DANGEROUS DOOMSDAY CULTS
Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the right Here I am Stuck in the middle with you…
Wake up left and right your fight is a illusion and you cheer both for your own enslavement!
Left-wing communism with the attitude that everything belongs to the people, even though in reality they own nothing and should be happy; the state and corporations work close together and take over everything for nothing and building up a police state and a massive spy apparatus like in the days of the Stasi. Citizens and politicians protesting for the greater good together. Lies become truths, medals and prizes compete for obedience, and vaccination campaigns have always been strong and mandatory...
And right-wing fascism has a strong leadership narrative for a secure and strong economy, usually with military buildup to demonstrate strength externally. All of this comes at the expense of social security and norms. With the Mussolini mentality, the military, corporations, and the state work closely together and build a militant Gestapo police state that works also against its own citizens to ensure their security, because anyone could be a spy or a social parasite. Lies and propaganda stir up hatred and fear to enforce obedience, and vaccination campaigns have always been strong and mandatory...
The structures are the same, but the means and narratives are different.
Let’s get on the Doomsday phenomenon that’s happened on both sides but by other means
Right at this moment I saw Naomi Klein talking at DemocracyNow about “End Times Fascism” and that she’s analyze the whole picture.. to the 1940 before the atomic bomb and Climate Change 😵WOW she’s absolutely blind or willfully lying about the fact that she’s actively promoting the gospel of doom for a Armageddon scenario in the name of climate change…
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/5/naomi_klein_trump_silicon_valley
Why is she ignoring the fact that Elon Musk working for the same side and direction - a techno dystopia - all under the guise of the so called greater good by pushing the climate change narrative?
Why is she acting still for the same inhuman agenda 2030 build by the greatest threats to this beautiful earth in human history the oligarchs like Rockefeller and the Warlords…
The Link between the Rockefeller Foundation and Racial Hygiene in Nazi Germany
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/08/13/the-horrifying-american-roots-of-nazi-eugenics-2/
Are Gates and Rockefeller using their influence to set agenda in poor states?
Does this means Naomi Klein also worked for this brutal destructive Empire that falsely claimed to build back better and in the same time they only burned back better for the future they want to enslave the entire planet and do harm in an unpresidential way.
That’s unacceptable! Are you still blinded by the light of hopium and willingly ignore all the redlines and signs?
What she’s willingly ignore by her research is the it’s a fact that Adolf Hitler and the green are the first eco fascist party with the first nature & animal protection laws in history…
Heres the proof:
Adolf Hitler Was a Strict Ethical Vegetarian
Wyatt Redd – October 5, 2017
Adolf Hitler has long been the base standard against which all evil is measured. The name itself is a byword for ruthless dictatorship and boundless cruelty. And it’s easy to see why. After all, Hitler’s warmongering led to the most destructive conflict in history and his carefully organized attempt to exterminate an entire race of people is one of the most chilling acts of evil in human history. That’s why it may surprise you to learn that Hitler was an ethical vegetarian. He refused to eat meat because he abhorred the way animals were killed in slaughterhouses.
Not only did Hitler refuse to eat meat, but he and the Nazi Party passed some of the first nationwide laws against all forms of animal cruelty in history. Even today, no country has laws that punish animal cruelty as severely as the Nazis did. And it wasn’t just Hitler; many of the top Nazi officials spoke out frequently against the mistreatment of animals. But why? How could the people who practically invented industrialized genocide possibly have been so against the killing of animals? To answer that question, let’s look at just how the Nazis viewed animal cruelty and the psychological explanations that can explain how they ignored the obvious connection between cruelty to animals and cruelty to human beings.
The first thing to note is that Hitler’s vegetarianism is not a historical myth. It was well documented at the time and mentioned by many people who knew him personally. A 1937 New York Times article made note of Hitler’s lifestyle, saying “It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke.” And a famously tone-deaf issue of English magazine Homes and Gardens focusing on the Führer’s mountain home at Berghof noted, “A life-long vegetarian at table, Hitler’s kitchen plots are both varied and heavy in produce.”
Martin Bormann, Hitler’s personal secretary, published a collection of notes that detail what having dinner with Hitler was like. Typically, Hitler would demand absolute silence from his guests while he launched into hour-long tirades about National Socialism, the war, and the importance of vegetarianism. Other Nazi officials apparently felt the same way. Joseph Goebbels, Chief Propaganda Minister once called meat-eating, “a perversion of human nature.” And like Hitler, many Nazis were greatly attached to their pets. Usually, these were German Shepards, though Hermann Göring actually kept a lion cub (one wonders what he fed it).
But it wasn’t just eating animals that Hitler objected to. He also objected to practices like vivisection, where scientific experiments are conducted on living animals. In fact, one of the first acts that the Nazi party passed on coming to power was a total ban on the practice. In addition, hunting and boiling lobsters were banned. Like everything the Nazis did, these laws were upheld with brutal methods. Anyone caught violating these laws was to be sent to concentration camps. And a German fisherman actually was sent to a camp for cutting up a frog.
Hermann Goering with his pet lion/ WWII Pictures In Detai
The Nazi prohibition on animal cruelty was far-reaching and comprehensive. During its years in power, the Nazi party passed laws prohibiting anything that could cause an animal distress. It was made illegal to injure animals while making films or to produce foie gras by force-feeding geese. Special regulations were drafted regarding the legal way to transport animals from place to place. And the prevention of cruelty to animals was considered so important that it became a mandatory subject in school.
Not only were all German children taught about the right way to treat animals, but they were instructed to admire Hitler for his commitment to the well-being of animals. A Nazi children’s publication once asked German children, “Do you know that your Führer is a vegetarian and that he does not eat meat because of his general attitude toward life and his love for animals? The Führer is an ardent opponent of any torture of animals… thus fulfilling his role as the savior of animals.” In this instance, Hitler’s stance against animal cruelty was presented as an example of his innate benevolence.
The hypocrisy between Nazi treatment of animals and their treatment of humans seems absolutely staggering. Hitler had sympathy for animals, but none for people. There are accounts of Hitler watching movies with his associates that shows the different ways he viewed animals and people. During scenes where animals were killed, Hitler would become upset and cover his eyes. But if he witnessed a scene where animals were killing people, he had no trouble watching.
So, the question of why Hitler would be a vegetarian has puzzled historians for a long time. But there are two theories that could offer an explanation. The first possibility is that many Nazis didn’t see vegetarianism as an ethical choice. Rather than being about trying to prevent suffering, these laws may have actually been tied up in Nazi theories about race. And Hitler’s theories about race and vegetarianism are likely due to the influence of his favorite composer, Richard Wagner.
