I love the ideas of small scale sovereignty etc as a way out of our current mess of Empire.
Yuval is one of those really smart folks who have the ability to say incredibly insightful things and then turn around and say some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
it's an interesting phenomenon bourne out of (in my view), intellectual vanity and a dearth of meta-physical humility (for lack of a better term).
in other words, the arrogance of the rational, materialist types becomes a huge stumbling block for them. his views on religion seem to be incredibly short sighted and dismissive.
one thing that I wish we could see more of in discussions like this, is to replace the term 'climate change' with 'enviornmental destruction' as far a better term for a global threat assessment. the climate change cultists have convieniantly extracted this issue from the broder context of environmentalism, much to the damage of issue like factory farming, overfishing, deforestation, strip mining, pollution etc. no one talks about them anymore.
Great points, Hollis. Yes, I had done this episode (and my book) at a time when I wasn't seeing the psyops of the climate change narrative. So today I would likely reword it and I like your phrasing, that still looks at the reality of the destruction but not in their framing. Thanks for the rant!
I was just listening to James Corbett's recent video on Blackrock and how the ESG algorithm has replaced human investment analysts. He says that some States are pushing back and saying they're prioritizing ESG over profits for their pension funds.
So is this the false dichotomy we're being pushed into? Either their false Environmental, Social & Governance rating, or we beg them to forget all that and just make as high of profits as possible?
What I like about regenerative agriculture is that it doesn't matter if climate change is real. It protects local food sovereignty, builds back the soil from chemical dependence, facilitates both animal husbandry and a diverse food shed, eliminates factory farming, and provides local jobs and locally owned farm land.
So rather than trying to convince the many sincere and caring people who've been misled, you can channel their energy constructively. Instead of gluing themselves to masterpieces of art, they can be out in the field wrangling cows, goats, chickens and rabbits.
To answer you and Tirion, I don't know anything anymore ;-) Not only information but the weather itself is so manipulated that I have no first-hand experience to rely on. Sometimes I hear people (including Matt Ehret, who I admire) dismiss all concern about air pollution (an old-fashioned term) and say we should be industrializing at full-steam ahead. That seems as much of a grift as the climate change psyop, that corporations should not be hampered in their destruction in pursuit of profits.
I agree Tirion, that climate change is as old as the planet itself.
I mean we just recently came out of an Ice Age.
as Tereza said, it's hard to know what to believe anymore. I certainly don't believe in the apocalyptic predictions of the activists, but I also believe that human activity has an effect on our environment/climate...
Hola, Teresa. Beautifully balanced and human! Love it.
In your section on 'will communities take care of themselves', you could have mentioned the Inuit, for example. There is a great story about how when after a dry hunting season, when someone caught the seal, the food was distributed to all the people. The gringo observing this expressed his gratitude to the hunter and was roundly chastised for it: we don't give thanks to treating everyone as human. All of us have the same value. Today I caught food for us, tomorrow it will be someone else. Thanks separates the value between us. Do not give thanks.' That's my paraphrase.
Yuval has been traumatised and like the rest of us, lives in Stockholm Syndrome denial, sorry, *not DENIAL*, total oblivion. His policies actual express the requirement to create as a fix his own unseen trauma. Elsewhere I wrote that Harari is pilloried because he is the enemy: ie, he is us, the traumatised masses. And at the same time, in one of those signs of that trauma-induced splitting, he is also very so popular by so many because, like those who sought solace from the severely traumatised Krishnamurti, they have been have been likewise traumatised.
And a typo: you wrote 'depotentate', proper is 'depotentiate' a sneaky little 'i' in there. (So glad you are having fun with that nice word. I think I first crossed paths with it in psychology.)
Yes on the Inuits! I give that example in my book, which was from David Graeber's book Debt. The quote continues, "Graeber cites the indignant refusal of a Greenland Inuit to accept thanks after sharing several pounds of seal meat, exclaiming, 'Up here in our country we are human! ... And since we are human we help each other. We don't like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today you may get tomorrow. We say that by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs.'"
