Orwell’s Nightmare: Temperature Adjustments and Climate Change

07/14/201738 Comments

Who controls the temperature datasets controls the past, and who controls the past controls the future. Welcome to the Orwellian world of temperature adjustments and climate alarmism. Sit up straight and buckle up tight, because this is consensus science as brought to you by Big Brother.


What Is The Average Global Temperature?

The Global Warming Pause Explained

Roy Spencer’s Prediction

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects

FAQ about the RSS V4.0 TLT Update

Systematic Destruction Of The Temperature Record

Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of Recent Warming’ In Climate Data Sets

On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data

New Satellite Data Still Shows Less Global Warming Than Climate Models

How They airbrushed out the Inconvenient Pause


Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (38)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. HomeRemedySupply says:

    Interesting Corbett episode about making the trend line very steep.
    It is as if the Public Relations / Marketing arm sent out a memo “Come up with a more alarming climate change graph so we can scare the shorts off people.”

    Coincidently, two days ago I was rereading the 1975 Newsweek article about how the planet was cooling. I remember the hype about ‘The Coming Ice Age’.

    A couple things on the 1975 article…
    ~ Notice how they proportion the graph to make it alarmist.
    GRAPHIC – http://www.climate4you.com/images/19750428%20CoolingWorld%20NEWSWEEK.jpg
    ~ ha!…one potential solution was to melt the ice caps with black soot.

    The last line of the article is still repeated today, more than 40 years later: “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality.”
    ARTICLE – https://archive.org/stream/GlobalCoolingNewsweekArticle1975#page/n0/mode/1up

  2. nosoapradio says:

    Just felt like reiterating the following old observation that actually scored me a “MAY constitute bias” point from a neighbor last week-end…

    When you look at the IPCC’s mission statement, you understand that the group does not exist to understand the dynamics of climate change. It’s mission as stated by the IPCC is:

    “… to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

    So its goal is to prove the existence of human-induced climate change

    to the exclusion of studying any and all non-human-induced causes.

    Should they fail to prove humans are at least partially responsible for climate change, their raison d’être goes up in a cloud of smog.

    The whole operation presupposes that climate change is bad and that “mitigation” might not only be necessary but possible.

    In a world that has adopted doctors as priests, it also gives the illusion of scientists ruling government. People must get used to and grow to love that idea if they’re to abandon democracy in favor of technocracy.

  3. Octium says:

    Bankster: The Earth is flat!

    Scientist: No, the Earth is Round!

    Bankster: Here, have a million dollars…

    Scientist: How flat would you like it?

  4. Is it ironic that they release global warming data in the summer? 1/4 chance.

    I like David Suzuki but that makes me sad. Some free speech can be uncomfortable.

    While he was a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation = propaganda) spokesman, his science and nature documentaries were so good that when I was 13 or 14 I was happy to go to a private golf club with my Dad to hear him speak for the first time. I was the only kid there. He got drunk and when he asked me what I wanted to do when I grow up, I said computers because I didn’t know much better, and he was annoyed and dismissed me saying, “That’s what everyone says.” The other times I saw him were better.

    He’s a good writer. And while I’ve come to almost completely accept that Climate Change is another lie, being good stewards of Earth is still important and the mass extinction event is startling.

    • michael.b says:

      Suzuki is a moron, always has been. another one who preaches but does not practice what he preaches. He is a cardboard hero.


      • I won’t disagree that Suzuki doesn’t always practice what he preaches. That’s another boring rant.

        Citing “The Rebel”, Canada’s alt-right fools, to poop on David Suzuki, Canada’s CBC Green mascot, doesn’t work for me. They’re a broken clock that’s right once in a while and alt-right always.

        However, I agree that he’s a cardboard hero.

        What I really wonder is, if many of our cardboard heroes had the inclination or exposure “the truth”, how many would change?

        For example, Naomi Klein, who I also really like, refuses to comment on 9/11 because she hasn’t looked into it and won’t speculate without research. Meanwhile the Shock Doctrine and our global war on terror are fundamentally associated.

        Granted, they are paid not to question as their jobs depend on their “ignorance” etc. And if low-life scum like me and you can figure so much of this shit out – then why can’t they…?

