Another tactic they use, and this may be covered in your last point, is not mentioning some "fact" (e.g., lab leak narrative), then when the time is right and it is released to the media and presented as the formerly hidden truth, they tout it as truth and even act like they had a role in uncovering it, which gives more weight to that narrative in the public mind. A big performance, as is everything these gatekeepers do to manipulate public opinion. Very twisted.
Yes., that's a good one that I hadn't really identified.
In addition, they push out the biolab nonsense as if the "conspiracy theorists" are saying it as a means of undermining them. I am one of few analysts who - despite recognising dozens (scores even?) of events as psyops including just little axe-wielding ones that happen down the road from where I live in Sydney, I believe the moon landings and what we can see is that the first person to say we didn't go to the moon, "Bill Kaysing" was an agent who they made in ludicrous fashion Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne who spouts either complete nonsense (there should have been a massive crater under the LEM) or stuff that sounds plausible but is false nevertheless, eg, that the flame seen from the ascent engine should have a visible flame because hypergolic fuel shows a visible flame, giving examples of hypergolic fuel showing a visible flame when the truth (supposedly) is that hypergolic fuels are a class of fuels, not a single type and some show a visible flame in a vacuum and some don't.
We need to be independent thinkers but we also need to be very careful thinkers and look carefully at all the arguments for and against. The thing is what I always look for first off are the Revelation of the Method clues as they're usually very generous with them so why not? (for example, snakes supposedly being reservoirs of the virus and images of people laid out on hospital floors) and then I know it's a psyop.
What I find interesting is that the disbelievers of the moon landings don't discern that there are no Revelation of the Method signs in the evidence presented for the moon landings - at least not as far as I can tell - and if I don't see ROTM I'm not a happy girl. Rather, where we clearly see ROTM in relation to the moon landings is in the case of agents "Bill Kaysing" and "Dave McGowan" saying we didn't go).
What we can predict with absolutely certainty is that if there is a rare event that happens for real but seems implausible this true event will be weaponised against those who tend to disbelieve them. If you're not predicting that you're not really getting the MO.
It's not as if NASA doesn't lie - course they do big time with THE best psyop of all time in my opinion - the Challenger disaster where they didn't even change the names of the alleged "astronauts" but people really wanted to go to the moon, they really wanted to go to the moon and so they did! It's a long way away sure but in a vacuum you can move indefinitely at the same speed due to lack of resistance and so despite massive engineering obstacles they needed to overcome that basic phenomenon makes it more possible than it might seem at first sight.
DISCLAIMER: I really thought I did due diligence on climate change and believed that the gigagtonnes of CO2 (which supposedly has a significant impact at a trace level) we are pumping into the atmosphere is of real concern with regard to the climate and now I'm really not so sure at all so perhaps I'm also wrong on the moon landings even though I think I've done due diligence as much as possible. The thing is though the moon landings have already happened (assuming they did) and it's a simple case of Real or Fake whereas climate change is far more complex and it's also a subject where unlike all the other psyops there hasn't been a kind of single voice bleating the same message. There was - and still is - among relatively mainstream people argument against CO2 causing dangerous climate change which I have to say I wouldn't expect with a psyop.
The convincing fact I learned about climate change that caused me to know it is a psyop was that ice core samples from previous climate cycles show that carbon in the atmosphere rises AFTER the climate has warmed, not before, therefore it cannot be the cause. I believe we've been bamboozled by a fake "consensus" among climate scientists (IPCC) and by the massive manipulation of weather with geoengineering which seems to present us with clear "evidence" that the climate is more unstable and warmer than before.
An interesting one too, on 'climate change' - the idea that if the polar ice caps melt, the sea will rise?
The fallacy is staring us all right in the face!
Ice is actually larger in size than water. Though if it melts, it will only take up the same volume of space - if you put ice cubes in a glass of water, and fill the rest of the glass with water, filled to the top - when the ice melts, the water will not spill over the edge.
Yes but what about the water held in the ice above sea-level and on land? If there's however many gigatonnes of ice contained above sea-level both on sea and land (and in the permafrost) what happens when it melts and is a cascading effect caused? I'd imagine that the water held as ice in permafrost is going to cause problems when it melts as if it's so entrenched in the fabric of the soil I doubt it would take up as much room frozen as melted - I don't know though but we need to consider these things.
What we independent thinkers must be so careful to recognise is that we are not experts, we are not immune from making false inferences and we need to guard against doing that by checking with the experts .... even if in numerous cases they spout embarrassing hogwash.
It's not as if we have to check with the experts all the time because some things are as clear as day, eg, snakes being found to be reservoirs of the virus but some against-expert arguments that might seem true at first sight are not ... and, of course, we can rely on the CO agents to bamboozle us as much as they can.
Just to be clear, in your previous comment you wrote 'we have to be critical thinkers...', and you're writing in this reply 'we are not experts' i.e. trust the experts?
I appreciate the reply, though that doesn't add up to me.
'Yes but what about the water held in the ice above sea-level...' - are you referring to the ice above the water, that is part of the ice in the water?
'...what about the water held in the ice...on land?' - I can see your point there.
What is the mass of this ice on land, and do you have a source stating that amount please?
