Commentary: As Toxic as It Is Effective, Governments Wield Fear to Control and Manipulate

by Kathleen Marquardt

People are excited thinking about being able to live in alternative universes. Unbeknownst to them, they already do – and have been for most of their lives. Especially those born after the era when we wore our Texas Instrument calculators on our belts (our slide rules were put on the shelf to be oddities to show our children how we calculated in school) and built computers we bought in parts. Now, people who would have trouble putting a slot-car together can go to the Himalayas, try on clothes from their favorite store, play video games – all the while lying on a recliner in their basement.

There is reality – the actual events as they happened. And there is what has long been, spun as reality, i.e., pharma-phantasmagoria, genders/sexes of more than two, and myriads of other factoids dressed as facts. All built upon the biggest lie fed to a now well-programmed public – manmade global warming. And virtual reality rules over factual reality.

Think about it. Almost everything you read/hear in mainstream and social media, in schoolbooks, even in “juried” scientific and medical papers is a lie. Wrap your head around that – you don’t need a virtual reality machine; your brain has been programmed to be one. And all this was put into overdrive once the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was released. (note: it was put together by great and no-so-great climate scientists around the world. But before it was released, it was “edited” to go from: saying “at worst humans may have some negative impact on our atmosphere, but very little – at most, to: we are destroying not only the atmosphere but also the water and land – and everything existing on earth.) A good number of those original authors asked to have their names removed.

By 2009, “32,000 scientists have signed ‘The Petition Project’ over 9,000 of them with PhDs proclaiming that man is not the chief cause of warming and that this warming will not be disastrous.” And some back-up for this from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works: “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.” 2

Today you will not hear many scientists speaking out, criticizing the Global Elite and their pseudo science. Some scientists have been brainwashed like the general public or are otherwise coerced in some way by the Global Elite to either lie or be silent. You will find some great hedging (or worse) from even powerful people. For instance:

As the former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart, so pithily said, “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony …. Climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” No matter if the science is phony? Why would one say that if the science was so strongly otherwise? Now, please parse the rest of that statement. How can climate change, true or false, bring about justice and equality on the world? In my humble opinion, Stewart is saying that the cudgel of so-called climate change can make intelligent, freedom loving people accept the destruction of the world as we know it to pretend to make people equal. That isn’t ever going to happen unless we all become slaves – or dead. The cudgel is to force us into a deconstructed Marxist world, i.e., dystopia on steroids.

“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace. And he is saying what our Global Elite don’t want you to know, at least until you have swallowed the blue pill.

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of catastrophe.” Daniel B. Botkin, professor of Environmental Studies and Biological Sciences, UCSB. There it is again, saying we are too stupid to think for ourselves, so those who wish to control the world can make up science to fit their complot.

“A global warming treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” Richard Benedick, deputy assistant Secretary of State

Former Senator and first president of the UN Foundation, Timothy Wirth “…spelled out the strategy in 1988: “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” How many times to those pushing the catastrophe of manmade global warming (now Climate Change) have to say “even if it isn’t real” for people to get the message that it isn’t real, but it is the best blueprint to make man the enemy of the world so he will be willing to be deconstructed, i.e., erase himself from Mother Earth?”

In a PBS interview in early 1999, S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues, was asked by the host about the models that needed to be done. Singer had noted that we need far more data and that would take time.

The host remarked, “Some say we don’t have the time for that, and that it would be prudent, since this is at least a plausible scenario, that we do something about it now, because as you said, these measurements are very difficult to take. You need to do it over a long period of time and very accurately. It might take fifteen, twenty, twenty-five years. Should we do nothing until that point?”

Singer’s response says it all: “Well, the question is what you mean by ‘doing’ something. I’m not a great believer in buying insurance if the risks are small and the premiums are high. Nobody in his right mind would do that. But this is the case here. We’re being asked to buy an insurance policy against a risk that is very small, if at all, and pay a very heavy premium. We’re being asked to reduce energy use, not just by a few percent but, according to the Kyoto Protocol, by about 35 percent within ten years. That means giving up one-third of all energy use, using one-third less electricity, throwing out one-third of all cars perhaps. It would be a huge dislocation of our economy, and it would hit people very hard, particularly people who can least afford it. (Emphasis mine)

Dr. Singer goes on: “For what? All the Kyoto Protocol would do is to slightly reduce the current rate of increase of carbon dioxide. And in fact, the UN Science Advisory Group has published their results. And they clearly show that the Kyoto Protocol would reduce, if it went into effect and were punctiliously observed by all of the countries that have to observe it–by the year 2050, –about 50 years from now–it would reduce the calculated temperature increase by .05 degrees Centigrade. That amount is not even measurable. So this is what you are being asked to buy.”

And this is what the people bought, the big lie — lock, stock, and barrel.

For over three decades the global warming/climate change fairy tale has been pounded into the public psyche. Yes, I know fairy tales have happy endings. We will only get that ending here if we get rid of the lie, bring back the U.S. perseverance, moral compass, and industry. And get back to a real-world reality. Play with virtual reality on your own time.

It won’t be nice because the alternative reality has been in play for too many decades. While the populace has had their eyes and ears on their phones, games, mainstream and social media, everything America and what its Constitution stood for have been dismantled. Now that the globalists’ goal is in sight, they have shifted into overdrive. Right now we are seeing the push to rid the world of any information that doesn’t fall in line with the Agenda21/Great Reset scenario.

How? In a myriad of ways.

As the internet was growing, the information we were able to download was staggering. You could find almost any document, story, speech, quote – you name it. All you had to do was put in a line of the story if you didn’t have the title and author. I mean anything. The Geographic Information System (GIS) had begun mapping the southeastern states for the Wildlands Project. Then some of us started using them to show the inhabitants of those states what was going to happen to their land – what was going to be core reserves and corridors – little to no human use, buffer zones – highly regulated use, and normal use – which would be the cities we would be allowed to live in.

It took very little time; I’d guess less than a year before those maps were gone. Then in…