On How The Planet's Going To Shit: The Undeniability Of Climate Change

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,244
Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith
Doesn't matter how cheap it appears to be if you can't store the green energy for when it is off-line. Or you can't use it to start-up a grid that has gone down.

Hence, the very green German regime are soon to build a massive gas power plant to accommodate Nord Stream.
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,557
Doesn't matter how cheap it appears to be if you can't store the green energy for when it is off-line. Or you can't use it to start-up a grid that has gone down.

Hence, the very green German regime are soon to build a massive gas power plant to accommodate Nord Stream.
The strange thing is that, the more people rely on "green" energy, the more they need a back-up.
Read an article recently about how Germany, in theory, could supply 35% of it's electrical power from renewable energy sources (wind, water, solar), based on available capacities.
Problem is, they are not very reliable, so the actual supply is only a tiny fraction of those 35%. Hence the common practice of buying electricity that is generated in nuclear plants (France and Eastern Europe).
"Green" energy is only "cheap", because is it heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
"Green" energy is only "cheap", because is it heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
that's actually not true.

but lets say for a minute that it is. so what? isn't it worth your tax dollars so that we don't have to kill the planet off?
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,557
that's actually not true.

but lets say for a minute that it is. so what? isn't it worth your tax dollars so that we don't have to kill the planet off?
Green energy doesn't solve the other problems we have (like sea pollution, over-fishing and all that other shit).
So far wind farms, at least here in Europe, have been built on arable land and even in forests. Whatever was cheapest to buy or rent.
Some scientists also say that energy cannot be created, it can only be converted. So their theory is that by building wind farms the wind is getting weaker which may influence the weather systems, relying on air circulation. Not to mention the proven negative effects on wildlife (insects, birds, bats) and even human health (has something to do with the rotor tip speed (ultrasound) and even the irregular shadows they are throwing).
Would you not rather use your tax money for more useful stuff, like decent health care, a better infrastructure, actual recycling (and not shipping it to 3rd world countries), good education, etc! Imagine what the US could do if there were less military expenses!
Without solving energy storage, green energy is not cost effective, without public money no company would build wind farms or even single wind turbines because the actual revenue from what little energy each one actually produces per year would not cover the costs.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,244
that's actually not true.

but lets say for a minute that it is. so what? isn't it worth your tax dollars so that we don't have to kill the planet off?
It's true at the level that LNG is much more cost effective, reliable and doesn't need contorted financial vehicles to make it look 100% doable and viable.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
It's true at the level that LNG is much more cost effective, reliable and doesn't need contorted financial vehicles to make it look 100% doable and viable.
ok, lets say that's true. fracking is horrible for the environment. you cannot spin that fact no matter how hard you try. so if that's the case, isn't it worth spending more money now to preserve what environment we have left?
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,519
David Attenborough abandons the science and gets caught out peddling crazy climate change stories. He gets fully exposed here! Thunberg was also pushing the same propaganda because it appears she was listening to David's fairytales.


I've read some of the science so l know David is full of nonsense. He has lost great respect in my eyes too...he is one of many filling people's heads with silly stuff not supported by the science, and of course the schools will happily push this rubbish because it is not about education anymore, it is about indoctrination. Got to be a good little puppet pushing propaganda, the authoritarian societies are masters of that, and now it has caught on in the west....why?....the U.N!!!...the epitome of authoritarianism, and unelected by the people, and swampy people behind closed doors who are unaccountable to the public while taking their share of the riches. If they can trick countries into signing global climate agreements they can rule over them with an iron fist. Fortunately the Paris Agreement will fail because countries like India and China won't go for it, and the whole thing will collapse and the swamp people will need to think of another way to steal from the people.

Soon l will expose NASA and IPCC cover ups with regard to climate change.
 
Last edited:

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,244
that's actually not true.

but lets say for a minute that it is. so what? isn't it worth your tax dollars so that we don't have to kill the planet off?
We'll soon see, as I will be off here in March:
Capture.PNG


Capture2.PNG


As you can see from the flyer, at this stage, they are only beginning to understand the immensity of the targets committed to and yes, there is a real threat to industrialized societies, energy security and costs to individuals.

Energy revolutions and evolutions are by their very nature more efficient.

You wouldn't tolerate going back to when cloth was made on pre-industrialized looms where it would take 8 hours labour to make a small square and the cost would be prohibitive. Nor will it be ultimately tolerated when our kids and grandkids are expected to revert to an eco-feudal system where only the elite can afford a car or travel by airplane.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,244
David Attenborough abandons the science and gets caught out peddling crazy climate change stories. He gets fully exposed here! Thunberg was also pushing the same propaganda because it appears she was listening to David's fairytales.


