Part 1, the Futurist Apocalypse is Now

Seeker

Active Member
Yes, and in Matthew 8:10-13, Jesus himself commends the faith of the ROMAN centurion."Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west (5th sentence of 15, the Roman Empire) to share the banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (the cult of Roman Caesar with the cult of Jewish Jesus). But the sons of the kingdom will be cast into the outer darkness, (fall of Jerusalem to the Romans) where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (they whom he calls, and they whom he calls not, 6th sentence of 15).
 

Charles Watkins

New Member
As an admitted 'conspiracy buff' I have been following Project Blue Beam since it surfaced in the early 90s. The plan was a massive holographic show on Y2K to usher in a new religion. (Idea stolen from Eugene Roddenberry.) For background, I highly recommend the blog VISUP at http://visupview.blogspot.com/

The fake invasion scenario has evolved in recent years to a plot to reboot Catholicism after an alien visit. This ties to the LUCIFER telescope and a Vatican project to study the impact of ETs.

You could even look at Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" as a dry run to measure public susceptibility to broad hoaxes. However, it now appears that reports of widespread panic were highly exaggerated. Finally, I should note that John Huston's "The Man Who Would Be King" portrays a god-hoax that eventually came to a bad end.
 

Sgt Pepper

Active Member
You could even look at Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" as a dry run to measure public susceptibility to broad hoaxes. However, it now appears that reports of widespread panic were highly exaggerated.
That was the actual goal: To make the mass public believe that there was a widespread panic. There was no panic, but the masses did buy the story of the story.

Watch this:
 

Charles Watkins

New Member
Thanks for that video. The "War of the Worlds" panic is cited as justification for suppressing information on UFOs. However, it would also work for any potentially disruptive secret technology.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I have been tangentially aware of the notion of Monast's Project Blue Beam for some time, however, I had not made the connection regarding that notion of what I have termed 'Space Jesus' is very similar to Monast's conception. In any case, the Book of Revelation insists that Christ and his army will indeed appear from out of the heavens to do battle with Satan and his forces.

From there one can get lost in a maze of seeming contradictions about such as who has to endure the Tribulation and who goes to Heaven and for how long -- especially if such as the righteous are to be redeemed and 'resurrected' upon Earth.

But who needs such as all this drama if the Earth is being threatened by scadtrillions of tiny CO2 molecules, each one of which is a vital nutrient for plants. Plants that all animals directly or indirectly depend upon for their survival?

Fortunately, our saintly human ancestors uncovered, just in time, a Satanic plant plot (witting or unwitting?) to remove all the CO2 from Earth and thus kill off all animal life on the planet, via the selfish suicide of the Satanic plants. Of course, the selfish shellfish were in Satanic league with the plants, as the shellfish were helping to remove the CO2 as well.

Oh, the inhumanity of it all!!!!

Someone (or ones) must come to our salvation!!!
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Since we're talking civil war here, I will post this story here, rather than in the climate change thread.

https://cldc.org/valve-turner-ken-ward-wins-climate-necessity-defense-in-washington-supreme-court-case-establishes-washington-state-legal-precedent/?goal=0_11ddfa2fa7-1b42836060-440686353

Today climate activists in the U.S. celebrate a crucial victory. Yesterday the Washington Supreme Court denied the State’s petition for review in environmental activist Ken Ward’s case and set a Washington State precedent recognizing the necessity defense for direct action for the sake of preventing catastrophic climate change.
As y'all know, I think there's a real problem with catastrophic climate change. But if it's OK to go down to your local petroleum transfer facility and just turn all the valves off, and your lawyer can get you off without a penalty, how does this play out? Doesn't this mean that there's going to be civil war at every gas station? Environmentalists vs. gas guzzler truck owners battling it out?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, it appears that there are several dialectics being artificially amplified and radicalized. It will not be enough to own an electric car, as all humans are a threat to the Earth, no matter what. This is why Patrick Moore had to quit Greempeace:


As I've covered with the apocalyptic Nazi millennial cult, a critical mass of individuals must be convinced, one way or another, of the existential threat to their divine right to exist and further their Chosen gene pool.

