A "Green Sabbath" & Climate Lockdowns/Gross Green Austerity

Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
im not saying you’re trying to argue with me. I just don’t want the conversation to deviate too far from what I originally said where it becomes tempting to argue a point I never initially intended to make. Just wanting to create focus and clearly answer your question.

I don’t completely agree that a climate lockdown is the same as saying humanity is a problem. I think the climate lockdown is in the same as saying pollution Is the problem and it is in consequence to the shelter in place situation. That is true. The shelter in place showed marked reduction in pollution. I don’t think that the argument that humanity is a problem can gather enough support. It is where you create a bridge with something rational like the literal reduction in pollution created by the lockdowns that you would find the means to justify something like this in the mainstream.

I would say believing humanity is a problem is more of a fringe belief even if it is has gotten coverage by the media.

I also think it is easy to caught up in one angle because it is just as easy to see that this situation creates potential for real control of a population as it is to say that it is evidence that is slipping away even if something like this comes to pass.

The un has been talking about sustainability for years. I still have a copy of our global neighborhood on my bookshelf that was published years ago. It is all about creating environmental sustainability which has been assumed to mean something like controlled communities for years.

people have not been quick to support the sustainability efforts for the reasons given which has included things like overpopulation for a long time. Many people are still careless and think that they not only have nothing to worry about regarding the possibility of a climate lockdown, and they don’t have to do anything to help steer our world towards healing the environment either.

so I don’t think this is the platform that will lead to support for something like the potential for climate lockdowns. I think it is evidence of how much pollution went down during the shelter in place that will make the most sense in the mainstream. Not saying I agree with it as an outcome, but I accept that something like this is more than likely inevitable because the average person has an economic disadvantage currently.

however, somewhere on the spectrum of this discussion is the subject of free energy, so that the final result is not slavery but regaining an economic advantage by how something like this has the potential to create a major economic shift. Something like this would correct the economic disadvantage that we have now to some extent.

and that is my futurist talk or speculation on the subject.
The idea that humanity is a disease or problem is not common among people or even news outlets, it is common in the writings and whitepapers of globalist elites. It is almost axiomatic in their writings, that overpopulation is a problem and humanity needs eugenics and population control applied to it, going back for a century. So its not mainstream at all but that sentiment is the one that connects lockdowns to a planetary benefit.

Climate change and the looming fear of projected catastrophes, oceans rising, is a grift. It's hard to talk about clearly because I do believe that elements of humanity are causing damage to the planet, but I don't think its people in their daily lives. The fear of appeasing nature is anciently ingrained in us, that our moral decay leads to natural catastrophe. Going back to the Biblical floods and pagan rituals of the seasons and elements. And this instinct is highjacked by the climate change religion, telling us we must do certain things to appease nature. While it might be true, if a place is extremely morally repugnant, that energy will lead to natural disasters, but they don't need to stop driving cars, and recycle more. While that might be good, it won't appease nature.

Most pollution in the world comes from India and China, and most pollution in the west comes from corporate greed. So allow india to go back to an agricultural civilization? On the contrary, India is hyper corporatizing their farming and calling it literally a green revolution. Climate lockdowns imply giving a lot of power to governments. Perhaps they wont let you drive your car or leave your city, they regulate your diet to make it grain based, like Plato said is good for keeping a population docile and not having them revolt. It's just not a road we want to go down with governments, they shouldnt have that much power ruling over people, that is authoritarianism.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
The idea that humanity is a disease or problem is not common among people or even news outlets, it is common in the writings and whitepapers of globalist elites. It is almost axiomatic in their writings, that overpopulation is a problem and humanity needs eugenics and population control applied to it, going back for a century. So its not mainstream at all but that sentiment is the one that connects lockdowns to a planetary benefit.