Wagner proposed that man’s original diet was vegetarian. The move towards eating meat was, in Wagner’s mind, the cause of a gradual mental and physical decay in the human species. Hitler seems to have held similar opinions and for Hitler, anything he believed in was tied up in a wider conception of racial superiority. Hitler was striving to create a race of Germans that were physically, morally, and mentally superior. Thus, refusing to eat meat was part of the effort to improve the fitness of the German race. In the transcripts of Hitler’s dinner-time rants, he often mentions a future where Germans are strong because they are all vegetarians.
Nazi officials at the Nuremberg Trials/ WWII Pictures In Detail
That explanation doesn’t quite gel with the fact that the Nazis seemed genuinely concerned about stopping cruelty to animals. That’s why they banned the boiling of lobsters alive and vivisection. And it’s why they put so many restrictions on hunting. These acts aren’t meant to prevent people from eating meat, but to prevent animals from being harmed. So why would the Nazis hate to see animals harmed but have no problem doing all the things that they wouldn’t do to animals to humans? Vivisection was performed on human beingsin the concentration camps, for example.
Answering that question reveals how vegetarian Nazis were able to justify the Holocaust. It explains how a nation of seemingly normal people can be goaded into a massive effort to marginalize and destroy other human beings. It’s something that is as old as war itself: a psychological mechanism called “dehumanization.” It’s something that happens all the time. In every war and every act of genocide, the first step is for a nation to somehow convince itself that the people they want to kill aren’t really human. The Nazis were masters at this.
Thousands of hours of propaganda were produced simply to argue to the German people that Jews were not worthy of their compassion. The central message behind the Holocaust was that not only were the Jewish people not “German,” they weren’t even people. And not only were they sub-human, they were a threat to Germany. Thus, they needed to be destroyed. Historians argue about how many average Germans really thought this way, but the architects of the Holocaust all certainly did.
Hitler seems to have been able to tie these two perverse ideologies together. That explains why he was able to seem to have empathized with animals and still have not felt the least bit of remorse about the deaths of millions of people. Hitler’s view of the world placed the German people above everything. In his mind, the Germans were a master race destined to control the entire world. And not hurting animals was simply the way that a master race should behave.
Hitler’s dedication to animal welfare and vegetarianism served two purposes in his mind: it strengthened the German nation and placed the German people in the proper balance between man and nature. By the same token, Jews, Slavs, and other “sub-humans,” had no place in that balance. Hitler’s ultimate goal was to destroy these people and make way for a world with a single master race. Thus, their extermination was necessary for the future of the German race and not really even wrong. As Hitler saw it, they were lower in the natural order than animals.
Neo-Nazi groups who venerate Hitler and excuse his crimes sometimes point to his vegetarianism as an example of why he wasn’t evil. In truth, it’s just the opposite. Hitler’s vegetarianism reveals just how evil he was. The hypocrisy reveals how he truly thought of anyone he considered as non-German. It shows us how well he and other Nazis were able to dehumanize others and convince the German nation to do the same. More importantly, it’s a lesson for the future. People today are just as capable of convincing ourselves that some people aren’t “people” as the Nazis were. And the horror of the Holocaust teaches us what that can lead to.
Sources for Further Reading:
https://historycollection.com/hitler-strict-ethical-vegetarian/
University of Guelph – Historian Uncovers Nazi Animal Laws
The Vintage News – The Nazis Passed a Number of Really Strict Animal Protection Laws in 1933
Reichsnaturschutzgesetz. 1935. In Reichsgesetzblatt , Part 1, No. 68. Google Scholar
Staudenmaier, Peter. 2013. ‘Organic Farming in Nazi Germany: The Politics of Biodynamic Farming Agriculture, 1933–1945.’ Environmental History 18, 383–411. doi: 10.1093/envhis/ems154. View
Richard P. Tucker. 2004. ‘ The World Wars and the Globalization of Timber.’ In Natural Enemy, Natural Ally: Towards an Environmental History of War, edited by Edmund Russell and Richard P. Tucker, 110–141. Portland: Oregon State University Press. Google Scholar
Uekoetter, Frank. 2006. The Green & the Brown: A History of Conservation in Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
Uekoetter, Frank. 2007. ‘Green Nazis? Reassessing the Environmental History of Nazi Germany.’ German Studies Review 30, 267–287. Google Scholar
Uekoetter, Frank. 2014. The Greenest Nation? A New History of German Environmentalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar
So if we talk about Hitler we also should pay attention to the backers responsible for funding crimes against humanity and the racial hygiene programs and that they are the same Dynastie as Naomi Klein is payed by…
https://www.rbf.org/news/dialogue-about-democracy-capitalism-naomi-klein-and-stephen-heintz
This is so shameful and disgusting if you realize that these people influencing little kids minds and pushing them to think that they all have to die if they don’t do what Rockefeller and the other Broligarchs say and don’t follow the rules of self destruction…
So how evil you could be to do this to little innocent children???
State of Fear – Why Politicized Science is Dangerous
By Michael Crichton Excerpted from State of Fear
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones — the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded.” Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century — “dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded — Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks — and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.”
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Theodore Roosevelt said that “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” Luther Burbank” “Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal — the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic — more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.
But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. “Feeble-mindedness” could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of “degenerate” or “unfit.”
Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one’s neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, “Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state.” Deichman speaks of the “active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented.” German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.
A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
Lysenko’s methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudoscience” in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko’s ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice — terms that have no agreed definition — are employed in the service of a new crisis.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called “the demon-haunted world” of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Back to our Spotlight on State of Fear
Actually, the past should have taught us that the power of a state that always intervenes in the decision-making and self-determination of people is nothing more than totalitarianism, communism or Planned economy is therefore a dictatorship with few in power that appropriates everything for Zero and with prohibited and censorship distorts the reality that they pretend to manage for the benefit of the people.
“No one intends to build a wall.”
An example of the green landscape designers in their part-time job or main jobs and how billionaires determine our future.
https://x.com/JesseMatchey/status/1472957015584436225
HOW DARE YOU?
The big Power-, Poverty- and Landgrab behind the climate change industry
How long it will take to take action against the small evil group of people raises nature and its trial against us and artificially tighten it? To misuse the weather as a weapon against other countries, regions and people to play God in order to credibly sell us the weather disaster that they are secretly create. Only for the reason that we are finally ready to sacrifice our self-determination and our possessions for the benefit of humanity.
