How is our world going to be re-shaped and why? The industrial revolution

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This does not make sense at all !

'All people poor' means no innovation and almost no benefits for the elite.
This means a much less comfortable life for the elite as well !

NO WAY !!!
This is true from your and my perspective, but how do you know about the perspective of others, those who are at the apex and might think they have everything they need, and hence to screw you and me?

Else, how do you explain the periods of history that civilization seemingly did go backwards (not just stood still), the last under 'Christian' supervision?

There is all kinds of debate going on that modern technology is killing us, especially if we try to expand it to the currently disposessed. Whether true or not, it provides a pretext to deliver an apocalyptic scenario.
 

Suchender

Active Member
This is true from your and my perspective, but how do you know about the perspective of others, those who are at the apex and might think they have everything they need, and hence to screw you and me?
Because those in power understand leverage !
Wealth IS leverage !
Technology IS leverage !

The more leverage the better !
Leverage is POWER !

To reduce leverage is to risk losing control !

NO WAY they want that to happen !
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Because those in power understand leverage !
Wealth IS leverage !
Technology IS leverage !
If one has already garnered the vast majority of the wealth, as is the case today with the 1%, and one has effective control over Technology, then what is left to leverage? Better to cull the herds. Big, hungry herds are a problem in keeping control.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
If one has already garnered the vast majority of the wealth, as is the case today with the 1%, and one has effective control over Technology, then what is left to leverage? Better to cull the herds. Big, hungry herds are a problem in keeping control.
Exactly. Big hungry herds also uselessy consume the limited resources of the Earth, that they just want for themselves.

They don't need so many people to provide, by working, what the elite needs. All the rest is useless production (from the elite's perspective).

Also, they love handmade stuff, as far as clothes and food and ornaments are concerned, that they privilege even today, and that are too expensive for common people. The mechanical production of such things is mostly for the lower classes. Why to keep all those unpleasant factories on? To make money? They are not stupid, they are well aware of the environment, since behind environmentalists lies the same elite.

Today's businessmen have been portrayed as stupid and blind, who just think to make money at the expensens of the environment, not realizing that money is just a piece of paper that they won't be able to eat when the resources are exausted.

That is exactly the propaganda used to make us believe that our world is running into a global disaster because of our greed, stupidity and blindness. That is the way the entrepreneur middle class is going to be buried forever, including bankers.

The contraposition capitalists (businessmen) vs environmentalists is just another fictious one, both being led by the elite, where capitalists behave as if they were blind, talking about endless growth and damaging the environment and the environmentalists expose them (adding a lot of untrue facts as well to make the situation of the Earth appear a lot worse than it is).

That is the way the Ferrari is going to be crashed (or make us believe it has crashed).
 
Last edited:

Suchender

Active Member
If one has already garnered the vast majority of the wealth, as is the case today with the 1%, and one has effective control over Technology, then what is left to leverage? Better to cull the herds. Big, hungry herds are a problem in keeping control.
Bu I did object the thesis to make and keep the other 99% poor.

I was not talking about 'culling the herd'.
But I don't agree with this thesis neither.
Numbers seem to be no problem at all for the elite.
The fairy tale about limited resources is, in my opinion, just a fairy tale. The available energy is limitless. We are just not allowed to use it !
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
I suspect that when the elite found itself faced by the industrial revolution in 18th century they planned the fake American Independence war from England to establish America as the nation which would prove that by giving freedom to everybody to become rich the result is the self-destruction of the planet.

By fake independence war I mean that America never became really indepent from England, or so they say.

America is the place of the American dream: the possibility even to the most humble and poorest worker to become rich through his work and entrepreneurship.

It was the first time in history that a country was protecting the right of everybody to become rich, without class limitations.

America is the place of freedoms. All freedoms have been given, just to prove that freedom should have not been given. Democracy (the right/duty of all citizens to vote) and mandatory schooling for all, look like to me as means planned and used to demonstrate that by giving power to the people, even when making them literate, the result is a disaster.

Now you can read everywhere that the American dream is not sustainable for the planet and has failed. The wealth the the Americans have reached and enjoy is at the expenses of the planet's resources and cannot be extended to other countries, or the Earth will collapse.

