or a blizzard as evidence of the same narrative. As Frank Luntz, a political consultant, advised in a leaked 2002 memo to the Bush administration, “It’s time for us to start talking about ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’… ‘Climate change’ is less frightening.” The memo noted that “global warming” evoked disastrous heat, whereas “climate change” sounded more neutral and made people think of natural variations. Indeed, polls showed the public was more likely to doubt the severity of “climate change” than “global warming” – which suited those trying to allay concerns about costly climate regulations. So ironically, it was climate skeptics’ opponents who popularized “climate change” as a gentler term. But soon enough, as the cause escalated, activists themselves embraced ever more dramatic phrasing: “climate crisis,” “climate emergency,” and recently, courtesy of Mr. Guterres, “global boiling.”

Let us pause on that last term. When the UN Secretary-General declares that humanity is now in the era of “global boiling,” we have left the realm of sober science for straight-up apocalyptic hyperbole. Such language is designed to shock and cow the public into obedience. It implies that every hot day is an existential threat, every wildfire a sign of end-times. Reasonable debate is short-circuited by fear. As Paine wrote in The Crisis, “Fear is not a basis for the security of rights.” We must ask: how did we jump from “some warming” to “boiling” in rhetoric, even as measured warming over 150 years is around 1.1°C (a far cry from water’s boiling point!)? The answer lies not in climate data but in marketing.

The climate movement has marketed fear consistently, but keeps rebranding when predictions fall flat. In the 1970s it was imminent cooling. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was “the Earth has a fever.” When warming paused, it became “the climate is just changing – but trust us, it’s definitely our fault!” When warming resumed modestly, it became a “crisis” again. After repeated mild-sounding “climate change” failed to evoke sufficient panic, they moved to “climate emergency” and now lurid phrases like “global boiling” meant to invoke hellish imagery. The goal posts shift, but the goal (social control) remains. Even extreme weather events are cynically used: every hurricane or wildfire is immediately attributed to anthropogenic climate change by headlines, even though historical data often shows such events are not unprecedented. The public memory is short, and every new generation can be convinced that today’s weather is the most dangerous ever – unless one looks at the record in context.

None of this is to say Earth’s climate does not change. It does – and always has. The question is what is driving change, and whether it’s truly catastrophic versus manageable, even beneficial. (Notably, modest warming and higher CO₂ have greened the planet considerably according to satellite data, boosting crop yields; this fact gets little attention.) The climate orthodoxy, however, brooks no dissent on these nuances. It attributes virtually all change to human CO₂ emissions and foresees only doom unless we radically de-industrialize. This mono-causal, doom-laden view is itself unscientific: Earth’s climate is an immensely complex system influenced by solar cycles, ocean currents, natural greenhouse gases, aerosols, and more. Even mainstream climatologists acknowledge uncertainties in the extent of future warming. But you will not hear about uncertainty from politicians or the media. They speak of absolute certainty (something anathema to real science) and declare the debate “over.”

In truth, the debate has been smothered, not settled. The infamous “97% consensus” claim – often touted to silence skeptics – crumbles under scrutiny (it stemmed from dubious surveys and cherry-picked abstracts). Thousands of scientists and professionals have expressed dissenting views or signed declarations that the climate is being overstated as a crisis. These voices are marginalized or attacked ad hominem. Consider the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, when leaked emails from leading climate scientists revealed discussions about withholding data, avoiding Freedom-of-Information requests, and keeping skeptical papers out of journals. One scientist wrote of using a “trick” to hide a temperature decline in proxy data. Another spoke of punishing a journal that published a skeptical article. This is not how open, honest science operates; it’s how a priesthood guards dogma. The term “scientism” aptly describes this climate saga – an authoritarian misuse of science as a source of unquestionable truth. As Paine fought the mystique of monarchy and state religion, we must fight the mystique of capital-S “Science” being wielded as a weapon to quash our rights. Real science welcomes scrutiny; scientism silences it.

Geoengineering: Playing God with the Weather – and Blaming Us for It

There is an under-discussed irony in the climate equation: even as global elites insist our CO₂ emissions are wrecking the planet, those same elites are flirting with, and in some cases already testing, geoengineering schemes that could themselves destabilize climate and weather patterns. One such scheme is Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) – essentially, spraying tiny particles (like sulfur dioxide) into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight and artificially cool the Earth. This concept is not conspiracy theory; it has been openly promoted in elite circles (Harvard University had a prominent SAI research program funded in part by Bill Gates, and the UN has considered its governance). Proponents liken it to mimicking volcanic eruptions, which are known to cause short-term cooling.