Have you ever see a burning tree from inside out?
Burn Back Better: How Western States Can Encourage Prescribed Fire on Private Lands provides an analysis of western state policies and focused recommendations to help increase private lands prescribed fire. Released in January 2023, the report is a collaboration between the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), the national leader in creating market solutions for conservation, and Tall Timbers.
If you really love and respect the world than you have to stand up and fight against this destructive energy behind the scenes!
This is real guys and it’s disgusting!
massive plasma fire and social media blackout in Maui
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/01/04/maui-and-the-lack-of-humanity-update-2/
https://rumble.com/v1i5k79-directed-energy-weapons-are-being-used-to-cause-strange-wildfires.html
How vicious you can be? And why are so many people around this industrial Complex be quite and tolerate this criminal act?
These people play God on our goods and endangered the nature that they regularly want to protect.
For Example:
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/01/05/the-climate-changers-and-water-wars/
https://patents.google.com/patent/JP7029831B2/en?q=(evolutionary+process)
These Nightmare-sellers and charlatans seen this as their natural right to move the broad masses in a certain direction by means of illusions and lies.
And again here we have created a problem for the final Solutions that was already in the pipelines.
“Hell Is Empty. And All the Devils Are Here.”
Apocalyptic Thinking and the Emergence of “Death Cults”
By John Martino Book. Drumbeat
This chapter examines the significance of “apocalyptic thinking” and the notion of a future apocalyptic conflict or war, as a core belief in the ideological framework of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the Alt-Right movement. Political and religious movements have over the past decade been particularly adept at identifying and attracting young people looking for meaning and a sense of belonging in their lives through the dissemination of apocalyptic discourse. The appeal of extremist political movements for individuals seeking a sense of belonging or a means to become part of something larger than themselves as a mechanism with which to dull the pain of the alienation caused by advanced capitalist society has been facilitated by new forms of technology such as the internet and social media. Religion is used to both legitimize their overall strategy, but also to give meaning and justification for violent actions.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315173245
In the name of climate change!
We support the wrong people. Because the badest actors in world made billions with jumping up energy prices and became richer and richer meanwhile the whole world has to become poor.
This is an orchestrated event payed by the rich and strongest polluter’s on earth including the fossil fuel lobby to finance the transformation of the economy and cut us off from energy, healthy food and from nature himself.
These people are not only greedy and power-hungry, they are also outrageously stingy. And if humans are not longer useful in front of AI and technology innovation they have to cut them off from the highly energy resources.
A Decade of Social Manipulation for the Corporate Capture of Nature
ACT I – The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg Date: 02 Mar 2019 This is ACT I of the six-part series: The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg – for Consent: The Political Economy of the Non-Profit Industrial Complex The final act of this series is dedicated to Greta Thunberg and the youth she has inspired across our … A Decade of Social Manipulation for the Corporate Capture of Nature
Al Gore’s Vision of Global Salvation
Quotations from his 1992 best-seller: Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit New cover & subtitle Forging a New Common Purpose See also Green Lies and Deceptive Science Buddhism | Teilhard deChardin l Global indoctrination | Socialist control Skip down to Panreligious perspective | Earth-centered religion |Goddess See also Brainwashing in America Home How the Internet … Al Gore’s Vision of Global Salvation
https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Extremism-Rebellion.pdf
CLIMATE MODIFICATION
Repori 01 ine
SPECIAL COMMISSION ON
WEATHER MOIJIFICATION
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/1965/nsb1265.pdf
Geoengineering, Weather Modification, and Weaponizing Nature
One Earth, One Family and One Future & One Digital Public Infrastructure
To support my claims I present the amazing work of
G20 leaders meeting uncovers the new old technocratic concepts
At the G20 leaders‘ meeting in India, under the motto “One Earth, One Family, One Future”, the new concept Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and the NGO One Future Alliance were launched. These initiatives intend to increase the interconnectedness of the data-based systems with the aim of meeting the Sustainable Development Goals
Why the President of the Club of Rome tried to stop the approval of my dissertation
A brief history of the club, their vision of a technocratic dictatorship, and tight connections to the elites of the world
I was in Rome in the middle of September to meet with my family and celebrate one of my sisters who turned 60. She had dreamt of having her birthday party in Rome. The trip also gave me the possibility to explore the city’s rich history and visit some well known places.
One of those places were Academia dei Lincei. A prestigious scientific institution, claimed to be the oldest in the world, that is located in the Palazzo Corsini in the Trastevere district. As a strange coincidence we found out that the botanical garden of Rome, a place that my other sister, a florist, had expressed her wishes to visit, was located in the garden of the same palace. I also learned that this was the place where Queen Christina of Sweden set up her “Academy of Arcadia” after her abdication from the Swedish throne in 1654.1 After her death in 1689, the Pontifical Academy of Arcadia was established in her memory.
My main reason to visit the institution was that it was the birthplace of the elitist environmental think tank Club of Rome. An organisation that has had a huge influence on the global agenda. In this case we also find Swedish connections.
On April 7-8, 1968, 30 European economists and scientists gathered in the nearby Villa Farnesina to discuss a framework for initiating systems-wide planning on a global scale. At this meeting they couldn’t agree on what should be done, but a little core group was created in the aftermath to carry on with the agenda. This group took the nameClub of Rome and began preaching the gospel of doom.
Club of Rome’s mission has since been “to promote understanding of the global challenges facing humanity and to propose solutions through scientific analysis, communication and advocacy”.
When I started my studies in Geography in 2004, I genuinely believed in their doomsday messages and dire projections, but as I climbed higher on my learning ladder I began to question the validity of their claims.
It was due to the warnings of a dramatic drop in oil production in the years after the millennium shift that I had returned to the university to learn more about energy. I was worried about what would happen if the world’s oil supply would run out and Club of Rome was one of the main proponents of the Peak Oil Theory. But as they also claimed that the burning of fossil fuels would cause catastrophic climate change, I started doubting the narrative. Wouldn’t this problem be solved if there was no oil to be burned? How could they sound the alarm on both issues? And what was their solution?
I sensed that there were “something rotten in the state of Denmark”. As I was writing my Masters thesis in Geography in 2007, I became aware of the disturbing connections to the elites of the world and the real goals of the club.
The seed money to establish Club of Rome came from Italy’s richest man at the time. The head of the automobile manufacturer FIAT, Gianni Agnelli.
