Global Britain and Climate Change: ‘A Vast Military-Style Campaign’

“As we tackle this crisis, our efforts cannot be a series of independent initiatives running in parallel. The scale and scope of the threat we face call for a global, systems-level solution, based on radically transforming our current fossil fuel-based economy to one that is genuinely renewable and sustainable....

“We know this will take trillions, not billions, of dollars. We also know that countries, many of whom are burdened by growing levels of debt, simply cannot afford to “go green.” Here, we need a vast military-style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector. With trillions at its disposal – far beyond global G.D.P. and, with the greatest respect, beyond even the governments of the world’s leaders – it offers the only real prospect of achieving fundamental economic transition.”

—Prince Charles, HRH, etc., heir to the British throne,

at COP26 (the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference)

As this report documents, Prince Charles’s open declaration in Glasgow for a fascist global order, to enforce Malthusian genocide by a “vast military-style campaign,” is in his royal roots, as heir to the royal family that backed Adolf Hitler and his genocide program that killed millions. The House of Windsor now intends to commit genocide on the scale of billions with their green program. And while Hitler’s geopolitical designs, with British backing, unleashed a world war that killed millions across Eurasia, the current geopolitical designs pursued by the monarchy against the leading nations of China and Russia, could unleash a thermonuclear world war that would kill billions.
Charles’s “fundamental economic transition” run by the “global private sector” is part of the monarchy’s plan for “shifting the trillions”— creating a new green bubble to hyperinflate away the debt of London and Wall Street’s doomed transatlantic financial system that already imploded in 2008. They intend to impose their “great reset” through “regime change,” whereby the economic decisions of governments will be superseded by a consortium of central banks that will deny credit for carbon-based fuels as well as nuclear power and large-scale infrastructure projects in general — thereby halting economic progress by developing nations and contributing to the intended hyperinflation in the transatlantic world.
However, Charles’s mission to impose a global green diktat failed in Glasgow. The leading nations of China, Russia and India rejected any binding agreements at COP26, and have made it clear that they are pursuing fossil fuels, and more importantly, nuclear power, not only for their economic development, but for the whole world. Moreover, as the British system disintegrates, the roster of nations jumping ship to join China’s epic global infrastructure project of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) continues to expand, backed up by China’s strategic partnership with Russia. Though the BRI may have been formally launched by China in 2013, the seed crystal of the idea was planted decades earlier by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The LaRouches initiated the idea of a “New Silk Road” for Eurasia, and eventually expanded the idea to become a “World Land-Bridge,” to connect all nations through what LaRouche conceptualized as “development corridors.” At the same time, LaRouche began to formulate his concept that eventually became known as the “Four Powers,” to bring the United States, China, Russia and India together for a new economic paradigm based on physical economic growth. Cooperation by these four nations to achieve growth through the development corridors of the World Land-Bridge, pursue nuclear fission and fusion power, and expand space exploration, would represent the required configuration to bring down the British Empire forever.
The British deployed to stop this system, which began to emerge in the 1990s, by unleashing their “clash of civilizations,” using the 9/11 operation. The monarchy’s lapdog, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, lectured Europe and the UN about the need for pre-emptive, i.e., aggressive war and imperial authority, in a speech in Sedgefield, England on March 5, 2004. The address harkened back to Blair’s 1999 speech in Chicago, when he advised the Clinton Administration that military interventions by the NATO powers could be justified anywhere on the planet, “even though we are not directly threatened”:

So, for me, before September 11, I was already reaching for a different philosophy in international relations from a traditional one that has held sway since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648; namely, that a country’s internal affairs are for it, and you don’t interfere unless it threatens you, or breaches a treaty, or triggers an obligation of alliance. I did not consider Iraq fitted into this philosophy though I could see the horrible injustice done to its people by Saddam.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Nazis were hanged in Nuremberg for launching the same type of pre-emptive war that Blair champions.

The British and their allies in the Pentagon and NATO unleashed wars under the aegis of Blair’s imperial “responsibility to protect” doctrine and expanded the Anglo-American encirclement of China, Russia and India—all designed to stop the potential of LaRouche’s World Land-Bridge and the nascent Four Powers concept.

In the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, European powers ended more than a century of religious war among themselves by agreeing that each party would forgive what was done to it by another, and each would henceforth take into account the interest of the other. Tony Blair would do away with this principle.