I've read some of the science so l know David is full of nonsense. He has lost great respect in my eyes too...he is one of many filling people's heads with silly stuff not supported by the science, and of course the schools will happily push this rubbish because it is not about education anymore, it is about indoctrination. Got to be a good little puppet pushing propaganda, the authoritarian societies are masters of that, and now it has caught on in the west....why?....the U.N!!!...the epitome of authoritarianism, and unelected by the people, and swampy people behind closed doors who are unaccountable to the public while taking their share of the riches. If they can trick countries into signing global climate agreements they can rule over them with an iron fist. Fortunately the Paris Agreement will fail because countries like India and China won't go for it, and the whole thing will collapse and the swamp people will need to think of another way to steal from the people.

Soon l will expose NASA and IPCC cover ups with regard to climate change.
He's certainly doing a good job of squandering his getting up-close to mountain gorillas and bonding with the silver back with his finger like a hand-shake in a moment of understanding between the ultimate primate species and his lesser also ran. Iconic, now just another cheap talking head salary man for the Globilista Green shake down. His BS on the polar bears is the final curtain to his career.

I always said his brother was a better talent. And to think they cast David Bellamy out into the wilderness and shamed him and cancelled him completely, before cancel culture had even a definition for it.

Utter contempt for these snake salesman. No respect. Can't watch them. Nor their good stuff before they turned bad. It's that tragic.
 

formby001

Well-Known Member
Messages
660
The strange thing is that, the more people rely on "green" energy, the more they need a back-up.
Read an article recently about how Germany, in theory, could supply 35% of it's electrical power from renewable energy sources (wind, water, solar), based on available capacities.
Problem is, they are not very reliable, so the actual supply is only a tiny fraction of those 35%. Hence the common practice of buying electricity that is generated in nuclear plants (France and Eastern Europe).
"Green" energy is only "cheap", because is it heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
There is always a base load. In Britain this is provided by coal fired and nuclear power stations. Wind power alone, cannot, provide base load capability.

Haven't the German's increase their reliance on Lignite, which runs contra to their green credentials.
 
Last edited:

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,557
Haven't the German's increase their reliance on Lignite, which runs contra to their green credentials.
Lignite harvesting has bee frowned upon for some time, mostly because of the environmental damage caused by the massive harvesters.
They had to move entire villages because of Lignite harvesting.
Coal in any form is the enemy now. Actually the once massive industrial Ruhrgebiet (famous for coal mining and steel/ car production) is now mostly known for criminal Arab clans and mass unemployment.
The strange thing is that Northern Europe has masses of hard coal that could provide energy for quite some time.
The German government is now against anything not "green" to cut CO2 emissions.
Several years ago the government handed out grants to house owners for installing solar panels on their rooftops and made the energy sector pay for the generated energy that was fed into the system. Was a big success, perhaps a bit too big and I'm sure the energy lobby was behind the cancellation of grants to private households.
Next thing was grants to wind power providers and now these eye soars are everywhere. In between they supported heating with wood and wood pellets as a sustainable and renewable energy source. Now having a fire place or wood fired oven is frowned upon because of climate change.

fracking is horrible for the environment. you cannot spin that fact no matter how hard you try.
Yes, it is. Yet somehow, using millions of gallons of water to get Lithium out of the ground in desert areas is ok? The environmental costs for electric cars is enormous!
Apparently, there is some geo-engineering going on to divert water in the atmosphere to the areas where it's needed for fracking or farming in desert areas. Which allegedly causes the draughts in California (diverted to Texas) and Southern Europe (diverted to Saudi Arabia).

 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
Yet somehow, using millions of gallons of water to get Lithium out of the ground in desert areas is ok
no. no its not ok. you're making these parallels that really have nothing to do with each other. one bad thing doesnt make another bad thing ok.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
this is for the Pimpernel Smith Pimpernel Smith files