I did depotentate on purpose as taking potency away. It is also taking potential away so I like them both. I think that's taking your word and kludging it ;-)
“I imagine California breaking into 4 Swedens or 100 Icelands to be a manageable size for matrix government.”
I had to chuckle at that since this was predicted by one of my favorite anti-federalists. (Any lurking constitutionalists here can just go cringe!)
“Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.”
Brutus, (Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York, October 18, 1787
“Both Russell Brand and I support a feminine form of economics that promotes small scale sovereignty or local self-governance…”
Oh, c’mon, Tereza! I’ve been advocating that sort of thing for more than 50 years and I’m about as masculine as they come. I never thought of the concepts in such terms and don’t see any value in putting the them in those terms now. Very clearly they are valid ideas on their own, so what’s the point of assigning gender to them? Sometimes we just have to give false and or useless dichotomies a rest, I think.
Besides, sometimes there ain’t a heck of a lot of difference between masculinity and femininity.:
“…a whole band of foreigners will be unable to cope with one [Gaul] in a fight, if he calls in his wife, stronger than he by far and with flashing eyes; least of all when she swells her neck and gnashes her teeth, and poising her huge white arms, begins to rain blows mingled with kicks, like shots discharged by the twisted cords of a catapult”.
-Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, Book 15, Chap 12, ~A.D. 355
I have that very quote, in extended form, in my book. Love Robert Yates! He's my favorite anti-federalist too.
A feminine economy has the purpose of raising the next generation in security and responsibility. No one pretends that's the purpose of our economy. Note that I'm not saying 'feminist' in which women serve the same patriarchal power interest.
I see the feminine and masculine in all of us, the two sides of the brain, the mind and spirit. How could it be exclusive to women when I put Russell in the same category?
I'm also about as masculine as they come in my focus on logic and rationality, economics and facts. But my goal is a world that puts children at the center, surrounded by women who are surrounded by men. That's a feminine goal that would be laughed at by any economist, as was made clear by this one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/mansplaining-economics.
"...my focus on logic and rationality, economics and facts."
That's one of the things that impresses me about your writing and one of the reasons that I read yours almost exclusively. I also like the fact that you insist on proper definitions of terms from the outset.
Anyway, I've said my piece about the subject and though I could go on, I'll just leave it at that.
thanks, Geoff. My insistence on definitions--not necessarily proper, but what it means to you--is because I think most disagreement really comes down to semantics. That would be my guess here. I think we differ on what feminine means, as oppositional to masculine or in alignment with a child-centric purpose. But I've said my piece too, so I'll leave it ;-)
I insist that it is not only proper but crucial. For the reason you stated as well as the fact that it's obvious that the enemy often intentionally pervert the meanings of words.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries."
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book III, 3.82-[4]
PS: Notice that most of us would never think of protesting his references to gender here. Wink, wink!
Bonus quote from "T." Good advice for dealing with bullies.:
"If you give way, you will instantly have to meet some greater demand, as having been frightened into obedience in the first instance; while a firm refusal will make them clearly understand that they must treat you more as equals."
-Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.140-[5]
PS again. I hope you got a kick out of my Ammianus quote, above! : )
The whole book is full of remarkable bits of wisdom. It's so fine to have someone appreciate things like that, so thanks again. It's about time I reread it!
Sep 29, 2023·edited Sep 29, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
"If you don’t have power, you exaggerate it. If you do have power, you hide it."
Exactly. That's why they brag about AI and brain chips and gene editing.
They don't have that power, so they brag. If they did, it would be on the down low.
Here's my take on AI that applies to exaggeration:
The Google bard interview on TV, for example they had the AI make shit up. Instead of editing it out and redoing that to show AI is trustworthy, they left it in there and sold us the spooky idea of "hallucination" to prop up the idea that AI thinks for itself 😂.
Same with the dystopian video by the wef about monitoring workers. Instead of making it look like a helpful thing, they had to insert a few creepy things and a crazy finale of some one getting in trouble for a crime and the monitoring used to find the accomplice. Really? How were they so sure there was an accomplice and if so, why couldn't they just follow the financial data to find out who it was?