The Belt and Road Initiative embraces the participation of some 140 nations, accounting for two-thirds of the Earth’s population and approximately 40% of global GDP. This is the actual target of Charles’s vast military-style campaign for a fundamental economic transition: the Belt and Road Initiative, the leading role of China, with Russian support, in organizing a new economic paradigm, and the role of those two countries and India in turning the Glasgow summit into “FLOP”26. Earlier this year, the crown’s lackeys in the UK parliament made that fact clear with their announcement of “Global Britain.”

Global Britain and a Revised Atlantic Charter—The US-UK Special Relationship for Climate Dictatorship

In March of 2021, the British announced their “Global Britain” initiative, and made clear that the climate agenda was instrumental in their geopolitical designs targeting China and Russia. In the foreword to the UK policy paper, “Global Britain in a competitive age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy,” Boris Johnson writes:

In 2021 and beyond, Her Majesty’s Government will make tackling climate change and biodiversity loss its number one international priority.

In that policy paper, Johnson went on to discuss the British Malthusian “net zero targets” to be imposed by the UK’s “International Climate Finance,” and hints at their strategic objectives by singling out China and its Belt and Road Initiative:

China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s. The scale and reach of China’s economy, size of its population, technological advancement and increasing ambition to project its influence on the global stage, for example through the Belt and Road Initiative, will have profound implications worldwide.

In the British Defence Command Paper for the Global Britain project, “Defence in a Competitive Age,” China’s collaboration with Russia on the “Polar Silk Road” concept, as well as a more veiled reference to the development of Africa, is also in their geopolitical crosshairs:

Climate change and biodiversity loss represents a global challenge. As a threat multiplier, climate change will drive instability, migration, desertification, competition for natural resources and conflict. For instance, it is likely that as a result of climate change the Northern Sea Route will open up within the next decade, which could pose significant geopolitical and security implications.

However, on their own, the British are militarily impotent to impose the new “order.” Since World War I, the British Empire would not have existed without the “special relationship” of strategic and economic cooperation with the United States—”British brains and American brawn,” in the words of Winston Churchill. The UK policy paper announcing “Global Britain’’ makes that clear:

The United States will remain our most important bilateral relationship, essential to key alliances and groups such as NATO and the Five Eyes, and our largest bilateral trading partner and inward investor. We will reinforce our cooperation in traditional policy areas such as security and intelligence and seek to bolster it in areas where together we can have greater impact, such as in tackling illicit finance.

Collective security through NATO: the UK will remain the leading European Ally in NATO, working with Allies to deter nuclear, conventional and hybrid threats to our security, particularly from Russia.

The UK-US special relationship had been severely strained by President Donald Trump, with a 2018 UK House of Lords report going as far as saying that the special relationship would not survive a second Trump term. After their successful coup d’état in 2020, the British sought to reestablish the special relationship with the Biden Administration through a revision of the “Atlantic Charter.”

House of Lords Report

Nearly 80 years ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill affixed their signatures to the Atlantic Charter. The United States, and emphatically the Soviet Union, had saved Great Britain from the Nazi menace it had helped to create. Churchill had no choice but to accept the anti-colonial terms of peace that FDR demanded. A few sections from the 1941 Atlantic Charter elucidate the point:

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.

These words spelled the end of the British Empire. President Joseph Biden and Prime Minister Boris Johnson signed a new Atlantic Charter on June 10, 2021, echoing the language of the Global Britain policy, stating the need to “act urgently and ambitiously to tackle the climate crisis, protect biodiversity, and sustain nature” and to build a “climate-friendly, sustainable, rules-based global economy for the 21st century” as part of a “rules-based international order.” The New Atlantic Charter sends a chilling warning to China and Russia:

We have declared our nuclear deterrents to the defence of NATO and as long as there are nuclear weapons, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.

Roosevelt’s intention of ending the reign of the British Empire and its colonial system, is not contained in this new bastardized Charter.
The signing of the revised Atlantic Charter followed by less than a week NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s previewing, at a virtual conference of the Brookings Institution on June 4, of his NATO 2030 initiative, which will make NATO the global enforcer of this new British “vision.” The issue of climate change is also embedded in the Pentagon’s Defense Climate Risk Assessment. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin writes in the foreword: “To meet this complex challenge, the Department of Defense (DoD) is integrating climate change considerations at all levels, including in our risk analyses, strategy development, planning, modeling, simulation, and war gaming.” The DoD document goes on to cite the Arctic and Indo-Pacific regions, saying that “competitors such as China may try to take advantage of climate change impacts to gain influence.” A leading City of London mouthpiece, the <i>Financial Times</i>, sends the message that Secretary of State Blinken is firmly in their camp with the headline from their August 2021 interview with him: “Blinken says the US must lead green energy revolution to combat China.”
The point here is clear: for Global Britain to enforce its “rules-based order,” that makes “tackling climate change and biodiversity loss its number one international priority,” they will need the thermonuclear arsenal of the United States, given that the targets of Global Britain include Russia and China. These leading nations, who were the leaders in shutting down COP26, are also targets of regime change under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine announced by Tony Blair over two decades ago.