        But we are simultaneously more/less common than we can imagine. Most in my neighborhood have no clue. Some have some ideas. A few are woke. My family is in the dark and fear for my sanity – meanwhile my mom believes everything on the CBC National News.

        No matter how many times I spear their bubbles, many of them don’t want too look outside it into the light.

    • m.clare says:

      “Stewards of the Earth” and “Mass Extinction” are excellent examples of the relentless Greenwashing propaganda in which we have been fully immersed since the 1980’s. Please read “Cloak of Green” (Elaine Dewar).

      Suzuki was the author of my first year genetics textbook; he is NOT a moron. He knows precisely which side of his bread is buttered.

      Suzuki was locked up during WW-II for being a Japanese Canadian. I think he spent the rest of his life plotting revenge on Canada…. he became a well connected, wealthy snake oil salesman and he’s thoroughly enjoying the last laugh.

  5. nosoapradio says:

    “…The top five years for setting record maximums were all during the 1930s. No year this century even shows up in the top fifteen. Last year didn’t even make the top sixty…
    …Even if we divide the 1930s numbers by two – they are still hotter than 2011…

    …There is no theoretical argument which can justify the history rewrite being done by the NOAA Ministry of Truth…”


    Don Easterbrook did an admirable job of taking on what is clearly hostile members of a senate hearing…

    “Here is the real original data …before NASA went and made it cooler…before they manipulated it…”


    • generalbottlewasher says:

      Nosoapradio, thank you for posting Dr. Easterbrooks testimony before the Washington State committee. My progressive liberal friends will not even look at testimony by peer review scientists like Easterbrook because they have the Nasa “sludge” data in their hands like the pin headed prick Sen.Ranker did. It is so disheartening but that seems to be the essence of liberalism.
      My observations in the deepstate climate engineering plan is that since the data fail cannot be accepted then it would necessary to just physically heat up the local climate to accomplish the same outcome. Correct me if I’m wrong, but after spraying 2 tons or so of nano-aluminum and various chemicals, they turn on the large microwave units to improve the dispersing of the poison in the atmosphere. This must heat the surrounding air mass considerably. Inturn it would seem to increase the temperatures while the creation of the subsequent cloud layer that typically forms after heavy spraying, blankets the area trapping additional heat locally. Solar Radiation Management increasing the temperature while being presented as combating global warming. Deepstate personified perfectly.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Your Geo-engineered poison dispersal solar radiation management heat-up scenario is… chilling.

        And unfortunately…

        not entirely… inconceivable…

        doublespeak and all…

        • I love testimonies.

          I can prove the Earth is cooling with my first hand testimony.

          In 2007 I was in Texas and it was hot and they were crazy.

          In 2008 I was at Burning Man and it was crazy and hot.

          Then I was crazy and moved back to Canada and it’s never been as hot.

          Proof. Mic drop.

  6. mrsoapdish says:

    Ya know,

    Ever since the president took office, this has been all I can think of in his speech, and it has permeated all of those associated. It is distinctly different communication than we have seen in the past. Yes, we’ve always had lies, and yes we’ve always had lies disguised as truth, but this is the first time, in my observation that we have seen such strange communication.

    As Kanye West put it, it is a very “futuristic” method of communication. (When interestingly, a genius visionary observed the coming of this very trend in his writings).

    With the words always forming a moving target, it can always be everything. It is neither one nor the other, and yet both. Bravo! The Doublespeak has been truly put into play. It has begun to proliferate everything it touches. One cannot be accused for anything while at the same moment instantaneously be justified, all hinging on communication feedback in the moment.

    Hence the need to control the past. This process culminates in a complete cycle of control.

  7. scpat says:

    A puzzling question, given that human-caused global warming is NOT as severe as it is made out to be:

    – Why is there such a consensus with the majority of scientists on recent increased warming, and in general that human-caused global warming is more or less a ‘settled science’? My thoughts on this are:

    It is not necessary to get every single scientist on-board with this warming consensus individually, it is only necessary to have the most influential scientists and institutions at the top to influence the scientists below them. A top-down type of consensus. I think this can be looked at from a standpoint of human nature: most people (scientist or not) do not want to be the odd one out, the one who is different from the group. Being the one in the international scientific community and/or international media spotlight for having a different opinion can be uncomfortable and unfavorable for one’s career (e.g. Dr. Judith Curry and others). By putting enough top-down pressure on scientists, the consensus can be bent enough to be in favor of the desired understanding.