 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,557
no. no its not ok. you're making these parallels that really have nothing to do with each other. one bad thing doesnt make another bad thing ok.
But lithium mining is either a "good" thing in the MSM or not mentioned at all when electric cars are promoted.
That the mineral gets shipped half way around the world to Asia on large, polluting ships isn't mentioned either.
Rather than promoting heavy electric vehicles with a limited range, how about making conventional cars more fuel efficient by cutting out all the unnecessary luxury stuff that make them heavy. I'd start with air conditioning, which is absolutely pointless in Northern Europe, given the few warm days we have. Then remove electric motors for seat adjustment and windows/ mirrors and sun roof and bring back analogue dials.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
But lithium mining is either a "good" thing in the MSM or not mentioned at all when electric cars are promoted.
That the mineral gets shipped half way around the world to Asia on large, polluting ships isn't mentioned either.
Rather than promoting heavy electric vehicles with a limited range, how about making conventional cars more fuel efficient by cutting out all the unnecessary luxury stuff that make them heavy. I'd start with air conditioning, which is absolutely pointless in Northern Europe, given the few warm days we have. Then remove electric motors for seat adjustment and windows/ mirrors and sun roof and bring back analogue dials.
but ALL minerals get shipped half way across the world. i don't see you bitching up a storm about steel or iron or gold mining. none of it is good for the environment or for the people doing the mining. if we don't promote some kind of electric car technology we're never going to get off of fossil fuels. we've got to start somewhere until we can develop a better battery technology.
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,557
we've got to start somewhere until we can develop a better battery technology.
How about not buying new stuff while the old one is still functioning?
i don't see you bitching up a storm about steel or iron or gold mining.
No problem:
Germany had a big and very good steel industry (granted the steel components needed to be imported), but for the ovens they used local hard coal. And by "local" I mean practically next door. The car factories used to be close as well (see Ruhrgebiet (Opel and Ford) and Salzgitter (VW plant is nearby). Now most of the steel is produced in Spain (still the iron ore and possibly even the coal needs to be imported) and transported back to Germany's car manufacturers.
Europe, and Germany in particular, had a brilliant rail road system, publicly owned and run and it worked well. Trains arrived on time and you had stations even in small villages. No need for long car journeys. The Deutsche Bahn was privatised and they started to close the smaller stations and remove tracks, officially to "save" money. Now people need to drive to bigger stations (busses are rubbishly slow) to get on the commuter trains (over-crowded) and often are stationary when a high-speed train gets preferential treatment.
Freight-, commuter- and high speed trains often only have one track they have to share. Not to mention the insane prices for a single ticket.
BTW, how about not driving those spoiled little brats to school? Let them use a bicycle or make them walk. That's what my generation had to do.
 

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
How about not buying new stuff while the old one is still functioning?
but that wont be possible if we transition away from using gasoline. we'll all need some kind of retrofit engines. which, i'm all for. no need for a new car.
BTW, how about not driving those spoiled little brats to school? Let them use a bicycle or make them walk. That's what my generation had to do.
this irks me to no end.
 

Pimpernel Smith

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,244
but that wont be possible if we transition away from using gasoline. we'll all need some kind of retrofit engines. which, i'm all for. no need for a new car.
What like a latter day Cuba?

Welcome to the EU's ruin with a poster of St Greta on every street corner:

 

formby001

Well-Known Member
Messages
660
How about not buying new stuff while the old one is still functioning?

No problem:
Germany had a big and very good steel industry (granted the steel components needed to be imported), but for the ovens they used local hard coal. And by "local" I mean practically next door. The car factories used to be close as well (see Ruhrgebiet (Opel and Ford) and Salzgitter (VW plant is nearby). Now most of the steel is produced in Spain (still the iron ore and possibly even the coal needs to be imported) and transported back to Germany's car manufacturers.
Europe, and Germany in particular, had a brilliant rail road system, publicly owned and run and it worked well. Trains arrived on time and you had stations even in small villages. No need for long car journeys. The Deutsche Bahn was privatised and they started to close the smaller stations and remove tracks, officially to "save" money. Now people need to drive to bigger stations (busses are rubbishly slow) to get on the commuter trains (over-crowded) and often are stationary when a high-speed train gets preferential treatment.
Freight-, commuter- and high speed trains often only have one track they have to share. Not to mention the insane prices for a single ticket.
BTW, how about not driving those spoiled little brats to school? Let them use a bicycle or make them walk. That's what my generation had to do.
Aren't you confusing Germany with Britain here?
 

Arnathor

The Hamiltonian Hung Like a Horse
Supporter
Messages
4,618
Age of the celeb is dead. Everyone is a star behind their bars.

Meanwhile in Canada we can not build a pipeline in B.C. without woke climate agitators blocking rail-lines on the other end of the country. Who is paying for this activism?

On the other side, Rex Murphy has been fighting the good fight.

 
Last edited:

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,519
Age of the celeb is dead. Everyone is a star behind their bars.

