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

[The Zone]

If you did not read any post too closely as you say in the opening statement. Why should we take the time to read yours closely?

I do think there are environmental issues and most of us do. We also do not willingly pollute the earth, but the gist is that the movement is hyper BS and it hijacked said movement several years back. There is not a movement to REALLY help the environment. It is a movement to enslave people further, make elites rich and they know if people buy into it, they will buy into most anything. The point being if nobody protests they have just swallowed the pill willingly. Just because the gates are closing in on us does not mean we should just admit defeat. No action is a horrible thing IMHO. Right now, people here should be up in arms on what is happening in Australia for turning a blind eye to it will bring it home to Canada and the US.

And I do not agree on the hundreds of years to restore it part. The earth is obviously quite resilient if we can move the powers from the equation, it'd heal quickly. But the PTB's polluted the oceans with their corporations not everyday humans save a few.

 

[rainerann]

If you did not read any post too closely as you say in the opening statement. Why should we take the time to read yours closely?

I do think there are environmental issues and most of us do. We also do not willingly pollute the earth, but the gist is that the movement is hyper BS and it hijacked said movement several years back. There is not a movement to REALLY help the environment. It is a movement to enslave people further, make elites rich and they know if people buy into it, they will buy into most anything. The point being if nobody protests they have just swallowed the pill willingly. Just because the gates are closing in on us does not mean we should just admit defeat. No action is a horrible thing IMHO. Right now, people here should be up in arms on what is happening in Australia for turning a blind eye to it will bring it home to Canada and the US.

And I do not agree on the hundreds of years to restore it part. The earth is obviously quite resilient if we can move the powers from the equation, it'd heal quickly. But the PTB's polluted the oceans with their corporations not everyday humans save a few.

was it really necessary to make a comment about not reading my post simply because I am basically just said I scanned the thread briefly and you make it into snarky thing. Is it really so offensive that I scanned the thread to get a gist? What else should I expect from this place though.

the thing is that I am basically saying that you are essentially doing nothing and are sensationalizing the objective of speaking out. If you cant present and execute a solution to the environmental issues that are present in the world, then there is no way to reverse this trajectory. Speaking out about this being some sort of injustice is not an environmental solution. It does not reduce pollution. It does not reverse damage to the environment. So it does not create a solution or reverse a trajectory like this, but if it makes you feel better to go about advertising it, go right ahead. Although, you might be helping the opposite manifest itself.

Im gonna ask you a question and I want you to be as honest as possible. Do you really think that your efforts to expose this are doing anything to reverse what is happening? Like do you really there is literal resistance happening on some psychic level or something?

unless you really believe this is what you are achieving, I can’t see the point that you are trying to make at all. It is basically like saying that you can win the war when in the back of your mind, you actually believe that you lose in the end.

if you really believe that this is winning strategy in your core, then more power to you man. End climate lockdowns before they happen!!! Move that mountain! Otherwise, just don’t read my post next time. That way you won’t be so triggered by general comments about skimming threads.

 

[lightseeker]

I didn’t look at any one post in this thread too closely. I get the overall gist and concern about dystopian like climate lockdowns though. I agree with the concern about taking this approach to the problem.

although, I also feel like this is to be expected. Regardless how you feel about global warming, pollution is a problem and the environment is damaged to the point where it would take hundreds of years to restore it.

it is concerning, but the only real solution is to have some way to address the problem of major corporations polluting the world and providing products to the public that contribute to this pollution.

since there is no way to do anything about these things, you may as well say we are already economically enslaved. This isn’t something to expect at a future date. This is something that is happening now because any real opportunity to provide a different approach to this problem is oppressed for the average person and trying to become some kind of whistleblower is not going to help anything unless it helps change the way they currently do business.

i am still not that big of a fan of protest. I don’t think they have been effective enough to be considered as a primary approach to the presence of injustice.

this is also something that didn’t happen overnight and isn’t going to start on some special day preassigned on a calendar to give this effort the magical boost it needs to be successful. This has been happening for a long time and I don’t think that when Rockefeller was setting up his company, he was doing so with the intention of polluting the world as a means of controlling it at a future date.

it is a problem because it is a problem and the average person can’t do a whole lot about it and that is why there is potential for this type of scenario happening.