At some threshold minimum level there must be some evidence that can be held up to appear to validate the assertions of the claimed existential threat. For the Nazis', it was the numerous assaults on their long held cultural traditions rooted in strongly antiSemitic Christianity and the prior strata of Northern European paganism. None of which would have come to dark fruition but for the Machiavellian instigation of the inbred Euroroyals including Wilhelm II, and their minions.

With the present climate proxy, there is a substrate palette of historical environmental depredations used to draw upon the canvas of existential imagination, this time the perceived danger being truly global in scope.

It's all so brilliantly devious, as a pretext for achieving a new order, as the majority of the 97% of agreeable scientists must necessarily agree on Faith to the few climate priests who claim sufficient expertise. That the corporate MSM and their associated imperialist governments (excepting The Donald 'Beast') are going along to some extent, if at least rhetorically, is evidence of 'something'. Obviously, that 'something' can only be evidence of their expediency ... for now.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
This is why Patrick Moore had to quit Greempeace:
I've discussed Patrick Moore elsewhere. The man was not "a founder of Greenpeace", but he and his followers keep lying about that. I trust we all understand that he's just another artificial amplifier. He's an enabler of the American apocalyptic cult of the divine right to have an F-250 for one's daily commute. And I'm not going to waste an hour and a half of my life, watching that ridiculous video and pointing out the errors popping out at every minute.

But who needs such as all this drama if the Earth is being threatened by scadtrillions of tiny CO2 molecules, each one of which is a vital nutrient for plants. Plants that all animals directly or indirectly depend upon for their survival?
I wish we didn't have to go 'round and 'round about this.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is not an obscure, "priestly" concept. It's true that education is still expensive, and not everyone has access. But all around the world, the basic principles of physics are taught to students everywhere. It's the opposite of the ancient mystery religions with their tribal gods promoting hatred and warfare.

I know you "agree with Happer on CO2", whatever that means. But I've explained to you why the MMGW scientists think Happer is just a petroleum industry shill. His argument about CO2 sensitivity is bullshit. He is trying to deny that CO2 and water vapor are tied in a feedback loop, and go up and down together, and the warming effect is the sum of both.

What's so hard to understand about that? What is your reply?? I'm actually shocked if your friend Derrick thinks Happer is right about CO2 sensitivity.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
I just watched an Exxon Mobil ad bragging about their work on removing poisonous CO2 from the air, so that "trees could be trees". Trees, like all plants, breath in CO2 and release O2 into the atmosphere. Trees love CO2 Jerry.

It seems like it should be a pretty easy science experiment to demonstrate the relative greenhousiness of a gas that is presently 0.04% of the atmosphere versus some other levels. And compare that to dihydrogen oxide, for instance. I can tell you that when my dihydrogen oxide house cooler spritzes liquid dihydrogen oxygen into my house, that this cooled air can quickly pick up a lot of heat if not expelled from the house immediately.

The Don't Make a Wave Committee (DMWC) was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970.[18] The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. In 1971, Moore joined the committee as a member of the crew of the Greenpeace, a chartered fishing boat originally named the Phyllis Cormack which the Committee sent across the North Pacific to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year.[19][20] As Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote, "Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions."[21] In May 1971, Moore traveled to Alaska with Jim Bohlen, representing the DMWC in US Atomic Energy Commission hearings.[22] Moore attended DMWC meetings, and was part of the committee when its name was changed to the Greenpeace Foundation. Other committee members included committee founders Bob Hunter, Rod Marining and Ben Metcalfe.[23][24] Moore describes himself as a founding member of Greenpeace,[25] but the organization denies this claim.[4]
This sounds like some splitting of hairs to me. OK, he was merely an early member of the inner circle.