The founders were the Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei, formerly FIAT, Olivetti and AlItalia, and British scientist Alexander King, Director-General for Scientific Affairs at OECD. They were both connected to NATO.
The background was that Peccei had held the keynote speech at the banking organisation ADELA’s first meeting at Buenos Aires National Military College in 1965.
ADELA (Atlantic Development of Latin America) was an international consortium of bankers with the aim of supporting industrialisation and economic integration in order to achieve a common Latin American market. Peccei was one of the founders together with David Rockefeller’s close alley, US Senator Jacob Javits. Other notable participants were Emilio Collado (Standard Oil of New Jersey), Warren Wilhelm (Texaco Oil), Gianni Agnelli and the Swedish banker Marcus Wallenberg Sr.2
Peccei talked about the future technological revolution, artificial intelligence and “the close interdependence between man and the machine” that would change everything. He advocated that this development had to be centrally guided and that it required unification of Europe and later the world. Otherwise the control of the future would be lost.3, 3.1
His speech caught the attention of US Secretary of State Dean Rusk (previously the president of The Rockefeller Foundation) as well as Jermen Gvishianifrom the State Committee on Science and Technology of the Soviet Union. This started a chain of events that led to the meeting in Rome three years later.
The ball really started rolling after a meeting at Rockefeller Foundations Bellagio Center in Italy in October 1968 with several of the Clubs members attending and other participants joining. The meeting was a joint OECD and Rockefeller Foundation venture that produced the outcome document „The Bellagio Declaration on Planning“.
Aurelio Peccei outlined his philosophy in the book The Chasm Ahead in March 1969. The ideas had similarities to Columbia Professor Zbigniew Brzezinskis Technetronic Society that were presented in the book Between Two Ages in 1970.
The prescribed solution was a Technocratic Dictatorship for Crisis Management that was to be sold to the public with nice fuzzy words about saving the earth and preserving wildlife. Peccei’s environmental rhetoric had been inspired by his hero Julian Huxley, the founder of WWF and UNESCO.
With aid from international philanthropy and support from US and Soviet governments, Club of Rome then became an international venture, with participants from both sides of the Iron Curtain with offshoots like International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), located in the castle Schloss Laxenburg, Austria (1972), and International Federation of Institutes for Advanced Study (IFIAS), initially located at Ulriksdal Castle in Stockholm (1972).
I later learned that the originator of the Peak Oil Theory, M King Hubbert, was a member of Club of Rome. Hubbert was an enthusiastic technocrat that had co-founded Technocracy Inc. in 1933 together with Howard Scott. Hubbert was the main author of the manual to technocracy, Technocracy Study Course, which principles were taught in the basement of Colombia University, New York. These technocratic ideas of system wide planning and scientific management techniques were incorporated into the Club of Rome’s philosophy.
As chief geologist at Shell Oil, Hubbert had projected that US oil production would peak in 1970. This prediction was presented at the American Petroleum Institute in 1956. His theory – which was falsified when United States oil production surpassed the 1970 peak in 2018 – was then used to further Club of Rome’s technocratic vision for the world.
This was also the case with the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. Probably the biggest scientific fraud of all ages. Former Rockefeller Panel Report member Carrol L. Wilson (a close friend of Nelson Rockefeller’s) incorporated “man made climate change” in Club of Rome’s agenda in the early seventies and commissioned MIT and Jay Forrester to make suitable data projections about the future.
These projections were included in Club of Rome’s most well-known report Limits to Growth (1972), which was published with big fanfares three months before United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Stockholm, sparking a debate on the link between population growth and resource scarcity. Fittingly, Club of Rome member and Rockefeller Foundation member Maurice Strong was secretary-general of the conference, with Wilson as his advisor.
Global management of the planet and zero growth were prescribed as the grand solutions. These solutions have since been repeated over and over in reports to the Club of Rome such as Mankind at the Turning Point (1974), Reshaping the International Order (1976), Goals for Mankind(1977), The First Global Revolution(1991), Bankrupting Nature (2011), and the latest, Earth for All (2022).
Aurelio Peccei presented this plan to Klaus Schwab and the global business elite at Schwab’s newly founded European Management Forum in 1973. That same year David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the Trilateral Commission with the same goal in mind. https://widgets.weforum.org/history/1973.html
The plan was also discussed by futurists and global planners during World Future Society’sconference “The Next 25 Years: Crisis & Opportunity” in 1975, with US Vice President Nelson Rockefeller as the opening speaker. It was called for a crisis that would have the ability to unite humanity and achieve the desired outcome.6
In 1978, a meeting was held at Grand Hotel in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden, with heads of state and government to discuss how the problems highlighted by Club of Rome could be solved.
At this meeting, the main obstacles to the fulfillment Club of Rome’s utopian vision were identified as a) democracy; b) labour unions; and c) the striving of individuals to create a better lives for themselves. Therefore, both persuasion and fear would have to be used.
As ministers, we have received a great deal of information, forecasts and the results of analysis. What is lacking is political decision. Most politicians are aware of the nature of the problems, but no decisions are taken. Why?
The man in the street is not prepared to make sacrifices and the politician will not fight this attitude—indeed he cannot without risking his political life. Sacrifice is against trade union principles.
There are two possible approaches: One is to try to build up an ethic which substitutes satisfaction for material reward. The other is to frighten people to the point where they will make sacrifices in order to avoid catastrophe. Both methods must be attempted.
(from Dr. Whitehead’s notes from the Club of Rome meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Stockholm, 1978)
In 1980, World Future Society arranged the “First Global Conference on the Future” with the motto “Think Globally, Act Locally” with Strong and Peccei as attendees. The futurist Warren Wagar proclaimed that technocracy was “the highest stage of capitalism” and prophesied that it soon would be implemented.
Three years later, Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland headed the UN commission, together with Maurice Strong, which developed the concept of Sustainable Development. It was presented in their report Our Common Future (1987) and was the trojan horse that would make the technocratic dictatorship a reality.
In 1991 the Trilateral Commission presented an action plan on how to achieve this in Beyond Interdependence – The Meshing of the worlds Economy and the Earths ecology. Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller wrote the foreword.
Strong then took the role as secretary-general during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The major outcomes was the adoption of UN Agenda 21 and the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). The plan was put in place.
Strong also headed the Earth Charter commission together with honorary Club of Rome-member Mikhail Gorbachev, and with Steven Rockefeller as coordinator. The outcome was sixteen principles, or commandments, for a “just, sustainable and peaceful world”. They were launched at the Peace Palace in the Hague in 2000.