I think its important to have a clear understanding of the political dynamics of the situation. Governments in the west that are the most vocal "climate alarmists" such as british columbia, are the same that have arrested en masse thousands of people trying to stop deforestization of old growth forests. Yet they will be happy to talk about the taxes they are putting on people and the restrictions on their cars etc. Its clear and obvious to everyone that corporations have done mass damage to eco systems within the last few decades. However you get dishonest solutions. Governments will fund GMO projects so they can douse crops in poison that would normally kill the plants.

Furthermore, the climate change agenda is used as an anti-humanity measure, it makes humanity living into a disease, people even saying that a person giving birth to a child is bad for the environment. Ignoring the reciprocal relationship we have with nature, that human beings do good for the planet in a spiritual sense by developing faculties and values unique to us like faith, love, etc. Whos to say we aren't beneficial to the planet when we fulfill our highest potential in that way, we were created for that purpose etc.

The climate agenda has been the center of globalist talking points since the 70s, and similar sentiments going back a lot further, to the huxleys, russell, who viewed humanity as a disease that must be controlled to the maximum extent. Climate change is basically a guilt trip on people for them to accept these perspectives.

 

[rainerann]

I think its important to have a clear understanding of the political dynamics of the situation. Governments in the west that are the most vocal "climate alarmists" such as british columbia, are the same that have arrested en masse thousands of people trying to stop deforestization of old growth forests. Yet they will be happy to talk about the taxes they are putting on people and the restrictions on their cars etc. Its clear and obvious to everyone that corporations have done mass damage to eco systems within the last few decades. However you get dishonest solutions. Governments will fund GMO projects so they can douse crops in poison that would normally kill the plants.

Furthermore, the climate change agenda is used as an anti-humanity measure, it makes humanity living into a disease, people even saying that a person giving birth to a child is bad for the environment. Ignoring the reciprocal relationship we have with nature, that human beings do good for the planet in a spiritual sense by developing faculties and values unique to us like faith, love, etc. Whos to say we aren't beneficial to the planet when we fulfill our highest potential in that way, we were created for that purpose etc.

The climate agenda has been the center of globalist talking points since the 70s, and similar sentiments going back a lot further, to the huxleys, russell, who viewed humanity as a disease that must be controlled to the maximum extent. Climate change is basically a guilt trip on people for them to accept these perspectives.

this may all be true, but it is also important to be honest with ourselves here. The reason people want to talk about these things is because there is cathartic value, not because there is going to be any real positive effect or change produced from it.

half the comments about this subject already assume the worst possible outcomes. The worst possible outcomes coming to pass is basically going to make a generic representative of this discussion, not any one person in particular, feel like a prophet when the negative outcome becomes a reality.

so it is almost like what people are trying to do is become right on a personal or social level about the presence of injustice rather than find a way to address the root of the problem.

I mean no offense by what I’m saying. Please don’t take this personal. In some way I feel like I’m wording something wrong and don’t know how to fix it and that is the reason for this disclaimer.

 

[lightseeker]

this may all be true, but it is also important to be honest with ourselves here. The reason people want to talk about these things is because there is cathartic value, not because there is going to be any real positive effect or change produced from it.

half the comments about this subject already assume the worst possible outcomes. The worst possible outcomes coming to pass is basically going to make a generic representative of this discussion, not any one person in particular, feel like a prophet when the negative outcome becomes a reality.

so it is almost like what people are trying to do is become right on a personal or social level about the presence of injustice rather than find a way to address the root of the problem.

I mean no offense by what I’m saying. Please don’t take this personal. In some way I feel like I’m wording something wrong and don’t know how to fix it and that is the reason for this disclaimer.

Just because any one person isn't in a situation to change a social issue on a mass scale, doesn't mean there isn't value in talking about it or understanding it though. You could apply this to every issue on earth, and people often do, saying, "yeah but what are you going to do about that, why even talk/think about it". First of all a clear understanding among people is a social change, because the tides which were flowing in one direction will not be able to as easily if everyone doesn't blindly follow, thinking that they can change the weather by paying taxes and so on. Second of all, why is cathartic value unimportant? If you are faced with cognitive dissonance from popular or political culture, it is very healing to have a balanced view of where their sentiments are coming from, why theyre wrong, what the interests from which they arose are. That way you don't have to live your life thinking that having a baby is killing the earth or that humans are a disease. Having a catharsis from this perspective could free a person from a dark subconscious cloud that they mightve not been aware of. Especially on a forum where ideas are disucssed, what better can we do than understanding them. If people want to make real change, they can, it doesn't mean the scope of a discussion should be able to extend to change the world immediately.