But what are the side effects of playing Pinatubo with the only planet we have? Studies show they could be severe. Carbon Brief, a climate-policy outlet, reported that artificially cooling the planet through SAI “could have dramatic side effects – including an increase in droughts and hurricanes in some regions”. If one country or hemisphere did SAI unilaterally, it warned, others could suffer: for example, monsoon rains in the Sahel (Africa) and India might falter, causing devastating drought. A Swiss Re insurance analysis likewise noted that stratospheric aerosol injection is essentially “climate change in reverse” – messing with the system in ways that “could lead to an increase or geographical shift of extreme weather events like droughts or hurricanes.” The risks would not be evenly distributed; some regions would benefit (temporarily cooler temperatures) while others would pay the price in water scarcity or storms. The world could even see conflict erupt between nations over suspected “weather tampering” if one country’s geoengineering causes crop failures in another.

Sound far-fetched? Consider that modifying weather has a history – from cloud seeding to attempts at rain-making – and a UN treaty (ENMOD, 1978) bans hostile use of environmental modification, implying the technology exists to some degree. Now, as climate panic rises, previously taboo geoengineering methods are getting a makeover as a potential savior. This is deeply worrying. We face the prospect of a small group of technocrats deciding to “hack the planet” in a manner that could backfire spectacularly. Scientists have warned of a “termination shock”: if we start cooling the planet with aerosols and then suddenly stop, the pent-up warming could hit us all at once, causing chaos. In effect, SAI could enslave future generations to maintain an artificial chemical sunscreen in the sky, lest the suppressed warming roar back. It is a god-like power with devilish risks.

Now ask: if extreme weather does worsen in coming years, how will we know whether it was due to gradual climate change or some secret geoengineering experiment gone awry? In 2018, a strange haze in the skies over California and Texas led some observers to speculate about covert aerosol operations. While hard evidence is scarce (by nature, a covert program would be secret), the lack of transparency in geoengineering research is a red flag. Consider that a “startup” called Make Sunsets boasted in 2022 that it launched weather balloons to release sulfur particles in the atmosphere as a proof of concept – essentially unilaterally commencing SAI on a tiny scale. They even offered “cooling credits” for sale. This prompted outrage and a swift ban in Mexico, but the point is clear: the technology is cheap enough that rogue actors or governments could begin geoengineering unilaterally.

If that happens, global climate could indeed behave erratically – and yet the public would likely be told the culprit is our carbon footprint, requiring even more draconian cuts to our freedoms. It’s the perfect crime: change the weather, blame it on the people, grab more power. Sound cynical? Perhaps, but history shows elites often create crises to advance agendas– or at the very least, never let a good crisis go to waste. As climate fears crescendo, we must demand an open, public accounting of any geoengineering experiments. At minimum, there should be a moratorium until robust global debate and legal frameworks exist. Otherwise, a handful of actors might “pull the pin” on a planetary-scale engineering project that we citizens never consented to – the height of technocratic hubris.

Thomas Paine believed in the wisdom of the common people over the pretensions of the elite. Applied here: farmers, pilots, and observant citizens have as much a right to question unusual trails in the sky or spikes in weird weather as any credentialed expert. Let us recall Paine’s words: “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” The normalization of geoengineering under the guise of climate emergency is exactly the kind of “habit” we must think critically about before it’s too late.

Building the Digital Control Grid: Carbon Credits, Digital IDs, and Agenda 2030

When climate alarmism is sifted to its core, beneath the surface exhortations to “go green” we find a coherent agenda for consolidating global economic and political power. The pillars of this agenda are emerging in initiatives like Agenda 2030 (the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals framework), the introduction of digital identity systems (such as the Real ID in the United States and similar digital ID pushes worldwide), and schemes for carbon credits/personal carbon allowances linked to a new global digital currency. Together, these form nothing less than an infrastructure for technocratic control – a matrix that could monitor and restrict the behavior of every person on the planet in line with elite-defined “climate goals.”