Total f'n bullshit exaggeration and fear porn.
Last funny is the neuralink hype. They had huge biological issues with animal trials. Still, they brought it to human trials. How do they expect to progress when they ignore the basic biological issues of implant rejection and infection/inflammation issues?
Nah they're now saying it's going to be used for paralyzed people to communicate without physical controls. Ok brain trusts, what about helping these people regain some sort of physical movement?
All a freaking joke... Exaggerations , fear, and or hype... or all three combined over and over with this crap.
Another thought-provoking piece, Tereza. Thank you. I think you're wrong about nationalized healthcare though. Looking at the UK's NHS, people with zero income (who therefore contribute nothing from their own pocket to the National Insurance fund) are entitled to the same care as those on the highest incomes, who contribute the most to the fund. Isn't that what YNH has in mind?
Yes, that is what he meant. Do you know whether the people in Gaza have the same access to healthcare as Israelis? I thought I remembered reading about hospitals on the other side of border crossings with people dying waiting in line.
Israel seemed like a particularly poor example of a nation in which people care about the stranger. My preference is still for community healthcare rather than national but I do see your (and Yuval's) point, and agree with that model over the privatized broken US system.
No, I know very little about what life is like in Gaza. I only have the impression that the way people there are treated is iniquitous and shameful. Without ever having been there, Israel seems to me like a particularly poor example of everything that matters.
". . . climate change, and runaway technology can all have small solutions . . . "
Lady, the climate has been changing for billions of years and is going to continue doing so whether people like it or not! How about not playing the stupid Doublespeak game and say what you mean? If you are referring to "global warming" you need some climate education. The planet warms and cools in natural cycles controlled by large processes. There are different cycles interacting that cause certain larger cycles. One long cycle is that of major Ice Ages, which last about 100,000 years, with interglacial periods that are much shorter. We are now approaching the end of an interglacial period. The Earth has warmed irregularly since the end of the last Ice Age, with smaller fluctuations in recent centuries. Earlier warming periods were significantly hotter than our present time. During the 20th century the Earth warmed and cooled several times, with a cold period during the 70s that had climate scientists questioning whether we were heading into another Ice Age, tgen it amwarmed up again until about 2000, then cooled off again, with one brief uptick. Now the Earth is cooling again. If you are capable of examining data you will realize that carbon dioxide increased steadily during the last century. But temperatures declined in spite of what the CO2 was doing. REALITY CHECK!: carbon dioxide does NOT determine temperature! Period! Full Stop! Every major warming cycle during the past several million years has occurred PRIOR TO the CO2 going up! Bottom line: temperature RISES, THEN the CO2 follows. THAT is REALITY, NOT this ninsense about carbon dioxide being spewed out by liars at the IPCC with their fake, manipulated "climate models" written to falsely show global warming "by CO2"! Carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas that has no discernable effect on global temperatures, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is miniscule— a teensy fraction of a teensy part of one percent! To blame nonexistent "global warming" on carbon dioxide is not only rediculous, it is psychotic, delusional. And to deindustrialize entire societies, take away vitally necessary energy sources, and cause the mass starvation of millions of people in the process is beyond criminal! There are extremely evil people on this planet pushing an insane, evil agenda of Mass Depopulation, and you are FALLING FOR IT! Wake up!
Anyone addressing me as 'Lady' is using my stack for their own lecture. I would never address you so disrespectfully, Faith. And you clearly haven't read much of what I've written if you think I'm 'falling for' an agenda of mass depopulation, which I state as one of the four agendas of the Reset along with destruction, dispossession, and depression.
great essay Tereza!
I love the ideas of small scale sovereignty etc as a way out of our current mess of Empire.