    • nosoapradio says:

      “the most influential scientists” turned out to be either the most incompetent or the most corrupt

      specifically of Micheal Mann hockey stick fame and Phil Jones climategate shame…

      the rest of the scientists are basically hushed up by the IPCC process itself where politicians, activists and journalists rewrite the scientific Working Group 1 report, renaming it the Summary for Policymakers. Then the science, that is published after the propaganda, is rewritten to conform to “the official ‘Summary’ version”.

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      I agree.
      That last paragraph of yours says a lot.

      I think this is a Marketing Tactic often used.
      Recruit the Influence Makers or the Leaders of Opinion in order to “sell the product”. Like you pointed out, if you get the top tier on board, then others follow suit.
      We see this in politics.
      We see this in running shoes with celebrities.
      We see this in breakfast cereal.

      It is interesting that the MainStreamMedia uses this marketing tactic so much that it no longer impinges. They bring on “experts” and “pundits” to tell the story rather show the actual event or cite the original source.
      I think people in general are worn out with this pundit approach unless it reinforces a preconceived idea or unless the audience member just wants someone to tell him what to believe.

      • scpat says:


        I believe a lot of people do want what your last line described, “the audience member just wants someone to tell him what to believe.” Particularly in this age of instant gratification and Hollywood special effects, memes and gifs on the internet, everything instant, little sound bites of information because they ‘don’t have time.’ I think that is what society has become, at least Western society. I believe the MSM knows very well about this and tailors their message to fit that model, and conviently they don’t need to provide real evidence as often.

    • mkey says:

      Um, who says there is consensus? There have been a number of studies to support such claim but as far as I understand they have all been discredited.

      • scpat says:

        It doesn’t matter how discredited they really are, as long as you have the media, celebrities, politicians, and the rest of the bandwagon (the ‘consensus’ for all intents and purposes) in a fervor saying man-made climate change is a threat to humanity that we must do something about.

        More toward your statement though, I think it would be helpful to make a list of all the studies known to be ‘bad science’. Maybe that kind of list already exists.

        • mkey says:

          I don’t know how many studies have been done on the subject, I know of a few that have been dragged through the meta the most. There was the 97% study which analyzed some 2200 papers and produced completely fraudulent results. There was also the 100% online poll with rigged choices where practically all scientists it polled agreed the climate changes (which haven’t been proved to any extent) are anthropocentric in origin.

          Goes hand in hand with studies such as one which demonstrated 70something% female students in the US get raped during their college stay, while the actual FBI statistic is 1 in 10.000 or 100.000, I’m not 100% certain atm.

          All of these have been extensively referenced by Obummer through his presidency and disseminated as gospel by his excellency.

          Producing an extensive list of these false studies which are nothing but experiments in social engineering would be daunting but a worthwhile task.

  8. PeaceFroggs says:

    Although I believe man made “global warming” is a hoax, to be clear, the Paris agreement is non-binding, and no money from this resolution is going to the UN. Just thought I point that out, cuz it’s kinda important.

  9. d-One says:

    Lisa Haven just posted that climate scientists are pushing the agenda, talking about climate conditions causing “Global Famine”…. (but they cannot stop themselves from tinkering with geoengineering to bring it about!)

    And here is another that I have not listened to yet…
    Eric T. Karlstrom “Climate Change Myth Is A CIA & International Banker Plan To Impoverish Humanity.”

  10. nosoapradio says:

    “…UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes…”

    UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor

    “… With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object…

    …Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited

    the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.

    The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control…”


  11. m.clare says:

    November 13, 2015 – ISIL terrorists kill 130 people and injure 368 in Paris, France

    November 30, 2015 – World leaders meet to sign COP21 in Paris, France

    Who benefitted from the terrorist attacks 2 weeks prior to COP21?

