Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary for the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change actually admitted during a news conference this month that the real goal of all the climate change propaganda is to kill off capitalism.
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” Figueres stated.
Figueres even continues and re-iterates the claim by describing such a change as “…the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves…” As if robbing real & privately owned businesses from under owner’ and employee noses can be depicted in such a manner.
With Christiana even holding former president Obama as a ‘shining example as someone tackling global warming’, it really isn’t any wonder that this admission of such a covert strategy continues to help map capitalism’s destruction.
And she doesn’t stop there…
KEEP READING ON PAGE 2:
F**e news! The writer is making money duping gullible people with fiction that is a figment of his/her imagination.
I’ve been saying global warming my$#%&!@*for a long time now
The truth is that human activity is driving up the world’s temperature. The conservative propaganda machine is the only other opinion
That’s a lot of exclamation points for a lot of wingnut b******t. Cmon you clowns see threats everywhere, but can’t see the UN’s purpose. That’s crazy stupid
I believe it!!
Back in the summer of 1993, I stumbled on an environmental march/rally in Berlin.
The funny thing was that the majority of the marchers did not represent environmental groups but rather Communists, Anarchist, Socialists, Radical Feminists, etc.
I consider myself a moderate environmentalist, but this struck me as odd and started me wondering about what ulterior motives were behind these groups’ interest in the environment.
Dean Capps
That’s my dad’s name Harvey wiley how strange
I apologize for any misunderstanding I might have made, Dave.
Still, you need to accept all information with a bit of wariness these days (and yes, I am well aware that most sides of most arguments have proponents who use such tactics as those used in this article). If one part of the information provided is phony, then you have to be even more critical of the rest.
Fact remains that this article is a terrible example if you are wanting to convince anyone who can think for themselves of a climate change hoax, or of climate change just being a veiled attack on capitalism.
The article doesn’t even pretend to be a balanced report of facts or events.
Note that Figueres didn’t even mention capitalism, let alone whether it has merit or not (bringing capitalism into it was the doing – agenda, some might say – of the article’s writer, not Figueres). Capitalism simply is not the “economic development model” that she is trying to change. How can it be? She said “… to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” Capitalism originated in the 12th century in the West (and the 9th century in Islamic parts of the world if you really want to see how long a bow the writer of the article is drawing). [source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism%5D
Yes, all pollution is bad, but nuclear doesn’t have relevance to Figueres’ comment either. What it seems she is talking about is the economic model for development, which is the way in which undeveloped countries become developed. This model has been around since the Industrial Revolution – as Figueres implied – and is based on large scale fossil fuel-based power generation – primarily coal – which enables developing countries to generate sufficient power to enable industrialisation. Given that most undeveloped nations don’t have the industry or money required to build nuclear tech, import the fuel, or built the infrastructure required to deal with the waste products, nuclear isn’t – and I would assume has never been – a part of the economic development model.
Given that the build costs of new generators of some types of renewably sourced energy are now actually lower than those of new coal generators (see the table below for costs, source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-08/why-renewables-are-getting-cheaper-all-the-time/7826876), I think it’s pretty safe to say that this is what Figueres is alluding to as the change to the economic development model that is based on fossil fuelled generation. Now renewables are an economically viable alternative to coal.
This is why the United Nations and Globalist NWO factions are bent on destroying our sovereignty as well as our economy and the removal of our resources ownership! The extreme efforts by Rothchilds and the Bilderberg Group to control all financial and underwriter industries reach into all the nations of the world!! Along with these guys are the Islamic Caliphate that happily interact with these guys seeking population dominance!