green ignorance

… will cause hell on earth.

It may not be what they want – at least not what the majority of them want, but it is what will be achieved if they allow the “green” madness to continue.
Why? Because it is all built on a base of lies and greed.

Is it all out of massive igno­rance, or are any of the “greens” really belie­ving that they do any good by atta­cking humanity, nature and all forms for pro­gress in order to save the Earth's climate?
And does any­one – “green” or other­wise – really thinks that leaving all control and deci­sions to a few distant leaders, have any advan­tage over letting the bil­lions who know local con­di­tions first hand ini­ti­ate pro­ces­ses and decide what works best for them and their environments?
Human history has a few things to say about this, and those in power rarely ever have been pre­sen­ted in a good light after the various historic events have become common knowledge.

Why so little has been learned from history, really puzzles me at times. It is all there for ever­yone to see, and as I can­not imagine the majo­rity of common people being plain stupid, there has to be other reasons for the repea­ted fail­ures to see past the fake fa­ca­des most of those who want to con­trol us tend to hide behind.
Are common people just too busy, or maybe even too lazy, to keep track of what goes on in the socie­ties they form the major­ity in and are the most impor­tant parts of?

To iterate what has been pre­sen­ted as head­lines in media in later years, just in case memory fails…
TIME - 1977: “The Big Freeze” TIME - 2001: “GLOBAL WARMING” TIME - 2010: “More signs of GLOBAL WARMING”

Was it the usual exag­ger­a­tions and sensa­tion­al­ism media has always been full of, or did their sources sneak in some bad data some­where, or maybe every­where? Maybe they should check his­toric climate-data them­selves, before applying war-types across their front pages and else­where? You never know; such a policy might make media a tiny bit more rele­vant in the long run. Good thing is: if we just relax on the sub­ject and wait a few years, we won't need big types in media to tell us what not to worry about as the climate keeps on changing (as it has always done).

know your audience…

There are leaders and there are fol­lowers, and there are those who choose to be neither. All part of the same thing with many dif­ferences, and not all we meet want to dis­cuss, listen to or explain any­thing. It is their right either way, and should be res­pec­ted. Would of course be nice if it worked both ways for all parties, but…

image text:
Man asks wise man: “What is the secret to eternal happiness?”
Wise man answers: “To not argue with fools.”
Man responds to this answer: “I disagree.”
To which wise man responds: “Yes, you are right.”

Arguing facts with people who claim to have already found absolute truth, is more than just a waste of our time. It is coun­ter­pro­duc­tive since they do not want to know any­thing but what their leaders have told them, and some may even become ag­gres­sive in contact with who they regard as “dis­be­lievers” – all who do not think like them.
Never mind them, as facts stand strongly on their own and are not depen­ding on be­liev­ers and/​or fol­lowers in order to be true.

There should be time to listen as well as to talk when humans really com­muni­cate and not only pretend to, and only people who actu­ally want to broa­den their know­ledge-base are worthy our time to broaden ours.

It is that two-way com­muni­ca­tion “thingy” again … listen to and evaluate what is being said, not just using the time while other people are talking to prepare one's next response to them.

Whether or not minds are changed for the better as a result of open dis­cus­sions, is not what mat­ters most for an ac­cept­able out­come. Know­ledge is power­ful enough in itself – once received, and will con­tinue to sup­port all par­ties with minds of their own.
The self-appointed fools can­not be helped … just keep them from pol­luting the in­no­cent and in­ex­pe­ri­enced minds of our young ones.

Knowledge is easy to carry uphill, and no need to push any of it onto others in order to study it in depth and con­clude on its value. One is per­son­ally res­pon­sible for what know­ledge one will gat­her in life, and how one chooses to apply same knowledge. — freely from old Viking sayings in Håvamål1

not in my name…

“Democracy” sounds nice, but it is not what it is hyped up to be in poli­tical speeches and come elec­tion days. No signs “democracy” ever was more than just another misused word uttered by people seeking power, since it ori­gi­na­ted back in an­cient Athens, in today's Greece.

No-one on Earth can claim to do any­thing in my name with­out my con­sent, and I do not give those out lightly. That goes for who­ever get my votes on elec­tion days too, as they still have to answer to me when it comes to what they do, or not, while in po­si­tion.
Not that I expect many, if any of them, to res­pect that, but not all that many, if any of them, deserve any res­pect from me either.

These days most of those in, or seeking, power­ful posi­tions in our socie­ties, are kaki­sto­crats rather than demo­crats. Thus, no reason to wonder why humanity, along with the environ­ment and all that lives, get trea­ted as worth­less crap by those.

I am deliberately aiming at gaining some of that “eternal happiness” men­ti­oned above, and am more inter­es­ted in gat­her­ing and ana­lys­ing data by myself than argue back and forth with people who don't care about data and facts un­less they are or can be “ad­jus­ted” to line up with what they have already been taught.
Although I will argue accor­ding to my know­ledge at the time on any subject of in­ter­est – if invi­ted or pro­voked, I also try to lis­ten to those who do provide de­vi­at­ing data. Other­wise all real sour­ces risk being silenced, and where would that leave the truth?

Stay safe, and never stop using common sense…

sincerely 

Hageland 14.may.2020
last rev: 15.may.2020