Agenda 2030, adopted by UN member states in 2015, is often presented in benign terms – ending poverty, ensuring health, protecting the environment, etc. But tucked into its goals is a significant item: Goal 16.9, which calls for “legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030.” In other words, a worldwide effort to ensure every human being is biometrically identified and tracked in government databases. On the surface, providing IDs to the undocumented is positive (who could oppose people having access to services?). Yet consider how this dovetails with the vision of a global digital ID that every citizen will need to function – a vision heavily promoted by entities like the World Economic Forum and the Gates Foundation. The UNDP explicitly links digital identity to climate management, noting that “digital legal identities offer a unique means of tracking population movements”during climate disasters and can be used to “track energy consumption [and] inspire behavior change” for sustainability. In a 2024 UNDP blog titled “Why legal identity is crucial to tackling the climate crisis,”the authors enthuse that data from national ID systems can help target individuals for emergency response and even enable “offering rewards or subsidies directly to digital wallets” to encourage compliance with green policies. Here we have it in plain language: digital IDs + digital wallets + climate incentives/penalties = a comprehensive system of social engineering.

The U.S. Real ID Act of 2005 is a prime example of the trend. It compels states to standardize driver’s licenses into a de facto internal passport for Americans. As the ACLU warns, “if fully implemented, [Real ID] would facilitate the tracking of data on individuals and bring government into the very center of every citizen’s life.” Real ID creates a national identity database; the logical next step is linking such databases internationally for “security” and “climate migration” reasons. Already, we see calls for digital vaccine passports (during COVID) morphing into broader digital health IDs, which could easily merge with carbon footprint tracking apps. The European Union is rolling out an “EU Digital Identity Wallet” to centralize citizens’ info, and various countries in Africa and Asia are adopting biometric ID programs often funded by the World Bank or Gates Foundation – all under noble guises like financial inclusion and developmental goals. But the end-state is that everyone, everywhere, will be legible to and locatable by authorities at all times.

Now add carbon credits to this matrix. The idea of carbon credits began as a way for companies or countries to trade emissions permits under cap-and-trade schemes. It has since evolved toward the concept of personal carbon allowances– where each individual might be assigned a yearly carbon budget for travel, heating, consumption, etc. If you stay under, perhaps you can sell your surplus credits; if you go over, you must purchase more or face penalties. Not long ago, such an idea was fringe and politically unthinkable. Yet in late 2022, the World Economic Forum’s “My Carbon” initiative started openly discussing how to “inclusively” implement personal carbon allowance programs in cities. The WEF noted past attempts failed due to lack of technology and public buy-in, but “major developments in recent years” – from COVID lockdown compliance (which normalized drastic limits on behavior) to smart home surveillance tech and AI – could now enable it. The article cheered that emerging 4IR technologies, like blockchain and digitization, can enable tracking personal carbon emissions and linking them to “individual advisories on lower-carbon choices”. Translated from technocrat-speak: We finally have the tools to watch and nudge each person’s actions in real time.

Imagine a near future scenario: You go to the grocery store, and your digital wallet (perhaps a Central Bank Digital Currency account) is debited not only dollars but also carbon points for the meat you bought. Your smart thermostat reports your home’s energy usage, automatically deducting from your carbon allowance. When you book a flight, the system charges you carbon credits; if you run out, you either can’t fly or must pay a steep fee to buy credits from someone else (likely enriching financial players who speculate in carbon markets). Your Real ID or digital ID is required to log every purchase and movement so that all these transactions can be tallied against your quota. Now add the kicker: governments decide that in a “climate emergency,” carbon rations must be strictly enforced. This might start voluntary, but as with most “emergency” measures, it can swiftly become coercive.

If this sounds dystopian, be aware it is already being tested. Credit card companies have floated carbon footprint trackers on monthly statements. A startup in Sweden launched a “DO Black” credit card that automatically cuts off your spending when you hit your carbon max for the period. The IMF, eager to find ways to push climate policies, published papers on linking credit scores to carbon behavior. During the pandemic, the concept of “climate lockdowns” – where cities might restrict private car use, limit meat in supermarkets, etc., to reach emissions targets – was seriously discussed in magazines like Forbes. And the public, softened up by COVID restrictions (“for your safety”), is arguably more primed than ever to accept similar dictates “for the planet.”