    November 15, 2015 – French air force launch Opération Chammal (dropping bombs on Raqqa)

    A 3-month state of emergency kept the streets of Paris, France free of pesky citizens during the Great Climate Austerity Extravaganza.


    Yes, I’m suggesting the “terrorist attacks” were a false flag to justify bombing Raqqa 2 days later and keeping protesters off the streets during COP21.

    Orwellian? You bet.

  12. If the climate measurement and “adjustments” process is not transparent, reproducible, and open for critical analysis and discussion THEN IT’S NOT SCIENCE !!!

    So is the science in on their science? Can we see their methodology?

    If not then they are practicing occulted scientism (a.k.a. secreted dogmatic science-like practices).

    Just believe and have faith that what they believe is faithful.

  13. I think climate change was the second-last thing I disagreed with Corbett on. I always new Carbon Tax was a scam but the rest seemed plausible. Delving deeper on other things and embedding myself deeper into the skeptical analysis of power and manipulation, I’ve come around and it seems sooo much easier to doubt climate change.

    To my point, I’d like Corbett to report on a) his spirituality, whatever that may be, and another report on b) morality.

    “I’ve always been an atheist because I’m reasonable…” ~Anthony Jeselnik

    Me too. Corbett said he wasn’t. I want to know why.

    Why you may ask? Because why is all I have left.

    By asking why about absolutely everything, I’ve come to determine I don’t believe in anything for sure. I think therefor I am 99.9% sure I exist, either in a simulation or not.

    I don’t believe in church, wars, state, government, secrets, media, or dogmas of any kind. Capitalism, socialism, agorism all have flaws so I can’t commit to any of them. Natural law seems good though I have yet to delve deep into that.

    Religions, occultism, symbolism, numerology… it’s all fascinating how it affects so many people but beyond that I don’t buy into any of that.

    All I have left is my morality. Sadly, I have to admit that my morality is as myopic as my moods in a any moment so often I look back at moments and realize that when I thought I was trying to help everyone I was only doing it for myself. I am a terrible example of a human being, yet I am a good person and haven’t killed anyone (yet), been to jail (not really a measure for too many, sadly), I’m not a thief (beyond office supplies), and I’ve been pretty decent to others (but could have been better too often).

    I was far more social when younger. Now I’m older and don’t give a shit. I’m not considering turning to the dark side and embracing all the Machiavellian shit I now know – but why not? I have hope for humanity but fear the worst. Fortunately I have no kids. I have nothing to lose. I have no reason to live – but for curiosity – to see what happens next. Am I confusing existential angst with something else?

    I also wonder if being an open book is far easier than lying or practicing social grace. Generally people like me for my openness and also are not shy to tell me when it bugs them, which I think is also usually good, unless I get mischievous and use it to get their goat or prove a point. So am I lazy for being open all the time? Or is it something on the Asperger scale? Maybe I need to embrace my inner reptilian psychopath.

    I don’t believe in much of anything anymore. I still believe in Corbett, until I don’t, if and whenever that may be.

    (Tom Secker told me not to buy into Corbett, but when I asked why he turned into a nasty crank. And Pearse Redmond did too after I finished doing them favours. Still, they do great work, but now I’ve lost respect for the men. But I digress and gossip when I don’t like to.)

    So how about a 101 on Morality as the slow roll out of World War 3 continues (since 9/11) under the Global Corporocratic Empire? We may need it to ease the extinction squeeze (ie. Guy McPherson) or 2030 termination.

    Also, I feel compelled to demand that morality not be associated with God, just in case anyone would try.

    • mkey says:

      I often wonder about possibility of reality we’re living in a simulated world. I don’t put much stock into matrix world, though. Easier to simulate everything, without the corporeal being. But it could be also possible I’m an old, well set man who wanted to relive his youth so he payed for being inserted in a simulation. That dream may last a lifetime, but with time compression it could take just a minute in his world. Or is it my world?

      Are you simulated in my world or am I just a fignent of your imagination? How could we know? To be frank, if I were a figment, I wouldn’t want to know.

      On morality, is it anything but a feeling, a consequence of compassion drived by temerity? If anything, what’s valuable is the will to do the “right” thing. Along those line, psychopaths are uncapable of being moral due to not having compassion.

      • What do you define as matrix versus simulated?