 

[Maldarker]

So lets get off of fossil fuels to make electric cars....hmm so what is going to produce the electricity needed for this demand on the electric grid. Your killing coal even though their is tech out that captures 99% polluting by products. Can't use nuclear to scary i guess. Storage batteries aren't on par to store massive amounts of energy on days of no high sun light. SO where are we going with this?

 

[rainerann]

Just because any one person isn't in a situation to change a social issue on a mass scale, doesn't mean there isn't value in talking about it or understanding it though. You could apply this to every issue on earth, and people often do, saying, "yeah but what are you going to do about that, why even talk/think about it". First of all a clear understanding among people is a social change, because the tides which were flowing in one direction will not be able to as easily if everyone doesn't blindly follow, thinking that they can change the weather by paying taxes and so on. Second of all, why is cathartic value unimportant? If you are faced with cognitive dissonance from popular or political culture, it is very healing to have a balanced view of where their sentiments are coming from, why theyre wrong, what the interests from which they arose are. That way you don't have to live your life thinking that having a baby is killing the earth or that humans are a disease. Having a catharsis from this perspective could free a person from a dark subconscious cloud that they mightve not been aware of. Especially on a forum where ideas are disucssed, what better can we do than understanding them. If people want to make real change, they can, it doesn't mean the scope of a discussion should be able to extend to change the world immediately.

I’m not going to disagree with what you are saying. However, I will redirect back to my original post that was more about the shock value that is present in this thread. Why be shocked about this possibility when we are already economically enslaved and this is evidenced by the fact that no one has been able to effectively stop major corporations from polluting the planet, damaging the environment, and creating products for consumers to contribute to this process.

why talk about a prospectus when this prospectus is actually the present reality. So what I’m saying is that discussing the possibility of dystopian climate lockdowns is somewhat illusory. It is somewhat dissociated and so logically I would agree with what you are saying to an extant. It would be great if People could find a way to be free of a dark subconscious cloud created by the present by discussing this subject in whatever way they want.

however, when we talk about gaining a cathartic experience, the outcome might not end up being what you would expect. I would submit that this catharsis leads to a greater willingness to face the present rather than a dissociated effort to create to projection of the future.

I understand cause and effect. I understand that the projection is an possible effect, but what is the real cause of this potential, pollution and damage to the environment.

but you can’t talk about this without creating boundaries in the form of political speculation about the reality of climate change, which also does nothing to change the current practice of polluting the environment.

so there are many constraints on discussions concerning the environment created by politics that actually make it difficult to create solutions to the actual problem. So why be shocked by something like this. But people talk politics because it is fun rather than useful in many cases.

 

[rainerann]

Your killing coal even though their is tech out that captures 99% polluting by products.

I have seen articles about several products being developed to clean air that I found interesting in the past. So how about we use this to entertain a different possibility.

let’s say that these technologies can’t be used on a large scale for 20 more years and so there is some period where climate lockdowns exist as a worst case scenario.

does a technology like this create a opportunity for freedom at a future point, why or why not?

what do you see creating a opportunity for freedom at a certain point or do you believe that all opportunity for freedom is lost if climate lockdowns are implemented?

 

[Maldarker]

I have seen articles about several products being developed to clean air that I found interesting in the past. So how about we use this to entertain a different possibility.

Agreed, so why aren't we? Oh wait we are but some countries don't care. "Cough" CHINA! amd states smh cause they could but don't care either hmm...
I was part of the first online carbon capture plant in our state. every year they do a test on the equipment for government purposes the tech works. Also the by product of fly ash is usable for building can turn into blocks that are light but have better heat cool properties then concrete also better acoustic damping. So this could work but seems like only a couple states are doing it. So idk.

Or how about growing fields of hemp plants one of the best that captures carbon & releases oxygen better then most trees that take way longer to grow btw after a year you rotate into a new crop on that field at it flourishes.

 

[Maldarker]

let’s say that these technologies can’t be used on a large scale for 20 more years and so there is some period where climate lockdowns exist as a worst case scenario.

The tech is around so why isn't it being used?

 

[Maldarker]

does a technology like this create a opportunity for freedom at a future point, why or why not?

what do you see creating a opportunity for freedom at a certain point or do you believe that all opportunity for freedom is lost if climate lockdowns are implemented?