When the Earth collapses, not by fault of common citizens, but by fault given to them, the next logical step will be to institute garantors to watch over the use and development of science and technology.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
The fairy tale about limited resources is, in my opinion, just a fairy tale. The available energy is limitless. We are just not allowed to use it !
I agree that the available energy is limitless. And I agree that they are using the excuse of limited resources to limit us. Anyway, row materials like minerals, I am afraid are really limited. They might last a lot more than we are told, but one day they must get exausted, and with a population which has doubled in just 50 years (from 3,5 billions in the '60 to 7 billions now), if those numbers are true, sooner or later their exhaustion will occur. Or am I letting myself be brainwashed into the limitation thing?
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Whether fact or fiction, would you agree that Joseph (technically not a Jew) colluded with pharaoh to use (crony) Capitalism to corner all the markets (taking advantage of 7 years of plenty and 7 years of drought) to cause the free people to happily sell themselves into feudal slavery?
It definitely looks like that.

Anyway, in the projected future when "Jesus" reigns with his "saints" on earth (the supposed elite of that time), I guess the word slave will be carefully avoided. We are no longer in Egyptian times when being a slave was normal, or in feudal times when being a serf was normal.

People will need to feel they are free, after all the talks about freedom of our last centuries. It will rather be because they are grateful to have been saved from the terrible dictatorship of the Antichrist and the famine undergone and all the rest, that they will happily contribute goods to their masters.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Bu I did object the thesis to make and keep the other 99% poor.

I was not talking about 'culling the herd'.
But I don't agree with this thesis neither.
I'm not totally sure what you're first sentence is trying to communicate, but in any case, the problem here is that you're ignoring that throughout known history, especially Western, and with only a few exceptions, the social systems have been rigged to do exactly this, to have elite Shepherds treat other humans as Sheep. When the Cathars challenged that paradigm they were culled with extreme prejudice.

Thus, one doesn't need to debate about infinite resources or not, as ancient and recent history can be our guide. The middle classes of the 20th Century are being hollowed out, the social progress that had been made is now being rolled back to assuage the manufactured fear induced into that decaying white middle class and lower.

On my thread From Cleopatra to Christ I've recently discussed that the seemingly recent and new hyperpolarized dialectic between nationalist freedom patriots and larger globalizing constructs is not new. Though, only from the sense that the zealous (rabidly so) nature seen today in both the libertarians and the populists can be seen being induced 'from above', by the elite 'Shepherds':

Josephus notes that Judas of Gamala is the founder of the so-called Fourth Sect of Judaism, meaning it is a novelty for the time. Josephus thus states:

" ... they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only ruler or lord." (Josephus Antiquities, 18:23)

As Ellis will go to discuss this aspect becomes the same social dialectic (of libertarian, ethnocentric nationalists versus authoritarian, cosmopolitan globalists) that we are witnessing today, as I have been discussing on other threads. It is actually two separate dialects confusingly conflated together, which I will try to disentangle later. In any case, I was quite excited in my re-reading of CtC that Ellis had identified this phenomenon, that our Postflavian thesis should predict. I will interpret the nature of the dialect(s) a bit different and cynically than Ellis however.
In other words, these Shepherds created an Antithesis to their own Thesis, because they wanted to produce a new Synthesis, a New World Order of their day. This is the classic Divide and Conquer ploy, the Hegelian Dialectic.

And in addition to doing it again today, they did it with the Reformation, and like Emma asserts, that the entire USA tableau is the same. It's republican democracy has always had a hidden thumb (from the hidden hand) on the scale. The Reformation's original raison d'etre is now moot and thus it is being rolled up back into the Mother Church, with the Low Church constituents and similar secular volk being radicalized into the American Taliban. You can't make a new social order (Culture) stick if you don't have a LOT of DEAD BODIES.

Last time (2,000 years ago) it was the radicalized 'Jews' (of sorts) and this time it will be these particular Christians who will be figuratively thrown into the Bottomless Pit -- so that the survivors can move on in the new system.

And, as always, the Shepherds will indeed have leveraged the freedom they granted (to people who thought they were revolting) to enjoy the various fruits of technology for both their pleasure and security.

I will diverge somewhat with Emma here, and say that they will retain a buffer and gentry class, as they did before with the Jews and lower branches of the nobility.