I'm not saying "trust experts" I'd never say that. What I say is that we are not experts and we should certainly look at what experts say and check to see if there is compellling argument against what they say as well as apply our own minds to what they say.
Yes I'm referring to the ice above sea-level in the sea.
I don't have any sources, to me it just seems reasonably common sense that while ice and water may take up similar space to each other obviously if ice is held above sea-level both on land and in the sea then when it melts it may cause sea-level rise. So effectively what I'm saying is unless you have evidence that when ice held above sea level in both the sea and land melts it doesn't cause sea-level rise it's not a particularly good argument, unless you have clear evidence that melting ice above sea level doesn't cause sea-level rise, assuming at this point we even have evidence of significant ice melting.
"Certain purveyors of climate-myths seized on this observation, claiming it to be “proof” that carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But how? The answer lies in a beer-can.
In fact, you can do this one yourself. You need two cans of any fizzy beer. On a nice summer's day, take one out of the fridge and place it outside in direct sunshine for a few hours. Leave the other where it is. Then open the two at the same time. The warm one will froth like mad, half-emptying the can and making a mess. What is left in the can will be horrible and flat. Conversely, the one straight from the fridge will just give a “pfft” noise and will be pleasant to drink, being cool and fizzy.
What's that got to do with this myth? Well, you have just demonstrated an important point about the solubility of CO2 in water. CO2 gives fizzy drinks their fizz and it is far more soluble in colder water. As the water warms, it cannot hold onto as much CO2 and it starts to degas. Hence that flat lager.
Exactly the same principle applies to the oceans. When global warming is initiated, both land and the oceans start to warm up. On land, permafrost starts to thaw out, over vast areas. Carbon dioxide (and methane) are released, having been trapped in that permafrost deep-freeze for thousands of years. At sea, that “warm beer effect” kicks in. Thanks to both processes, atmospheric CO2 levels rise in earnest, amplifying and maintaining the warmth. That rise in CO2 thereby caused more of the gas to be released, warming things up yet more in a vicious cycle, known as a positive feedback. Other feedbacks kick in too: for example as the ice-sheets shrink, their ability to reflect Solar energy back out to space likewise decreases, so that heat is instead absorbed by Earth’s surface.
The trigger for the initial warming at the end of an ice-age is a favourable combination of cyclic patterns in Earth's orbit around the Sun, leading to a significant increase in the solar energy received by Earth's Northern Hemisphere. That's no secret. Glacial-interglacial transitions are caused by several factors working in combination – triggers and feedbacks. We've understood that for a long time.
And when you think about it, saying CO2 lagged temperature during glacial-interglacial transitions so cannot possibly be causing modern warming is a bit like saying, “chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them"."
The trouble is no denier is debunking this graph shown above in the comments - at least AFAIK. What I try to do as much as possible is:
--- work out for myself what the truth is assuming the truth is simple enough for me to discern
--- follow the debunking trail where the truth is too complex for me to discern by myself and wherever the debunking trail ends I feel a little inclined to accept what is said at the end even though there's certainly no guarantee that the end of the debunking trail shows the correct argument.
What I find interesting is that - AFAIK - the climate scientists make no comment on climate engineering even though that is clearly happening and is recognised by wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
Also, they follow the mainstream narrative with covid and other psyops in a most unscientific manner so they totally undermine themselves when talking "science" in general, however, I still don't think that means they're wrong on CO2-caused climate change. To me I think of CO2 as a Goldilocks substance - we want enough to keep us warm but not so much as to overheat us - if we start to increase then we'll probably end up with problems. It's like iron in the blood too - iron is essential at a miniscule level but too much kills you.
I was all over this article in The Conversation - link to one of my comments
The IPCC has been called out time and time again for lying and manipulating data in climate models. Every model they have produced has been shown to be wrong by orders of magnitude. The Climate Cult Scientists are frauds - Climate change is a Death Cult. And the solution - Carbon Credits which can be bought with money, which is an unlimited resource. All that will happen is the wealthy 1% will buy any activity they want and you and I live in a box in a 5 minute city! The perfect way to have the masses accept nouvo-feudalism aka slavery!
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. More CO2, more plants, more plant and animal life. More oxygen in the atmosphere... In Siberia 10 000 years ago, mammoths grazed. Today they are frozen in the permafrost... 10 000 years ago there was no "man-made" "warming". There is no man-made warming today, only the bastards want to exterminate us, with all the flora and fauna! Supposedly to save the Earth, but if you look at the Book of Revelation, all that is happening is a reshaping of the Earth for the sake of an alien race who call themselves "gods"....
The Moon Landings are fake from almost every angle you look it. In 1969 they never thought that millions of people would be able to assess the footage etc in their own home using various technologies. C'mon they took a car to the moon, and golf clubs - that's how fooled they knew people were. I don't believe, from the evidence provided that anything has left earth orbit, and no people have been in space. Just one area I recommend you look into is the absurdity of the space suits and how they could not possibly work in a vacuum on the moon which is claimed to be 10(−12) torr. Look up industrial vacuums and Ultra High Vacuums - how could the space suit work?, or investigate how the LEM heating/cooling could work for three days on the moon, with surfaces fluctuating between 250F in the day and -208F at night, on lead acid batteries? , the list of absurdities is endless.
I have to say that as soon as the covid narrative started - from having worked out the fundamental truth of 9/11 over a period of 4 years (death and injury were staged) - I was all ready and waiting for how they would roll it out - I didn't know any details, I didn't predict "biolab" but I knew there would be something performing that function. To my mind when you work out the MO - including a number of items you mention in your article - it's pretty easy generally although there can always be another layer of Russian Dolls to uncover.
--- That covid was a psyop immediately when they told us that a Chinese research team had found the many-banded krait and Chinese cobra to be "reservoirs" of the virus at the same time debunking this obvious nonsense with biosecurity specialist Edward Holmes saying of it, "It's complete garbage." Pushing out nonsense with a concomitant or soon-after debunking is a common feature and it is also one of their methods of Revelation of the Method.
--- .That there would be no virus because only what is wanted for real is done for real in psyops and we knew they didn't want a virus and a real virus wouldn't work for their narrative. At this point I knew nothing of the refutation of germ theory, etc and believed wholeheartedly in viruses, however, I still knew that they couldn't be controlled .... even if my reasons for knowing that weren't correct, that viruses haven't' been proven to exist in the first place! But the MO said loud and clear - no virus - no nothing - all smoke'n'mirrors because the seemingly counterintuitive fact is that propaganda works better the less it corresponds with reality. If is of such vital importance to understand this essential fact.: they don't want reality (or even a close simulation) to fool us, they want what magicians do.
"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
This is my post pointing out the 9/11 and covid parallels. Unsurprisingly though gatekeeper Kevin Ryan put out HIS version of the parallels (getting far more attention) which in general is pretty good I must say however, it avoids key facts as we knew it would.
These diagrams are VERY important in understanding the OBJECTIVE of the gatekeepers/controlled opposition. Will definitely be referring to them in my own upcoming post on the topic.
This appealed to my inner geek and visual learning preference . But I was hoping to hear more on why you think Judy M is a gatekeeper , because she was one of my “ways in” to the rabbit holes , going back to 2018 , when I first heard mention of her , trying to expose links between ME/cfs and vaccines and getting seriously hounded for that . I’ve not been following her so much recently because , well I am now convinced on no virus , after extensive reading , plus it makes sense to me . But I have never seen her as an intentional gatekeeper , more perhaps misguided, as many people who have lived most of their lives working in virology which depends on the existence of viruses , and that paradigm shift is maybe too far ? But maybe I’m being too kind , I tend to think the best of people , not to judge them , none of us are perfect . I am convinced that yes , there are definitely many gatekeepers out there , controlled opposition, whatever , but there are may reasons for their limited hangout approach I feel , money and fame/likability being quite important factors ?
Also - I prefer not to dismiss “reptiles “ as many people do . I prefer to keep an open mind , whilst putting them in a “yet to find out more” box . If I hadn’t been so open minded maybe I wouldn’t’ve looked into the whole no virus thing
Brilliant ! Thankyou . I admit to previously not getting to the end of this article . I did buy 2 of the mikovits books , which were interesting and more about her experiences with the medical industry . And I remember the confrontation with Andrew Kaufman on rumble now ! I was hoping she would go away and think about it , oh well . Well I think the gatekeepers have their own little gang and encourage and endorse each other .
I couldn’t read the follow up on Mike Yeadon, I hope it affirmed he is 100% genuine.He has worked tirelessly since 2020, to reveal the toxic elements in the Genetic inoculations, even before they were actually rolled out ( with Wolfgang Wodarg).He has never been paid, unlike other "Truth tellers ". and has been cancelled, censored, and vilified by the main stream media.You could not find a more qualified, sincere, passionate Scientist on this planet.Thank You Dr Mike Yeadon ❤️
I doubt it needs to be as complicated as you suggest.
In the early stages of the ‘Pandemic’ when counter information was pouring out of every institutional orifice, I was regularly processing 80-100 emails a day from multiple commentators to try and keep up with the ‘Truth’.
One can’t live like that for long without going crazy, so now I am down to 4 trusted sources that provide enough of the type and quality of information I need to tick-over and stay in the information loop. That way I stay rational and keep in touch with what is going on without getting sucked into the kind of conspiracy wormholes you seem to be courting.
There is a process of consolidation at play at the moment in the ‘Truther’ movement.
Bret Weinstein floated the concept of a self selected ‘Dream Team’ of Truthers on Tucker Carlson, who will necessarily coalesce into a coherent and organised opposition if they are to achieve effective political progress.
Hopefully there will be a sufficient spread of opinion and authority in this ‘Team’ to balance the negative influences you find so concerning and so put your mind at rest.
No. My trusted sources are just that - MY trusted sources. Yours will likely be different.
In the same way as I wouldn’t question the veracity of your ‘sources’ - it would largely be based upon n my opinion, personality makeup, and prejudices - don’t think it would be productive to offer you the opportunity of finding fault with mine.
People are complicated, with all kinds of foibles, dark spots, and agendas, which will contribute both positively and negatively to the current Truth movement.
For example Dr Robert Malone (not one of my “Sources”) has been accused of many things including being controlled opposition. Allegedly he was ‘a woman scorned’, initially disgruntled because he didn’t share in the financial bounty which came out of the mRNA research he made a substantial contribution to.
That may or may not be true, but we cannot deny he has made considerable personal sacrifices and offered a great deal of intelligent and informed input over the last four years which has moved the needle in what ordinary people accept as factual.
My point is we have to listen to everybody, examine critically, but not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I like that you have your sources. I also don't like telling people who to trust. They must come to that decision themselves.
What I vehemently oppose is the promotion of known gatekeepers. Malone has done nothing for me and I am of the opinion that his contributions are complete and total trash to the normal man on the street. I wouldn't even promote his ideas to my enemies bc of the chance there might be that his ideas become accepted as fact and may at the end of the day negatively impact my life. I have absolutely no time for the man.
I notice you denigrate not only Dr Robert Malone but elsewhere Dr Mike Yeadon. What they have in common, possibly to their detriment, is that they have both worked in the belly of the Beast, in big Pharma.
Like any professional they therefore carry a body of not only insider knowledge (Malone has demonstrated great familiarity with FDA and DOD procedures and personnel) but also they know how the Beast thinks and acts.
Though I agree there are potential trust issues here, I would rather believe the output of either of these commentators then some angry anarchic blogger broadcasting from his Mum’s basement.
Yes, that's a glaring oversight from each cognitively impaired troll who pass my page. You pretend my work is meaningless while you come here and review it and even go as far as to comment. They hire you chaps thicker by the day.
Incidentally, the bit about Mums basement wasn’t a sideswipe at you. You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone else.
In fact if you are in South Africa get is luck to you. Africa’s low level engagement with the ‘Pandemic’ and the attendant vaccine imperialism has probably saved countless lives. Keep asking questions.
Everyone is welcome to believe and say what they want as long as they don’t have a problem with it being challenged and debated in the pursuit of getting as near to the ‘Truth’ as we can.
Care to elaborate on where I you think I miss the point because this does not seem like much of a debate. Just some superficial fluff that's borderline cognitively impaired.
I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to have suggested you “miss the point”.
Perhaps it’s just that we differ in how we view things. I like to look for the glass half full, whereas your approach seems far more skeptical / judgemental and seems to be looking for the glass half empty. That’s ok. We are different people with different life experiences which shaped us differently. What is important is that neither approach should limit our capacity to critically assess information and see if it fits with our reality.
All through this Pandemic period I have had lots of unanswered questions and tried to find information that offered answers. Sometimes those answers are later subverted by new information, but that’s what having an open mind allows for.
That works for me but I wouldn’t even suggest it as a way to proceed for anyone else.
So there is nothing to “debate” as I don’t judge your approach or wish to promote mine. However I am more than happy for you to critique my ‘fluffy’ thinking which I will listen to and consider.
And you were able to not tout a hot air in a one-line sentence... They used to have you trolls at least have some standard. This is so bad I won't even pay you if I was your boss and had to review your work.
I have done what I can to the best of my abilities. I like my anonymity and as I've said so many times. I do not do this for fame or money or for any other reason than to get the truth out there. I live in the murder capital of the world (South Africa) which is one of the main reasons why I stay anonymous not that I need any reason to do the things I do.
These are my conditions for bringing out what I bring out. Would you prefer I close up shop and leave this all behind and go on with my life?
great read dpl. OT: fell in love and lived in Jo'burg for 8 months in 1984/5, way before Mandela's homecoming. boyfriend didn't want the commitment so I returned to Europe. ah well. I couldn't help notice that the unimaginable violence inherent in the apartheid system did not spill over into hate - the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, no matter how flawed, was so much better than the drawn-out, bloody decolonisation in, say, SE Asia.
I've heard about that but didn't know it was out already. Was it at least entertaining. My family has netflix I'll see if I can try and watch some of it some time soon to prepare myself.
Another tactic they use, and this may be covered in your last point, is not mentioning some "fact" (e.g., lab leak narrative), then when the time is right and it is released to the media and presented as the formerly hidden truth, they tout it as truth and even act like they had a role in uncovering it, which gives more weight to that narrative in the public mind. A big performance, as is everything these gatekeepers do to manipulate public opinion. Very twisted.
Yes., that's a good one that I hadn't really identified.
In addition, they push out the biolab nonsense as if the "conspiracy theorists" are saying it as a means of undermining them. I am one of few analysts who - despite recognising dozens (scores even?) of events as psyops including just little axe-wielding ones that happen down the road from where I live in Sydney, I believe the moon landings and what we can see is that the first person to say we didn't go to the moon, "Bill Kaysing" was an agent who they made in ludicrous fashion Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne who spouts either complete nonsense (there should have been a massive crater under the LEM) or stuff that sounds plausible but is false nevertheless, eg, that the flame seen from the ascent engine should have a visible flame because hypergolic fuel shows a visible flame, giving examples of hypergolic fuel showing a visible flame when the truth (supposedly) is that hypergolic fuels are a class of fuels, not a single type and some show a visible flame in a vacuum and some don't.
We need to be independent thinkers but we also need to be very careful thinkers and look carefully at all the arguments for and against. The thing is what I always look for first off are the Revelation of the Method clues as they're usually very generous with them so why not? (for example, snakes supposedly being reservoirs of the virus and images of people laid out on hospital floors) and then I know it's a psyop.
What I find interesting is that the disbelievers of the moon landings don't discern that there are no Revelation of the Method signs in the evidence presented for the moon landings - at least not as far as I can tell - and if I don't see ROTM I'm not a happy girl. Rather, where we clearly see ROTM in relation to the moon landings is in the case of agents "Bill Kaysing" and "Dave McGowan" saying we didn't go).
What we can predict with absolutely certainty is that if there is a rare event that happens for real but seems implausible this true event will be weaponised against those who tend to disbelieve them. If you're not predicting that you're not really getting the MO.
It's not as if NASA doesn't lie - course they do big time with THE best psyop of all time in my opinion - the Challenger disaster where they didn't even change the names of the alleged "astronauts" but people really wanted to go to the moon, they really wanted to go to the moon and so they did! It's a long way away sure but in a vacuum you can move indefinitely at the same speed due to lack of resistance and so despite massive engineering obstacles they needed to overcome that basic phenomenon makes it more possible than it might seem at first sight.
https://rumble.com/v27f1b8-nasa-challenger-disaster-crew-members-found-alive-in-2023.html
This is a reposting by someone on reddit of a debunking of the film American Moon which I think is completely credible.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
DISCLAIMER: I really thought I did due diligence on climate change and believed that the gigagtonnes of CO2 (which supposedly has a significant impact at a trace level) we are pumping into the atmosphere is of real concern with regard to the climate and now I'm really not so sure at all so perhaps I'm also wrong on the moon landings even though I think I've done due diligence as much as possible. The thing is though the moon landings have already happened (assuming they did) and it's a simple case of Real or Fake whereas climate change is far more complex and it's also a subject where unlike all the other psyops there hasn't been a kind of single voice bleating the same message. There was - and still is - among relatively mainstream people argument against CO2 causing dangerous climate change which I have to say I wouldn't expect with a psyop.
The convincing fact I learned about climate change that caused me to know it is a psyop was that ice core samples from previous climate cycles show that carbon in the atmosphere rises AFTER the climate has warmed, not before, therefore it cannot be the cause. I believe we've been bamboozled by a fake "consensus" among climate scientists (IPCC) and by the massive manipulation of weather with geoengineering which seems to present us with clear "evidence" that the climate is more unstable and warmer than before.
An interesting one too, on 'climate change' - the idea that if the polar ice caps melt, the sea will rise?
The fallacy is staring us all right in the face!
Ice is actually larger in size than water. Though if it melts, it will only take up the same volume of space - if you put ice cubes in a glass of water, and fill the rest of the glass with water, filled to the top - when the ice melts, the water will not spill over the edge.
Yes but what about the water held in the ice above sea-level and on land? If there's however many gigatonnes of ice contained above sea-level both on sea and land (and in the permafrost) what happens when it melts and is a cascading effect caused? I'd imagine that the water held as ice in permafrost is going to cause problems when it melts as if it's so entrenched in the fabric of the soil I doubt it would take up as much room frozen as melted - I don't know though but we need to consider these things.
What we independent thinkers must be so careful to recognise is that we are not experts, we are not immune from making false inferences and we need to guard against doing that by checking with the experts .... even if in numerous cases they spout embarrassing hogwash.
It's not as if we have to check with the experts all the time because some things are as clear as day, eg, snakes being found to be reservoirs of the virus but some against-expert arguments that might seem true at first sight are not ... and, of course, we can rely on the CO agents to bamboozle us as much as they can.
Just to be clear, in your previous comment you wrote 'we have to be critical thinkers...', and you're writing in this reply 'we are not experts' i.e. trust the experts?
I appreciate the reply, though that doesn't add up to me.
'Yes but what about the water held in the ice above sea-level...' - are you referring to the ice above the water, that is part of the ice in the water?
'...what about the water held in the ice...on land?' - I can see your point there.
What is the mass of this ice on land, and do you have a source stating that amount please?
I'm not saying "trust experts" I'd never say that. What I say is that we are not experts and we should certainly look at what experts say and check to see if there is compellling argument against what they say as well as apply our own minds to what they say.
Yes I'm referring to the ice above sea-level in the sea.
I don't have any sources, to me it just seems reasonably common sense that while ice and water may take up similar space to each other obviously if ice is held above sea-level both on land and in the sea then when it melts it may cause sea-level rise. So effectively what I'm saying is unless you have evidence that when ice held above sea level in both the sea and land melts it doesn't cause sea-level rise it's not a particularly good argument, unless you have clear evidence that melting ice above sea level doesn't cause sea-level rise, assuming at this point we even have evidence of significant ice melting.
According to the climate scientists this correlation can be explained by using the beer can analogy.
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=27&t=653&&a=7
"Certain purveyors of climate-myths seized on this observation, claiming it to be “proof” that carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But how? The answer lies in a beer-can.
In fact, you can do this one yourself. You need two cans of any fizzy beer. On a nice summer's day, take one out of the fridge and place it outside in direct sunshine for a few hours. Leave the other where it is. Then open the two at the same time. The warm one will froth like mad, half-emptying the can and making a mess. What is left in the can will be horrible and flat. Conversely, the one straight from the fridge will just give a “pfft” noise and will be pleasant to drink, being cool and fizzy.
What's that got to do with this myth? Well, you have just demonstrated an important point about the solubility of CO2 in water. CO2 gives fizzy drinks their fizz and it is far more soluble in colder water. As the water warms, it cannot hold onto as much CO2 and it starts to degas. Hence that flat lager.
Exactly the same principle applies to the oceans. When global warming is initiated, both land and the oceans start to warm up. On land, permafrost starts to thaw out, over vast areas. Carbon dioxide (and methane) are released, having been trapped in that permafrost deep-freeze for thousands of years. At sea, that “warm beer effect” kicks in. Thanks to both processes, atmospheric CO2 levels rise in earnest, amplifying and maintaining the warmth. That rise in CO2 thereby caused more of the gas to be released, warming things up yet more in a vicious cycle, known as a positive feedback. Other feedbacks kick in too: for example as the ice-sheets shrink, their ability to reflect Solar energy back out to space likewise decreases, so that heat is instead absorbed by Earth’s surface.
The trigger for the initial warming at the end of an ice-age is a favourable combination of cyclic patterns in Earth's orbit around the Sun, leading to a significant increase in the solar energy received by Earth's Northern Hemisphere. That's no secret. Glacial-interglacial transitions are caused by several factors working in combination – triggers and feedbacks. We've understood that for a long time.
And when you think about it, saying CO2 lagged temperature during glacial-interglacial transitions so cannot possibly be causing modern warming is a bit like saying, “chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them"."
The trouble is no denier is debunking this graph shown above in the comments - at least AFAIK. What I try to do as much as possible is:
--- work out for myself what the truth is assuming the truth is simple enough for me to discern
--- follow the debunking trail where the truth is too complex for me to discern by myself and wherever the debunking trail ends I feel a little inclined to accept what is said at the end even though there's certainly no guarantee that the end of the debunking trail shows the correct argument.
What I find interesting is that - AFAIK - the climate scientists make no comment on climate engineering even though that is clearly happening and is recognised by wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering
Also, they follow the mainstream narrative with covid and other psyops in a most unscientific manner so they totally undermine themselves when talking "science" in general, however, I still don't think that means they're wrong on CO2-caused climate change. To me I think of CO2 as a Goldilocks substance - we want enough to keep us warm but not so much as to overheat us - if we start to increase then we'll probably end up with problems. It's like iron in the blood too - iron is essential at a miniscule level but too much kills you.
I was all over this article in The Conversation - link to one of my comments
https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-plandemic-and-the-seven-traits-of-conspiratorial-thinking-138483#comment_2417636
However, at this point I've moved to "on the fence".
The IPCC has been called out time and time again for lying and manipulating data in climate models. Every model they have produced has been shown to be wrong by orders of magnitude. The Climate Cult Scientists are frauds - Climate change is a Death Cult. And the solution - Carbon Credits which can be bought with money, which is an unlimited resource. All that will happen is the wealthy 1% will buy any activity they want and you and I live in a box in a 5 minute city! The perfect way to have the masses accept nouvo-feudalism aka slavery!
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. More CO2, more plants, more plant and animal life. More oxygen in the atmosphere... In Siberia 10 000 years ago, mammoths grazed. Today they are frozen in the permafrost... 10 000 years ago there was no "man-made" "warming". There is no man-made warming today, only the bastards want to exterminate us, with all the flora and fauna! Supposedly to save the Earth, but if you look at the Book of Revelation, all that is happening is a reshaping of the Earth for the sake of an alien race who call themselves "gods"....
The Moon Landings are fake from almost every angle you look it. In 1969 they never thought that millions of people would be able to assess the footage etc in their own home using various technologies. C'mon they took a car to the moon, and golf clubs - that's how fooled they knew people were. I don't believe, from the evidence provided that anything has left earth orbit, and no people have been in space. Just one area I recommend you look into is the absurdity of the space suits and how they could not possibly work in a vacuum on the moon which is claimed to be 10(−12) torr. Look up industrial vacuums and Ultra High Vacuums - how could the space suit work?, or investigate how the LEM heating/cooling could work for three days on the moon, with surfaces fluctuating between 250F in the day and -208F at night, on lead acid batteries? , the list of absurdities is endless.
Interesting
"- Make people feel like "something is being done", to pacify them.
- Telling us what we already know, repackaged.
- Keeping people busy, while NWO agendas keep progressing.
- Genuine anti-establishment people would find it hard to reach a large audience through regular public platforms or events."
The top three are pet-peeves of mine. Solid stuff. Thankyou
Yes I agree these are top CO tactics.
The Information Flood is meant to make it impossible for
the masses to know anything for certain...
Confused & uncertain, the masses are easily controlled...
Thus is created the environment the most authoritative
Strong Man (a Hitler) can command...
One of the main functions of the corporate propaganda
media (msm) has been opinion overload, a function now
also assumed by alt-media...
I hear that Bob Malone has excellent gates at his horse 🐎 farm
👌😂👌
Indeed! The gatekeepers must be exposed!!!
If you had a platform (with reach) early on, it was probably a planned platforming.
I have to say that as soon as the covid narrative started - from having worked out the fundamental truth of 9/11 over a period of 4 years (death and injury were staged) - I was all ready and waiting for how they would roll it out - I didn't know any details, I didn't predict "biolab" but I knew there would be something performing that function. To my mind when you work out the MO - including a number of items you mention in your article - it's pretty easy generally although there can always be another layer of Russian Dolls to uncover.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/911-the-false-dilemma-propaganda
What we could know from psyop MO:
--- That covid was a psyop immediately when they told us that a Chinese research team had found the many-banded krait and Chinese cobra to be "reservoirs" of the virus at the same time debunking this obvious nonsense with biosecurity specialist Edward Holmes saying of it, "It's complete garbage." Pushing out nonsense with a concomitant or soon-after debunking is a common feature and it is also one of their methods of Revelation of the Method.
http://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/revelation-method-predictive-programming-and-prime-directive
--- .That there would be no virus because only what is wanted for real is done for real in psyops and we knew they didn't want a virus and a real virus wouldn't work for their narrative. At this point I knew nothing of the refutation of germ theory, etc and believed wholeheartedly in viruses, however, I still knew that they couldn't be controlled .... even if my reasons for knowing that weren't correct, that viruses haven't' been proven to exist in the first place! But the MO said loud and clear - no virus - no nothing - all smoke'n'mirrors because the seemingly counterintuitive fact is that propaganda works better the less it corresponds with reality. If is of such vital importance to understand this essential fact.: they don't want reality (or even a close simulation) to fool us, they want what magicians do.
"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
Edited quote - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study
This is my post pointing out the 9/11 and covid parallels. Unsurprisingly though gatekeeper Kevin Ryan put out HIS version of the parallels (getting far more attention) which in general is pretty good I must say however, it avoids key facts as we knew it would.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/911--covid-19-the-parallels.html
I'm not convinced. There was some kind of bug- I had it.
Also, those crazy sh*ts killed many.
I will forever be distrustful of any who purport to know "the truth"
These diagrams are VERY important in understanding the OBJECTIVE of the gatekeepers/controlled opposition. Will definitely be referring to them in my own upcoming post on the topic.
If you're covering this topic pls send me a link. I'd like to read it once it's available.
This appealed to my inner geek and visual learning preference . But I was hoping to hear more on why you think Judy M is a gatekeeper , because she was one of my “ways in” to the rabbit holes , going back to 2018 , when I first heard mention of her , trying to expose links between ME/cfs and vaccines and getting seriously hounded for that . I’ve not been following her so much recently because , well I am now convinced on no virus , after extensive reading , plus it makes sense to me . But I have never seen her as an intentional gatekeeper , more perhaps misguided, as many people who have lived most of their lives working in virology which depends on the existence of viruses , and that paradigm shift is maybe too far ? But maybe I’m being too kind , I tend to think the best of people , not to judge them , none of us are perfect . I am convinced that yes , there are definitely many gatekeepers out there , controlled opposition, whatever , but there are may reasons for their limited hangout approach I feel , money and fame/likability being quite important factors ?
Also - I prefer not to dismiss “reptiles “ as many people do . I prefer to keep an open mind , whilst putting them in a “yet to find out more” box . If I hadn’t been so open minded maybe I wouldn’t’ve looked into the whole no virus thing
Hi Rose,
Judy was actually the person who motivated me to start exposing gatekeepers after she waste half a year of my time on nonsense. I wrote about that here - https://dpl003.substack.com/p/virus-lie-the-result-of-4-years-of
Brilliant ! Thankyou . I admit to previously not getting to the end of this article . I did buy 2 of the mikovits books , which were interesting and more about her experiences with the medical industry . And I remember the confrontation with Andrew Kaufman on rumble now ! I was hoping she would go away and think about it , oh well . Well I think the gatekeepers have their own little gang and encourage and endorse each other .
Keep up the good work , thankyou
Even "truth" can be deceptive because often small "truths" are being used to divert us from the Big Picture.
Well, I know, and I suppose you know, Yeadon knows the truth.
I don't know if he feels it's easier to go along with the crowd, or what the issue is, but I do know he doesn't tell the whole truth. It's bothersome.
Mikovitz, in my opinion, is lying to keep herself, "safe". Perhaps this is Yeadon's deal, too.
Who knows?
If you do get a chance check out the post on Yeadon. He even told me GFY 🤣😂
https://dpl003.substack.com/p/a-follow-up-on-mike-yeadon
Oh, yes, I saw the exchange. It was definitely a turn-off.
I couldn’t read the follow up on Mike Yeadon, I hope it affirmed he is 100% genuine.He has worked tirelessly since 2020, to reveal the toxic elements in the Genetic inoculations, even before they were actually rolled out ( with Wolfgang Wodarg).He has never been paid, unlike other "Truth tellers ". and has been cancelled, censored, and vilified by the main stream media.You could not find a more qualified, sincere, passionate Scientist on this planet.Thank You Dr Mike Yeadon ❤️
I doubt it needs to be as complicated as you suggest.
In the early stages of the ‘Pandemic’ when counter information was pouring out of every institutional orifice, I was regularly processing 80-100 emails a day from multiple commentators to try and keep up with the ‘Truth’.