A crucial piece of all this is the integration of Digital Currency. If cash disappears and all transactions move to centralized digital money, then negative incentives (fines, dynamic pricing) or even outright cuts and shut-offs become feasible at the individual level. China’s system provides a chilling prototype: their nascent social credit system can blacklist citizens from travel or loans for misbehavior. Now imagine a global social credit system, but one largely focused on “sustainable behavior.” Buy too much gasoline, your digital wallet might stop working at the pump. Post “climate misinformation” on social media, perhaps your carbon credit score gets downgraded. This isn’t imagination – the WEF itself featured a presentation on how AI could monitor social media for “misinformation” and directly intervene in people’s internet access. The architecture for a comprehensive control grid is being laid, brick by digital brick.

Agenda 2030 provides the broad legitimizing framework (“the world agreed on these 17 Sustainable Development Goals, so our drastic measures are just delivering on that promise”). It embeds buzzwords like “resilience, inclusion, sustainability” into policy at every level – all fine words that nonetheless often serve as horsemen of increased state powers. ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria in finance, for instance, are pressuring companies to align with the agenda or lose capital – a form of economic coercion that bypasses voters. If a democracy’s populace rejects Green New Deal-style austerity, no matter – international banks and corporations can force the issue by other means. Technocratic globalism works above and around national democracy, through treaties, corporate-government partnerships, and unelected boards. It replaces the social contract with a **social contact tracing contract – tracking our every move.

At this juncture, one might ask: “But isn’t saving the planet worth some sacrifice?” Certainly, caring for our environment is essential. No reasonable person wants pollution or ecological ruin. However, the climate technocrats have hijacked legitimate environmentalism and morphed it into a Trojan horse for imposing their anti-liberty, anti-human vision. The “sacrifice” they ask is always one-directional: citizens give up rights; elites give up nothing. Consider the spectacle of billionaires and dignitaries flying hundreds of private jets to climate summits in Davos or Sharm el-Sheikh to lecture working people on why they should drive less and pay more for energy. Consider how regulations crippling farmers (as seen with nitrogen emission rules inciting farmer protests in the Netherlands) don’t apply to, say, Bill Gates’s quest to build synthetic meat factories or buy up farmland. It’s hypocrisy at best, and neofeudalism at worst – rules for thee but not for me.

Thomas Paine’s rallying cry in 1776 was for freedom from an unaccountable elite (the British Crown and its cronies) that governed without consent and abused the colonists’ rights. Today, we face an unelected empire of technocrats and plutocrats seeking to do much the same, albeit with modern tools and a green banner. Paine wrote in Common Sense: “Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness.” We might amend that to say: society (and free markets) if left to flourish produce innovation and adaptation – even on environmental issues – whereas heavy-handed government often springs from the vices of those who crave dominion. A truly sustainable society cannot be one where liberty is sacrificed on the altar of technocratic control. For liberty is not only an intrinsic good, it is also pragmatically the source of the creativity and problem-solving we need to improve our environment.

Final Thoughts

We began with the assertion that the mainstream climate change narrative has become a Hoax – not in the sense that climate doesn’t change, but in the sense that a cabal of interests has deceived the public about the causes, exaggerating the effects, and misdirecting proposed solutions toward their own empowerment. Having examined the evidence, this conclusion is only reinforced. We find a through-line from the Malthusian pessimists of yesteryear to the technocratic social engineers of today. The climate agenda is not about balancing our relationship with nature; it is about tipping the balance of power decisively in favor of a global managerial class.

Yet there is cause for hope. Recall Paine’s words during the darkest hours of the American Revolution: “Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” Around the world, ordinary people are waking up to the gap between climate rhetoric and reality. They are questioning why, if we face extinction, do so many “solutions” curiously align with age-old elite wish-lists: more taxes, more control over citizens, less ownership by the people (think of the WEF’s promotion that by 2030 “you will own nothing and be happy”). Farmers in Europe, truckers in Canada, energy workers, small business owners, families – across professions and parties, there is a growing intuition that something is off in the climate story. They see, for example, that energy poverty is on the rise as reliable fuels are banned while expensive “green” firms profiteer on subsidies. They see the injustice of policies that hurt the poor and middle class most (higher gas and electric bills function like a regressive tax) while the yacht-and-mansion class signals its virtue and continues its carbon-heavy lifestyle.