Yes, people have grown sick of them with all their virtue signalling for the establishment and being out of touch with real people. Thankfully all these silly award shows are dying a natural death. I think the internet has exposed them for their hypocrisy, and the average person has caught onto it. Of course you will get those silly kids who always worship celebrity, but people who have got to pay bills and live in the real world can't afford to follow the advise of the establishment/swamp because it means paying through the nose for green policies, and that is bad for business and the standard of living.

Celebrities = support the swamp. The swamp people are not our friends. The swamp people are authoritarians who want to take your money. The swap people say "do as l say, don't do as l do!"
 
Last edited:

Rambo

Supporter of Possible Sexual Deviants
Moderator
Supporter
Messages
29,951
The slebs, are, doing, their, bit...

View attachment 33219


View attachment 33220
the portman and hilton ones are silly but what's so bad about fonda and especially phoenix? shouldn't we be promoting sustainable practices?
Age of the celeb is dead. Everyone is a star behind their bars.

Meanwhile in Canada we can not build a pipeline in B.C. without woke climate agitators blocking rail-lines on the other end of the country. Who is paying for this activism?

On the other side, Rex Murphy has been fighting the good fight.

wait a second arny. you're telling me that you are in favor of the displacement of thousands of indigenous peoples just so you can continue to wreck what is left of canada's environment?

are you also aware that thousands of other protesters are out in the streets across canada protesting this thing?

so do you hate the environment, the indigenous, the protestors, or all of the above?

what benefit do you see in the continuous selling of oil to china?
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,519
Age of the celeb is dead. Everyone is a star behind their bars.

Meanwhile in Canada we can not build a pipeline in B.C. without woke climate agitators blocking rail-lines on the other end of the country. Who is paying for this activism?

On the other side, Rex Murphy has been fighting the good fight.


Dr Patrick Moore, a founder of propaganda group Greenpeace (he quit Greenpeace in disgust) makes great listening. This is one of his best videos: Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout - Dr Patrick Moore , but youtube has hidden it so the masses can't view it. It's much better than the one linked.

Who is funding the activism? You can be sure it is communist with big pockets.
 
Last edited:

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,561
Who is funding the activism? You can be sure it is communist with big pockets.
Why does someone have to be funding the activism? It could be, you know, people who actually care about the environment and who want to push their government to adopt policies that look to the future, to a future beyond oil.

As I've said before, I'm both frustrated and amused by these conspiracy theories about how very wealthy people or groups are secretly funding environmental movements.

Let's face it, which of the following is more likely:
- Wealthy people decide to secretly fund environmental movements for no particularly discernable gain; or
- Enormously wealthy fossil fuel companies decide to fund anti-green propaganda, including the dissemination of conspiracy theories that say that wealthy people are secretly funding environmental activism?
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,519
Why does someone have to be funding the activism?
Because it pays for wealthy authoritarians to be finding activism, especially when media are paid to be present. The more these paid activists are on t.v the more the average person will buy into the propaganda and be easier to control.

Journeyman said:
It could be, you know, people who actually care about the environment and who want to push their government to adopt policies that look to the future, to a future beyond oil.
It is probably some of those people too, but in more recent times these activists groups have been said to be outsiders because of their appearance not being like normal protesters nor any local people knowing anyone protesting in these local groups. Apparently many of these paid activist groups get transported in for the day and then transported out, that is their job. They are like crisis actors, they just play a role they are paid to play for the media.


Journeyman said:
Let's face it, which of the following is more likely:
- Wealthy people decide to secretly fund environmental movements for no particularly discernable gain; or
- Enormously wealthy fossil fuel companies decide to fund anti-green propaganda, including the dissemination of conspiracy theories that say that wealthy people are secretly funding environmental activism?
No discernable gain?? Dunno about that. Surveillance, electronic money, control and low wages via Agenda 21. Once the rabbits are in the pen you can do whatever you want to them. Plenty of benefits for the plutocrats with that situation...they can squeeze the little man with no mercy and grind his bones to dust. `Climate Change' is there trump card.

What is more likely these days? The former of course. There is big money and CONTROL in globalisation for the plutocrats. Read all the communist works and you'll see why l say this...this plan started in Russia and was passed to the Chinese who perfected the propaganda system. This has been a long time coming. All the communists needed to do was infiltrate the West (they did that in the 50's and 60's) and then take over the West using the U.N and other global organisations filled with communist types. They almost succeeded, but the last few years has undone them. The climate lies is unraveling too. Even better, China and India won't join the Paris Agreement, and the U.S left, so there little world communism plan is bust. :ahahahaha:

All wealthy fossil fuel companies need to do is invest in other forms energy companies and slowly wind down fossil fuels, but fortunately many aren't doing that. We need cheap efficient energy sources.
 