        The Matrix movie was a parable. Obviously conspiritards and conspirophiles alike identify with it. There’s also a lot more ways to wake up than just to the web of lies and control.

        The simulation thing is interesting. Especially when you consider dreams. I used to be able to fly and steer my flight with some effort and often in lucid dreams. Not so much anymore. Now my dreams are of very complex situations with familiarish people doing things I’ve never done (ie. architecture boardrooms), sometimes compromising my values despite myself (ie. rob a bank). When I wake I feel like I’ve been participating in a ghost of a very interesting movie.

        If I were a simulation, figment, or otherwise I would want to know. There’s nothing I wouldn’t want to know. There is much that I wish didn’t happen but that’s not the same thing.

        However, if I could trade all the knowledge for a more fair world and a better existence with less suffering for everyone, I would. But how would I know? Maybe this is better than it was. How can you unbite and unpick the fruit of knowledge?

        “a consequence of compassion derived/driven by temerity” = very lyrical

        Might may not be right, but might makes right, too often for most. Perhaps the psychopaths are making right, into a compassionless transhumanist future of complex duplicity without messy emotions and morality.

        Can we game the game theory?
        How tenacious is your fierce compassion?

        • mkey says:

          Under matrix I meant “people with tubes stuck in where the place doesn’t shine and connected to a hive” as oposed to a simulation where everything is done in software, without any “human” interaction.

          Also, I find Matrix the movie very interesting in many regards, so I don’t agree with your characterization there. I often ponder on it.

          • Matrix = brain in a jar with wires.

            I used to hate the battery analogy. Why not hook up cows and also siphon the methane? Why not say that the Matrix uses humans for their creativity or subconscious processing power or…

            Recently I slapped my head when I realized the rigged corrupt corporatocratic establishment systems only work when we acknowledge their “rights” to rule over us, granting them POWER (over us). We collectively give them the power. Resist and pay the consequences of the collective’s “representative” ruler’s force through minions.

            We ARE the batteries that give the status quo power.

            I think you misread my tone. I love The Matrix. I didn’t go into it deep because it’s been done a million times.

            “The Matrix movie was a parable.” Possibly the best. But not just a parable, nor a simple one. “Obviously conspiritards and conspirophiles alike identify with it.” I identify as a conspirophile. I love looking at all the stuff. The more far fetched the less time I spend on it, but it’s there, and sometimes it comes up again later with unexpected clarity. I don’t buy into religious stuff, numbers, symbols, etc. but I find them fascinating in small doses, particularly because some people great and small do subscribe to it. Flat Earthers, reptilians, UFOs etc I call conspiratards as I don’t believe their woo (yet).

            Conspirophiles is a real word I learned a few weeks ago.
            Conspiratards is also a real word I learned about last week.

            “There’s also a lot more ways to wake up than just to the web of lies and control.” By this I meant that The Matrix can be appreciated by non-conspiracy folks who learn about some subject deeply. Because their interest is so focused they would call it corruption or something and not call it a conspiracy, where I’d say same thing and it’s all related and interlinked and everything is controlled and it’s just a big conspiracy, man.

            The Matrix was profoundly ground breaking on countless levels. A cinematic paradigm earthquake shift with an ace score, freshjive gun-fu fight scenes, and the sleek fashion sense melted everything cool – cyber goth finally escaped Burning Man. And that’s just how it appeared. The esoteric Easter eggs and existential enigmas put fundamental fun in mental gymnastics. Also, I like dystopian cli-fi sci-fi.

            Like it or lump it, The Matrix is a rare great original. While many have copied it, it referenced lots but was never a copy.

            • mkey says:

              Yeah, I missunderstood you.

              Matrix has a way of speaking directly to the consciousness of the unawakened mind. It sticks with you and for some reason you’re yet unaware of it keeps burrowing in your mind.

              It took a while for me to wake up after watching the movie and it took even more time to realise the connection. Depravity of human mind is beyond words.

              I still don’t understand why it was produced. Or, why was it allowed to be produced. Or did they know 0.01% will get it? Was it just a sick “in your face, slaves” joke?

              • I wasn’t as clear as I could have been.

                If I was “the one” there’s be no need for words.

