Isn't it a little scary how we take what the "authorities" tell us for granted as being the truth even in the face of catching them frequently in lies... Can we break the conditioning?

in Informationwar2 months ago (edited)

It is amazing to me how at one moment an intelligent person can challenge a narrative when it is a lie. Yet that same person will fight with their last breath to defend other claims from the same sources they have caught in a lie. This seems like some pretty serious conditioning.

We operate off of a number of what I am increasingly seeing as very dangerous assumptions...

I've spoken a lot about COVID and vaccines over the past few weeks but this post is not going to focus on that narrative masquerading as "science" while spitting all over the scientific method.

No this time I want to share with you what caught my attention tonight:

image.png
Link

There is another dangerous assumption buried in the entire premise behind the title of that article. In case the image doesn't load for some reason I'll share the title here in text form.

Economist claims a $500,000 Bitcoin would be disastrous for CO2 emissions

What is the dangerous assumption? It is simple. It is the claim that we are at dangerous levels of CO2 and that this is deadly for the world and mankind. Yet there have been plenty of scientists calling out this as likely false unless the levels were vastly greater than they are now or wouldn't be for a very long time at our current rate. Yet they are mocked, ridiculed, fired, banned, etc. Yes, pretty much the same treatment as any Doctor or Scientist who dares to question anything about the COVID narrative.

Another interesting thing about this assumption is that it is being pushed by a lot of the same movers and shakers (elites, and technocrats) that are pushing the COVID narrative.

Yet there are some fairly indisputable facts presented from ice cores, tree rings, and other sampling. There have been times in Earth's past where CO2 levels were much larger than they are now.

Was the Earth a barren desert, and a wasteland?

Was their little life due to a CO2 induced inferno?

No.

In fact the Earth appears to have been heavily covered in plant growth which lead to greater Oxygen and a denser atmosphere. Large amounts of life walked the Earth. In fact the most life that ever roamed the Earth. The planet was green.

What happens when you add additional CO2 to a greenhouse?

The plants grow better.

Is it because it is hotter? No. It is because plants require CO2 as part of their photosynthesis and life process. They in turn give off Oxygen which we depend upon.


In the Climate Change fear mongering (It was previously called Global Warming) CO2 has become the proverbial boogeyman though it is not even close to the most active greenhouse gas. In addition it would need to be levels insanely higher than anything we are at now for it to be an actual pollutant.

Though as the focus was put squarely on CO2 and making everyone afraid of it most other pollution that is actually an issue was ignored.

A lot of things can cause climate change. The sun and it's cycles are perhaps the greatest of all of those. It is very possible that an actual climate change is coming and it could be accompanied by something known as a pole shift depending upon what theories/hypothesis you may favor. If you were in circles that knew this wouldn't it be interesting if you could pick something that is easy to monetize and drum fear up around to blame for what you know is coming? Does this sound familiar? It seems to be their modus operandi to me these days.


So look at that article again... consider what the implications of that title if CO2 is not actually the big bad wolf out to get us and consume our planet...

The world looks a little different all of the sudden.


Am I stating this is the case? No.

I sure as hell don't trust the people that have been pushing the CO2 narrative. They've been telling us how bad it is and how the sea levels will rise while they fly all over in their private jets, live in their gigantic homes, and drive massive fleets of very fuel unfriendly vehicles... Not to mention for people warning us of impending sea level catastrophes they sure do like buying up private islands and beach front property.

Not to mention their predictions keep failing. Their models don't work.

Yet to me it is much like those pushing the mask mandates only to almost immediately be caught violating the mandate. Or the people calling any gathering of people they don't like a "super spreader" event and if it is people they like then suddenly it is not a danger. It is almost like this virus has an opinion that mirrors those pushing the narrative and only applies when it fits the narrative.

This has been going on for awhile with climate change as well.

If you want to know more about the topics from people not stuck in an echo chamber pushing only the accepted narrative then bookmark and visit the following two sites from time to time:


With that said...

I personally think the need to spend increasing amounts of electricity to mine any crypto currency is a design that I'd like to see go away. I see the reason for Proof of Work as it was originally designed. I do not think it is necessary at this point. We are finding that there are other ways to express value and their are other kinds of work. Proof of Stake and Proof of History are interesting ideas. I do think there are flaws in Proof of Stake and Delegated Proof of Stake but they are stepping stones and we are learning. I do know they are far faster and we need that speed. They also use a lot less electricity.