Scenarios on how the desired “planetary civilisation” could be achieved were presented in the Global Scenario Groups The Great Transition – The Promises and Lures of Our Times in 2002. This report listed crisis like environmental degradation, climate change, social polarisation, and terrorism as possible triggers for the transformation.
The main author, Paul Raskin, had been a member of the Earth Charter Commission and is currently a member of the Club of Rome.Funding came from Rockefeller Foundation and UNEP.
World Economic Forum became the main vehicle to realise their vision, in tandem with the United Nations. This was manifested through the merging of UNs Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 and WEFs The Fourth Industrial Revolution, with the signing of a partnership in June 2019.
Club of Rome is now one of the leading advocates for a declaration of a “Planetary Emergency “by the UN General Assembly during the Summit of the Future in 2024.12This could trigger the set up of an Emergency Platform to establish the envisioned Technocratic Dictatorship. “Für ihrer sicherheit.”
Subscribe to The Pharos Chronicle – Jacob Nordangård, PhD
Jacob Nordangård, PhD – Geopolitics, Science & Technology, Politics behind the scenes
Digital Public Infrastructure for One Earth, One Family and One Future
G20 leaders meeting uncovers new technocratic concepts
Transition to a New Global Order
Nanotechnology is the solution for 13 von 17 sustainable development Goals!?
https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/ICBA%202019_SDG%20Brochure_Final.pdf
https://rumble.com/v379z6e-why-would-they-tell-us-this-if-its-all-a-conspiracy-theory.html
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2023/09/01/ten-technologies-to-own-the-weather-today/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2023/11/10/the-decline-the-stick-the-trick-part-1-3/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2023/11/12/the-great-zero-carbon-are-the-wefs-great-reset/
https://julimination.wordpress.com/2024/01/11/die-gruene-revolution/
But now it’s get totally wired…
JEFFREY EPSTEIN & THE DOOMSDAY CLAN
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PIONEER?
APR 14 2023 by Silviu "Silview" Costinescu
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, SCIENCE PHILANTHROPIST, ORGANIZES A GLOBAL DOOMSDAY CONFERENCE.
New York, NY, April 05, 2012 –(PR.com)– In the wake of the March 2011 Tohuku earthquake and tsunami, which created more than 300,000 refugees and radioactive contamination across the entire region, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists pushed the symbolic Doomsday Clock one minute closer to midnight last January, to reflect the world’s lack of progress with battling climate change and nuclear weapons.
To address this concern, the Jeffrey Epstein Foundation, which funds science research and education, is organizing a second world conference called, Coping with Future Catastrophes to be held most likely in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates.
The first conference took place last December in the US Virgin Islands and brought together a prestigious panel of scientists to identify the greatest threats to the Earth. The threats include acts of bioterrorism, nuclear calamities and/or nuclear warfare, overpopulation, asteroid and meteor threats, super volcanoes, mass tectonic earthquakes, rogue self-replicating nano-machines, super intelligent computers and high-energy chain-reactions that could disrupt the fabric of space itself.
The conference was organized by cognitive scientist, Marvin Minsky, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT and co-founder of MIT’s AL (Artificial Intelligence) Laboratory. Other scientists included, Martin Nowak, Professor of Biology and Mathematics and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University, Lawrence Krauss, Professor of Physics, Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration, and Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University and Gregory Benford, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of California in Irvine.
Lawrence Krauss, who also serves as co-chairman of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ board of sponsors, stated that, “Faced with clear and present dangers of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and the need to find sustainable and safe sources of energy, world leads are failing to change business as usual. …The major challenge at the heart of humanity’s survival in the 21st century is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate … and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons — and in fact setting the stage for global reductions.”
“We need to identify the greatest threats to our Earth,” Minsky summarized, “but we also need to prioritize them.”
Indeed, the list of prioritized threats that was assembled at the first conference will be debated and refined at the second conference, and will host a larger panel of scientists from around the world. “We’re still in the process of selecting scientists to panel this international conference,” Jeffrey Epstein remarked. “We intend to cast a much wider global net and to have scientists from a wider range of fields including bio and genetic engineering.”
The goal of this second conference however is not just to establish a refined list of the Earth’s greatest threats, but to begin the process of setting up an NGO, a non-governmental agency to monitor the priority list, adjust it accordingly and work on preventative measures.
“So far, there are hundreds of governmental and non-governmental organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Center for Disease Control or the World Health Organization, that monitor potential global catastrophes but they tend to focus on one field of study,” Minsky affirmed. “There’s a great need for an international organization to oversee and collect data from all of these groups, to prioritize looming disasters and to establish preventative measures.”
The second conference, if held in Dubai, will most likely coincide with the 2nd International Conference on Environmental, Biomedical and Biotechnology, set for early August. “Dubai is a neutral meeting ground for the international community and is geared to host large conferences and international media,” Epstein explained.
Established in 1947, the Doomsday Clock now sits at 11:55pm, five minutes before midnight, or Armageddon for the Earth. The closest it ever came to midnight was in 1953, when the clock was pushed to 11:58pm, when United States and the Soviet Union tested thermonuclear devices within nine months of each other. Five minutes to midnight though is hardly a reprieve from that time and we should all be in a state of alert.
Contact Information:
The Jeffrey Epstein Foundation
Christina Galbraith
(917) 573-7604
http://www.jeffreyepsteinfoundation.com
Science Philanthropist, Jeffrey Epstein, Organizes a Global Doomsday Conference
Jeffrey Epstein Science: Current Media
CRISPR and genetic engineering will be the biggest event in human history so far, according to the people involved. Bigger than electricity or computers.
Also, it turns out most of Epstein's inner circle are WEF members, and he always rented a place near their meetings but 'didn't attend'.
This video was up for 7 months, until I edited the title down to simply "Epstein's Eugenics", which caused it to be automatically removed.
All claims have video sources and/or articles on screen to validate them.
If a moderator doesn't understand the science being talked about, please do not label it misinformation without doing a cursory Google search or glancing at a Scientific Webpage like PNAS or Pubmed article on the topic.
This is very real technology which people should know about.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/-RITeiANSJs
https://rumble.com/v3bdc7s-a-game-of-genomes-a-eugenics-conspiracy.html
Why you denied the existence of the thing that you’ve create?
Quantum Dots, Pseudoscince & deadly Experts
MEET GHISLAINE MAXWELL, THE ENVIRONMENTALIST: MY WEIRD GLOBALIST FINANCIAL SCHEME CAN SAVE THE OCEAN
by Silviu "Silview" Costinescu
by Silviu “Silview” Costinescu
When she wasn’t busy selling fresh meat in elite markets, Ghislaine sold weird financial schemes to environmentalist dupes. Here she is trying to do a sale at the 2013 Arctic Circle Assembly, on the same stage as Hillary Clinton and Ban Ki-Moon earlier.
The inaugural Arctic Circle Assembly, October 2013, brought over 1200 participants from more than 35 countries to Reykjavík, making it the largest international gathering on the Arctic.
The Opening Session program included: Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Ban Ki-Moon, Alice Rogoff, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Aleqa Hammond; Climate Change: A Plan for Action?; Arctic Ice Melt: Global Weather Events; Arctic Yearbook 2013: The Arctic of Regions vs. The Globalized Arctic
Their list of partners is the most impressive name-dropping you’ve seen in a while, this below is just a figment:
Here’s the impressive organisational structure of the event that invited Ghislaine to propose solutions on their stage:
CHAIRMAN
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
HONORARY BOARD
Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson
HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco
Senator Lisa Murkowski
Dr. Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber
Artur Chilingarov
ADVISORY BOARD
Gudmundur Alfredsson, University of Akureyri
Alexander Borodin, Iridium Polar Advisory Board
Henry Burgess, Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Jared Carney, Lightdale, LLC
Brynhildur Davíðsdóttir, University of Iceland
Milind Deora, former Union Minister of State, Government of India
Dana Eidsness, Maine North Atlantic Development Office (MENADO)
Jane Francis, British Antarctic Survey
Katarina Gårdfeldt, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat
James Gray, House of Commons, UK
Heidar Mar Gudjonsson, Ursus Investments
Thorsteinn Gunnarsson, Icelandic Centre for Research
Lassi Heininen, University of Lapland
Paul Holthus, World Ocean Council
Kuupik Kleist, Pikialasorsuaq Commission
Timo Koivurova, University of Lapland
Lars Kullerud, University of the Arctic
Jean Lemire, Government of Québec
Karin Lochte, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Aleksander Mazharov, Government of Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug
Scott Minerd, Guggenheim Partners
Anders Oskal, International Centre for Reindeer Husbandry
Frederik Paulsen, Paulsen Editions
Maryse Quimper, Société du Plan Nord
Volker Rachold, German Arctic Office
Carter Roberts, World Wildlife Fund
Alice Rogoff, Publisher, Arctic Today
Peter Seligmann, Nia Tero
Hugh Short, Pt Capital
Össur Skarphéðinsson, Iceland’s Commission on Greenland
Mead Treadwell, Venture Ad Astra
Felix Tschudi, Tschudi Shipping Co.
Amy L. Wiita, Cinza Research LLC
Jan Gunnar-Winther, Norwegian Polar Institute
Huigen Yang, Polar Research Institute of China
Alex Zhang, Eco Foundation Global
Þorsteinn Þorsteinsson, Icelandic Meteorological Office
Because science.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DID SPEAK NINE TIMES FOR THE UN. AND I FOUND OUT HOW SHE GOT IN
by Silviu "Silview" Costinescu
Ghislaine Maxwell actually spoke at least NINE times in front of United Nations assemblies, promoting some weird globalist financial schemes (see earlier posts); this is one of the speeches.
By the way, those fact-checking presstitutes from rhino-media and social media lied to you again, Ghislaine DID speak 9 times for the UN, it says so in her official bio presented at TED x Westchester Digital Summit 2014.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF THE TERRAMAR PROJECT
https://www.westchesterdigitalsummit.com/Summit14/speakers/ghislaine-maxwell/
Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell is founder and president of the TerraMar Project, a nonprofit whose mission is to create a global ocean community to protect and promote sustainable development of the ocean.
She holds a B.A. - M.A. from Oxford University. She is a private helicopter pilot, a trained EMT, and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot. She speaks four languages: English, French, Spanish and Italian.
WHAT IS THE TERRAMAR PROJECT?
The TerraMar Project is a nonprofit ocean organization dedicated to building a global community who will speak up for the ocean.
We will use the power of our global community to conserve and protect the ocean.
By signing the pledge and becoming an ocean citizen you are joining the world’s first ocean community dedicated to giving a voice to the least talked about and most forgotten part of our planet.
One of our first priorities is helping to create an ocean-specific Sustainable Development Goal at the United Nations in 2014.
why the ocean?The Ocean feeds billions of people, provides over half our oxygen, and creates the planet’s weather.
what is the problem?The ocean faces huge challenges – overfishing, marine debris, ocean warming, ocean acidification, pollution, and unsustainable development.
what does terramar provide?
Solutions to the challenges.
An Ocean Sustainable Development goal will make the ocean a priority, create new laws and governance to protect it
We provide the I Love the Ocean Pledge – instant citizenship to the world’s first ocean community dedicated to sustainable management of the ocean.
The Daily Catch – daily ocean news covering politics, science, environment, and adventure.
A comprehensive Education platform, Friend a Species , Claim an Ocean Parcel , the Virtual Ocean Dive , and charity merchandise .
WHY THE HIGH SEAS?
The high seas, also known as international waters or the global commons, make up 64% of the ocean covering a staggering 45% of the planet. We’re giving this area of the planet a voice through you. We believe, like the Law of the Commons, the high seas belong to all of us.
WHAT WE SUPPORT
An ocean-specific Sustainable Development Goal at the United Nations.
A proactive, empowered, and engaged global ocean community.
Sustainable fishing practices throughout global fisheries.
More and expanded Marine Protected Areas – areas of biodiversity and sensitivity that are off limits to extractive activities such as fishing and mining.
An effective system to track and monitor illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing vessels.
Extensive ocean science and research – less than 5% of the ocean has been explored.
Clean energy solutions and science-based methods to fight ocean acidification and warming.
A sharp reduction in marine debris, includes tracking and regulations around discarded fishing gear.
WHAT DOES BECOMING A CITIZEN OF TERRAMAR MEAN?
Your citizenship is a pledge - you are declaring that you love the ocean and want it to be managed sustainably for generations to come.
You will help encourage your family, friends and co-workers to learn more about our beautiful blue planet.
Also:
“Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell operated a mysterious company called TerraMar that pushed the UN to issue passports for the ocean, listed a Manhattan property owned by the Rothschilds as a base, and was funded by the Clinton Foundation. (News Punch, July 9, 2020)
“Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s mysterious company TerraMar, which closed down permanently just six days after Epstein’s arrest, appears to tie much of it together.