He's an enabler of the American apocalyptic cult of the divine right to have an F-250 for one's daily commute.
Versus what? I'm having a hard time differentiating one apocalyptic cult from another.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Fully consistent with the thread topic, I have been remiss in seeing the links of the environmental encyclical Laudato Si and the Church's revanchist push to universalize and/or re-enforce Sunday blue laws, which some 'real' Christians make a case for being the real "mark of the beast".

Want to reduce your carbon footprint? No workey lurkey on Sun Day, no TV on Sun Day, no AC or heater on Sun Day, no baking or cooking on Sun Day, no ...

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Catholic+Sunday+Laws+"Laudato+Si"&t=ffnt&atb=v173-1&ia=web

Maybe, if we honor Sun Day once more, the Sun (aka God, Helios) will stop his current punishment of us. If we throw sacrificial victims into the volcanos, the volcano god will go back to sleep. There is no CO2 god, now or ever, BTW o_O

Consistent with my Futurist timeline, the 'real' Christians see the Roman Church's efforts, as the Whore of Babylon, as fulfilling the script. Of course, this means that said Whore is too stupid to know that they are doing so. No, they know damn well what they are doing.


9/23? That's exactly two years after baby Space Jesus was born.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I just watched an Exxon Mobil ad bragging about their work on removing poisonous CO2 from the air, so that "trees could be trees". Trees, like all plants, breath in CO2 and release O2 into the atmosphere. Trees love CO2 Jerry.
You mean this Exxon Mobil ad? It explains that Exxon Mobil is developing technology so that industrial plants can capture CO2 like green plants and trees do. "Plants should be like plants" is a pun!! Get it?? And they don't say anything about CO2 being "poisonous".


Up until 2015, Exxon Mobil was denying that there was any relationship between fossil fuel consumption, and climate change. This is in spite of their own internal research, which was very extensive and well-funded, and reached conclusions similar to the alarmist fringe of the MMGW scientists.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.
"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.
A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models
The conclusions of Exxon's climate modeling were being circulated broadly within the company in the 1980s.
Marvin B. Glaser, an Environmental Affairs Manager at Exxon, distributed a 43-page primer on climate change on Nov. 12, 1982.
In a cover letter to 15 Exxon executives and managers, Glaser said the document provided guidance "on the CO2 'Greenhouse' Effect which is receiving increased attention in both the scientific and popular press as an emerging environmental issue." He continued: "The material has been given wide circulation to Exxon management and is intended to familiarize Exxon personnel with the subject."
"However, it should be restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally," he wrote.
Glaser's primer drew from the best research of the time, including Exxon's, to explain how global temperatures would rise considerably by the end of the 21st century. Because of the warming, "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," including sea level rise from melting polar ice sheets, according to the document. It noted that some scientific groups were concerned "that once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."

The parallel with cigarette companies is very precise: Phillip Morris went on lying to the public well into the 1990's, when their own scientists knew that cigarettes caused cancer and heart disease as early as the 1950's.

Exxon Mobil scientists correctly predicted that the Arctic region would warm much faster than the rest of the globe, and pondered the effects on their oil exploration and drilling efforts there.