Using less electricity is a good thing without needing to be all focused on CO2 emissions...


Don't blindly believe me

Make sure you don't just accept what I am saying. Also please try not to discount it outright.

Just pay attention. See if you start noticing some of these things, and some of these patterns as well.

Watch to see if the solutions offered are actual solutions or just opportunities for wealth and power? (Carbon Taxes for example solves nothing but does grant more power)


EDIT: Adding a few things as I read the news this morning. I don't have a full post idea needing to be written yet.

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link

image.png
Link - The Epoch Times

By the way there have been numerous scientific studies over the past decade stating this. They were just silenced and shamed because they dared to challenge the official "narrative" and the IPCC.

image.png
Link

By the way...

image.png

Every time I edit the post that gangstalking bot posts another reply. I am not personally trying to inflate the number of comments the article says it has. I have no control over that. It's sad that a bot is making this post seem like it has a tremendous amount of commenting and replying. It has some but not nearly what that bot is making it out to be.

image.png

image.png
Link

Sort:  

these are jokes articles funny to read this pages out there 😄😆

But...but...

if you cover 1.5% of the sahara desert with solar mirrors or panels, you can produce more power than the whole of Europe needs. Think if you do this 20 % ... you not have BTc problem .🤓👌👌👌🍷

Last thing what I can say, we have stupid leaders in front of us who think their laws are what makes the economy, but don't want to understand that they are the cancer here...not as no BTC ... but they are.

Hi,
I don't want to offend you. I find it important to say that first.
When I hear statements like yours, to take measures and make something big and available, do you take into account the local peoples and landscapes? If someone comes around the corner and tells you that where you live one shall cover the bare lands with hundreds and hundreds of wind mills, to produce abundantly high amounts of energy, is it not something that would cause also some controverse or rejecting thoughts with you?

It's easy to say "the Sahara" or "wasteland" but is it really so easy to scale big? Why big, anyways? Have you thought about small scale solutions or proposals from that side?

P.S. that seems to be exactly what the corporations and politicians do: They seem to be marking it on the map and picking something where the ideas of industry and energy extraction would be good to implement. Resistance, people, nature only seem to get in the way, don't they?

A few desalinization plants would turn it into a garden that would feed millions, a much more practical endevour.

To make those panels you must first mine and in some cases strip mine a lot of land and produce a lot of CO2 and other byproducts in the process. They count on people think solar panels magically appear. While they are very cool they are nowhere as GREEN as they make them out to be.

CO2 is the simplest science there is. Plants absorb CO2 and transform it into oxygen that keeps us all alive. It just doesn't get any simpler than that. Yet "scientists" claim the opposite once again validating Orwell's observation that "some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals will believe them." Good article Brother.

Exactly. I am glad to see you still replying my friend. I looked at your account a day or two ago an noticed you hadn't posted anything in awhile.

I posted one today and am working on an Assange post that should be ready in a day or two. I try to take advantage of when I feel well enough to write. In the interim I just collect more information.

Good points.

I think by now I tend to look at disaster news with scepticism and not interpret local events as global. It seems to be "fashionable" now to attribute every flood, fire, storm or other naturally occurring weather event to the end of the world. Since my childhood I have heard at the end of animal or nature documentaries "But if man does not stop destroying the natural habitat...". This is where you can then insert a fear scenario. When I was little, this affected me terribly and of course I believed everything.

One should probably not underestimate how many adults of today have taken the fears of their childhood with them and unconsciously feel endangered with every new piece of scary news.

If I were to compare the number of these negative contents with what all these people who were so affected then did in reality, one would think that no one would take it so seriously anyway. When I made my own decision not to fly on holiday any more, I got the reaction on the one hand that this was probably exaggerated and that since I only had a "very small carbon footprint" anyway, flying once was like not flying at all. Another friend chided me for looking at the wrong danger, saying that it was factory farming that was responsible for the increase in CO2 and that I should eat no or less meat. An aggressive atmosphere developed without me thinking to contribute and I changed the subject.

My mistake was probably to have chosen a politically correct sounding reason for my unwillingness to get on a plane (I won't use it again as an argument).

If the normal person had actually investigated further, he would inevitably have come across the reasoning that the so-called CO2 footprint is very high simply due to the fact that every household has to heat, and everything else that one avoids is rather marginal in comparison. Whether this is true or not, I don't know.