Last edited:

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,561
Surveillance, electronic money, control and low wages...

There is big money and CONTROL in globalisation for the plutocrats.
Shooey - we already have this. You don't need to carry on about ridiculous "Agenda 21" conspiracy theories and other quackeries that you've picked up from the depths of the internet. Very wealthy people *already* control our political systems. Governments *already* have mass surveillance. We *already* use electronic money.

It astonishes me that people who are worried about control and influence of wealthy people are so willing to accept this idea that there are shadowy, very wealthy interests behind the environmental movement. Don't you understand that there are *incredibly* wealthy interests behind fossil fuel producers? And that those fossil fuel producers are very willing to spend their money to protect their own interests? And that this can include casting doubt on the environmental movement? That's where the money and interests are - not behind the environmental movement.
 

Scherensammler

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,557
Aren't you confusing Germany with Britain here?
Probably a similar fate. A lot of jobs went abroad (first to Eastern Europe/ Warsaw Pact countries), then to South East Asia.
Whatever place was/ is cheapest.
I must say, though, that the air quality in Germany's industrial hot spots was pretty miserable until they had to install filters in their chimneys to stop acid rain. I don't think German miners had it as bad as the British ones. High standards of safety and good health care.
but what's so bad about fonda and especially phoenix? shouldn't we be promoting sustainable practices?
The Fonda thing is just stupid. Virtue signalling for rich people. What the fuck is a sustainable diamond? Would it not have been better, if she had her old jewellery reworked?
Wearing the same tuxedo for all award shows is fine. Looks a bit dull, though. More like an undertaker.
Don't think the women would want to wear the same outfits to every event.
 

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,519
Shooey - we already have this. You don't need to carry on about ridiculous "Agenda 21" conspiracy theories and other quackeries that you've picked up from the depths of the internet. Very wealthy people *already* control our political systems. Governments *already* have mass surveillance. We *already* use electronic money.

It astonishes me that people who are worried about control and influence of wealthy people are so willing to accept this idea that there are shadowy, very wealthy interests behind the environmental movement. Don't you understand that there are *incredibly* wealthy interests behind fossil fuel producers? And that those fossil fuel producers are very willing to spend their money to protect their own interests? And that this can include casting doubt on the environmental movement? That's where the money and interests are - not behind the environmental movement.
Obviously your understanding and my understanding of things are very different.

All one needs to do is compare Agenda 21 to what is happening in real life and one can see it is not a conspiracy theory.

If one studies the history of communist movements by reading things like the Nine Commentaries of the Communist Party and the well referenced Specter of Communism is Ruling this World (both written by groups of people living under communist rule) the picture becomes quite clear.

You mention about wealthy people behind fossil fuels, but that is missing the point. The point is the agenda of communism to infiltrate and take over the West because communism is a specter and it wants to rule over all. Those two books explain the tactics in great detail, and indeed those tactics are being played out in real life as we speak.

I put it to you that some like to think these things as conspiracy, but search a little deeper and you'll find the dots all connect to well established facts. The information is there for who are meant to see it. You either see it or you don't.
 
Last edited:

Journeyman

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Messages
3,561
I put it to you that some like to think these things as conspiracy, but search a little deeper and you'll find the dots all connect to well established facts. The information is there for who are meant to see it. You either see it or you don't.
I've long known that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy bogeyman, but the stuff about it out there on the internet is largely a load of rubbish that entirely ignores the fact that the UN is a voluntary organisation and that Agenda 21 signatories are in no way actually compelled to do anything.

I realise that this comment may be a bit personal, Shooey, but I put it to you that you have a long history of being credulous towards whacky ideas (as an example, I submit your sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land phase) and this belief that the environmental movement is supported by a shadowy cabal of wealthy "communists" is the latest in a series.

Edited to add: I just realised that the comment above may come across as a bit harsh. I understand that you look at communism as something bad because of your interest in a Chinese philosophy, and I know that particular movement that you are interested in publishes the Epoch Times, a newspaper that is very critical of communism.

However, you must understand that the current Chinese government is not "communist". It's never actually been communist (if we're being pedantic). It was socialist and autocratic, but it's not even socialist anymore. It's just autocratic.