http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/

The Arctic holds about one-third of the world’s untapped natural gas and roughly 13% of the planet’s undiscovered oil, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. More than three-quarters of Arctic deposits are offshore.
Imperial Oil, about 70% of which is owned by Exxon Mobil, began drilling in the frigid Arctic waters of the Canadian Beaufort Sea in the early 1970s. By the early 1990s, it had drilled two dozen exploratory wells.
The exploration was expensive, due to bitter temperatures, wicked winds and thick sea ice. And when a worldwide oil slump drove petroleum prices down in the late 1980s, the company began scaling back those efforts.
But with mounting evidence the planet was warming, company scientists, including Croasdale, wondered whether climate change might alter the economic equation. Could it make Arctic oil exploration and production easier and cheaper?
“The issue of CO2 emissions was certainly well-known at that time in the late 1980s,” Croasdale said in an interview.
Since the late 1970s and into the 1980s, Exxon had been at the forefront of climate change research, funding its own internal science as well as research from outside experts at Columbia University and MIT.
With company support, Croasdale spearheaded the company’s efforts to understand climate change’s effects on its Arctic operations. A company such as Exxon, he said, “should be a little bit ahead of the game trying to figure out what it was all about.”
Exxon Mobil describes its efforts in those years as standard operating procedure. “Our researchers considered a wide range of potential scenarios, of which potential climate change impacts such as rising sea levels was just one,” said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil.
The Arctic seemed an obvious region to study, Croasdale and other experts said, because it was likely to be most affected by global warming.
That reasoning was backed by models built by Exxon scientists, including Flannery, as well as Marty Hoffert, a New York University physicist. Their work, published in 1984, showed that global warming would be most pronounced near the poles.
Between 1986, when Croasdale took the reins of Imperial’s frontier research team, until 1992, when he left the company, his team of engineers and scientists used the global circulation models developed by the Canadian Climate Centre and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies to anticipate how climate change could affect a variety of operations in the Arctic.
These were the same models that — for the next two decades — Exxon’s executives publicly dismissed as unreliable and based on uncertain science. As Chief Executive Lee Raymond explained at an annual meeting in 1999, future climate “projections are based on completely unproven climate models, or, more often, on sheer speculation.”
One of the first areas the company looked at was how the Beaufort Sea could respond to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which the models predicted would happen by 2050.
Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” Croasdale told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact,” he said, nor did anyone doubt those levels would double by the middle of the 21st century.
Using the models and data from a climate change report issued by Environment Canada, Canada’s environmental agency, the team concluded that the Beaufort Sea’s open water season — when drilling and exploration occurred — would lengthen from two months to three and possibly five months.
They were spot on.

So now, Exxon Mobil has changed their tune, at least publicly.

But, are the oil companies now truly on board with the need to phase themselves out? BP has also been tooting the environmentalist horn. But when the chips are down, look what they do.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/10092019/big-oil-money-blocked-jay-inslee-climate-change-policy-carbon-fee-bp-washington

How Big Oil Blocked the Nation’s Greenest Governor on Climate Change
Publicly, BP supported carbon pricing. Behind the scenes, it extracted concessions from Gov. Jay Inslee, then dropped its support last minute, emails show.

It seems like it should be a pretty easy science experiment to demonstrate the relative greenhousiness of a gas that is presently 0.04% of the atmosphere versus some other levels.
Not that easy, but not that hard either. Arrhenius basically got the right answer in 1906, and his work was based on an analysis by John Tyndall in 1872. Of course there's been an ongoing discussion and debate about refinements to the model. But there's a difference between honest debate over the parameters and details, vs. intentional obfuscation by industry shills.

I can tell you that when my dihydrogen oxide house cooler spritzes liquid dihydrogen oxygen into my house, that this cooled air can quickly pick up a lot of heat if not expelled from the house immediately.
Yes, H2O absorbs heat as it evaporates. You think you're the first person that noticed?

This sounds like some splitting of hairs to me.
By that standard, Al Gore invented the Internet. Moore was hired as an employee by the founders of Greenpeace. Not the same thing as being a founder.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, H2O absorbs heat as it evaporates. You think you're the first person that noticed?
Your snark misses the point. The air that was initially cooled by the phase change of the evaporated water, quickly picks up even more heat and must be constantly expelled from the structure.

What we are witnessing is a very clever divide and conquer ploy, whereby the Church can position itself as the savior of Humanity and all Life on Earth. The same institution that sponsored the global plunder in the first place, albeit in its present ~2,000 year guise and reign it did not start the plunder.

Those nations and individuals who do not bow to the dubious science that dubiously points to existential destruction can, and will, be deemed as Satanic existential threats, consistent with the likes of Donald Trump, one of the beasts, or an agent (the Devil's Advocate?), of this particular contrived apocalypse.

The scientific record shows that CO2 levels have varied dramatically higher, and yes, ecosystems also varied, but life went on. Nature and the cosmos are a bitch and always have been. Life, including humans have to adapt, and yes, it would be nice if climate scientists could get the air conditioning modeled right, but right now their differences demonstrate that they still don't have their shit together.

