Here is a harsh truth we must be cognisant of: the same power-hungry control freaks who wanted to lock down the whole world to keep us ‘safe’ from Covid are also wanting to lock down the whole world to keep us safe from ‘climate change’.

And they have told us this. A conspiracy theory is an unsubstantiated and unlikely claim. A conspiracy truth is when the folks involved tell us openly and plainly what they want to do. The Great Reset mob have made it perfectly clear what they have in mind in relation to climate lockdowns after Covid lockdowns were so easily and quickly implemented with the approval of the masses.

The World Economic Forum has published plenty of articles and run a variety of talkfests promoting Covid as a means to enshrine globalisation as a form of centralised government. This would mean the end of a free West. They have switched to promoting climate change fear as an extension to this program. A simple look at their website is all you need to confirm which way Klaus Schwab wishes to drag the world.

Consider one recent article titled, From Davos 2022 to Davos 2023: The six themes then that have set the agenda now. Here is a short part of it:

Theme #2: Three interconnected crises – climate, food, energy.

The climate crisis has long been a key component of the Davos agenda. But with rising emissions, rising energy prices and rising food prices – inextricably linked and exacerbated by the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine – climate conversations took a graver tone at Davos 2022 as world leaders discussed the need for immediate action…

Countries must drastically scale up efforts: ‘It isn’t just about words anymore – it is about action,’ said Xie Zhenhua, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change. ‘Climate action, now, is critical.’

Hmm, ‘climate, food, energy’. Don’t we already see that being ‘dealt with’ by our elites? Whether it is Bill Gates buying up huge amounts of arable farmland in America, Holland confiscating 3,000 farms to meet the climate dictates of the EU, or energy crises throughout Europe caused by alarmist climate action policies, we know where this story is headed.

Also note how China is called upon as a sort of spiritual leader! For a large amount of critical data and detail on why we do not want to follow China, please get a hold of Michael Senger’s vital 2021 volume, Snake Oil: How Xi Jinping Shut Down the World.

It seems that there is never a shortage of fools and/or power-hungry tyrants waiting to get in on the action. For example, UK activists are moving full steam ahead with this:

Oxford, England will be enforcing six ‘traffic filter’ locations restricting car travel in 2024 as part of an effort to ‘help tackle climate change’. During a trial run of at least six months, only buses, taxis, cyclists, pedestrians, and workers with special exemptions will be able to pass through the ‘filter’ access points at all times without being fined, the Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council explained.

Residents of Oxford and ‘some surrounding villages’ can apply for a permit to drive through the filters for up to 100 days a year, and residents of Oxfordshire County may apply for a permit to pass through the filters up to 25 days a year.

As another site puts it:

Apparently, not enough people are catching buses or riding bikes. But instead of making that more appealing, the totalitarians will force it through tracking and fines. Oxfordshire has just approved on November 29, the ‘traffic filters’ trial which will turn the city into a ‘fifteen-minute city’. The Trial will start in Jan 2024.

It’s a crowded area, Oxfordshire, and no one likes traffic congestion, but in a free world the problem is self-limiting as drivers get fed up with delays and exorbitant parking costs, and they car-pool or choose to catch the bus or ride a bike. But in Big Nanny State the local rulers start making rules about who can and can’t visit and how often, and they want your car registered on their own special list with cameras to track you and fines to punish you. They offer exemptions of course, but then you have to apply for them and get permission.

The WEF have printed plenty of articles telling us what a great idea this is. A brief quote from one of them reads: ‘As climate change and global conflict cause shocks and stresses at faster intervals and increasing severity, the 15-minute city will become even more critical.’

If you think this is moon-battery from far, far away, please reconsider. Here in Melbourne the powers that be are looking into exactly the same thing:

Plan Melbourne is guided by the principle of 20-minute neighbourhoods.

The 20-minute neighbourhood is all about ‘living locally’ – giving people the ability to meet most of their daily needs within a 20-minute walk from home, with safe cycling and local transport options. The current Municipal Strategic Planning Project is a joint DELWP and local government project to create better planning for Neighbourhood Activity Centres to deliver 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Banyule, Darebin, Maroondah, Moonee Valley and Whittlesea City Councils are testing draft guidance to support activity centre network planning based on their local needs and priorities. The outcomes of the project will inform future guidance developed to ensure it is robust and fit-for-purpose.

Oh dear – Melbourne, one of the most locked down cities on the planet, just can’t get enough of this stuff. We can look forward to more lockdowns – this time to save the planet. Yeah, right… Can’t wait for that. How about first looking carefully at our Covid lockdowns and determining if they actually did any good, or if they caused far more harm instead, before signing up to more?

I have featured numerous experts on this site over the past three years documenting the massive harms of lockdown mania. Yet our elites and ‘experts’ think they were just peachy and we need to have even more of them. In addition to all the evidence we have about the harms caused by lockdowns, let me finish by noting a new article by the author I mentioned above.

In Fifty Questions to Which We Demand Answers, Michael Senger gives us plenty to think about. He looks at government responses to Covid, including the lockdowns. Let me offer his final 20 questions – all of which deserve immediate and thorough answers:

How many people were killed by the WHO’s initial guidance on mechanical ventilators based on Chinese journal articles advising ventilators as the ‘first choice’ for those hospitalised with Covid?

The initial guidance from the WHO advised using mechanical ventilators not necessarily for the patient’s benefit, but to control the spread of the virus. Why was the WHO advising doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath?

Why were numerous, credible predictions regarding famine, human rights disasters, and economic collapse as a result of lockdowns ignored?

Why was natural immunity ignored?

Why were initial seroprevalence studies downplayed?

Why were beaches and other outdoor spaces closed?

Why was the public kept in the dark about low early estimates of Covid’s actual infection fatality rate?

What was the source of the guidance to move patients who were still sick into nursing homes?

Why has there been so little public discussion of China’s influence on the global response to Covid, despite FBI Director Christopher Wray’s disclosure that Chinese officials were ‘aggressively urging support for China’s handling of the Covid crisis?’

Why was the UK government so deferential to Neil Ferguson and Imperial College London during the response to Covid despite Imperial’s close relationship with China?

Why has the editor-in-chief of the Lancet been publicly deferential to China?

Why did Bill Gates express admiration for China’s response to Covid?

Why did the German government privately disseminate a list of authoritarian measures provided in part by China lobbyists?

How did a 40-year member of the British Communist Party with no background in epidemiology become a leading advisor to the UK government, and why was she recently promoted to lead the WHO’s nudge unit?

Why did leading economists assume that a short, sharp lockdown would ‘eliminate the resurgence risk’ when the policy had no precedent?

Why did the Federal Reserve and its international counterparts disregard inflation?

Why did the Supreme Court and its international counterparts step aside while lockdowns were being implemented?

Why did the judiciary acquiesce to an indefinite state of legal emergency?

Why did Western politicians and public health officials demonstrate so little concern for following their own Covid rules?

If the virus was deadly enough to kill millions and justify an indefinite state of emergency, why has so little effort been expended to hold China accountable for its initial coverup of that virus?

Good questions indeed. But don’t expect any answers to be forthcoming from our global leaders – they are much too busy planning our next lockdowns.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in