Climate change and the looming fear of projected catastrophes, oceans rising, is a grift.
so I see what you are saying here. Eugenics may as well be considered old school conspiracy. There was a fantastic book on it that I read years ago called war against the weak that documents the history of forced sterilization in America and other absurd measures like this. Definitely not mainstream knowledge.

and I remember Kissinger used to be popular for making comments about overpopulation when this subject would come up that almost seems forgotten in all spectrums of discussion, mainstream and otherwise.

Therefore where this connects to lockdowns for the planetary benefit of preventing climate change, I would consider baseless.

however, I think it is important to remember there are aspects missing when making this discussion political like it is not entirely baseless that there have been noticeable environmental disruptions. The seasons have felt different for the last five years or so. Whether that is artificial or not, it is real. India is openly considering cloud seeding to produce rain to fight smog. So I realize this potential for artificial weather disruptions.


So I think there is real possibility for projected catastrophes even if the claims about climate change miss the mark and climate lockdowns aren’t the solution. The reality that we are facing real environment disruptions regardless of the cause could lead to mainstream support or acceptance of something like this because climate lockdowns would reduce pollution, and reducing pollution would be beneficial for the environment.

still I have to find a positive third scenario, which is the potential for something like free energies. I just don’t feel like emerging as a sort of collective leader of political discussion is the positive outcome that I should settle with. I would like to take it a step further, and I’m not trying to personalize this towards you. It is a general comment about having a shared political opinion on this subject and how that is being weighed against the other in a competitive way where it would seem appealing to tilt the scales in your favor. Things like this are just not appealing to me anymore if they ever really were to begin with.
 

Maldarker

Star
Joined
Mar 23, 2021
Messages
2,064
so I see what you are saying here. Eugenics may as well be considered old school conspiracy. There was a fantastic book on it that I read years ago called war against the weak that documents the history of forced sterilization in America and other absurd measures like this. Definitely not mainstream knowledge.

and I remember Kissinger used to be popular for making comments about overpopulation when this subject would come up that almost seems forgotten in all spectrums of discussion, mainstream and otherwise.

Therefore where this connects to lockdowns for the planetary benefit of preventing climate change, I would consider baseless.

however, I think it is important to remember there are aspects missing when making this discussion political like it is not entirely baseless that there have been noticeable environmental disruptions. The seasons have felt different for the last five years or so. Whether that is artificial or not, it is real. India is openly considering cloud seeding to produce rain to fight smog. So I realize this potential for artificial weather disruptions.


So I think there is real possibility for projected catastrophes even if the claims about climate change miss the mark and climate lockdowns aren’t the solution. The reality that we are facing real environment disruptions regardless of the cause could lead to mainstream support or acceptance of something like this because climate lockdowns would reduce pollution, and reducing pollution would be beneficial for the environment.

still I have to find a positive third scenario, which is the potential for something like free energies. I just don’t feel like emerging as a sort of collective leader of political discussion is the positive outcome that I should settle with. I would like to take it a step further, and I’m not trying to personalize this towards you. It is a general comment about having a shared political opinion on this subject and how that is being weighed against the other in a competitive way where it would seem appealing to tilt the scales in your favor. Things like this are just not appealing to me anymore if they ever really were to begin with.
Look more into kissinger. They where talking de pop already back in 1974


Trilateral commission with rockfeller & kissinger good buddies they are
 

The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,165
The very second the phrase carbon footprint came about everything went into hyperdrive. The mere fact they want to tax us on the environment is telling and oh-so controlling.
 
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
and I remember Kissinger used to be popular for making comments about overpopulation when this subject would come up that almost seems forgotten in all spectrums of discussion, mainstream and otherwise.