As this awareness grows, so does resistance. Uprisings against carbon taxes (like the Yellow Vest movement in France) and pushback against digital ID mandates are signs that the human spirit for freedom is not extinguished. But resistance needs grounding in truth. That is why it is crucial to debunk the pseudoscience driving the climate hoax. Truth is the greatest weapon against tyranny. When enough people understand that, for instance, the doomsday models have repeatedly cried wolf, or that population control fantasies animate many climate zealots the moral high ground begins to shift. No longer can the elites pose as saviors of Earth; they will be seen for what they are – would-be rulers of a new serfdom.

In his time, Thomas Paine wrote pamphlets that lit a fire in the hearts of colonists by speaking plainly and passionately about the deceptions of the British Empire. Today, we have different media, but the task is similar: speak clearly, factually, and boldly about the deceptions of the climate empire. We must articulate an alternative vision of genuine environmental stewardship paired with human liberty and dignity. Technology can indeed help us reduce pollution and adapt to climate changes – but it should be liberating technology (innovations that empower individuals, like home solar or advanced nuclear energy or carbon-capture that enables continued prosperity) rather than enslaving technology (mass surveillance, rationing systems, algorithmic control).

Ultimately, the choice before us is as stark as in Paine’s era. Back then, it was between the divine right of kings versus the natural rights of man. Now, it is between the technocratic authoritarianism of global planners versus the free will of democratic peoples. The Climate Hoax, as I have called it, is the chief propaganda instrument of the former. By unmasking it, we do not abandon care for nature – rather, we rescue environmentalism from those who abuse it. We affirm that improving our world need not mean enthroning tyrants.

The rise of technocratic globalism can be stopped – if free citizens around the world unite in courage and clarity. As Paine wrote, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again.” Removing the stranglehold of climate hysteria and its draconian policies gives us that chance: to pursue genuine innovation, to adapt locally as needed, and to remain masters of our own destiny. It is time to reject the climate fear that is used to steal our freedom. It is time to hoist the banner of truth and liberty high, so that future generations can look back and say that in the early 21st century, humanity faced the temptation of a techno-tyranny clad in green – and we the people had the wisdom and bravery to turn away from serfdom, choosing instead the hard but bright path of freedom.

Let these words serve as a clarion call – not a cliché one, but a genuine one – to all who value truth and human liberty: Question the climate orthodoxies. Follow the money and power. Do not surrender rights out of fear. The strength and future of democratic self-rule depend on citizens who can see through the clouds of propaganda to the light of liberty beyond.

Let the globalists and technocrats know: We are not their subjects. The climate is not their dominion. And our freedom is not up for barter, not for all the carbon credits in the world.

Citizens Rule Book: A Palladium of Liberty (Hardcopies) 🇺🇸

Sources:

• Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth (1972), and critiques in Lomborg, The Limits of Panic joannenova.com.au

• Cato Institute – Chelsea Follett, The Cruel Truth about Population Control (2019) cato.org

• Robert Zubrin, The Population Control Holocaust, The New Atlantis (2012) thenewatlantis.com

• Matthew Ehret, “The Club of Rome and the Rise of the Predictive Modelling Mafia” canadianpatriot.org joannenova.com.au

• ACLU analysis of Real ID Act (2005) aclu.org

• World Economic Forum, “My Carbon” initiative (Sep 2022) weforum.org

• UNDP Blog, “Why Legal Identity Is Crucial to Tackling the Climate Crisis” (May 2024) undp.org

• Carbon Brief – Daisy Dunne, “Solar geoengineering could spark droughts and hurricanes” (2017) carbonbrief.org

• Swiss Re Institute, “Solar Radiation Management – risks” (2023) swissre.com

• Scientific American – Doug Struck, “How the ‘Global Cooling’ Story Came to Be” (2014) scientificamerican.com

• The Guardian – Oliver Burkeman, “Memo exposes Bush’s new green strategy” (2003) theguardian.com

• The Guardian – Ajit Niranjan, “‘Era of global boiling has arrived,’ says UN chief” (27 Jul 2023) theguardian.com

Archive: Bilderberg’s Climate Lockdown Plans 🚨

On the June 15, 2009 show Alex Jones spoke with Sam Labrier, an activist who covered a conference held by a gaggle of elitists and Bilderbergers in Montreal, Canada.