I have refrained from forming a firm opinion on this, because obviously I lack the knowledge. And I don't think anyone else has a comprehensive knowledge of what factors actually lead to a changing earth's atmosphere that brings us death or catastrophic living conditions.

But one thing seems clear to me: the way people live in metropolises, they suffer from the lack of plant and animal life. It is man's pain to see himself cut off from the rest of planetary life, to see himself surrounded by streets and tall buildings, by concrete surfaces. Man treats animals, insects and plants like troublemakers that he wants out of sight. Even the front gardens and pavements in rural areas look like they have been vacuumed and a real wasteland and lack of ideas about gardening and maintenance is visible.

I think that despite all the alleged education, people tend to be as superstitious and gullible as ever. I count myself among them, but in the course of the last few years I have learned that I can and will change that. Ultimately, one can only concern oneself with what affects one and seems to be locally attainable and influenceable.

I would be happy if the city administration would finally stop constantly blowing away the undergrowth in the parks and leaving the ground bare. The smallest creatures and small animals live from and in the undergrowth. If home and garden owners would make their gardens alive and not plant them with uniform hedges and boxwood bushes where bees, bumblebees and butterflies find no nectar. One tries to be a role model oneself. We planted a flower meadow in front of my brother's house this summer and various species, but people misunderstand such growth as weeds and get upset when the kerbs crack or the pavement in front of their own house is "untidy".

People constantly look at the big and the sensational, but don't care at all about the small and the detail. They go demonstrating for "a better climate", but in their private lives they spare any effort to use resources sparingly. Now, all that said, I am the first to admit that my use of resources is not ideal either, that in many ways I am not a do-gooder but a user. It is the world I live in and therefore to make a murder pit out of my heart and find culprits out there is not to be my business. I don't want to save the world, world-saving efforts seem more harmful than useful to me.

yes of course plants grow better BUT what if there are no plants and just concrete or barren soil left? This is the problem. Deforestation, soil erosion and pollution are the things we should be focussing on. CO2 is just a money making scam again, to make a few people rich, nothing to do with 'saving the planet'. In fact it always makes me laugh when they shout about saving the planet. The planet will recover it us that need to change or we will not survive.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

Deforestation is indeed at the heart of a lot of this. Reversing that process would quickly and naturally put that CO2 into good use.

exactly and did you know they actually pump CO2 into massive greenhouses growing food like the big glass city in southern Spain. The working conditions are horrendous in there so they ship immigrants from Africa to work inside them.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

Yeah that's why I mentioned CO2 in greenhouses causing the plants to grow better in the post.

Right, that one fact kind of exposes their agenda which is not to save the planet, which survives better with more CO2 but to save mankind who destroy whereever they go. edit-or rather 'civilization' than mankind maybe.


Posted via proofofbrain.io

As I am new on hive feel free to redirect me with a link if this is old news. What is triggering the gangstalking bot? any post I've done that touches on greatreset has been hit with downvotes too.
Is it just a malicious bit of runaway code? or under direction?

That gangstalking bot is new. It is not downvoting. It is simply commenting everytime you update a post. It seems to be queued to certain tags. I don't know which ones. Just ignore it. It artificially makes your posts look like they are more active with comments than the actually are... especially if you tend to edit and update your posts a lot like I sometimes do.

I don't know anything about it other than the observations I shared above. Other than cluttering up the comment section it seems like something not negative.

I noticed it just leaves the broken hearts there, ignore it I shall. many thx, sorry if its a dumb newbie question.

I don't consider any question dumb unless it is the same question asked by the same person over and over again.

Indeed there has been many assumption on the CO2 emission and most time they are attributed to bitcoin. The question is , aren't there other actions that leads to release of CO2 ? What of gas flaring and other industrial actions ? .
Most times these are aimed at spreading fear in people with the aim of destroying something that they cannot control .

Yes... yet CO2 levels increasing some may actually be a good thing if we want a greener planet. That is something that is conveniently ignored.

Also every time their claims and models fail they simply move the goal post, make a new prediction, and try to make certain people don't remember the previous predictions they made that did not come to pass.

EDIT: Also bitcoin can be mined with "green" sources as well but if you research the so-called "green" sources they are often ultimately far more damaging to the environment than that which they replace.

 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment
 2 months ago Reveal Comment