Mattias Desmet on Mass Formation

mattias is naive. as i stated he is operating under a set of assumptions which bear no relation to reality. the major totalitarian countries of the world do not have dictators a la hitler, mao, stalin, pol pot etc. as sheldon wolin has stated and david rockefeller has stated in his own way what we now have is " inverted totalitarianism". i am not going to give a disserteation of it you can look it up for yourself.
thanks to the work of eddie bernays and a few others along with the exponential growth of technology mass formation is extremely easy.
mattias still thinks there are “leaders”. most of the globe is controlled by multinational corporations. blackrock, vanguard, state st. being the top three. the leaders he refers to are mere lackeys. sheeple require “leaders” . sovereign individuals are their own leaders.
there is a well organized plan for world domination. you can choose to believe it or not. mattias makes an assertion w/o any data to back it up that totalitarianism will fail. again he provides no evidence or definitions. what is failure?
i have presented just a snippet of info to support my position. there is quite a bit more information out there for anyone willing to take the red pill.
here is my definition of conspiracy.

con·spir·a·cy
/kənˈspirəsē/
Learn to pronounce
noun
  1. a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
    • the action of plotting or conspiring.
4 Likes

rotflmao
this forum values data and facts. you have spun a very paranoid fantasy about the digital asset space devoid of any factual information.
opinions have value here when based on verifiable information.
but what is most obvious is a lack of an alternative to preserve sovereignty.
i’ll hang up and listen

2 Likes

Glad I could bring you some laughter.
“but what is most obvious is a lack of an alternative to preserve sovereignty.”
I’m going to infer you’re referring to crypto, but am not sure, so let me know if not.
So there’s no alternative to preserve sovereignty w/o cryptos/blockchain? Are you prepared to prove that assertion with facts, or is that just your paranoid fantasy opinion, man?
Maybe just call me a dumbass GenX who doesn’t get, declare victory and move on to recruit new cult members.

3 Likes

rotflmao once again.
i made the assertion that YOU did not offer an alternative to preserve sovereignty.
gold, silver, homestead, deep pantry are not alternatives.
i suggest you read my posts in their entirety.
have a wonderful life

But what will the outcome be? The planetary system of which the biosphere is a significant part and the human economy/culture is a smaller part is a hugely complex nonlinear system that is currently in a state of overshoot. How we come back into equilibrium in such a system is impossible to predict. They have their plans. Their competitors have their plans. We plebes have our plans. And Earth has her plans which are unknowable to us.
Collapse of this complex human society into something much simpler with far fewer people is in the cards. How quickly and with what twists and turns is anyone’s guess.
We could imagine that the elites have it all worked out with their evil plans. But they’re human. They suffer from the same problems as the rest of us: disconnection and the trauma it induces, living in a world that is not in line with their biology, the exponential growth of dysfunction as it is passed down from one generation to the next, separation and fear of death, a desperate drive for control as they have no sense of anything beyond this body and this life.
Finally, there’s the hubris they construct over it all to create the illusion that their plan will succeed. To believe anything else would be so unbearably painful that they would descend into darkness and death.
They are not gods. They are flawed humans. Hopelessly disconnected, afraid, alone and desperate to feel like they’re in control. Which they are to some degree, at least for a time. But the nature of nonlinear chaotic systems is that things get away from you.
Those of us who have glimpsed something beyond this know that there is no such thing as control over such a complex system. We ground ourselves in appreciating whatever is in front of us in the moment, in letting go, in reveling at the beauty and mystery of it all, especially this wonderfully chaotic, swirling, unpredictable parade of life, human and otherwise.
Some of us or more likely our distant descendants will find ourselves in a world that is once more in a state of equilibrium, more or less. But a new storm will come after that too.

6 Likes

Watching a plan being implemented that is designed to reduce the world’s population has shaken my faith in humanity, especially given all the accomplices, at every level. And all the institutions that are complicit, or staying silent. Many die quickly, while others suffer for weeks or months. It is an earth-shaking event for me. The fact that they were asking for volunteers, to end their lives early, ‘for the good of the planet’, makes it even more upsetting. Of course, now, they’ve moved on to full coercion.
That is the context that now frames how I understand climate change. It’s the same people pulling the strings, the central bankers, and the billionaires, who are suddenly so concerned with our vaccination status, and with saving the planet from CO2 (despite their huge investments in fossil fuel companies, and their frequent travel by private jet.)
The fertilizer shortages are deliberate, as are the reductions in oil and gas supplies, and the container ships unable to unload in Long Beach.
The Fed is printing money to price most of us out of the housing market. Soon we’ll own nothing, if we just roll over and submit. Covid was step 1, climate is step 2.
Their plans include CBDC, UBI, total informational awareness, trans-humanism, and carbon credits. They want us to eat lab grown meat, insect protein, and be their serfs.
I’m not going to surrender to this technocracy / totalitarianism. To me, its worth the fight. It’s not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in.

