Climate Consensus: Failure by Incompetence or Design? – Part Three


In part one and two of this article, we looked at how The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) have since 1997 failed with their mandate of controlling and reducing global aircraft emissions.

It is my belief that the upcoming ICAO triennial assembly will follow a similar pattern. We will witness one of two things. Either the assembly will be portrayed as a breakthrough which will later unravel (giving false reason for a 40th triennial assembly in 2019) or it will be an identical tale of heightened expectation going into it, turning to disappointment when no binding agreement is forthcoming by it’s conclusion.

The fact that the basis of the assembly’s resolution is concentrated on voluntary participation in the ICAO’s latest scheme has already set the ground for failure in my view.

You only have to look at the language that surrounds the assembly’s. The 2010 gathering was vilified as being ‘aspirational’, ‘non-binding’, ‘having no obligations for individual countries’, ‘having no penalties for failure.’

Roll forward to 2016, where the ICAO have moved away from a mandatory scheme to a voluntary pilot. Of which countries can opt out from. This neatly sets the assembly up for failure. And who will receive much of the blame? Individual nation states. Exactly as planned.

This is not an example of a defeatist attitude. Far from it. It is a realistic assessment which stems from 19 years of inaction designed to ensure no progress can be made – in a conventional sense – on curbing aircraft emissions.

Here is what I think is going on:

The ICAO is a vehicle that forms part of a expansive operation to centralise power throughout the world. By that, I mean all industries, be it financial, health, trade, security, and, ultimately, national governments. It was not designed to achieve what it was set out to do.

Supporting this theory is an article published on Look-Up at the time of the Paris Climate Conference in 2015. Here is a key part worthy of consideration:

It is a widely held belief that the failure of governments to reach agreements that actually achieve anything is simply down to the complexity of international relations and the inherent fallibility of human nature generally. Nothing could be further from the truth

If the threat of runaway Global Warming were actually real then these contradictions simply would not exist. It is not possible that national government and international policies can be so consistently wrong for so long unintentionally.

Think back to the Paris Climate Agreement (COP 21), where aviation emissions were excluded from the final text. COP 21 was a highly publicised event. Had aircraft emissions taken a central role in the agreement, greater attention would have been brought on the industry as a whole. Meaning the potential danger of active Geoengineering programs being exposed later on down the line. The ICAO is far less publicised, resulting in less inquisition into its practices. 19 years of failure has hardly set the mainstream news alight has it? Giving the ICAO full autonomy on devising a solution to aviation emissions ensures nothing will be done to reduce them.

So if triennial assembly’s and climate conferences have been designed to fail, what is the end goal? What does this failure lead to?

Imagine, if you haven’t already, that the ultimate goal of globalist elites is to centralise power to the extent of introducing One World Governance. The precedent towards this scenario can be seen quite clearly when looking back through history.

After World War One, the League of Nations came into being. Then after World War Two, the United Nations was formed. The League of Nations was the first step. To achieve the second – the inception of the UN – required further conflict. Which is an inversion of itself because the UN is – on the surface – meant to be there as an institution fighting for world peace and stability.

This follows the principle of ordo ab chao – Order Out of Chaos. The third step is to introduce global governance through existing institutions such as the UN. And to achieve this goal would, again, require an extended period of conflict.

In the financial arena, The Federal Reserve came into existence following WW1. After WW2 it was the International Monetary Fund. At the turn of the millennium a host of countries in Europe abandoned their own national currencies and joined the Euro. The eventual goal is to introduce a world currency, as foretold by The Economist magazine back in 1988. Such an event would again likely be born out of conflict.

We are also seeing a concerted drive to centralise the world’s trade by creating trade zones through agreements such as TTIP, TPP, TISA and CETA.

Centralisation of power ultimately concentrates resources into fewer and fewer hands. The breakdown of national sovereignty is one step, amongst many others, to ensuring this happens.

Returning to the subject at hand, we should also consider what role Geoengineering has to play in the failure of a climate ‘consensus’. Outright denial of an active program to engineer the climate and modify the weather is prevalent throughout all governments today. They speak of Geoengineering only as a subject of research which could potentially be realised in the future to help cool the planet. Ample evidence exists, however, that Geoengineering of the climate has been prevalent for multiple decades. Evidence can be seen not just with your own eyes but in the number of patents that have been registered in regards to weather modification technology.

A further article on Look Up entitled, All Climate Summits are Designed to Fail, exposes further the malevolent nature of organisations like the ICAO:

When enough climate summits have failed, and enough people have been onto the streets and screamed at the house of parliament, then the establishment can rightfully claim that it has all gone terribly wrong.

In the wings will be waiting our wonderful shiny new world government, spurs on, bristling with its highly polished suit of armour, and ready to charge out of the shadows in which it has lurked for the last 48 years ready to save us from this terrible situation. They will be the only way to save us, our only hope. Let’s unite under this wonderful new global leadership and finally cure all our problems, break down all this international inability to cooperate and start to solve the world’s problems once and for all. 

It is the same story that has unfolded time and time again in recent history, not just here in the UK but in all western societies. Create a problem/emergency. Offer a solution, and the solution allows them to do something we would not have agreed to without the problem/emergency.

As Brandon Smith has said repeatedly over at Alt-Market, when a system has been designed to fail, the reason for it doing so will not be cited as centralising power. It will be that the system was not centralised enough. Hence the drive towards global governance.

In relation to the climate and Geoengineering, I see the plan going something like this:

  1. Efforts to control climate change through treaties, assembly’s and summits will be exhausted to the point of governments insisting the situation has reached a critical juncture, thus rendering them impotent in dealing with the ‘crisis’ through their own parliament.
  2. A catastrophic series of weather events or induced natural disasters will increase the call from world populations for a unified, GLOBAL response.
  3. Artificial engineering of the climate will be put forward as the only option to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. Inversions are synonymous with the globalist elites, given that climate engineering has been active since the 1940s.
  4. National governments will fail to come together for the greater good, further accentuating the false paradigm of conflict between the West and the East. Out of this will come the end of individual state sovereignty in favour of world governance under the jurisdiction of the United Nations.

This is the direction that I believe the world is being led towards. What we are witnessing is the ICAO being used as a tool to further exacerbate Geo-Political ‘tensions’. To do that requires manufacturing conflict between the West and the East. Russia in particular do not agree with carbon offsetting, and stand to be accused of hampering efforts to combat climate change.

The climate is just one aspect of a widespread agenda for dictatorial control.

Remember that The ICAO assembly’s are all predicated on the falsehood that CO2 is the driving force behind climate change. It is essential to the overall climate agenda that the vast majority of the world’s population continue to believe this.

The truth is that Geoengineering is the primary cause. Governments worldwide are fully aware of this. They know that C02 does not drive climate change. It is a factor, but minuscule compared to climate engineering. And because governments know this, it makes sense that they have never sought to restrict in any meaningful way the rise of aircraft emissions. Telling the public that CO2 is the culprit creates the diversion that allows Geoengineering to continue unabated.

Now ponder for a moment that, eventually, the very program that is destroying our natural environment will be called upon as the cure to mitigating climate change.

The world is an inversion. And organisations like the ICAO are a vehicle for the agenda at large. Once it has outlived its usefulness and done the job required of it, which it has been doing for the past 19 years, it will develop into a greater level of autonomy. All at the behest of global governance.


One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s