Yuval is one of those really smart folks who have the ability to say incredibly insightful things and then turn around and say some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard.
it's an interesting phenomenon bourne out of (in my view), intellectual vanity and a dearth of meta-physical humility (for lack of a better term).
in other words, the arrogance of the rational, materialist types becomes a huge stumbling block for them. his views on religion seem to be incredibly short sighted and dismissive.
one thing that I wish we could see more of in discussions like this, is to replace the term 'climate change' with 'enviornmental destruction' as far a better term for a global threat assessment. the climate change cultists have convieniantly extracted this issue from the broder context of environmentalism, much to the damage of issue like factory farming, overfishing, deforestation, strip mining, pollution etc. no one talks about them anymore.
anyways, that's my rant...
cheers
Great points, Hollis. Yes, I had done this episode (and my book) at a time when I wasn't seeing the psyops of the climate change narrative. So today I would likely reword it and I like your phrasing, that still looks at the reality of the destruction but not in their framing. Thanks for the rant!
cool!
for the record, I believe climate change is real but am also aware how the powers that be are curently using the movement as leverage for control.
by divorcing the issue from the larger environmentalism, those other issues have been neglected.
I was just listening to James Corbett's recent video on Blackrock and how the ESG algorithm has replaced human investment analysts. He says that some States are pushing back and saying they're prioritizing ESG over profits for their pension funds.
So is this the false dichotomy we're being pushed into? Either their false Environmental, Social & Governance rating, or we beg them to forget all that and just make as high of profits as possible?
What I like about regenerative agriculture is that it doesn't matter if climate change is real. It protects local food sovereignty, builds back the soil from chemical dependence, facilitates both animal husbandry and a diverse food shed, eliminates factory farming, and provides local jobs and locally owned farm land.
So rather than trying to convince the many sincere and caring people who've been misled, you can channel their energy constructively. Instead of gluing themselves to masterpieces of art, they can be out in the field wrangling cows, goats, chickens and rabbits.
To answer you and Tirion, I don't know anything anymore ;-) Not only information but the weather itself is so manipulated that I have no first-hand experience to rely on. Sometimes I hear people (including Matt Ehret, who I admire) dismiss all concern about air pollution (an old-fashioned term) and say we should be industrializing at full-steam ahead. That seems as much of a grift as the climate change psyop, that corporations should not be hampered in their destruction in pursuit of profits.
Surely climate change is as old as the planet, a constant? Isn't it man-made climate change that is the hoax/fraud/grift?
I agree Tirion, that climate change is as old as the planet itself.
I mean we just recently came out of an Ice Age.
as Tereza said, it's hard to know what to believe anymore. I certainly don't believe in the apocalyptic predictions of the activists, but I also believe that human activity has an effect on our environment/climate...
This is a good read:
"Global Warming Science"
https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/global-warming-science
Hola, Teresa. Beautifully balanced and human! Love it.
In your section on 'will communities take care of themselves', you could have mentioned the Inuit, for example. There is a great story about how when after a dry hunting season, when someone caught the seal, the food was distributed to all the people. The gringo observing this expressed his gratitude to the hunter and was roundly chastised for it: we don't give thanks to treating everyone as human. All of us have the same value. Today I caught food for us, tomorrow it will be someone else. Thanks separates the value between us. Do not give thanks.' That's my paraphrase.
Yuval has been traumatised and like the rest of us, lives in Stockholm Syndrome denial, sorry, *not DENIAL*, total oblivion. His policies actual express the requirement to create as a fix his own unseen trauma. Elsewhere I wrote that Harari is pilloried because he is the enemy: ie, he is us, the traumatised masses. And at the same time, in one of those signs of that trauma-induced splitting, he is also very so popular by so many because, like those who sought solace from the severely traumatised Krishnamurti, they have been have been likewise traumatised.
And a typo: you wrote 'depotentate', proper is 'depotentiate' a sneaky little 'i' in there. (So glad you are having fun with that nice word. I think I first crossed paths with it in psychology.)
Yes on the Inuits! I give that example in my book, which was from David Graeber's book Debt. The quote continues, "Graeber cites the indignant refusal of a Greenland Inuit to accept thanks after sharing several pounds of seal meat, exclaiming, 'Up here in our country we are human! ... And since we are human we help each other. We don't like to hear anybody say thanks for that. What I get today you may get tomorrow. We say that by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs.'"
I did depotentate on purpose as taking potency away. It is also taking potential away so I like them both. I think that's taking your word and kludging it ;-)
LOL! Love the kludging. Thank you for providing the citation from Graeber.