Therefore where this connects to lockdowns for the planetary benefit of preventing climate change, I would consider baseless.
Its not baseless. Its a common theme among elite writings, not just from kissinger, but people like Jacque Atalli and Berzinski and many others. Elite writing are essentially connected with the thread of climate change being a way to unite the world with a common problem for them to give a solution, which is always depopulation. It relates directly to climate lockdowns.
I just don’t feel like emerging as a sort of collective leader of political discussion is the positive outcome that I should settle with. I would like to take it a step further, and I’m not trying to personalize this towards you. It is a general comment about having a shared political opinion on this subject and how that is being weighed against the other in a competitive way where it would seem appealing to tilt the scales in your favor. Things like this are just not appealing to me anymore if they ever really were to begin with.
Alright I won't personalize this towards me but what is the problem with people discussing this? You want to take it to step two but don't want step one, discussing it and being updated on it? Dont personalize this towards you as well, but I've always hated when people do this, when you are discussing something and they become nihilistic about the discussion, saying well what does it matter, what are you going to do blah blah. My old room mate always usd to do that. Why cant you just discuss something. Why the hubris to think you are going to change the world? Why did Socrates discuss the republic with random people on the hills of Greece? He wasnt trying to be a political leader he just valued truth. Should he have just not discussed it because it wouldnt' have changed the oligarchy at the time, and it didnt? If discussions dont appeal to someone then dont have them, personally I enjoy discussion and understanding things, simple as that.
 
Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Its not baseless. Its a common theme among elite writings, not just from kissinger, but people like Jacque Atalli and Berzinski and many others. Elite writing are essentially connected with the thread of climate change being a way to unite the world with a common problem for them to give a solution, which is always depopulation. It relates directly to climate lockdowns.

Alright I won't personalize this towards me but what is the problem with people discussing this? You want to take it to step two but don't want step one, discussing it and being updated on it? Dont personalize this towards you as well, but I've always hated when people do this, when you are discussing something and they become nihilistic about the discussion, saying well what does it matter, what are you going to do blah blah. My old room mate always usd to do that. Why cant you just discuss something. Why the hubris to think you are going to change the world? Why did Socrates discuss the republic with random people on the hills of Greece? He wasnt trying to be a political leader he just valued truth. Should he have just not discussed it because it wouldnt' have changed the oligarchy at the time, and it didnt? If discussions dont appeal to someone then dont have them, personally I enjoy discussion and understanding things, simple as that.
I never said there was a problem discussing it. I said I don’t understand why people are shocked that this is being discussed. I think you are translating this to mean that i am saying it shouldn’t be discussed and are saying I shouldn’t have my own opinion on it in the process whether intentional or not.

my opinion simply deviated slightly from the collective view being formed in this thread and this is translated to mean that I’m saying people shouldn’t discuss something, which is taking it a step too far. I am discussing it from a different angle because objectivity is achieved by looking at things from different angles.

we are not in conflict. You can make your statement and I can make mine and that’s fine. Let me know when you find some way of directly addressing the point I was making about being economically disadvantaged. Otherwise have a nice day.
 
Joined
May 18, 2018
Messages
4,046
I never said there was a problem discussing it. I said I don’t understand why people are shocked that this is being discussed. I think you are translating this to mean that it shouldn’t be discussed and are saying I shouldn’t have my own opinion on it in the process whether intentional or not.

my opinion simply deviated slightly from the collective view being formed in this thread and this is translated to mean that I’m saying people shouldn’t discuss something, which is taking it a step too far. I am discussing it from a different angle because objectivity is achieved by looking at things from different angles.

we are not in conflict. You can make your statement and I can make mine and that’s fine. Let me know when you find some way of directly addressing the point I was making about being economically disadvantaged. Otherwise have a nice day.
I really havent been understanding what you meant by the economically disadvantaged and their relation to climate lockdowns
 