Any time u lock people down you will create mass issues in the populous unless that is your goal

 

[lightseeker]

I’m not going to disagree with what you are saying. However, I will redirect back to my original post that was more about the shock value that is present in this thread. Why be shocked about this possibility when we are already economically enslaved and this is evidenced by the fact that no one has been able to effectively stop major corporations from polluting the planet, damaging the environment, and creating products for consumers to contribute to this process.

why talk about a prospectus when this prospectus is actually the present reality. So what I’m saying is that discussing the possibility of dystopian climate lockdowns is somewhat illusory. It is somewhat dissociated and so logically I would agree with what you are saying to an extant. It would be great if People could find a way to be free of a dark subconscious cloud created by the present by discussing this subject in whatever way they want.

however, when we talk about gaining a cathartic experience, the outcome might not end up being what you would expect. I would submit that this catharsis leads to a greater willingness to face the present rather than a dissociated effort to create to projection of the future.

I understand cause and effect. I understand that the projection is an possible effect, but what is the real cause of this potential, pollution and damage to the environment.

but you can’t talk about this without creating boundaries in the form of political speculation about the reality of climate change, which also does nothing to change the current practice of polluting the environment.

so there are many constraints on discussions concerning the environment created by politics that actually make it difficult to create solutions to the actual problem. So why be shocked by something like this. But people talk politics because it is fun rather than useful in many cases.

It's really not speculation though, we have seen multiple indications from elite groups saying that they want climate lockdowns to happen. So it's really not us that are speculating, we are being aware of what they say they want.

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.

 

[rainerann]

Agreed, so why aren't we? Oh wait we are but some countries don't care. "Cough" CHINA! amd states smh cause they could but don't care either hmm...
I was part of the first online carbon capture plant in our state. every year they do a test on the equipment for government purposes the tech works. Also the by product of fly ash is usable for building can turn into blocks that are light but have better heat cool properties then concrete also better acoustic damping. So this could work but seems like only a couple states are doing it. So idk.

Or how about growing fields of hemp plants one of the best that captures carbon & releases oxygen better then most trees that take way longer to grow btw after a year you rotate into a new crop on that field at it flourishes.

what a fascinating experience of being in a carbon removal plant. I am a supporter of co2 scrubbing considering how long it would take to regrow forests. I think this was the article I read a while back about something. Were you involved with something similar?

A Plant 1,000 Times More Efficient at CO2 Removal Than Photosynthesis Is Now Active

A new carbon-capture system just began pulling CO2 from the air.

futurism.com

I have also been a supporter of growing hemp for years. It is a more sustainable way to make paper.

However, your question from the next post about why the tech isn’t being used. I would say because it is not profitable. Why do you think it isn’t being used?

I’m wondering if you will entertain something with me regarding your next post about the issues created by a climate lockdown in connection with what I said about co2 scrubbers not being profitable.

If we can’t or won’t use co2 scrubbers in the present because they are not profitable, then there is no way to prevent something like a climate lockdown by using a market strategy to incentivize companies to develop these technologies themselves. So the only real way we could expect to use these technologies is by creating a massive economic change.

I realize that some are going to see this as some kind of support for this thing called the great reset, but with something like this. It would really be great if something like this could be free and used without concern for profit. It would be great if energy could be free and created without concern for profit too. When you say that these technologies exist and that we should produce energy without coal, we are really starting to look at the possibility of free energies becoming a reality soon, which would create a massive economic change that could also end the possibility of lockdowns. What do you think of this?

the only other alternative than looking at the possibility of speeding through a period of oppression to the other side where things are potentially better than they are now, is finding a way to force corporations to change their practices and force implementation of technologies like co2 scrubbers. This is like a David and Goliath scenario and it is far fetched at this point to really believe something like recycling is going to do much. It is also not likely that people are going to collectively agree to start riding a bike regularly on an international level and boycott cars either.

we are basically looking at going through a tunnel and anticipating that there is some opportunity for these technologies to be free at some point, which is almost like suggesting the possibility of Democratic technologies.

however, part of the problem is that technology is part of the problem for many who feel shocked by the possibility of climate lockdowns too even though it is the only real thing that creates the opportunity for independence. We can’t go back. We have to go forward and discussions like this often feel like a collective effort to remember the good ol days and complain about the presence of potential change.

change is inevitable.

 

[rainerann]

It's really not speculation though, we have seen multiple indications from elite groups saying that they want climate lockdowns to happen. So it's really not us that are speculating, we are being aware of what they say they want.

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.

I would like you to explain what this has to do with anything that I said outside of my use of the word speculation? I did possibly use this word. I’m not going to go back and check. If I did, it is because that is what I always do when something is not concrete and happening now unless you can tell me which Country is currently under climate lockdown now.

I do this because at one point I read a lot of material by Eleanor white who was a confessed mind control victim. Her approach to educating the public on the presence of mind control technologies was not to sensationalize things as though they were happening when they haven’t been made official and not to talk about things that haven’t been proven as though they have.

so there is a difference is saying climate lockdowns are going to happen and climate lockdowns may happen even. One suggests something that can’t be proven and is likely to turn people off so that they don’t listen to you. The other suggests climate lockdowns as a possibility. A possibility and a speculation are basically the same thing. At present we are speculating that they may happen because they haven’t happened yet so there is no sense in talking about them as though they are going to happen as a matter of fact no matter how many sources you are able to cite that they are being discussed in some capacity.

so outside of the your issue with the relationship between the use of the word speculation and the copious amounts of evidence that you think you have to move out of the speculation port, what does anything that you are saying have to do with what I said?

 

[Maldarker]

what a fascinating experience of being in a carbon removal plant. I am a supporter of co2 scrubbing considering how long it would take to regrow forests. I think this was the article I read a while back about something. Were you involved with something similar?

A Plant 1,000 Times More Efficient at CO2 Removal Than Photosynthesis Is Now Active

A new carbon-capture system just began pulling CO2 from the air.

futurism.com

No it was a neutral carbon coal fire plant using by products of the coal to make building materials better then concrete blocks.

 

[rainerann]

It's really not speculation though, we have seen multiple indications from elite groups saying that they want climate lockdowns to happen. So it's really not us that are speculating, we are being aware of what they say they want.

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.

clearly I don’t support arson but I would also like you to source where you found the motivations for the arson that took place in California. Do you know anything about the issues regarding the production of power in California at the present or how much energy in California is produced with renewable sources?

it seems like your comment about arson supports my comment about not being shocked by this since major corporations are still the major contributors of pollution. California’s production of power is a major source of pollution. It doesn’t justify arson, but it does weaken your point that you are trying to make in relation to mine.

you are talking about dangers from an ideological perspective. You are basically saying we should try to convert people like this to your perspective and this is something that would create an improvement. This is a political approach to the subject.

I was talking about the plain reality of pollution and environmental damage leading to a conclusion like this and how this should be an obvious expectation without requiring any news articles to support this.

 

[lightseeker]

I would like you to explain what this has to do with anything that I said outside of my use of the word speculation? I did possibly use this word. I’m not going to go back and check. If I did, it is because that is what I always do when something is not concrete and happening now unless you can tell me which Country is currently under climate lockdown now.

I do this because at one point I read a lot of material by Eleanor white who was a confessed mind control victim. Her approach to educating the public on the presence of mind control technologies was not to sensationalize things as though they were happening when they haven’t been made official and not to talk about things that haven’t been proven as though they have.

so there is a difference is saying climate lockdowns are going to happen and climate lockdowns may happen even. One suggests something that can’t be proven and is likely to turn people off so that they don’t listen to you. The other suggests climate lockdowns as a possibility. A possibility and a speculation are basically the same thing. At present we are speculating that they may happen because they haven’t happened yet so there is no sense in talking about them as though they are going to happen as a matter of fact no matter how many sources you are able to cite that they are being discussed in some capacity.

so outside of the your issue with the relationship between the use of the word speculation and the copious amounts of evidence that you think you have to move out of the speculation port, what does anything that you are saying have to do with what I said?

I think i may be missing the point you are trying to make in your original post

clearly I don’t support arson but I would also like you to source where you found the motivations for the arson that took place in California

Im not going back to find the artciles of the people arrested, it was last year. you can take my word for it or not believe me or find it yourself.

You are basically saying we should try to convert people like this to your perspective and this is something that would create an improvement.

Im saying that discussion and understanding have a viable affect. Not converting people, but having others who are interested understand the broader view of the situation is a good thing.

I was talking about the plain reality of pollution and environmental damage leading to a conclusion like this and how this should be an obvious expectation without requiring any news articles to support this.

But does the reality of pollution and environmental damage lead to the conclusion of climate lockdowns? I think that's only the case in the ideological perspective of humanity being a net negative.

