Covid Controls A Precursor To Climate Controls?

In early 2020 in the midst of the covid lockdowns, blue states run by leftist governors pursued mandates and restrictions with extreme prejudice. In states like Michigan the vice was squeezed tighter and tighter under the direction of leaders like Gretchen Whitmer.

Whitmer used covid as an opportunity to institute some bizarre limitations on the public, including a mandate barring larger stores from selling seeds and garden supplies to customers. "If you're not buying food or medicine or other essential items, you should not be going to the store," Whitmer said when announcing her order. The leftist governor was fine with purchases of lottery tickets and liquor, but not gardening tools and seeds.

She never gave a logical reason why she targeted garden supplies, but most people in the preparedness community understood very well what this was all about: This was a beta-test for wider restrictions on food independence. There was widespread rhetoric in the media throughout 2020 attacking anyone stockpiling necessities as "hoarders," and now they were going after people planning ahead and trying to grow their own food. The establishment did NOT want people to store or produce a personal food supply.

Another prospect that was being openly discussed among globalists was the idea that lockdowns were "helpful" in ways beyond stopping the spread of covid. They suggested that the these measures could be effective in preventing global carbon emissions and saving the world from "climate change." The idea of climate lockdowns began to spread.

The corporate media has since lied about the existence of the climate lockdown agenda, but articles and white papers extolling the virtues of shutting down the planet in the name of climate change are easy to find and read. The globalists and their academic defenders wanted PERMANENT lockdowns, or rolling lockdowns every couple of months, shutting down most human activity and travel outside of basic production.

I have argued in the past that what Whitmer was doing in Michigan was a part of this agenda - That her garden supply ban was part of a wider goal that had nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with stopping people from prepping. The covid controls were only meant to be a precursor to carbon controls.

This past week we have seen more confirmation of this, as a study out of the University of Michigan claims that homegrown foods produce five times more carbon emissions than industrial farming methods.  In other words, private gardens could be considered a threat to the environment. The Telegraph and other corporate platforms have jumped on the story, and I believe this is cause for concern.

The study includes analysis of various gardens from individual family plots to urban and community plots and claims that "garden infrastructure" for individual plots (such as raised beds) contribute far greater carbon pollution than large scale farming. The study seems to ignore the fact that raised beds are more efficient and grow more food in a smaller space, but I doubt they really care to take these kinds of things into consideration.

The average person might be confused by this and assume the opposite is true - Wouldn't growing foods at home be BETTER for the environment? Not if your funding relies on portraying independent food supplies as bad for the planet. The study is bankrolled by a host of international groups, including the European Union's Horizon Program which lists "100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities by 2030" as one of its project goals.  These 100 cities are then supposed to act as flagship models for the eventual carbon agenda takeover of all cities by 2050.

Such groups have billions of dollars at their disposal and focus most of that monetary firepower on climate change research (propaganda). Do I think that the Michigan study is rigged in favor of a predetermined outcome? Probably. When these studies are funded by globalist interests, their outcomes always seem to favor globalist goals. The study itself does not necessarily argue that people should stop gardening, but it does push the narrative that carbon controls are necessary, even at an individual level.

The Michigan report might seem like a meaningless footnote.  However, as we witnessed last year with a study from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on natural gad appliances, these little and obscure studies are often used to justify large scale government interventions into people's daily lives. The CPSC study inspired months of debates from Democrats in the US demanding that gas appliances including stoves be banned because they MIGHT cause health side effects, specifically in children (it turns out the study had no concrete basis for this claim).

Leftists and globalists do not care about protecting your health; they care about how these studies can be used to fear monger, thus increasing their power. In other words, if you can rig the science, then you can rig the laws.

We saw something similar to this in a UN study in 2006 which claimed that meat production contributed to nearly 20% of all carbon emissions and was worse for the environment than transportation. The study was exposed in 2010 as "flawed" (fraudulent), but for years the media and globalist organizations used its false conclusions as a springboard to demand limitations and bans on meat production in the name of saving the climate.

If you think the war on farming which is raging right now in Europe is only intended to affect industrial farms, think again. The establishment is going to try to use the man-made climate change lie to dictate ALL food production, right down to your unassuming backyard garden.  And they won't limit their efforts to the EU; they will come after American farms with the same restrictions.

This is really what the globalist "net zero" programs and 15-minute cities are all about - They are based on the idea that all human activity needs to be monitored and managed. They say it's for the good of the planet, but the systems they want to put in place from 2030 to 2050 sound like a new digital feudalism, a society where bureaucracies track and trace and micromanage every aspect of your life. The elites benefit greatly while never proving that carbon emissions are a danger to anyone.

Why the obsessive focus on food? Because if people have their own food, then they might be more willing to rebel against further mandates. It's really that simple. The end game is obvious - Control the food, and you control the world. Do it in the name of saving the planet and a lot of people will even thank you as you starve them.

Originally published at Activist Post.