The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,165
Ya see that is why I get snarky. It seems very important for you to get "your" take out there and then argue it until the cows come in at dawn. We all consider ourselves to be objective. You do not have the market cornered on that. Now, we get to wade through those opinions to get back to the discussion we were having. Try to be less preachy and go with the flow on occasion and the snarkiness might stop. This thread is about the collective's opinions, etc. I admire Light trying to entertain your thoughts but that kind of leads to... this.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Ya see that is why I get snarky. It seems very important for you to get "your" take out there and then argue it until the cows come in at dawn. We all consider ourselves to be objective. You do not have the market cornered on that. Now, we get to wade through those opinions to get back to the discussion we were having. Try to be less preachy and go with the flow on occasion and the snarkiness might stop. This thread is about the collective's opinions, etc. I admire Light trying to entertain your thoughts but that kind of leads to... this.
Having a conversation with someone that extends beyond a couple of posts is not the same thing as arguing until the cows come home. Why don’t you mind your own business or put me on ignore so you can enjoy an echo chamber.

we were having a pleasant conversation. You don’t have to participate. I don’t feel that light is humoring me. Maybe he wants to have a more challenging conversation about the subject than just simply liking everything the other one says.

it doesn’t matter because it is really none of your business. It is telling that we had a whole conversation without entire posts being consumed with personal comments and you can’t seem to find a way to do the same with me. I’m capable of this. However, maybe that is not something you are capable of.

you’re the only one with a problem here.
 

The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,165
I will let the silence from other posters be the tell-tale. It is not personal. You come across as being haughty and beyond us mere mortals and we all know better. No, we don't. We are all not objective and like-minded. Isn't that exactly what you implied? That makes for few friends.
 
Last edited:

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
I really havent been understanding what you meant by the economically disadvantaged and their relation to climate lockdowns
well I’m saying that the people who would promote climate lockdowns have the money to make something like this happen. Metaphorically I’m saying that a climate lockdown is basically the same thing as buying a private island so to speak. It is not like they can literally buy a climate lockdown, but it is almost like they can buy a climate lockdown.

and the regular person has no economic opportunity to compete on this level so the problem needs to addressed from a different angle basically.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
I will let the silence from other posters be the tell-tale. It is not personal.
you know silence is better than fighting. There is nothing wrong with not saying something if you have nothing nice to say. You say this as though it should hurt my feelings that someone would ignore me.

I’m an intelligent person so it is their loss, but if they can’t handle a challenging conversation without getting emotional about it, then silence is for the best.

plenty of proverbs confirm this as the truth.
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
There is no solution other than the destruction of the organisations that perpetuate this. It's a simple solution but not the one those organisations want. It is necessary to talk about this because otherwise you are just ignoring it, making other people more aware is the most viable way to approach a real solution, which is for people to opt out of these organisations.



I'm not going to read your walls of text. My guess is they serve no-one but your own ego, judging by how much you and The Zone kept this up in a public thread. I think that your veil of objectivity is a poor mask to make yourself feel grander. If you wanted to be objective, why do you talk about how proverbs prove your point? They don't do that whatsoever, proverbs are not indicative of anything anyway, they are just a way to simplify communicating an idea by spitting out a pre-made phrase. Why do you feel the need to pronounce your own intelligence? No one cares about intelligence except for mediocre people who need to feel different. It's obvious that you never wanted to convince the other party, you just came to masturbate with words.

I apologize for not having anything nice to say to you. Anyway, I urge you to actually consider what I said instead of responding as if I've attacked you.
Well why don’t they elect you to be the lead in the campaign to win people over to whatever it is that you are suggesting. What is it that you are suggesting again?

that people leave corporations in droves? I’m missing something.

maybe it would be good to spend more time trying to make a clear point instead of joining the conversation I was having with zone. I will say you have much more bite than he does. You are just a little wolf aren’t you.

zone still likes me deep down. That is why he is going to be quiet now. You really should try to learn to mind your business.

but when you talk of destruction, I would like to make a comparison to the former history of kings and peasants. Let’s think about why it was hard for the peasants to get independence from the king for a second… because the king owned everything basically. They were completely disadvantaged economically.

talking about something does nothing to bring destruction to a system. The printing press did more to bring destruction to the system of monarchy than protest did. You could say this was because it brought awareness and to some extent this is true. But it was the technology that created this opportunity and I think it will be a green technology that creates freedom from this sort of climate monarchy in the present.

the reality is that I’m not saying anything offensive. You know it is good every now and then to take a break from sound bite posts. Like it or not. Agree with me or not. I do contribute my own thoughts and opinions most of the time. I do this from time to time because I enjoy the exercise of writing. I feel like it helps me grow spiritually and you are free to ignore me and continue trying to bite me like a wolf with a myriad of insults. This isn’t my first day around here. It has happened before and with any luck, you will grow tired of how long winded I can be soon enough and ignore me like the rest of the people zone was referring to are presently doing.