Yes, the actual 'liberty' that was granted
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As to comments on this thread about 'limitless energy" and 'Capitalism', perhaps there needs to be some 'qualifiers' and bounds on these endorsements?

Just use this example as one illustration of ideology and misplaced priorities gone insane:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/23/former-shale-gas-ceo-says-shale-revolution-has-been-disaster-drillers-investors

Such gold rushs are indeed environmental disasters, in this case for the humans and animals that need to drink water from the affected aquifers, if not the excess and unnecessary releases of carbon.

We are yet in a carbon energy economy, and people go bonkers trying to cash in on 'easy money', as the extraction of such frequently is. Like various minerals getting harder to find, hydrocarbons are just the same, requiring more energy and money to further extract ... so we can play with our mindless toys. Dogod did not distribute all these things equally, and fortunately, his divine Word has Providenced certain people to squatting rights based upon the divine principles of Conquest and Flim-Flammery and such.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
As to comments on this thread about 'limitless energy" and 'Capitalism', perhaps there needs to be some 'qualifiers' and bounds on these endorsements?

Just use this example as one illustration of ideology and misplaced priorities gone insane:

https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/06/23/former-shale-gas-ceo-says-shale-revolution-has-been-disaster-drillers-investors

Such gold rushs are indeed environmental disasters, in this case for the humans and animals that need to drink water from the affected aquifers, if not the excess and unnecessary releases of carbon.
For you it's an example of ideology and misplaced priorities gone insane.

For me it's just a perfect example of what I said:

"The contraposition capitalists (businessmen) vs environmentalists is just another fictious one, both being led by the elite, where capitalists behave as if they were blind, talking about endless growth and damaging the environment and the environmentalists expose them (adding a lot of untrue facts as well to make the situation of the Earth appear a lot worse than it is."

Which means that:

a) The damage might be real or unreal, or exaggerated by environmentalists. (I won't say my opinion on this specific example as I will talk more extensively about environmental issues in another thread)

b) If the damage is real it has been wanted and looked for

c) In all cases (real, unreal or exaggerated) the desired outcome and common goal of both the capitalists and environmentalists involved is to reinforce the equation Capitalism=damage to environment, in our eyes

So, Capitalism is accused of damaging the environment and exploiting workers (the latter I have covered earlier in this thread).

These two main charges will be used to issue a death sentence against Capitalism, and a death sentence against the use of modern technology to produce goods and services (that might appear as a lock down and/or a quota system ) which started with the Industrial Revolution in 18th century and not liked by the governing elite.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
There may indeed be aspects of machinations involved, but in any case, my position of Capitalism, as stated on other threads, is that Capitalism (and Socialism) are merely tools, amoral tools. Both of which can be properly or wrongfully used, like sledge hammers or screwdrivers. And in a hybrid economy you can use each of them where they are best suited.
So, Capitalism is accused of damaging the environment and exploiting workers (the latter I have covered earlier in this thread).
And so when environmental damage or exploitation is a function of either individual impulses or that of some hidden hand agenda, one might suggest controls, e.g. laws and regulations, to prevent excesses. Change your -ism and the same applies.

Instead, today the modern-day zealots, now helped along by Trump, have convinced themselves that anything short of Ayn Rand's ideals are the equivalent of Communism, which is not the same thing as Socialism. And, you have just reminded me that you are generally wrong about labor unions. Yes, they like any so-called reform are subject to co-optation by elite interests that stand to otherwise lose their entitled divine profits. If working conditions were so terrible, and they were, then how do you suggest they have gone about rectifying the situation?

Capitalist health care in the USA is a Disaster, unless you are one of the fortunate ones. The sick and corrupt system is now 1/6 of the US economy, which profits by treating illnesses, many that should not be occurring. That said, evidence shows that we could have much better health outcomes at approximately 1/2 the expenditure by moving to universal coverage. Small businesses have the hardest time financially and otherwise providing insurance. Why should they have to be concerned with this at all, in the first place? OMG, it's not Capitalism!!! Yes, this is bad ideology and misplaced priorities.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Emma,

Since you're new here, I'm posting to provide a few links, along with brief comments.

I agree that the available energy is limitless.
In principle this might be true. But in terms of well-known, developed and fully engineered technology, the human race has not arrived at this point.