Responsibility to Protect the Environment: Regime Change for the ‘Climate Deniers’

At the end of September 2021, a month before the satanic coven assembled for COP26, the leading policy institute for the crown, Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs— RIIA), issued a threat to the leaders of nations that had not succumbed to Global Britain’s climate dictatorship, and who dared to act on behalf of the general welfare and sovereignty of their nations.
In their screed, “Building Global Climate Security,” Chatham House lays out the need to rethink “traditional security concepts” to address the climate as “the most serious threat to global security we face.” Moreover, they propose that regions and countries that are leading the war on climate change, such as Great Britain and the EU, catalyze “a NATO response to developing a ‘regenerative security’ agenda thereby setting an example for defence and security forces around the world.” To them, “‘regenerative security’ entails addressing escalating climate impacts while building broader resilience through circular economic models that provide for long-term resource security and human and ecological security.”
In a rehash of Tony Blair’s justification for regime change wars under the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, Chatham House enthusiastically maintains that since there are growing demands to legally define “ecocide” as a crime under the International Criminal Court, “the prospect of armed forces defending against ecocide looks increasingly likely.” Further undermining any idea of national sovereignty, the report asserts: “The solutions involving the armed forces could involve the use of force directly against actors causing ecological damage or enforcing a mandate to protect shared ecological assets.”
The call for moving “directly against actors causing ecological damage” should be seen as part of Charles’s announcement for a “vast military-style campaign” at the end of Global Britain’s nuclear-tipped bayonet. But consider that the British generally act in the shadows. Has the issue of targeting so-called climate deniers for regime change not already been in play in recent years—with frightening geopolitical implications?

The UK-US special relationship had been severely strained by President Donald Trump, with a 2018 UK House of Lords report going as far as saying that the special relationship would not survive a second Trump term.

Consider the case of former US President Donald Trump. One of Trump’s first moves in office was to pull us out of the Paris Climate Accords signed by Obama in 2015. The 2018 UK House of Lords report cites that decision by Trump as one of the key reasons, listed first, why a second term would mean the death knell for the UK-US “special relationship”:

The US Administration has taken a number of high-profile unilateral foreign policy decisions that are contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom. In particular, US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change … undermine[s] efforts to tackle pressing global challenges of critical importance to the UK. The Government’s response of maintaining its commitment to these agreements and institutions has been the right one.

However, the difficulty the UK and its allies have faced in trying to influence the US demonstrates the challenge of working with the Administration. How damaging this will be to what has hitherto been the UK’s most important international relationship will depend on whether the current approach is an enduring trend. Should President Trump win a second term, or a similar Administration succeed him, the damage to UK–US relations will be longer lasting...

The House of Lords report goes on to describe their frustrations with the nations described as the “Four Powers” by Lyndon LaRouche:

The rules-based international order in all its manifestations—which is critical to the UK’s national interest—is under serious threat from multiple directions.

The policies of major powers—Russia, China and increasingly the United States—present considerable challenges to the multilateral institutions that underpin this order. Yet many of the problems facing states, such as climate change, terrorism and migration, are increasingly complex and trans-national. The Government should make the defence of the rules-based international order a central theme of all its bilateral relationships. This is particularly important in the UK’s engagement with the US, China, Russia and emerging powers such as India.

In that light, consider the major operation, essentially a regime change operation, against Xi Jinping. The Atlantic Council, a U.S.-based think tank with a mission of maintaining the “special relationship,” is a British foothold on American soil. In 2021, it published an article under the title of “The Longer Telegram,” whose name refers to George Kennan’s 1946 “Long Telegram” (published in 1947 under the pseudonym “X” in Foreign Affairs magazine) which called for a “containment policy” against the Soviet Union.
In it, the anonymous British operatives at the Atlantic Council call for a regime change operation against Xi Jinping. From the paper’s Executive Summary:

Xi has demonstrated that he intends to project China’s authoritarian system, coercive foreign policy, and military presence well beyond his country’s own borders to the world at large.… Xi is no longer just a problem for U.S. primacy. He now presents a serious problem for the whole of the democratic world.

