Green or Gold? (Part 2)
The “Green” Agenda
During the spring of 2020, shortly after the imposition of strict limits on personal movement, I noticed a huge improvement in our local environment. Most cars and lorries were off the road and the constant background hum caused by moving traffic was replaced by something novel, and wonderful. The sound of silence!
The sky seemed bluer, the sea was clearer. Everything felt fresh and pure. For those few weeks we seemed to have returned to a pre-industrial age before pollution degraded our world. If this was an unexpected side effect of the severe quarantine measures that seemed to come out of nowhere, it was one I definitely welcomed.
But what if that was the intention all along - not only in Ireland but right across the planet? Were we experiencing the planned ending of one kind of society in order that another could begin?
That is the premise behind the theory promulgated by Kevin Galalae. It is based on his claim that the pandemic is a hoax devised by the United Nations and world governments. Their true purpose is to tackle three fundamental problems that threaten the very basis of our civilisation:
over-consumption, which is the disease of the developed world; over-population, which is the disease of the developing world; and over-abuse, which is the combined effect of overconsumption and overpopulation on the planet and its life-support systems.
These issues have been around for a long time. A UN report published in 1987 presented the problem in this way:
The Earth is one but the world is not. We all depend on one biosphere for sustaining our lives. Yet each community, each country, strives for survival and prosperity with little regard for its impact on others. Some consume the Earth's resources at a rate that would leave little for future generations. Others, many more in number, consume far too little and live with the prospect of hunger, squalor, disease, and early death.
Those “some”, of course, are citizens of the prosperous West. As the report states:
An additional person in an industrial country consumes far more and places far greater pressure on natural resources than an additional person in the Third World.
However, as the report also points out, people in the Third World are reproducing much faster than their western counterparts.
The greater part of global population increase will take place in developing countries, where the 1985 population of 3.7 billion may increase to 6.8 billion by 2025.
So if people in the West keep buying stuff like there is no tomorrow, and those in the Third World carry on procreating like there is no tomorrow, there will be no tomorrow! Or as the report puts it:
There are thresholds that cannot be crossed without endangering the basic integrity of the system. Today we are close to many of these thresholds; we must be ever mindful of the risk of endangering the survival of life on Earth.
How can this conundrum be resolved? And who or what could possibly succeed in doing just that?
Because this is a global problem, the report suggests that only a global organisation could lead the world towards “sustainable development”. As the report argues, there is only one “intergovernmental organization with universal membership” that could take on this task: not surprisingly that is the United Nations.
The UN report was published more than three decades ago. Since then, many diverse projects and initiatives have set out to bring the critical state of the environment to political and public attention. At first these were pretty sober and sedate, like the Kyoto Protocol and the rise of Green politics. However recently things have become more strident, prime examples being the activities of Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg.
In January 2021, Greta Thunberg addressed via video link the 1,700 virtual participants of the annual World Economic Forum, usually held in Davos, Switzerland. According to Ms Thunberg, things could hardly be worse.
The climate and ecological crisis can unfortunately no longer be solved within today’s systems. According to the current best available science that is no longer an opinion; that’s a fact.
Back in 1987 the authors of the UN report (or maybe just a few of them) anticipated that the threats they identified could not be resolved by the usual remedy of multilateral deal-making and international treaties. Tucked away in a corner of the 300-page document is this insight.
All would be better off if each person took into account the effect of his or her acts upon others. But each is unwilling to assume that others will behave in this socially desirable fashion, and hence all continue to pursue narrow self-interest.
Maybe this explains Greta Thunberg’s recent apocalyptic announcement – and Kevin Galalae’s theory.
Galalae hints that he is more than a disinterested observer and analyst, that he is in fact a former insider whose warnings were ignored by his associates. Or he may be just a fantasist. But his case stands or falls on its own merits. The reader must decide for him or herself.
In both written and video essays produced during the summer of 2020, Galalae contends that the UN decided that the planet could not be saved through the voluntary actions of its peoples. As he puts it:
Political and scientific leaders, in their desperation, decided to act.
Given that the plan Galalae describes includes the advent of Greta Thunberg, it would have had to be in the works for several years at least. In any event, he argues that each element of the governmental response specifically addresses one or more of the three existential threats he (and the UN report) describes.
Closing down most retail outlets, restaurants, theatres, etc., curbed impulse spending drastically. Social distancing and mandatory face masks were imposed to make even shopping for so-called essentials less attractive for citizens.
A combination of reducing or cancelling vital non-Covid health treatments, plus the promotion of “cocooning”, have hit older citizens in the developed world particularly hard. The aim was and is to reduce the West’s “old-age burden” by “send[ing] the old and the ill faster and in greater numbers into their graves”. Meanwhile a depopulation programme for the Third World is being considered (as of June 2020) using various measures, including mandatory vaccines.
The lockdown of societies, the creation of a climate of fear throughout the world, and promoting the Chinese approach to civil control, are all calculated, according to Galalae, “to bring the global economy to a standstill so as to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions”.
Whatever the true goal, it’s not just me who noticed the dramatic changes. According to a recent news item:
The pandemic helped push American emissions below 1990 levels for the first time. Globally, carbon dioxide emissions fell 7 percent, or 2.6 billion metric tons, according to new data from international climate researchers. In terms of output, that is about double the annual emissions of Japan.
Recent scientific research from the US found that
the environment is quickly changing, and the timing of those changes seems to indicate that the pandemic may be a reason. Deforestation rates are changing in some places, air pollution is diminishing, water quality is improving, and snow is becoming more reflective in some areas since the pandemic began earlier this year.
Kevin Galalae claims to be blowing the whistle on the secret plan to “save the planet” because he does not agree with the methods being used. He maintains that the “great reset” cannot succeed in the long-term if it is built on a “foundation of lies”.By creating a fake pandemic, global authorities have taken a huge risk that will become manifest when the truth emerges, as he believes it will. That risk is the complete collapse of public confidence in all arms of the establishment, whether political, medical, media, or religious.
But Galalae himself would not have relied solely on telling the truth to the people.
He argues that the UN and its affiliated governments should first have singled out the super-rich by outlawing their conspicuous consumption and confiscating their palaces, yachts, and aircraft. Then, perhaps ordinary people would have agreed to make the sacrifices necessary to tackle the environmental catastrophe he foresees ahead.
“And if that fails, impose them.”
So, even under Kevin Galalae’s strategy, coercion would probably have been necessary if the people were uncooperative. Indeed indefinite coercion seems likely, whether or not the current deception is exposed. According to one of the studies cited above
Many of the environmental improvements that researchers are seeing won't last if the world goes back to its pre-pandemic ways.
So, if Covid-19 really is a front for a “Green Agenda”, we cannot assume that the perpetrators are inclined to ever permit the world to return to the “old normal”.
But is Kevin Gallalae’s theory correct, or is the truth behind this pandemic to be found elsewhere?
That will be the topic of my next post.
Kevin Galalae, ‘The Pandemic Illusion and Global Governance’, 10 Jun. 2020, downloaded from [https://independent.academia.edu/KevinMugurGalalae], 31 Mar. 2021.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987).
World Economic Forum [https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/greta-thunberg-message-to-the-davos-agenda/], 31 Mar. 2021.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987).
‘The Pandemic Illusion and Global Governance’.
New York Times, 7 Mar. 2021.
‘Environmental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, as observed from space’, Science Daily, 8 Dec. 2020 [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201208162957.htm], 2 Apr. 2021.
Kevin Galalae, “Failures of the Plandemic Strategy”. [https://www.academia.edu/video/jY6eb1], 31 Mar. 2021.
‘Environmental impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic’.