Haven't really seen this brought up, maybe it was implied to some, but I feel it needs to be brought up for full awareness. Shit's uncanny once you see it.

So sometimes you just can't say the quiet part out loud, right? We know the left does this and speaks in a quasi "code" of sorts to signal intent while maintaining deniability.

Thinking about the money laundering in Ukraine and the constant hissy fit they throw when they don't get "muh climate change" funds, I started to wonder something.

Is "climate change" just elite-speak for "commoner uprising" "peasant revolt" or other similar concepts?

PART 1: Modern usage of the term

Let's look at some examples of climate change rhetoric in modern headlines and see how well this holds up.

Simple search for "climate change" and similar topics while specifically looking for headlines and less historical/wiki/science pages and more news/punditry/etc on the topic turns up examples like these:

• "Why is Pakistan so susceptible to climate change?"
• "Climate change could cost Canada's economy $139b by 2050: report..."
• "High-tech wooden cities could fight fire, climate change, study says"
• "From Prince Harry and Leonardo DiCaprio to Emma Watson and Radiohead: What famous people are doing to help fight climate change"

So again, there's a good split on this, but what I'm looking for are less "science-y convince the normies" styles of articles and more "I'm speaking in comms to express support of the idea." It's nuanced, probably not perfect, but you'll notice that a lot of this ties up nicely in a moment.

So at an elementary level, let's replace those few examples above from terms like "climate change" to equivalent terms regarding revolutions, rebellion, etc.

• "Why is Pakistan so susceptible to revolt?"
• "Civil uprising could cost Canada's economy $139b by 2050: report..."
• "High-tech wooden cities could fight fiery revolution, study says"
• "From Prince Harry and Leonardo DiCaprio to Emma Watson and Radiohead: What famous people are doing to help fight dissent"

So I take a little artistic liberty here, but these are comms, right? They're supposed to be flexible. The underlying concept is the same regardless of word selection and grammar: we cannot let the people rise up.

Not enough? That's fair, that's just part one. Let's move on.

Part Two: Very brief history

In case you didn't know, Pakistan and Canada have had instances of revolts, unrest or other issues crop up in recent times. Pakistan in general is particularly bad, but the whole area has a long history of violence so we can leave that to your own research to explore in depth. Point is that in modern times many of these "climate change" calls seems to be primarily in areas with more "resistance."

So what about history? Well you'll notice a very nice little gem: "climate change" just so happened to become a "thing" within about 50 years of the founding of the United States. Specifically, the early 1800's a fellow called Joseph Fourier is credited with founding a theory about greenhouse gases and being the "father" of the concept as best I can tell.

However, that's not all. In fact, there were many revolutions and uprisings in Europe and across the world in the 1800s. If there was a time for the "elites" to say "Houston, we got a problem. The sheep are rising up." This would be the time. France in particular, where Fourier is from, also has a long history of civilian uprisings. Nasty ones too where even nobles get a quick shave off the top.

I recommend further research on this point. There's a lot and a history buff would be better suited, but the key data points are that there was a large spike in civilian uprisings, likely inspired in part by the USA and other issues at the time. The globalists of their time were taking a beating and they had to strike back, in my opinion.

Part Three: Test for accuracy

So we have this neat little theory and it certainly would be interesting, but how can you prove it? Well, just like their inconsistency with actually fighting climate change debunks their stated goals, a consistency in usage of this term in this fashion would be good proof that they're thinly veiled comms.

So I did some basic research for "countries most at risk for climate change" and some recurring names I found may pique your interest:

• United States (self-evident cases of unrest)
• The Phillipines (at least since 2019 civil unrest and "insurrection")
• Germany (constant unrest from gov persecution)
• Madagascar (2009 ousting of president who fled)
• India (complicated but history protests and unrest from citizens)
• Sri Lanka (2018 coup)
• Kenya (2017 unrest regarding elections)
• Rwanda (Civil War/genocide; 1990s)
• Canada (Trucker protests)
• Fiji (2000 coup)

So what catches my eye with this is that while there are some island nations, not ALL island nations are listed. Every island is affected by global changes in oceans, are they not? Meanwhile a country on a major landmass like Germany is often listed, but not China? Ukraine? You will find random articles on some, but the focus appears elsewhere.

Part Four: Summary, conclusion, and other thoughts

So to put this all in a simple, digestible theory it goes something like this:

• Climate change (comms) are about civilian uprising and mitigating the threat therein to the "elites"
• Climate change ("science") is about justifying the measures taken with useful idiots on the payroll
• Climate change ("solutions") are about dis-empowering the "rowdy sheep" into compliance and submission while bolstering the power structure of the "elites."

At first, I was skeptical on this idea because I saw articles that would focus on places like China. Why would they do this? Then it hit me. It's specifically for deniability in a weird way. Think of it like this:

• The useful idiots pushing these articles are acting semi-autonomously not realizing they're a pawn in all of this. This explains the "misfires" with such articles that don't gain a lot of traction.
• If you're "in the know" these articles about controlled populaces are irrelevant. Disregard the article.
• If you're not "in the know" these articles appear to debunk the theory, creating deniability. Disregard the theory.

It's as simple as that. This explains climate change PERFECTLY. This isn't even with going into how all of their "solutions" have the same end point of enslaving the common man to the powers that be. That's its own topic entirely.

So this is my go-to theory regarding "climate change". It's a perfect metaphor and mechanism to abuse us by. I really can't unsee this now.

Any other thoughts on this?