                First Yoda, then Highlander “There can be only one”, and then The Matrix. Now, the Log Lady in Twin Peaks says Laura Palmer is “the one”.

                So which “one” is it?

                O-N-E = N-E-O

                Pshew! – Mind blown, brain matter sprays, spinal cord limps, nerves neutered, spasm hand contracts, and – mic drop.

                But seriously…

                Of several, I have one particular screenplay I’ve been working on since 2001. Some I’ve been working on for decades, some not. All are unfinished. 2001 was when I started that one but it had nothing to do with events that year, and while it has evolved much, those events are still not mentioned.

                This is my most “important” work because I’m trying to incorporate everything I have learned into a parable or cautionary tale. Climate change used to play a minor role, but Corbett with my own skeptical re-look has changed that (tho toxic environments are still an issue). It takes place in the future but is not “futuristic” or fantasy. It’s hard-science-fiction that obeys rational laws of physics, etc. Trees are still trees. Everything is much the same with a few new things – and more extreme everything else (politics, poverty, prisons, war, censorship, etc). It’s three radically different acts following one character. It’s designed for a smallish budget but could easily be inflated where appropriate. My most difficult challenge is to keep it trim yet cinematically interesting _and_ informative. So to avoid being preachy, I’m developing a informative animated mocumentary as a release valve for excessive ideas.

                Why do I tell you this? I can’t be the only one.

                Ten years ago I was directing another music video in SF and realized half way through that I needed to do work with a bigger purpose and intent. At a party in LA I blew another director’s mind with this concept. He’d just finished some drama about Vegas gambling addiction and while it may be interesting and a legitimate issue for some people, I was talking about much wider ramifications and impact on people’s lives offering solutions and alternatives. I have no idea if he or anyone else there continued this idea, but I’m sure I’m not the first.

                Even if you got a screenplay green lit it would get obfuscated, encoded, and diluted. The anarchist would become a communist, the crazy cop would become the crazy postman, etc. (Corbett, please to a show about “going postal”, the origins, and the truth of it.) Even if it was anti-establishment they’d still find a way to make it patriotic, consumerist, glam-whore-ist, etc.

                Here’s another one: Fight Club. How did they allow that to be produced?

                Fight Club and The Matrix are two of the best movies out there, regardless of the subversive tone. There hasn’t been much of that since. They were hugely successful. Why not? Here’s a theory: They were too busy planning 9/11 to read movie scripts. Here’s another theory: They were preparing/warning us with good movies and shitty movies like Pearl Harbor alike. Here’s another theory: They’re just trying to dumb us all down with drugs, sports, and media.

              • mkey says:

                That’s a very interesting count of events. I have to assume the process through which a script has to go through to become a movie is very intricate, arbitrary and unpredictable. Which makes me wonder even more about how did these moves come through? Or were they maybe even more thought inducing in their unaltered form?

                Just now I’ve seen a trailer for “Atomic blonde” talk about shit movies. Or the new wonder woman film. I guess the paradigm is shifting toward female lead heroes and sissy male support characters. Just about time, I say.

                Anyhow, one movie which did not get through unaltered, as I see it, was the captain obvious film, don’t know if you have seen it. It’s a recent production about a family living “off grid” getting into various mishaps while the story completely glosses over some really important points. The father in the end turns to be a sellout, even though his extreme methods only needed some calibration and many of his actions proved to be correct in the long run, at least as far as the story goes.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              Canuck Jason,
              What you said holds some profound truth.

              Granting them power.
              … I realized the rigged corrupt corporatocratic establishment systems only work when we acknowledge their “rights” to rule over us, granting them POWER (over us). We collectively give them the power. -Jason

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                “A belief that the system can be fixed from within the system” is actually a pretty silly idea when one steps back to view it.
                After all, ‘The Powers That Shouldn’t Be’ own the system. It is their board game, their rules. And they can change the rules anytime they want.
                They have fun by trapping us on the board game.

                In a more ideal world, everyone would just say: “I’m not playing your game…and oh, by the way, all that property and wealth you say you own — those pieces of paper are worthless.
                Me and Sara are going to take this Chalet, relax for a while and watch everyone else split up stuff….”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top