“I imagine California breaking into 4 Swedens or 100 Icelands to be a manageable size for matrix government.”
I had to chuckle at that since this was predicted by one of my favorite anti-federalists. (Any lurking constitutionalists here can just go cringe!)
“Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation, that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business? It certainly is not.”
Brutus, (Robert Yates), To the Citizens of the State of New-York, October 18, 1787
“Both Russell Brand and I support a feminine form of economics that promotes small scale sovereignty or local self-governance…”
Oh, c’mon, Tereza! I’ve been advocating that sort of thing for more than 50 years and I’m about as masculine as they come. I never thought of the concepts in such terms and don’t see any value in putting the them in those terms now. Very clearly they are valid ideas on their own, so what’s the point of assigning gender to them? Sometimes we just have to give false and or useless dichotomies a rest, I think.
Besides, sometimes there ain’t a heck of a lot of difference between masculinity and femininity.:
“…a whole band of foreigners will be unable to cope with one [Gaul] in a fight, if he calls in his wife, stronger than he by far and with flashing eyes; least of all when she swells her neck and gnashes her teeth, and poising her huge white arms, begins to rain blows mingled with kicks, like shots discharged by the twisted cords of a catapult”.
-Ammianus Marcellinus, The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus, Book 15, Chap 12, ~A.D. 355
I have that very quote, in extended form, in my book. Love Robert Yates! He's my favorite anti-federalist too.
A feminine economy has the purpose of raising the next generation in security and responsibility. No one pretends that's the purpose of our economy. Note that I'm not saying 'feminist' in which women serve the same patriarchal power interest.
I see the feminine and masculine in all of us, the two sides of the brain, the mind and spirit. How could it be exclusive to women when I put Russell in the same category?
I'm also about as masculine as they come in my focus on logic and rationality, economics and facts. But my goal is a world that puts children at the center, surrounded by women who are surrounded by men. That's a feminine goal that would be laughed at by any economist, as was made clear by this one: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/mansplaining-economics.
"...my focus on logic and rationality, economics and facts."
That's one of the things that impresses me about your writing and one of the reasons that I read yours almost exclusively. I also like the fact that you insist on proper definitions of terms from the outset.
Anyway, I've said my piece about the subject and though I could go on, I'll just leave it at that.
thanks, Geoff. My insistence on definitions--not necessarily proper, but what it means to you--is because I think most disagreement really comes down to semantics. That would be my guess here. I think we differ on what feminine means, as oppositional to masculine or in alignment with a child-centric purpose. But I've said my piece too, so I'll leave it ;-)
I insist that it is not only proper but crucial. For the reason you stated as well as the fact that it's obvious that the enemy often intentionally pervert the meanings of words.
"Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any. Frantic violence became the attribute of manliness; cautious plotting, a justifiable means of self-defence. The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected. To succeed in a plot was to have a shrewd head, to divine a plot a still shrewder; but to try to provide against having to do either was to break up your party and to be afraid of your adversaries."
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book III, 3.82-[4]
PS: Notice that most of us would never think of protesting his references to gender here. Wink, wink!
Bonus quote from "T." Good advice for dealing with bullies.:
"If you give way, you will instantly have to meet some greater demand, as having been frightened into obedience in the first instance; while a firm refusal will make them clearly understand that they must treat you more as equals."
-Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.140-[5]
PS again. I hope you got a kick out of my Ammianus quote, above! : )
Excellent quotes, Geoff. What circa Thucydides? I love the way he puts that.
431 BC.
The whole book is full of remarkable bits of wisdom. It's so fine to have someone appreciate things like that, so thanks again. It's about time I reread it!
https://realnewsandhistory.com/__version-2/anyt-09-29-23/
"If you don’t have power, you exaggerate it. If you do have power, you hide it."
Exactly. That's why they brag about AI and brain chips and gene editing.
They don't have that power, so they brag. If they did, it would be on the down low.