TPTB cherry-pick their data:

Volcanoes, Cosmic Rays, the Magnetic Field, and the Sun are ALL forcings completely dismissed by the IPCC.

The latest report doesn’t address past failed predictions either, namely those temperature models–none of which have played-out as expected (earth has actually cooled some 0.7C since 2016).

 

My takeaway from the report is that the IPCC are “sun deniers”.

I don’t know what they believe the purpose of that bright mass of energy in the sky is, but they are suspiciously dismissive of its influence — the sun, it appears, is an inconvenient spanner threatening to jam the cogs of their fragile politicized narrative.

This is why the majority of solar forcings are missing from the report, as these omissions mean any observed changes in the climate can be attributed to human activity. In other words, denying the sun leaves big gaps in our understanding of the climate system, but these gaps are intentional and required as they mean “human carbon dioxide emissions” can be used to plug them — only by ignoring powerful natural forcings can a rise in CO2 make any kind of sense.

This latest IPCC report is not a genuine attempt to impart truth, far from it.

It is instead a political document, intended to be rolled-up and used to browbeat policy makers into implementing the “correct” measures, measures which will soon include “food/fuel rationing” and “climate lockdowns” in the name of “saving the planet” but which in reality will extend totalitarian control over the population, control they deem essential before the real SHTF:

The COLD TIMES are returning, the mid-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with the great conjunction, historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow (among other forcings).

from https ://electroverse.net/the-ipccs-latest-climate-report-is-antiscience-and-antihuman-reject-it/

see graphs below, from the same source .................... there is NO climate emergency. lets keep gathering data, and see if the cooling trend continues....          
12 Likes

Mark,
I hope you will actually follow through this time and debate your ideas. What you’ve done every time so far that I challenge your beliefs … is you disappear. You don’t refute my claims, you just disappear. Then, on some other thread, you come out guns-a-blazen’ and write something akin to what I was trying to dispel the previous attempt. It is happening again! Why do you think this is an effective strategy?
It is really hard to have any sort of respect whatsoever for your debating style. Since you won’t address your beliefs, it is really hard to maintain this “communication.” I’ll be as polite as possible (this time) because that reflects on me. Don’t assume I have any respect for you or your position.