Solar & wind technologies require huge amounts of scarce natural resources including rare earths. The energy return on energy invested is really an unknown, considering that manufacturing technologies are based on fossil fuels rather than their electrical replacement. And, there's no reasonably economical means for seasonal storage.

We have a discussion of thorium power here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/thorium-power.1966/

And, nuclear fusion is discussed here:

https://postflaviana.org/haroches-cockroach-nuclear-fusion-breakthrough/

https://postflaviana.org/deuterium-shell-game/

a) The damage might be real or unreal, or exaggerated by environmentalists. (I won't say my opinion on this specific example as I will talk more extensively about environmental issues in another thread)
A recent discussion about global warming and other environmental issues, here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/globalist-warming-denial-the-green-new-deal.1536/

Anyway, row materials like minerals, I am afraid are really limited. They might last a lot more than we are told, but one day they must get exausted, and with a population which has doubled in just 50 years (from 3,5 billions in the '60 to 7 billions now), if those numbers are true, sooner or later their exhaustion will occur.
On Planet Earth, I don't see any doubt that mineral resources and petroleum are getting harder and harder to find. As we dig deeper and exploit lower-quality sources, the energy cost & environmental damage of extraction processes is going up dramatically.

One way to get virtually infinite resources, is to go to outer space. Thread & research project in progress here:

https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/elon-musk-space-fraud.2490/
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
And, you have just reminded me that you are generally wrong about labor unions. Yes, they like any so-called reform are subject to co-optation by elite interests that stand to otherwise lose their entitled divine profits. If working conditions were so terrible, and they were, then how do you suggest they have gone about rectifying the situation?
Of course labor unions were not just meant to complain, they were supposed to undertake a fight, it was part of their play, so they indeed obtained better conditions. The point is that no matter how much conditions are improved, labor unions will always find something to complain about, to fuel that feeling of being exploited in workers.

On their side, certain big companies play to be the bad exploiters, again to fuel the wish that capitalism-industrialization-modernity be destroyed.

So, even though things got better for workers for a certain time now they are getting worse.

Amazon has become employer #1 in America, the company having the highest number of employees.

If you type -Amazon workers- as search key in google you get an endless list of websites exposing the exploitation Amazon is doing on its workers.
https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+workers&rlz=1C1AWUB_enES774ES775&oq=amazon+workers&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.35296j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

These are just some examples:

https://www.businessinsider.es/amazon-warehouse-workers-share-their-horror-stories-2018-4?r=US&IR=T
Peeing in trash cans, constant surveillance, and asthma attacks on the job: Amazon workers tell us their warehouse horror stories

https://www.businessinsider.es/amazon-employees-describe-peak-2019-2?r=US&IR=T
Amazon warehouse employees speak out about the ‘brutal’ reality of working during the holidays, when 60-hour weeks are mandatory and ambulance calls are common

https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/25/18516004/amazon-warehouse-fulfillment-centers-productivity-firing-terminations
How Amazon automatically tracks and fires warehouse workers for ‘productivity'

Mass media are owned by big companies, right? Conspirationists affirm that all mainstream media are owned by big companies. So why the media are collaborating in exposing big companies for their exploitation of workers? Media should suppress such information. Instead they are also fueling the wish to destroy capitalism-industrialization-modernity.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/01/amazon-fulfillment-center-warehouse-employees-union-new-york-minnesota
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
I agree that the available energy is limitless.
In principle this might be true. But in terms of well-known, developed and fully engineered technology, the human race has not arrived at this point.
We have nuclear energy (hot fission), perfectly working today. But the elite does not want us to have unlimited energy. So nuclear energy has been boycotted in every way, presented as strongly harmful and associated to a bomb that doesn't even exist. Nuclear energy has been outlawed in Italy after a planned accident in a nuclear power plant. That was probably the test country in small scale, as the elite use to do, to see if breakdown in power plants is enough to convince people to renounce nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants in other countries are still working but just until caos comes: with wars, fake comet strikes, fake poles reversals, earthquakes, etc. all nuclear power plants will be most probably hit, and we will be led to believe that radioactivity has contaminated all earth, or most of it, including drinking water.