It is one thing if Greta Thunberg wants make nice with the Pope (aka Foxey Loxey), to "adapt" and stop all commercial air travel, but are we really supposed to return to an agrarian feudalism with only donkeys and oxen as beasts of burden, if that? She rides across the Atlantic Ocean using solar cells and a ship hull made from oil, but as you've hinted elsewhere we must return to the basics of the Stone Age, as all these technologies are ultimately a bane throughout their life cycle.

Fortunately for the global white elite, they will inherit control of this new world order (as per the script(ure)), after the ecologically unworthy have been thrown into the Abyss, and perhaps turned into a moldy green fertilizer.

But, if we are to be true to the integrity of our intentions, we must reject all agricultural practices and let all the land return to the wild. Mankind must return to the state of the Noble Savage, sustaining him and herselves by hunting and fishing and gathering, and living in caves. But this is not in the script(ure).

Create the problem, and provide the solution:

Via Man's granted Dominion, get the minions to capture as much global real (royal) estate as possible, and from their natural and/or induced greedy excesses, provide the solution modeled upon ages before, green feudalism.

Chicken Little (and Foxey Loxey)
Chicken Little likes to walk in the woods. She likes to look at the trees. She likes to smell the flowers. She likes to listen to the birds singing.
One day while she is walking an acorn falls from a tree, and hits the top of her little head.
- My, oh, my, the sky is falling. I must run and tell the lion about it, - says Chicken Little and begins to run.
She runs and runs. By and by she meets the hen.
- Where are you going? - asks the hen.
- Oh, Henny Penny, the sky is falling and I am going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know it? - asks Henny Penny.
- It hit me on the head, so I know it must be so, - says Chicken Little.
- Let me go with you! - says Henny Penny. - Run, run.
So the two run and run until they meet Ducky Lucky.
- The sky is falling, - says Henny Penny. - We are going to the lion to tell him about it.
- How do you know that? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- It hit Chicken Little on the head, - says Henny Penny.
- May I come with you? - asks Ducky Lucky.
- Come, - says Henny Penny.
So all three of them run on and on until they meet Foxey Loxey.
- Where are you going? - asks Foxey Loxey.
- The sky is falling and we are going to the lion to tell him about it, - says Ducky Lucky.
- Do you know where he lives? - asks the fox.
- I don't, - says Chicken Little.
- I don't, - says Henny Penny.
- I don't, - says Ducky Lucky.
- I do, - says Foxey Loxey. - Come with me and I can show you the way.
He walks on and on until he comes to his den.
- Come right in, - says Foxey Loxey.
They all go in, but they never, never come out again.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Your snark misses the point. The air that was initially cooled by the phase change of the evaporated water, quickly picks up even more heat and must be constantly expelled from the structure.
My snark was the only appropriate answer to your snark. Your house is a greenhouse, because of the glass. It is continually soaking up solar energy which must be constantly expelled from the structure, otherwise it heats up.

With the earth, there is no way to expel an increased flow of heat, other than via increased radiation via increased temperature.

yes, it would be nice if climate scientists could get the air conditioning modeled right, but right now their differences demonstrate that they still don't have their shit together.
How so? I just showed you how Exxon Mobile scientists made projections in the '70s and '80's, based on mainstream climate science, that have since been proven "spot on".

What we are witnessing is a very clever divide and conquer ploy, whereby the Church can position itself as the savior of Humanity and all Life on Earth. The same institution that sponsored the global plunder in the first place, albeit in its present ~2,000 year guise and reign it did not start the plunder.
Yes, the church is tremendously hypocritical, and an unlikely Savior.

But if you want to fight this, it's not wise to try to do it by standing in opposition to basic scientific facts, and taking sides with industrial shills.