Then they zero in on the regime change policy:

Given the reality that today’s China is a state in which Xi has centralized nearly all decision-making power in his own hands, and used that power to substantially alter China’s political, economic, and foreign-policy trajectory, US strategy must remain laser focused on Xi, his inner circle, and the Chinese political context in which they rule. Changing their decision-making will require understanding, operating within, and changing their political and strategic paradigm.

And again:

The overriding political objective should be to cause China’s elite leadership to collectively conclude that it is in the country’s best interests to continue to operate within the existing US-led liberal international order rather than build a rival order, and that it is in the party’s best interests, if it wishes to remain in power at home, not to attempt to expand China’s borders or export its political model beyond China’s shores. In other words, China can become a different type of global great power than that envisaged by Xi.

The operations against Russian President Vladimir Putin are so numerous, plentiful, and widely published, that one need only turn on a mainstream TV program or look at any major news site to see the latest examples, but where is the script for conflict actually written?

Kazakhstan, where an attempted color revolution failed thanks to a rapid intervention by Presidents Putin and Tokayev.

Take, for example, 354-page RAND document “Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground,” RAND was founded in 1948 by the likes of “We’re going to bomb them back into the stone Age” General Curtis Lemay. Lemay was a self-proclaimed war criminal. The 2019 report states in its summary: “Recognizing that some level of competition with Russia is inevitable, this report seeks to define areas where the United States can do so to its advantage. We examine a range of nonviolent [sic] measures that could exploit Russia’s actual vulnerabilities and anxieties as a way of stressing Russia’s military and economy and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad…. [T]hese steps are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, leading Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage, and causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.”
Among the six “geopolitical measures” listed in chapter 4 of the RAND report, four have been implemented. The six are:

  1. Provide lethal aid to Ukraine
  2. Increase support to Syrian rebels
  3. Promote regime change in Belarus
  4. Exploit tensions in the South Caucasus
  5. Reduce Russian influence in Central Asia
  6. Challenge Russian presence in Moldova

And yet we’re told that Russia is the aggressor. We’ve examined the “nonviolent” measures the British lackeys in the Obama Administration used in Ukraine. The just attempted color revolution in Kazakhstan—number 5 on the list—occurred just weeks before the meeting between Presidents Putin and Biden, and had the sovereign government of Kazakhstan fallen, it would have greatly weakened Putin’s position in these delicate talks. But as Global Britain was given a bloody nose in Glasgow, Helga Zepp-LaRouche explained when asked about the attempted Color Revolution in Kazakhstan:

This is one of the reasons why I think the Russians are so determined not to allow any more color revolutions. Putin commented on the events in Kazakhstan by saying: This was done with the “Maidan technologies.” Meaning, NGOs, making demonstrations—in part it was triggered by the liberalization of the price of energy, which they now have reversed, which was a stupid advice to follow. But then, that organic ferment, so to speak, was used by NGOs which got a lot of financial support from the West, and then, you had terrorist elements flown in from Syria, ISIS, exactly as it was done in the Maidan. So, since the Russians and obviously the Kazakhstan government recognized that, they immediately called in the military alliance of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and within a very short time, the uprising was squelched and now relative peace has been reintroduced. But just think about it: That the same forces which did the coup in Kiev in 2014, in the days before these important meetings in Geneva, Brussels and Vienna, they tried to make a color revolution in Kazakhstan! I mean, if the Russians and the Chinese do not conclude from that, that the final aim of these forces is regime change in Russia and China, then they would really not be thinking clearly. But obviously, they have come to the conclusion that that is exactly what it is, and therefore, they will not give in, one iota.

Is it not time to say directly that these operations are targeting leaders of nations for their opposition to British geopolitics and Malthusian green genocide? Are these nations not committing what the Empire considers the ultimate crime: that of developing not only themselves, but also other nations around the globe?
We must be clear on that fact; the clearer we are, the easier it becomes for leaders of nations to state directly what the British already openly admit, in their calls for a vast military-style campaign to achieve their desired fundamental economic transition.
The thermonuclear consequences of the conflict between development and Malthusianism demand our impassioned efforts to end the reign of the British Empire forever.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.