Besides preparing us to a "zombie apocalypse" through fantasy-sci-fi-horror movies and games, the elite is also trying to convince us that when that happens, nuclear power plants will melt down because being unmanned, causing spread of radioactivity.

Just type - nuclear power apocalypse - and see by yourselves.


Anyway, ANS (American Nuclear Society):

The American Nuclear Society (ANS) is a not-for-profit, international, scientific and educational organization. It was established by a group of individuals who recognized the need to unify the professional activities within the various fields of nuclear science and technology. December 11, 1954, marks the Society's historic beginning at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. ANS has since developed a diverse membership composed of approximately 11,000 engineers, scientists, administrators, and educators representing 1,600 plus corporations, educational institutions, and government agencies. It is governed by four officers and a board of directors elected by the membership.

http://www.ans.org/about/

ANS is telling us:

Myths About Nuclear Energy

# 1: Americans get most of their yearly radiation dose from nuclear power plants.

Truth:
We are surrounded by naturally occurring radiation. Only 0.005% of the average American’s yearly radiation dose comes from nuclear power; 100 times less than we get from coal [1], 200 times less than a cross-country flight, and about the same as eating 1 banana per year [2].

# 2: A nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb.

Truth:
It is impossible for a reactor to explode like a nuclear weapon; these weapons contain very special materials in very particular configurations, neither of which are present in a nuclear reactor.

#3: Nuclear energy is bad for the environment.

Truth:
Nuclear reactors emit no greenhouse gases during operation. Over their full lifetimes, they result in comparable emissions to renewable forms of energy such as wind and solar [3]. Nuclear energy requires less land use than most other forms of energy.

# 4: Nuclear energy is not safe.

Truth:
Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available. No member of the public has ever been injured or killed in the entire 50-year history of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. In fact, recent studies have shown that it is safer to work in a nuclear power plant than an office [4].

# 5: There is no solution for huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated.

Truth:
All of the used nuclear fuel generated in every nuclear plant in the past 50 years would fill a football field to a depth of less than 10 yards, and 96 % of this “waste” can be recycled [5]. Used fuel is currently being safely stored. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent scientific advisory panels in every major country support geological disposal of such wastes as the preferred safe method for their ultimate disposal[6].

# 6: Most Americans don’t support nuclear power.

Truth:
In a survey conducted in September 2016, it was found that 75% of Americans feel nuclear energy will be important in meeting the country’s future electricity needs, and 45 % believe this importance will increase with time. In addition, 80% of respondents favor renewing operating licenses for nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards. Also, 68% believe that nuclear power plants operating in the United States are safe and secure.

# 7: An American “Chernobyl” would kill thousands of people.

Truth:
A Chernobyl-type accident could not have happened outside of the Soviet Union because this type of reactor was never built or operated here. The known fatalities during the Chernobyl accident were mostly emergency first responders [8]. Of the people known to have received a high radiation dose, the increase in cancer incidence is too small to measure due to other causes of cancer such as air pollution and tobacco use.

# 8: Nuclear waste cannot be safely transported.

Truth:
Used fuel is being safely shipped by truck, rail, and cargo ship today. To date, thousands of shipments have been transported with no leaks or cracks of the specially-designed casks [9].

# 9: Used nuclear fuel is deadly for 10,000 years.

Truth:
Used nuclear fuel can be recycled to make new fuel and byproducts [10]. Most of the waste from this process will require a storage time of less than 300 years. Finally, less than 1% is radioactive for 10,000 years. This portion is not much more radioactive than some things found in nature, and can be easily shielded to protect humans and wildlife.

# 10: Nuclear energy can’t reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Truth:
Nuclear-generated electricity powers electric trains and subway cars as well as autos today. It has also been used in propelling ships for more than 50 years. That use can be increased since it has been restricted by unofficial policy to military vessels and ice breakers. In the near-term, nuclear power can provide electricity for expanded mass-transit and plug-in hybrid cars. Small modular reactors can provide power to islands like Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Nantucket and Guam that currently run their electrical grids on imported oil. In the longer-term, nuclear power can directly reduce our dependence on foreign oil by producing hydrogen for use in fuel cells and synthetic liquid fuels.

http://nuclearconnect.org/know-nuclear/talking-nuclear/top-10-myths-about-nuclear-energy
 
Last edited:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
An obvious confirmation that nuclear power plants, even if they melt down, do not spread deadly radioactivity and not for lasting times (the same goes for "atomic bombs"), is the fact that the elite wants to live in this world after the apocalypse, and they want to live happily on its surface, not certainly inside underground bases.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This ANS statement reminds me of a crooked lawyers' brief.