Here's my take on AI that applies to exaggeration:
The Google bard interview on TV, for example they had the AI make shit up. Instead of editing it out and redoing that to show AI is trustworthy, they left it in there and sold us the spooky idea of "hallucination" to prop up the idea that AI thinks for itself 😂.
Same with the dystopian video by the wef about monitoring workers. Instead of making it look like a helpful thing, they had to insert a few creepy things and a crazy finale of some one getting in trouble for a crime and the monitoring used to find the accomplice. Really? How were they so sure there was an accomplice and if so, why couldn't they just follow the financial data to find out who it was?
Total f'n bullshit exaggeration and fear porn.
Last funny is the neuralink hype. They had huge biological issues with animal trials. Still, they brought it to human trials. How do they expect to progress when they ignore the basic biological issues of implant rejection and infection/inflammation issues?
Nah they're now saying it's going to be used for paralyzed people to communicate without physical controls. Ok brain trusts, what about helping these people regain some sort of physical movement?
All a freaking joke... Exaggerations , fear, and or hype... or all three combined over and over with this crap.
Another thought-provoking piece, Tereza. Thank you. I think you're wrong about nationalized healthcare though. Looking at the UK's NHS, people with zero income (who therefore contribute nothing from their own pocket to the National Insurance fund) are entitled to the same care as those on the highest incomes, who contribute the most to the fund. Isn't that what YNH has in mind?
Yes, that is what he meant. Do you know whether the people in Gaza have the same access to healthcare as Israelis? I thought I remembered reading about hospitals on the other side of border crossings with people dying waiting in line.
Israel seemed like a particularly poor example of a nation in which people care about the stranger. My preference is still for community healthcare rather than national but I do see your (and Yuval's) point, and agree with that model over the privatized broken US system.
No, I know very little about what life is like in Gaza. I only have the impression that the way people there are treated is iniquitous and shameful. Without ever having been there, Israel seems to me like a particularly poor example of everything that matters.
". . . climate change, and runaway technology can all have small solutions . . . "
Lady, the climate has been changing for billions of years and is going to continue doing so whether people like it or not! How about not playing the stupid Doublespeak game and say what you mean? If you are referring to "global warming" you need some climate education. The planet warms and cools in natural cycles controlled by large processes. There are different cycles interacting that cause certain larger cycles. One long cycle is that of major Ice Ages, which last about 100,000 years, with interglacial periods that are much shorter. We are now approaching the end of an interglacial period. The Earth has warmed irregularly since the end of the last Ice Age, with smaller fluctuations in recent centuries. Earlier warming periods were significantly hotter than our present time. During the 20th century the Earth warmed and cooled several times, with a cold period during the 70s that had climate scientists questioning whether we were heading into another Ice Age, tgen it amwarmed up again until about 2000, then cooled off again, with one brief uptick. Now the Earth is cooling again. If you are capable of examining data you will realize that carbon dioxide increased steadily during the last century. But temperatures declined in spite of what the CO2 was doing. REALITY CHECK!: carbon dioxide does NOT determine temperature! Period! Full Stop! Every major warming cycle during the past several million years has occurred PRIOR TO the CO2 going up! Bottom line: temperature RISES, THEN the CO2 follows. THAT is REALITY, NOT this ninsense about carbon dioxide being spewed out by liars at the IPCC with their fake, manipulated "climate models" written to falsely show global warming "by CO2"! Carbon dioxide is a very weak greenhouse gas that has no discernable effect on global temperatures, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is miniscule— a teensy fraction of a teensy part of one percent! To blame nonexistent "global warming" on carbon dioxide is not only rediculous, it is psychotic, delusional. And to deindustrialize entire societies, take away vitally necessary energy sources, and cause the mass starvation of millions of people in the process is beyond criminal! There are extremely evil people on this planet pushing an insane, evil agenda of Mass Depopulation, and you are FALLING FOR IT! Wake up!
Anyone addressing me as 'Lady' is using my stack for their own lecture. I would never address you so disrespectfully, Faith. And you clearly haven't read much of what I've written if you think I'm 'falling for' an agenda of mass depopulation, which I state as one of the four agendas of the Reset along with destruction, dispossession, and depression.