:)
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
I wasn't suggesting a particular plan, just saying that the primary overall solution is the one that won't ever be done, even if they pretend there is another way. In fact my point of the post was less about the topic and more about you.


A printing press is what this website is.


No, you are not.



Here I think you summed it up well, you are here to feel like you win arguments as some kind of a vice. I have read your whole post, I have to ask; did you actually read mine? I chose my words to not be insulting but you still did what I expected and responded emotionally. The only thing I can say back is exactly what I said before.
Take it or leave it, either way I will leave you to masturbate in your jerkoff thread, because I am not into this. I really cannot tell if you are being a troll or not, it does not matter, you may claim victory in this thread.

Exeunt.
why would you post in a topic if it is not about the topic? That seems really silly and it seems even more silly to me when people respond in a way that suggests that they agree with me even though they pretend that they don’t. I’m saying the solution won’t be done too and they have the money behind them to make this possible.

maybe not so much in a permanently negative way like you are suggesting, but really I don’t need your unsolicited psychoanalysis.

this website isn’t actually the printing press. Your device is. This website is the paper. The technology will do more than the awareness. This is demonstrated throughout history. Protest alone has never really been effective. It has never actually created change. It has started wars a couple of times, but technologies have been the driving force of change and the same will true in this case as well.

I really don’t see how you aren’t gaslighting me when you say you will leave me in my jerkoff thread. What bridge do you live under where that is ever a concept that people use in polite conversation? Like how is this your best effort to not be offensive.

and just for you, I will make this post longer by responding to your comment about my comment about being long winded. My efforts to communicate and post original content is usually criticized for being long winded. Being proud of this is just my way of showing that I have a good sense of humor about it all.

deep down I know there is a difference between the way I write and vain repetition and that is the real litmus test that I try to follow when I write. I don’t write to please anyone in particular. I try to compose a beginning middle and end that is free of vain repetition. Sometimes that ends up being longer than people would otherwise expect, but you can ignore me if you don’t like it and so can they.

so can you see the difference now between when someone is making off topic comments and trying their best to not be offensive and what you said?

but don’t you worry yourself one bit. Comments like yours are why I will inevitably take a break from this place again. I don’t mind when people disagree with me. I mind when they can’t challenge me with a legitimate argument that would otherwise inspire me to do research in order to respond. I like to research things too.

I just hope you have yourself an awesome rest of your day, evening, or night, or whatever. :)
 

rainerann

Star
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,550
Are you proud of yourself for wrecking another thread by making us share in your obvious mania?
Zone I have not wrecked the thread. Face it, you love this.

and I know what I said just now makes sense to you from a rational perspective. We haven’t just met around here you know.

Im not trying to fight with you or anyone here. You don’t have to be a prick. I left your posts alone. You can leave mine alone if you want or you can respond with an actual comment that isn’t personal. This isn’t actually an echo chamber. It just looks like one sometimes and I’m not promoting climate lockdowns as a solution.