ANS said:
Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available.
That's not saying much, considering that there's some danger of fossil fuels causing extinction of life on the planet. Solar, wind and hydro are only "available" under limited circumstances.

ANS said:
Used fuel is currently being safely stored. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the equivalent scientific advisory panels in every major country support geological disposal of such wastes as the preferred safe method for their ultimate disposal[6].
There is no geological disposal facility currently in use. Used fuel is being stored in temporarily safe facilities.

A Chernobyl-type accident could not have happened outside of the Soviet Union because this type of reactor was never built or operated here.
And why don't they mention a Fukushima-type accident?

In a survey conducted in September 2016, it was found that 75% of Americans feel nuclear energy will be important in meeting the country’s future electricity needs, and 45 % believe this importance will increase with time. In addition, 80% of respondents favor renewing operating licenses for nuclear power plants that continue to meet federal safety standards. Also, 68% believe that nuclear power plants operating in the United States are safe and secure.
The plants are safe & secure until an accident happens. Why don't any of these questions address whether Americans really support nuclear power?

https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/the-nurture-of-nuclear-power/

According to a recent Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favor promotion of nuclear power while 69 percent favor increasing federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen energy technology.

Regarding health hazards of nuclear radiation, I feel it's important to check out such authorities as Chris Busby and Helen Caldicott, and compare and contrast the quality of their research and analysis vs. the ANS trade organization.

http://www.chris.busby.exposed

https://www.helencaldicott.com

But having said that: I'm inclined to agree that there's some possibility a nuclear technology (either thorium or fusion) could be developed, that would be much safer than today's technology.

the elite wants to live in this world after the apocalypse, and they want to live happily on its surface, not certainly inside underground bases.
Of course they want to live in the post apocalyptic world. But whether they succeed in that goal, is very much in doubt. They are human beings, not gods.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Nuclear energy is as safe or safer than any other form of energy available.
That's not saying much, considering that there's some danger of fossil fuels causing extinction of life on the planet.
I am surprised how people can believe the lie that fossil fuels can cause extinction of life on the planet. It's so obvious that the planet is much bigger than any emission of C02 by humans can affect. That fairy tale is part of the scheme for drastically limiting available sources of energy in the future and for reverting on all human beings the responsibility for the disasters the elite has planned using its own advanced technology. Particularly targeted by this fairy tale is the industrial economy, which they want to bury as I am advancing in this thread.

(I know your many threads on the subject of global warming in this forum, but I have a different opinion developed in 18 years).

One obvious contradiction is that we are being told that fossil fuels are almost exausted, yet these same fossil fuels are posing a threat of extinction to the planet because of C02 emissions. I bet they are affirming that the disaster is so imminent that it will happen before they are exausted. How convenient to say so.

That's why they have put legal limitations to the amount of energy that can be generated by atomic energy and renewable sources and they are pushing heavily on the use of fossil fuels. We are constantly told that it's because the oil cartel is forcing our politicians to do so. But that's easily debunked: oil companies could turn to atomic energy and renewable sources and earn much more, making it pay the same price as oil (by law), but with much less cost. There's no economical reason to stick to oil.

In Italy, to drastically limit the use of renewable energy, they even managed to nip macro hydroelectric energy by a planned accident to a giant dam. The country was almost powered 100% by hydroelectric power in the 60s before the accident and now just 15%, because big dams are not considered safe anymore after the accident.

On macro hydroelectic energy you can see this pitiful thread:
https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/derrick-jensen-calls-to-blow-up-dams-the-end-game-we-say-no.1780/
where somebody has gone as far as to writing a book to stirr us against all dams in the world and blow them up, pretending to be enraged and wanting to protect the poor salmon. Good lie!

They will blow dams anyway during the earth disasters to prove that big dams are a danger in case of earthquakes, war, etc., so forget about macro hydroloectric power after the apocalipse.
They are planning to start with Hoover Dam. That will be the planned beginning of "tribulations".
 
Last edited:
Top