You're just trading one side of the false dialectic, for the other one. You know that the Catholic Church also stands behind the Koch empire, and a whole lot of other "global plunder" as well.

the dubious science that dubiously points to existential destruction
The scientific record shows that CO2 levels have varied dramatically higher, and yes, ecosystems also varied, but life went on.
The part about "existential destruction" is still debatable. We don't know how ecosystems will react to an unprecedented rapidity of change. We don't know how many positive feedback loops will materialize. One can hope for the best, but is it wise to plan on that basis?

as you've hinted elsewhere we must return to the basics of the Stone Age, as all these technologies are ultimately a bane throughout their life cycle.
WTF?? I was intending to advocate that renewables need to be designed to last, with an eye to fatigue strength and corrosion resistance. And to argue that there may be ultimate limits to the amount of energy that can be provided on a sustainable basis on a finite planet.

Not that these things shouldn't be built at all.

But, if we are to be true to the integrity of our intentions, we must reject all agricultural practices and let all the land return to the wild.
No, but we need to design our agricultural practices for sustainability. We've discussed Allan Savory's ideas about grasslands. Are you familiar with Holmgren and Morrison's ideas about Permanent Agriculture -- "Permaculture"? Our homestead food forest is based loosely on Holmgren & Morrison. It's labor intensive compared to industrialized agriculture, but the food is a lot better.

Chicken Little (and Foxey Loxey)
Did you say something about snark?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I have been remiss in seeing the links of the environmental encyclical Laudato Si and the Church's revanchist push to universalize and/or re-enforce Sunday blue laws,
About the video, I notice that the preacher doesn't disagree with the Pope's contention that MMGW is a problem. The only thing he's concerned about, is the push for universal Sunday observance.

But, as Wikipedia summarizes the issue: "In most of the world, the workweek is from Monday to Friday and the weekend is Saturday and Sunday, but other divisions exist..." So we've already got the bases covered. Whether you're Catholic, Protestant, Jewish or SDA, you can take your favored day of rest. And then you get to take the other guy's day off, as a bonus.

Is the Pope really threatening to put all the SDA's to work on Saturday? Or is it that he's horrified that some heathens choose to make overtime pay by working Sundays? Or is he frosted that Sundays are working days in Afghanistan and Algeria and Bahrain, etc.? Where's the beef here?

No question, though: it's very spooky that Greta Thunberg is honoring the Pope's special calendar days. Wrong kind of green.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/05/30/a-new-volkisch-mythos/

A NEW VOLKISCH MYTHOS

By John Steppling [emphasis in bold by JR]

[...] The new alarmist propaganda tends toward sensationalizing what are a few basic truths, sometimes half truths, and building a sort of screenplay to a disaster movie out of these. The influence of Hollywood apocalyptic film and TV cannot be over-emphasized, actually. For those films are both unconscious projections of the ruling class, and the audience embrace of this stuff speaks to unconscious fears as well. The elite producers of this crap fear the marauding masses (zombies) and the bourgeois audience fear black sites and Bloody Gina’s reprisals if they stray too far off message (like voting for a third party). A good deal of the new environmental panic is not based on the actual (and I hasten to emphasize real) problems and crises, but are more the conditioned response from audiences trained for thirty years, at least, to kitsch media entertainments. People see life unfold like an action movie. Sea levels can’t just rise and destroy infrastructure and crops, wash away beach front property, no, they have to completely submerge Baltimore, Oslo, and London. The sum effect of this is actually to have the real and severe problems in retreat.
Watch Madonna’s Eurovision performance (in Israel where she was never not going to perform), with lyrics like “not everyone is coming to the future, not everyone is gonna last.”

 

Seeker

Active Member
“not everyone is coming to the future, not everyone is gonna last.”
Ironically, if the next Millennium/Apocalypse does occur in 2066-2070, some of the "Millennials" should live to see this, as they are of "this present generation". Also, to play the Devil's Advocate, I do not find it surprising that all sorts of ominous comparisons to Germany exist in the present time, as three of the most well known leaders of the world, a Pope (now "pope emeritus") and a German Chancellor, both elected in 2005, and a President of the United States, elected in 2016, are either German or of German descent.
 
Top