that would logically fit the description of wrecking a thread like this. You are greatly exaggerating here.
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
There have been multiple climate extremists arrested for starting fires in north america and australia. 2 in australia this year, and almost all the fires on the west coast last year were human caused. Because they are people, otherwise normal people, who believe that humans existing as they do are slowly killing the planet and overheating it. They take the talking points of the elite and radicalize them, which becomes burning down their lands, to raise awareness and alarm people to their existence being harmful. They don't go burn down BP, exxon, shell, or the rothschilds mansions who own shell. Some will try to stop deforestization and things like that, but are arrested en masse.
Your explanation of the motives of some of these terrorists is well said. @The Zone posted news of another arsonist arrested in California just last week! Now investigators think she may have started other fires. My opinion of her actions, which at this point is as speculative as people dreaming there's a "climate emergency", is they're a product of incessant, unrelenting climate propaganda spewed out by the mainstream press:

Palo Alto Scientist Arrested In Fawn Fire May Be Serial Arsonist
 

DavidSon

Star
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,006
There is no climate emergency

A global network of 900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming

Warming is far slower than predicted

Climate policy relies on inadequate models

CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth

Global warming has not increased natural disasters

Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities

https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
I would like to make a comparison to the former history of kings and peasants. Let’s think about why it was hard for the peasants to get independence from the king for a second… because the king owned everything basically. They were completely disadvantaged economically.
and I think it will be a green technology that creates freedom from this sort of climate monarchy in the present.
I believe in the existence of free energy although it is suppressed to further agendas…not any different from what we’ve seen with Covid through the suppression of cheap & alternative treatments to further agendas by solely focusing on “getting shots in arms.”

That said, iam sure you’ve already seen the articles from last year about the great wealth transfer….how the rich became even richer during a “pandemic”. So the plan to economically disadvantage the majority of the world’s population, culminating in “owning nothing and being happy by 2030”, is an ongoing one. How then do you reconcile the idea that there is ongoing economic enslavement and that somehow, the rich and powerful will allow you to have free/green energy which would obviously allow you some independence from the system?

Ofcourse, free energy could become publicly available after the climate agenda has been milked to the utmost.
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,722
There have been multiple climate extremists arrested for starting fires in north america and australia. 2 in australia this year, and almost all the fires on the west coast last year were human caused. Because they are people, otherwise normal people, who believe that humans existing as they do are slowly killing the planet and overheating it. They take the talking points of the elite and radicalize them, which becomes burning down their lands, to raise awareness and alarm people to their existence being harmful. They don't go burn down BP, exxon, shell, or the rothschilds mansions who own shell. some will try to stop deforestization and things like that, but are arrested en masse. however, for the climate extremists who take the elite anti-humanity perspective, would it not be better if they had a more balanced view?Just that information would change their course. It is a part of global think tanks aims to change the world.
The two faces of Eco Terrorism:

a)Footsoldiers.
You have the misguided eco-warrior (because the road to hell is always paved with good intentions) or the hired, bankrolled, career-saboteur carrying out attacks at the behest of shadowy paymasters



b)Governments.

I believe that the subject of entities within governments around the world, messing with the weather, for geopolitical end-goals has been successfully lumped under “conspiracy theories”. Which is why most people now claiming there is a crisis (“I’ve seen it over the last decades” type comments) won’t mention or touch weather warfare with a ten-foot pole….afterall, chemtrails are a conspiracy theory.

The other tricky part in having these conversations is that people have a hard time coming around to this idea of gov’t eco terrorism because they see their local climes changing but can’t really see someone in the sky pulling the levers (so to speak) to change the weather. It’s not the same thing as you having your home located near a BS4 lab and when there is a “leak” one day and your neighbors start collapsing in the street, you can easily point to the culprit. I mean, if the HAARP station in Alaska goes online and changes the weather above Indonesia, how is a local rice farmer somewhere in an Indonesian village going to connect the two together unless it’s actually reported on? The farmer will simply exclaim “it’s climate change!”

LBJ in 1962...i first came across his comments while reading about the moon landings and the clip below was posted by @DesertRose in this thread

"A decade before the (Apollo 8) launch, LBJ had laid out America’s goals in the space race, and none of them had much to do with sending men to the Moon: “Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control Earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the gulf stream and change the climates …”

 
Top