Mark_BC wrote: I hope you are aware of positive feedback loops central to the climate models? We don't need to burn another single barrel of oil for CO2 to continue to be emitted for another century if positive feedback loops kick in -- for example, melting of methane clathrates and polar tundra. A slight nudge in temperature releases a bunch more greenhouse gases which then contribute to further warming and a positive feedback cycle continues until a new warmer equilibrium is reached. This seems to be how the climate has behaved in the historical record. These charts has been around for decades and clearly show the relationship between global temperature and CO2. The cycles are generally caused by orbital periods or solar cycles, but the intensity of the transitions between different climate quasi-equilibria is caused by positive feedback loops. Of course, you are welcome to challenge these charts if you wish based on your scientific understanding.
I wish you had provided a link to where you got those charts. With my old eyes, it is difficult to read. I'll try to make some interpretations, but I have to limit what I can say. Granted, you acknowledge orbital periods and solar cycles, but you revert back to your comfort zone of "feedback loops." I also wish you would expound on your definition of solar cycles. Are you just talking about the ~11 year sunspot cycle, or do you see longer duration cycles? Which ones do you acknowledge? As far as orbital cycles, what exactly are you talking about? I don't want to presume that I can read your mind. You assume that carbon dioxide is the dominating cause for recent warming. Yes, that's what mainstream climate models assume as well. (It's the best science that money can buy.) You've swallowed that line of thinking and believe it so fervently that you can't understand why others can't see the same light you have. You have also conflated coincidence with causation. Did the climate warm and then carbon dioxide concentration subsequently rose, or was it the other way around? How do you know? You made no mention of the energetic sun during the 20th century denoted by solar scientists as the Modern Maximum. This is in contrast to the solar minimum that the Maunders documented. That one was associated with the Little Ice Age. Do the models you believe are so accurate actually back cast for the last millennium and accurately "predict" actual temperatures? Given that the carbon dioxide levels of the Holocene (last 20,000 years) has been relatively stable (based upon my interpretation of the charts you provided,) shouldn't that portend a stable temperature regime as well? Have you even seen one of the modern models used to "predict the past temperatures (before 1850)? If the models can't do this, even an idiot would realize those models are worthless.
I find it odd how so many AGW-deniers are so quick to point out the hubris of the climate modellers and their audacious attempts understand the global climate, yet the deniers seem equally confident in their conviction that AGW is BS and that they are the ones who truly understand how the climate works; and that humanity could not possibly have such an impact on the big ol' world. Who's really full of hubris?
When you use the term "AGW-deniers," are you using it as a dismissive pejorative to associate with knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who are simply too dense to accept your version of the truth? What sort of pejorative would you prefer that I associate with you and the other true-believers? (It would be impolite for me to offend you. What do you think of the term, "Chicken Little?" Is that accurate enough?)
A logical approach to the issue would be to take the precautionary principle and conclude that we should not be radically altering the main greenhouse gas concentration (after water, but that doesn't count because of its very short residence time) considering how closely it is tied to temperature. Especially since we are running out of fossil fuels and we will, one way or another, dramatically reduce regardless.
Your suggestion that we take the precautionary principle obviates the need for real science. We can just assume that producing greenhouse gasses is detrimental to the earth's temperature and then let our so-called leaders tell us how much carbon dioxide we're allowed to emit. Meanwhile, they have no compunctions about flying in private jets to meetings that could easily be attended remotely via the internet. Have you noticed this with the COP26 meeting? I have. I'm glad that you acknowledge water vapor as the dominant greenhouse gas. Unfortunately, you say that water vapor doesn't count because of it's very short residence time. Have you considered that the atmospheric capacity to hold water vapor is well understood. In fact, the warmer the air, the more humidity it can hold. When it cools down sufficiently, water vapor condenses and may form clouds that increase the albedo and/or precipitation; however, water from other sources then evaporate to replace it. Even though a particular water molecule is short-lived, other water molecules fill the void. Because water vapor can form clouds that reflect sunlight during the day, water vapor is one of those feedback loops that works to stabilize temperatures. Hmmm.
Sorry, I'm not going to jump on the anti-AGW bandwagon simply because the elites are using it as a tool to bring in global communism. They use many tools to control us; that doesn't mean the tools aren't based on reality.
The elites want to limit your usage of fossil fuels. They want to flit hither and yon at any whim and use as many resources as they want. A one-world global government that constricts your (and my) rights would be impossible to extricate once it is established. What does your "precautionary principle" say we should do? Should we say that it is just a coincidence that they buy the ScienceTM that they want so they can subjugate us and keep ALL the spoils to themselves? (I think you know my position here.)
You want to have a discussion about how we are going to deal with scarcity of fossil fuels? As in, should we let capitalist economies deal with it by allowing prices to rise and the market to sort it out itself, versus communists taking control and dictating how much gasoline each person will be allotted based on their social credit score? Sure, that's a great discussion, let's have it, rather that clouding the debate with this groundless attack on AGW. I don't seem the point of it or what good it will do.
I'm sorry. This last paragraph doesn't make any sense to me. You seem somewhat enamored with the idea of communism. Communism works on a small scale where individuals feel connected enough with others in the group that they willingly work hard to provide for the others' needs. My wife and I run our household this way. The Native American Tribes operated this way as well. That's about as big (a few hundred people) as it can get before there are just too many folks to get to know and care about. Have you seen any Nation-State system that has adopted communism (or some other form of dictatorship) that actually works out well for the plebs? The best one I can think of is Gaddafi's Syria. He was a benevolent dictator and his people were better off because of him. Of course, he would have won a democratically run election if he weren't dictator for life. That's a rarity. Grover
7 Likes

Grover,
you mentioned,
“In any case, once all have been consumed, what is going to drive CO2 levels higher?”
What do you think about nuclear plants melting down? Won’t that happen as fossil fuels get consumed? Would that drive CO2 levels higher?

tinarock wrote: What do you think about nuclear plants melting down? Won't that happen as fossil fuels get consumed? Would that drive CO2 levels higher?
Tina, If we have nuclear plants melting down, carbon dioxide is going to be far down the list of worries. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not sure why you think nuclear plants would melt down as fossil fuels get consumed. (Am I reading that wrong???) Grover
6 Likes

There is no doubt that most current nuclear plants would melt down without a constant external electricity supply. The older the refueling the greater the residual heat and the faster the meltdown. That is actually planned for by having a slag pool below the core. Not clear if the thinking goes beyond that point.
Onsite pool storage of fuel rods also needs pumped water. Spaced air cooling would mitigate that.
But all are tigers by the tail and will bite you after any blackout.
And of course they are prime targets for destruction by missiles or sabotage. It amounts to the Dirty Harry pointed gun, do you feel lucky?

3 Likes

Thanks Grover!
Now, I don’t have to bother with yet another “false narrative” by the “Cabal”.
Like David Icke said: " If you know the destination, you`ll know the route."