One can’t live like that for long without going crazy, so now I am down to 4 trusted sources that provide enough of the type and quality of information I need to tick-over and stay in the information loop. That way I stay rational and keep in touch with what is going on without getting sucked into the kind of conspiracy wormholes you seem to be courting.
There is a process of consolidation at play at the moment in the ‘Truther’ movement.
Bret Weinstein floated the concept of a self selected ‘Dream Team’ of Truthers on Tucker Carlson, who will necessarily coalesce into a coherent and organised opposition if they are to achieve effective political progress.
Hopefully there will be a sufficient spread of opinion and authority in this ‘Team’ to balance the negative influences you find so concerning and so put your mind at rest.
If you don't mind me asking. Who's your 4 trusted sources?
No. My trusted sources are just that - MY trusted sources. Yours will likely be different.
In the same way as I wouldn’t question the veracity of your ‘sources’ - it would largely be based upon n my opinion, personality makeup, and prejudices - don’t think it would be productive to offer you the opportunity of finding fault with mine.
People are complicated, with all kinds of foibles, dark spots, and agendas, which will contribute both positively and negatively to the current Truth movement.
For example Dr Robert Malone (not one of my “Sources”) has been accused of many things including being controlled opposition. Allegedly he was ‘a woman scorned’, initially disgruntled because he didn’t share in the financial bounty which came out of the mRNA research he made a substantial contribution to.
That may or may not be true, but we cannot deny he has made considerable personal sacrifices and offered a great deal of intelligent and informed input over the last four years which has moved the needle in what ordinary people accept as factual.
My point is we have to listen to everybody, examine critically, but not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I like that you have your sources. I also don't like telling people who to trust. They must come to that decision themselves.
What I vehemently oppose is the promotion of known gatekeepers. Malone has done nothing for me and I am of the opinion that his contributions are complete and total trash to the normal man on the street. I wouldn't even promote his ideas to my enemies bc of the chance there might be that his ideas become accepted as fact and may at the end of the day negatively impact my life. I have absolutely no time for the man.
But to each his own...
I notice you denigrate not only Dr Robert Malone but elsewhere Dr Mike Yeadon. What they have in common, possibly to their detriment, is that they have both worked in the belly of the Beast, in big Pharma.
Like any professional they therefore carry a body of not only insider knowledge (Malone has demonstrated great familiarity with FDA and DOD procedures and personnel) but also they know how the Beast thinks and acts.
Though I agree there are potential trust issues here, I would rather believe the output of either of these commentators then some angry anarchic blogger broadcasting from his Mum’s basement.
Yes, that's a glaring oversight from each cognitively impaired troll who pass my page. You pretend my work is meaningless while you come here and review it and even go as far as to comment. They hire you chaps thicker by the day.
Incidentally, the bit about Mums basement wasn’t a sideswipe at you. You are as entitled to your opinions as anyone else.
In fact if you are in South Africa get is luck to you. Africa’s low level engagement with the ‘Pandemic’ and the attendant vaccine imperialism has probably saved countless lives. Keep asking questions.
“…. Malone has done nothing for me ….”
Thank you. You have made my point for me.
Everyone is welcome to believe and say what they want as long as they don’t have a problem with it being challenged and debated in the pursuit of getting as near to the ‘Truth’ as we can.
Care to elaborate on where I you think I miss the point because this does not seem like much of a debate. Just some superficial fluff that's borderline cognitively impaired.
I wouldn’t be so impertinent as to have suggested you “miss the point”.
Perhaps it’s just that we differ in how we view things. I like to look for the glass half full, whereas your approach seems far more skeptical / judgemental and seems to be looking for the glass half empty. That’s ok. We are different people with different life experiences which shaped us differently. What is important is that neither approach should limit our capacity to critically assess information and see if it fits with our reality.
All through this Pandemic period I have had lots of unanswered questions and tried to find information that offered answers. Sometimes those answers are later subverted by new information, but that’s what having an open mind allows for.
That works for me but I wouldn’t even suggest it as a way to proceed for anyone else.
So there is nothing to “debate” as I don’t judge your approach or wish to promote mine. However I am more than happy for you to critique my ‘fluffy’ thinking which I will listen to and consider.
Seems like you are a gate keeper touting a lot of Hot Air
And you were able to not tout a hot air in a one-line sentence... They used to have you trolls at least have some standard. This is so bad I won't even pay you if I was your boss and had to review your work.
Hi Kim,
I have done what I can to the best of my abilities. I like my anonymity and as I've said so many times. I do not do this for fame or money or for any other reason than to get the truth out there. I live in the murder capital of the world (South Africa) which is one of the main reasons why I stay anonymous not that I need any reason to do the things I do.
These are my conditions for bringing out what I bring out. Would you prefer I close up shop and leave this all behind and go on with my life?
great read dpl. OT: fell in love and lived in Jo'burg for 8 months in 1984/5, way before Mandela's homecoming. boyfriend didn't want the commitment so I returned to Europe. ah well. I couldn't help notice that the unimaginable violence inherent in the apartheid system did not spill over into hate - the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, no matter how flawed, was so much better than the drawn-out, bloody decolonisation in, say, SE Asia.
I've heard about that but didn't know it was out already. Was it at least entertaining. My family has netflix I'll see if I can try and watch some of it some time soon to prepare myself.
Sweet. Thanks