“The TerraMar Project was non-profit company that Ghislaine Maxwell started in 2012. Jeffrey Epstein and various other high power financiers funded the venture.
“The company described itself as an ocean conservation group but it shut down by 2019 over sex trafficking crimes stemming from Epstein’s arrest. It was only six days after Jeffrey Epstein was brought into custody that the firm announced it was shutting down permanently. The company had immediate support from globalist organizations including the Clinton Foundation.
“Maxwell attended multiple United Nations (UN) meetings and even spoke to the council as the founder of TerraMar. Ghislaine and another man from the company’s Board of Directors, Scott Borgerson, spoke in Washington DC at a special event sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations.”
What Newspunch missed is that Borgerson was her boyfriend, rumored “secret husband” at the time. But this is not even half the story, see below!
The “tech entrepreneur” who is rumored to be married to Ghislaine Maxwell once boasted to his family that he was dating “a high profile woman,” according to a report.
Scott Borgerson, 43, reportedly left his wife Rebecca, the mother of his two children, for Maxwell in 2014, although his estranged father said he knew nothing about Maxwell’s ties to convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, The Sun reported.
Way before Ghislaine was talking about ocean management at the UN, her husband pushed the same agenda from the CFR tribune.
Update: found the evidence that she was married (and Epstein wasn’t)
According to Business Insider:
Borgerson’s name “has resurfaced after prosecutors recently alleged in court that Maxwell is secretly married. Maxwell has declined to provide the name of her spouse, but news outlets have suggested it could be Borgerson.
Borgerson has not responded to further requests for comment since he last spoke with Business Insider in August 2019.
Borgerson’s company has raised nearly $23 million from investors, which include former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Schmidt led a $10 million funding round for CargoMetrics in August 2017, according to PitchBook.”
According to New York Times, Borgerson was working forthe Arctic Circle and we shouldn’t then be too surprised Ghislaine got to speak there, on the same stage with Hillary Clinton, as I reported before:
“In an effort to rebrand herself from jet-setting cosmopolitan to oceanic conservationist, Ms. Maxwell had in 2012 founded and appointed herself C.E.O. of the TerraMar Project, an opaque organization that had no offices and gave no grants to other organizations. It was disbanded in 2019.
Its biggest accomplishment was helping Ms. Maxwell maintain social capital. Associating herself with Mr. Borgerson — the founder of a maritime investments company called CargoMetrics and a former fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he wrote about oceanic issues — added to her credibility.
Mr. Borgerson was called a director at the TerraMar Project, although he never had a job there. Ms. Maxwell supplied him and CargoMetrics with introductions to people on her contacts list.
In 2007, he became a fellow in residence at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank whose officers and directors have included Colin Powell; the philanthropist David Rockefeller; and Robert Rubin, the secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. While at the the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. Borgerson wrote for a magazine it publishes called Foreign Affairs about the effect of global warming on the Arctic region.
His residency as an International Affairs fellow ended in 2008, a spokeswoman for the organization said, and Mr. Borgerson spent another two years as a Visiting Fellow for Oceans Governance, working offsite.
In 2010, he founded Cargometrics, a “maritime innovation company” that uses data systems to study shipping patterns, from which the company determines what goods are being sent where and in what quantities and then bases investment decisions on the results. (For example, in February of this year, the firm used its data on cargo from China to surmise that imports from there were “in free-fall” because of the coronavirus.)
Back when Mr. Borgerson was writing for Foreign Affairs, there weren’t a lot of articles being published about oceanic conservation, said Dagfinnur Sveinbjornsson, the C.E.O. of the Arctic Circle, an organization dedicated to economic and environmental issues in the region.
Mr. Borgerson’s were “among the most prominent,” he said in an interview. “That’s what led to his involvement in the Arctic Circle.”
Mr. Borgerson was picked to serve on its advisory board and moderate a discussion about “Business in the Arctic” at the organization’s annual assembly in Reykjavik, Iceland, in 2013.
Conferences are a strange business. Big issues are often on the agenda, but the events can also (in prepandemic times) serve as glorified cocktail hours and public relations opportunities for people seeking to make connections and enhance their reputations as philanthropists, whether or not they even have a substantial record of working on the causes they’re discussing.
This category included Ms. Maxwell, who spoke at the Reykjavik conference and did not have the organization’s endorsement, according to Mr. Sveinbjornsson. According to British tabloids, it was there that Ms. Maxwell made the acquaintance of Mr. Borgerson.”
Sure, and they fell in love because their environmental agendas were original, but almost identical, by coincidence. We’re big fans of coincidence theories here at SILVIEW.media!
NYT goes on saying that “He was the father of two young children with his wife, Rebecca, to whom he had been married since 2001, public records show.
In 2014, he filed for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Ms. Borgerson obtained a restraining order from Mr. Borgerson. (It was later dismissed.) In legal filings, she claimed that he drank too much, hit her and threatened to beat her in front of the children.
Ms. Maxwell was smitten with Mr. Borgerson, stating over and over again how “hot” and “brilliant” he was, according to a person who worked with the TerraMar Project and agreed to speak to The New York Times on the condition of anonymity, concerned the association would draw censure from environmentalists.
Ms. Maxwell also described the relationship between Mr. Borgerson and his ex-wife to this person as having become cordial, adding that much of her life now involved making lunch for his children and driving them to school.
After Mr. Epstein’s 2019 indictment on sex trafficking charges, the enormous interest in Ms. Maxwell led reporters to Mr. Borgerson, who admonished them for peddling gossip.
They would be far better off, he said, writing about the Jones Act, an esoteric maritime regulation from 1920 that stipulates that all ships on the water traveling between United States ports be built on United States shores and be owned by United States citizens. (It has recently become a point of contention between economists who see it as senselessly protectionist and others who contend that it is essential to preventing terrorism.)
Many of Ms. Maxwell’s old friends were surprised to read in reports of court proceedings earlier this summer that she had gotten married. It remains possible either that she was not telling the truth or that her spouse is someone other than Mr. Borgerson.”