1 Like

“One Ring to Rule them all, and in the Darkness bind them!”–TLOTR, JRR Tolkien.
Cryptos are another “false narrative” and just another tool to control all the ignorant.
Just like all of the “fiat currencies”, they have zero intrinsic value, and are all propped- up by “blind faith” and speculation and built-in inflation.
You only really own what you do have in hand or hard assets:
Land, precious metals, food, water, shelter, and a means to defend them and life.
The rest is pure delusion.
 

3 Likes

While Listening to this video, Arthur, I started to wonder if this was some sort of Monty Python routine.

For those of you who thought I was cruel to Mark_BC in post #247, here is a link to one of the exchanges we had on another thread. I can think of a couple of other such exchanges, but I don’t want to try to find them using the frustrating PP search function. (I hope that gets fixed with the new software along with having a page that shows any user all threads that user commented on - along with recent activity on those threads. These 2 items used to be in the software a couple of iterations ago.)
To be fair to Mark_BC, there are times when I genuinely appreciate his perspective and comments! If he applied his critical thinking to the climate change issue, we’d all be better off. Instead, he can’t (or won’t) address this issue with integrity because it must be such a deeply held belief. That’s all I can ascertain.
Here’s the link to davefairtex’s thread: https://www.peakprosperity.com/forum-topic/climate-change-its-not-about-climate/. It is currently 85 posts long. In post #70, Mark_BC was commenting about what I wrote in post #55. He never responded to my posts in that thread after that. It happened again in one of Chris’ recent video threads. Same thing as I described in post #247 on this thread.
There are too many threads that get created and just die an ignoble death due to neglect. Now that this thread is soon-to-disappear off the PP front page, it will have the same fate.
Grover
[Edited to include links to posts.]

3 Likes

How so?
Do you believe that War, Famine, Plagues, and Genocide are “comedic” or funny?
Because that’s all what’s coming with the now impending collapse of the West.
Those that fail to learn these dire lessons of history are always doomed to repeat them all until and unless they do finally do learn them, or just go extinct.
I would call that ignorance to be more of a tragedy and not comedy.

2 Likes

When things are going poorly sometimes people use humor to try and lighten the mood. Sometimes called gallows humor, you see it a lot in the military while deployed. It IS a tragedy but comedy can help people cope with it.

5 Likes

I count 95 scripts on this page. Most appear to be coming from peakprosperity.

Perhaps, or “gallows humor” for those about to hit the beaches at Normandy?
“Always look on the bright side of life!”-the song from their “Life of Brian”.
Yeah, ok.

1 Like

Can the Peak Prosperity crowd help me with this question that’s been on my mind.
Mattias speaks about the root causes of a mass formation in that it occurs due to a lack of connectedness and social bonds with other people.
There are studies, also from Clinical Physiologists, that claim that conspiracy theorists suffer from the same issues.
They are accusing us of what they do.

  • How to explain that one away?
2 Likes

… it’s just not what we think it is and it’s way, way worse than we can imagine. It’s not Co2. It’s the Sun and space weather combined with our weakening magnetosphere and the on coming galactic sheet. Our weather is incredibly complicated and notoriously unstable. Pollution is not the operative factor.
The climate models from the IPCC are just like that model from NIST: a touted model not subject to peer review because the data is a secret. That’s right, as far as NIST is concerned to release the data from their model that shows how an office building (WTC 7) fell down due to office fires alone for the first and only time in history would be a threat to public safety!!! That is their official position.
The climate scientists at the UN are doing the same thing. Hiding their data so their models cannot be peer reviewed. … because those models would fail the peer review process just like the NIST situation.
A close equivalent to Chris but on the subject of climate change is Ben Davidson and he put a warning video out yesterday similar to Chris’ Alerts. Below is a small 5 minute sample of what we’re facing: a rapidly decreasing magnetosphere, which will trigger a magnetic excursion, and it is imminent.
Personally, I think everything has been a cover for the impending magnetic excursion. I highly recommend watching the 2019 Disaster Series and then the 2020 Disaster Series. But here’s the most recent 5 minute warning primer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ebqN0NSrI
I have a very good friend who has suddenly become completely contrary to my views in a very short period of time. She got the Moderna vaccine early on around March 2020 before there could possibly be any analysis of how well it worked or if it didn’t work. She acted out of fear of getting the virus and believes Covid is extremely lethal and all the hospital patients have not been vaccinated. She also believes the mainstream narrative that humans, pollution and Co2 are the climate change culprits even when exposed to valid alternative information and she knows innately that the “solution” cooked up by the same crowd will only hyperconsume the resources we have while not solving a damn thing.
For example, did you know that you have to melt coal with quartz to make a solar panel? How much energy does that take?
 

8 Likes