…..British comrade on what awaits 96% of us even if no catastrophes occur
John, This was the finding of a “coping survey” carried out by UK banks, etc., to see how people cope during their working lives…. so banks can tailor their products to people.
This is what they found, and it doesn’t matter if you went to uni [US: college], or you have rich parents or not.
Of people working from 20 to 65 years of age:
30% will die before 65.
46% retire broke on a state pension.
20% keep on working past 65 as a necessity.
3% will be financially ok
1% will be rich.
You will fall into one of these categories: the wretched 96% or the happy 4% group.
As I said previously, John, people will have to rent until they die. What jobs will 80- or 90-year-olds be doing to pay their rent as we live longer?
People will be begging to die rather than live in the poverty and the shit that are all of their own making, because they obstinately voted for the same political paedos every time, and ignored us, and scorned us, who tried to enlighten them.
Or maybe they won’t really beg to die! Maybe they haven’t got the guts to do it.
They will just live out a life of poverty, cheap out-of-date food, no car, holidays or blue sky, wearing clothes from charity shops, using light bulbs to keep warm by, keeping their clothes on in bed to stop from freezing to death….all while being bombarded by adverts for a champagne lifestyle they will never have. Lol!
Not alive, nor dead, all because the believed the politicians and their controllers. Lol.
Sorry, John. I feel no pity for them, as they have been told what awaits them. [end]
.
I wrote this comrade:
Thanks for your comment, which I will use and soon respond to.
Certainly, only the most spiritual and loving person will persist at this late point, because the masses ARE asses.
Bodyguard Carl Mason and white leader Nick Griffin:
We who have been activists for decades have experienced this. I guess they are good Christians, because they sure do “love their enemies, turn the other cheek, and pray for those who persecute them.” 😉
.
.
……”The Dimming”
I promoted this yesterday and decided to do so today as well, because it is THAT good and THAT important.
And I just also downloaded it to this besieged, jew-hacked website.
Government-paid agent “AJ” of “The Why Files” lays out much of the evidence proving that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, then tries to “debunk” cherry-picked evidence using extremely weak NASA talking points, while conveniently ignoring the huge problem of deep-space radiation, support wires flashing in the light, the deliberate destruction of all Apollo blueprints and telemetry data, and many other things. As for the fake Stanley Kubrick interview, that is old news which anyone following the Apollo moon hoax already knows about, yet “AJ” makes it the centerpiece of his weak “debunking” effort:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDyJe1nmSOM
I had suspected this guy is a paid disinformation agent, because he follows this same pattern for every conspiracy subject he covers – he lays out all the evidence, then unconvincingly tries to “debunk” it. Also, as I mentioned before, his whole presentation is much too slick and Hollywood-like. He’s an actor reading a script. This video proves that he can’t be trusted at all.
I partially agree, but I have seen him do videos on very disturbing Deep-State/CIA crimes and barely make an effort to debunk them.
I think he is like Putin, Tucker Carlson, Trump, and Alex Jones, etc. They all try to figure out how far they can go and 1) stay alive and 2) keep their platform. The Roseanne Barrs, Kanye Wests, and, decades earlier, Bobby Fischers, who go, so to speak, “full-Hitler” on the jews, get totally cancelled.
A.J.’s “Why Files” video on Operation Highjump was intriguing. He debunked some things but on others he basically said: “I think there really is something going on here.”
This is a full response: https://johndenugent.com/spiritual-reading-fake-moon-landing-watch-body-language-anemic-arguments/
They intentionally burned fires in Canada little over a month ago, IMO, in order to condition people to identify the thick, nasty smog-like haze as smoke from Canadian fires, visible from the Midwest to the North East Coast… It even smelled like smoke at the time.
However, now, here in Ohio, every day for the last three weeks there has been a extreme gray haze that has no smell at all. I tend to believe it is low-level fallout from chemtrails/geo-engineering [that Dana Wigington denounces].
People got so conditioned from the fires that the haze became normalized in the back of their minds. They still believe it is Canadian forest fires doing it, or itz is drifting up here from some of the lower states… Sorry, folks, but smoke has a STRONG SCENT!
We are being sprayed over and over to reduce our population by the usual suspects, and top scientists that are “Nobel Prize Winners Issue Emergency Warning” That there is no climate emergency https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
Thanks; very informative. So the genuine Canadian forest-fire smoke perhaps was designed to get us used to haze, which may not be real smoke from fires at all but instead, in reality, a nasty new kind and quantity of chemtrailing.
I tend to agree with Dana Wigington that there IS climate change, but it is deliberate, genocidal, and it is the CIA doing it, not innocent carbon dioxide! Why else would our skies be criss-crossed with both chemtrails (with expensive aluminum nano-particles) and all the denials — unless they were up to something evil?
I looked up that website: https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf: [This is a very long, highly impressive list of expert signatories!!!] https://johndenugent.com/wp-content/uploads/World-Climate-Declaration-18-feb-2023.pdf
Want to sign? Please fill in this form.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
There is no climate emergency
A global network of over 1501 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts
World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf
World Climate Declaration AMBASSADORS
NOBEL LAUREATE PROFESSOR IVAR GIAEVER NORWAY/USA
PROFESSOR GUUS BERKHOUT / THE NETHERLANDS
DR. CORNELIS LE PAIR / THE NETHERLANDS
PROFESSOR REYNALD DU BERGER / FRENCH SPEAKING CANADA
BARRY BRILL / NEW ZEALAND
VIV FORBES / AUSTRALIA
DR. PATRICK MOORE / ENGLISH SPEAKING CANADA
JENS MORTON HANSEN / DENMARK
PROFESSOR LÁSZIÓ SZARKA / HUNGARY
PROFESSOR SEOK SOON PARK / SOUTH KOREA
PROFESSOR JAN-ERIK SOLHEIM / NORWAY
STAVROS ALEXANDRIS / GREECE
FERDINAND MEEUS / DUTCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR RICHARD LINDZEN / USA
HENRI A. MASSON / FRENCH SPEAKING BELGIUM
PROFESSOR INGEMAR NORDIN / SWEDEN
JIM O’BRIEN / REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
PROFESSOR IAN PLIMER / AUSTRALIA
DOUGLAS POLLOCK / CHILE
DR. BLANCA PARGA LANDA / SPAIN
PROFESSOR ALBERTO PRESTININZI / ITALY
PROFESSOR BENOÎT RITTAUD / FRANCE
DR. THIAGO MAIA / BRAZIL
PROFESSOR FRITZ VAHRENHOLT / GERMANY
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY / UNITED KINGDOM
DUŠAN BIŽIĆ / CROATIA, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, SERBIA AND MONTE NEGRO
Deborah Tavares on climate change:
New World Order: Communism by the Backdoor Part 20 (Dennis Wise Documentary)
https://archive.org/details/DennisWise_NWO/n20_NWO+Communism+by+the+Backdoor+Part+20.mp4
In 2016 I took a cross-country train ride from Emeryville, CA (which is across the bay from San Francisco) to Chicago, IL to visit my mother who lived in Wheaton, IL, a Chicago suburb.
From the window of my train seat I observed an enormous amount of dead trees throughout my 2,300 mile journey.
I was aware of J. Marvin Herndon’s writings about chemtrails, so when I got to my Mom’s house the first thing I did was an internet search of “chemtrails and dead trees.”
Sure enough, chemtrails do kill trees.