In a recent publication "Nature Climate Change" entitled Civil disobedience by scientists, presses for urgent action on climate change. The interesting observation I made, is that among the 6 authors to the paper there are:
3 psychologists,
1 social scientist
1 policy study (whatever that means within science)
1 geography (?? science??)
Because these people see themselves as "scientists of sorts" they have an epistemic responsibility to comment on anything that can be seen as science (like cooking dinner). Mr. T Flannery is in this category.
What appears to be the root cause of general conversation today is "political correctness takes precedent over Truth.
They’ve been trying to con us for years with making us all equal and fairer but what they mean is all poorer and incapable with them at the helm. Same old, same old. Can’t stand looking or listening to Schwabb.
Absolutely not, but there are rocky times ahead of us. They must totally destroy the system that we have had to be able to offer their own solution.
We must accept that this system we have been living in is broken and will cease to be in the next few years, but we must also have our own solution to go forward and leave the WEF elites to clutch at their own straws.
If we do not place value on/in the things that they control, then they have no wealth or power over us.
It is only while we use their system that we are entrapped by them.
Sure, I'd sign up to a great reset IF ONLY the great reset was humane, reasonable and didn't leave billions dying in the gutter!
There are so many ways to achieve a better planet whilst still maintaining a decent way of life. Sure, we may have to shift how we do things a bit here and there, but to ask us all to eat bugs and take experimental jabs that kill and maim us and basically fall in line to a bunch of psychopaths so that THEY can have all the nice foods etc whilst we eat bugs and pretend to be happy about it? NO WAY.
I don't mind having to manage our resources a bit better and maybe we'd have a bit less, but that's OK, because we've mostly got too much anyway. We don't need ALL our 'stuff'. Some stuff? Absolutely yes. Most stuff? OK, why not. But to need ALL our stuff? No. We do NOT need all the junk currently in our lives. Living a bit more simply might actually do us the world of good - but we don't need to lose our humanity or our kindness or our courage or our future in the process. We OUGHT to manage our resources better - but my problem is who's deciding what's 'better'? How is it going to be be rolled out? And who's going to enforce it? And what about those who don't want to comply?
The way these WEF morons are going on about it, most should live in 3 foot city square apartments, eat bug protein for food and do whatever work is required by the WEF and be digitally monitored 24/7 ALL without complaining (or else it's a quick effective green needle). Some 'lucky' ones will get to plough the fields! I'm pretty sure their version of Utopia is most people's version of Dystopia...but plenty will agree to the madness anyway.
You and I won't sign up for it, but TPTB will sign up for it - because they get great kickbacks, so screw the rest of us, right? And after all, most people signed up for the death jabs, so they've really got most countries by the balls, here...
Time seems to be standing still on every aspect but that may be the calm before the storm when another deluge of words deeds pain and pleasure will occur in unexpected ways Do other people feel the same about impending changes and hoping that they will be of better nature than some present ones
We should not agree.
In a recent publication "Nature Climate Change" entitled Civil disobedience by scientists, presses for urgent action on climate change. The interesting observation I made, is that among the 6 authors to the paper there are:
3 psychologists,
1 social scientist
1 policy study (whatever that means within science)
1 geography (?? science??)
Because these people see themselves as "scientists of sorts" they have an epistemic responsibility to comment on anything that can be seen as science (like cooking dinner). Mr. T Flannery is in this category.
What appears to be the root cause of general conversation today is "political correctness takes precedent over Truth.
They’ve been trying to con us for years with making us all equal and fairer but what they mean is all poorer and incapable with them at the helm. Same old, same old. Can’t stand looking or listening to Schwabb.
I will not agree i wished they would leave us alone why dont the WEF build their utopia on the liveable planet they just discovered
Great recap of the past couple of years and elite agendas GC.
No way do l agree to the great reset. Going on climate change all lies people so gullible believe everything what this so called politician say.
Absolutely not, but there are rocky times ahead of us. They must totally destroy the system that we have had to be able to offer their own solution.
We must accept that this system we have been living in is broken and will cease to be in the next few years, but we must also have our own solution to go forward and leave the WEF elites to clutch at their own straws.
If we do not place value on/in the things that they control, then they have no wealth or power over us.
It is only while we use their system that we are entrapped by them.
Sure, I'd sign up to a great reset IF ONLY the great reset was humane, reasonable and didn't leave billions dying in the gutter!
There are so many ways to achieve a better planet whilst still maintaining a decent way of life. Sure, we may have to shift how we do things a bit here and there, but to ask us all to eat bugs and take experimental jabs that kill and maim us and basically fall in line to a bunch of psychopaths so that THEY can have all the nice foods etc whilst we eat bugs and pretend to be happy about it? NO WAY.
I don't mind having to manage our resources a bit better and maybe we'd have a bit less, but that's OK, because we've mostly got too much anyway. We don't need ALL our 'stuff'. Some stuff? Absolutely yes. Most stuff? OK, why not. But to need ALL our stuff? No. We do NOT need all the junk currently in our lives. Living a bit more simply might actually do us the world of good - but we don't need to lose our humanity or our kindness or our courage or our future in the process. We OUGHT to manage our resources better - but my problem is who's deciding what's 'better'? How is it going to be be rolled out? And who's going to enforce it? And what about those who don't want to comply?
The way these WEF morons are going on about it, most should live in 3 foot city square apartments, eat bug protein for food and do whatever work is required by the WEF and be digitally monitored 24/7 ALL without complaining (or else it's a quick effective green needle). Some 'lucky' ones will get to plough the fields! I'm pretty sure their version of Utopia is most people's version of Dystopia...but plenty will agree to the madness anyway.
You and I won't sign up for it, but TPTB will sign up for it - because they get great kickbacks, so screw the rest of us, right? And after all, most people signed up for the death jabs, so they've really got most countries by the balls, here...
Time seems to be standing still on every aspect but that may be the calm before the storm when another deluge of words deeds pain and pleasure will occur in unexpected ways Do other people feel the same about impending changes and hoping that they will be of better nature than some present ones
Last night Rick Munn went through https://saveourrights.uk/take-action/operation-overreach/ on tntradio.
What are the 10 equivalent bills in Australia we need to defeat?