Sorry I think I might be missing the ultimate point you are making, im not trying to be offensive or counter signal what you are saying as wrong im just discussing

 

[rainerann]

But does the reality of pollution and environmental damage lead to the conclusion of climate lockdowns?

yes it does when you have the economic disadvantage. The outcome goes to whoever has the economic advantage whatever that may be.

the average person does not have an economic vote in the matter. Otherwise, there would be more evidence of large corporations changing their practices and reducing the amount of pollution they are creating

Furthermore, I don’t believe that what I am saying is not supporting what you are saying about raising awareness. I don’t see how saying I am not shocked by this hurts an effort to raise awareness.

however, raising awareness is not going to create a solution if there is still an economic disadvantage. It is only going to become circular. This may be useful as a coping mechanism, but it is still very likely that we will have to push through something to the other side, no matter how much awareness is raised.

so I guess I would add that I have personally found a certain level of acceptance for the possibility of temporary tribulations and even if climate lockdowns exist, they will be temporary because the trajectory of humanity overall does not appear to be towards slavery. Do you believe that we are on a trajectory towards slavery or freedom?

 

[lightseeker]

Furthermore, I don’t believe that what I am saying is not supporting what you are saying about raising awareness. I don’t see how saying I am not shocked by this hurts an effort to raise awareness.

Im not trying to argue with you, im just sharing some of my thoughts.

yes it does when you have the economic disadvantage. The outcome goes to whoever has the economic advantage whatever that may be.

the average person does not have an economic vote in the matter. Otherwise, there would be more evidence of large corporations changing their practices and reducing the amount of pollution they are creating

But climate lockdowns are only the logical conclusion to the view that humanities existence is a problem that needs to be controlled and regulated by above so as not to allow it to damage the planet. That's what I meant, I dont think that's true, I think the planet is being damaged by the governments and corporations who tell us that they are going to save us from these effects.

Do you believe that we are on a trajectory towards slavery or freedom?

I believe that there are people with wordly power who's interests are to bring people into slavery, As has been a constant for our known history. Only now, these people have a real illusion of power and global domination. However I don't think the decision is ultimately in their hands. I think a lot of people will lose freedoms that they used to have due to their actions and intents. However I think freedom is a grace given by divinity and a state of soul, so they can't ultimately control it. Furthermore, I think that they have their plans but divine providence has its own plans, ultimately its up to us and even then everything is temporary.

So I guess the "speculation" or saying climate lockdowns are a possibility is just saying, it is on the cards for these people and here is why.

Have you ever read this book?

BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21|eBook

If you've been wanting an interesting, clearly written, how-to-manual for identifying and fighting UN Agenda 21, here it is. Agenda 21--All the information you need to understand what is happening in your town, why it's happening, who is behind it, and what you can do to stop it. BEHIND THE GREEN...

www.barnesandnoble.com

It talks about the intents of the green agenda being used by the UN to change the world make up. I view it in a similar way to she does. Yes, just because the UN wrote a plan about something doesnt mean its going to be realized, but that is a way theyve been talking about for a long time, how to convince people to accept things that they otherwise wouldnt. Also, it dilutes the effectiveness of genuine movements that could help preserve eco systems

 

[rainerann]

Im not trying to argue with you, im just sharing some of my thoughts.

But climate lockdowns are only the logical conclusion to the view that humanities existence is a problem that needs to be controlled and regulated by above so as not to allow it to damage the planet. That's what I meant, I dont think that's true, I think the planet is being damaged by the governments and corporations who tell us that they are going to save us from these effects.

I believe that there are people with wordly power who's interests are to bring people into slavery, As has been a constant for our known history. Only now, these people have a real illusion of power and global domination. However I don't think the decision is ultimately in their hands. I think a lot of people will lose freedoms that they used to have due to their actions and intents. However I think freedom is a grace given by divinity and a state of soul, so they can't ultimately control it. Furthermore, I think that they have their plans but divine providence has its own plans, ultimately its up to us and even then everything is temporary.

So I guess the "speculation" or saying climate lockdowns are a possibility is just saying, it is on the cards for these people and here is why.

Have you ever read this book?

BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21|eBook

If you've been wanting an interesting, clearly written, how-to-manual for identifying and fighting UN Agenda 21, here it is. Agenda 21--All the information you need to understand what is happening in your town, why it's happening, who is behind it, and what you can do to stop it. BEHIND THE GREEN...

www.barnesandnoble.com

It talks about the intents of the green agenda being used by the UN to change the world make up. I view it in a similar way to she does. Yes, just because the UN wrote a plan about something doesnt mean its going to be realized, but that is a way theyve been talking about for a long time, how to convince people to accept things that they otherwise wouldnt. Also, it dilutes the effectiveness of genuine movements that could help preserve eco systems

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.