SOME OF THE MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE PRAISED GHISLAINE FOR HER SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE WORLD:
NYT
HUFFPOST
MSNBC
TED
Actually, let’s better have a look at the official Ghislaine Maxwell / TerraMar partners, including the UN, as displayed on their former website:
In 2017, Ghislaine participated with Terramar at the UN Oceans Conference in New York City. Take a good look at the event logo, I hope i reminds you of something:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL BOUGHT IN UN VIA AMIR DOSSAL ON TERRAMAR BOARD ALSO UN BRIBER GUTERRES LINKED
By Matthew Russell Lee Patreon Periscope Song
BBC – Decrypt – LightRead – Honduras – Source
SDNY COURTHOUSE, July 20 – Ghislaine Maxwell used the United Nations, as reported by Inner City Press whose questions about it UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres refuses.
Now we have more: long time UN operative Amir Dossal, also informed with UN bribers like Ng Lap Seng and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, was on the board of directors of Maxwell’s shadowy Terramar. Inner City Press first made this link July 5, & now publishes 990. And here is Dossal introducing Maxwell as one of her nine visits to the UN, here.
After the death of Jeffrey Epstein in the MCC prison, on July 2 Acting US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Audrey Strauss announced and unsealed in indictment of Maxwell on charges including sex trafficking and perjury.
Inner City Press went to her press conference at the US Attorney’s Office and asked, Doesn’t charging Maxwell with perjury undercut any ability to use testimony from her against other, bigger wrong-doers? Periscope here at 23:07.
Strauss replied that it is not impossible to use a perjurer’s testimony. But how often does it work?
At 3:30 pm on July 2 Maxwell appeared in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampsire, before Magistriate Judge Andrea K. Johnstone. Inner City Press live tweeted it here.
(Also live tweeted bail denial of July 14, here.)
In the July 3 media coverage of Maxwell, media all of the world used a video and stills from it of Maxwell speaking in front of a blue curtain, like here.
What they did not mention is something Inner City Press has been asking the UN about, as under UNSG Antonio Guterres with his own sexual exploitation issues (exclusive video and audio) it got roughed up and banned from the UN: Ghislaine Maxwell had a ghoulish United Nations press conference, under the banner of the “Terramar Project,” here.
On July 5, after some crowd-sourcing, Inner City Press reported on another Ghislaine Maxwell use of the United Nations, facilitated by Italy’s Permanent Representative to the UN, UN official Nikhil Seth and Amir Dossal, who also let into the UN and in one case took money from convicted UN briber Ng Lap Seng, and Patrick Ho of CEFC China Energy, also linked to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.
At the Ghislaine Maxwell UN event, the UN Deputy Secretary General was directly involved.
List of (some of) the participants on Patreon here.
Inner City Press has published a phone of Maxwell in the UN with Dossal, here. But the connection runs deeper: Dossal with “25 years of UN involvement” was on Terrarmar’s board of directors, one of only five directors, only three not related to Maxwell by blood and name.
The directors: Ghislaine Maxwell, Christine Malina-Maxwell, Steven Haft, Christine Dennison and… Amir Dossal.
Dossal has operated through the UN Office of Partnership, with Antonio Guterres and his deputy Amina J. Mohammed, here.
And the links to the world of UN bribery, including Antonio Guterres through the Gulbenkian Foundation, runs deeper. More to follow.
Antonio Guterres claims he has zero tolerance for sexual exploitation, but covers it up and even participate in it. He should be forced to resign – and/or have immunity waived.
Terramar has been dissolved, even though Maxwell’s former fundraiser / director of development Brian Yurasits still lists the URL on his (protected) Twitter profile, also here.
But now Inner City Press has begun to inquire into Ghislaine Maxwell’s other United Nations connections, starting with this photograph of another day’s (or at least another outfit’s) presentation in the UN, here. While co-conspirator Antonio Guterres has had Inner City Press banned from any entry into the UN for two years and a day, this appears to be in the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) chamber. We’ll have more on this, and on Epstein and the UN.
The case is US v. Maxwell, 20-cr-330 (Nathan).” – Inner City Press
Inner City Press is backed by the Terramar website, which has been dead for years, but I dug it out with the Wayback Machine.
This is what I found out about the structure of her organization:
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT
Ghislaine Maxwell has a lifelong love and appreciation for the ocean. She is a successful businesswoman, holds a BA-MA from Oxford University, and is a helicopter, and deep worker submersible pilot and a certified EMT.
ROB FOOS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT
Rob Foos holds a BS in Management from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. He was a collegiate rugby player, winning a national championship. He commanded a ship, served on three regional fishery management councils, and led fundraising efforts across the federal government in south Florida. Growing up on the water in California, he loves exploring everything ocean related and is looking forward to his next adventure on the high seas.
INGE SOLHEIM, POLAR AMBASSADOR
Inge Solheim is the world’s foremost polar guide and explorer. He led Prince Harry and injured soldiers on expeditions to the North and South Poles. Inge has also produced and co-produced many television series featuring some of the world’s most remote areas, witnessing firsthand the decline of the polar regions. A native Norwegian, he’s joining TerraMar to save the poles by bringing attention to the least explored part of the planet—the ocean.
STEVEN HAFT
Steven Haft serves as Advisor at LiveLOOK, Inc. and serves as Chair of Allscreen Studios at Burson-Marsteller, LLC. As a producer, his productions have garnered 7 Oscar Nominations, 8 Emmy Nominations and a Peabody Award. He has served as Chief Strategy Officer of the interactive marketing group at AOL. He has a 15-year career in Politics, Law and Public Policy.
AMIR DOSSAL
Amir Dossal is a 25-year veteran of the United Nations, and was the UN’s Chief Liaison for Partnerships. As Executive Director of the UN Office for Partnerships, he managed the $1 billion gift by media mogul Ted Turner; and forged strategic alliances to address the Millennium Development Goals.
MEET OUR EXPERTS IN OCEAN POLICY, SCIENCE, LAW, GOVERNANCE AND CONSERVATION IN THE HIGH SEAS
I’m not even done here, I’ve just done making my point, but more info will be added soon, developing.
UPDATES:
Here’s an excellent research that takes this further and greatly completes my work, kudos to Mouthy Buddha!
To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!
I hope you could see that the left is also spreading the Apocalyptic mindset for a world full of fear… and behind the scenes they are all working toward the Agenda 2030
Factsheet - The IMF and the Sustainable Development Goals https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/16/46/Sustainable-Development-Goals
We must innovate out of COVID to reach the 2030 global goals | World Economic Forum https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/harness-pace-of-innovation-during-pandemic-to-meet-sdgs/
World Bank Group and The 2030 Agenda https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/sdgs-2030-agenda
WEF, the United Nations and SDGs https://www.wef.org/advocacy/global-programs/wef-the-united-nations-and-sdgs