So when you talk about the threat of global communism, you're not talking about anything that is real. You're talking about a bogeyman, a fictitious monster. There are enough monsters (ie threats to our wellbeing) out there without needing to make one up.

Also, with respect, given your willingness to previously disappear down the rabbit hole of sovereign citizenry, only to later discover that it was a load of utter codswallop, I think that you should be doubly careful to exercise scepticism when you find yourself being attracted to some ideas. Think about it a few times and do some research - wide research, not narrow, self-referential research - before believing.
 
Last edited:

The Shooman

A Pretty Face
Messages
2,519
I've long known that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy bogeyman, but the stuff about it out there on the internet is largely a load of rubbish that entirely ignores the fact that the UN is a voluntary organisation and that Agenda 21 signatories are in no way actually compelled to do anything.
The U.N is voluntary, but binding agreements can easily come from it. Eg, the initial Paris Agreement is not binding, but countries can enter in binding agreements in later stages, and certainly there has been pressure to do so. This is the danger.


Journeyman said:
I realise that this comment may be a bit personal, Shooey, but I put it to you that you have a long history of being credulous towards whacky ideas (as an example, I submit your sovereign citizen/freeman-on-the-land phase)
Using labels like "conspiracy bogeyman" and "whacky ideas" doesn't make you right.

As for freeman of the land theories, many of my ideas were right and proven before a court of law. How? I had a friend who paid a $131,000 debt using a `bill of exchange' and his birth certificate. I saw his paperwork, l was in court when the judge read it and handed it to the state prosecutor. Later l had a chat with the prosecutor about it and the payment was not an issue. The problem was that the friend didn't turn up to court to hand it in, he had a family member hand the `bill of exchange' in. The prosecutor fully admitted the `bill of exchange'was fine. So you can't tell me this is all conspiracy, l saw it with my own eyes and saw the judges reaction and spoke with the prosecutor. Using your birth certificate to pay does work! ...so it tells me there is a strawman and second account.

The conversation with the state prosecutor went like this:

shooey = what is the problem, he has already paid you (using computer printed `bill of exchange' and birth certificate)

prosecutor = that's not the issue. The issue is that he didn't turn up to court.



Journeyman said:
Edited to add: I just realised that the comment above may come across as a bit harsh.
It's not so bad, but using labels with negative connotations is the thing which isn't nice. We just have a difference in opinion.

Journeyman said:
I understand that you look at communism as something bad because of your interest in a Chinese philosophy, and I know that particular movement that you are interested in publishes the Epoch Times, a newspaper that is very critical of communism.

However, you must understand that the current Chinese government is not "communist". It's never actually been communist (if we're being pedantic). It was socialist and autocratic, but it's not even socialist anymore. It's just autocratic.
The CCP is a weird arrangement. It is an autocratic capitalism society.

Why do you say the CCP was never communist?

We have to be careful when talking about what real communism is. Real communism by definition probably doesn't exist, but real world communism does in that the few who rule live well while the rest live poorly and in fear of the ruling body. Communism will always be corrupted by the few ruling at the top so it will never be pure communism IMO. Thanks to communist infiltration, many countries are heading the communist way with government employees living well and ignoring the constitution and rule of law (Andrews Govt in Victoria is a classic example) while dishing out excessive laws to everyone and taking more and more of people's money.

Imo communism takes it all the way and makes it o.k to kill. Socialism doesn't take it so far. If you question the communist regimes then killing that person is seen as a good thing because it is protecting the all knowing regime from detractors. Mass killing is perfectly fine to them, but you are not supposed to talk about it in the open.

Journeyman said:
So when you talk about the threat of global communism, you're not talking about anything that is real. You're talking about a bogeyman, a fictitious monster. There are enough monsters (ie threats to our wellbeing) out there without needing to make one up.
No l am not. I am talking about real world communism, not communism by it's strictest definition.

Journeyman said:
Also, with respect, given your willingness to previously disappear down the rabbit hole of sovereign citizenry, only to later discover that it was a load of utter codswallop, I think that you should be doubly careful to exercise scepticism when you find yourself being attracted to some ideas. Think about it a few times and do some research - wide research, not narrow, self-referential research - before believing.
Here you go again, thinking you know it all....thinking it's all conspiracy and thinking the sovereign stuff is codswallop when you don't really know. I didn't just read the internet, I went into the field and met the sovereigns and went to the courts to find out how things worked out and spoke to the prosecutor and heard the judge.

Journeyman, it is not all you think it to be. You make so many assumptions in what you say.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom