Has the "green" movement been color blind? Is it really the brown or gray movement? How did we get here?

in #hive-1223155 months ago

As someone who is the progeny of "Peace, Love, and Flower Power" hippies I was early exposed to the love of nature. This exposure came as a deep part of my every day life. As such I early on was an advocate for cleaning up litter, fighting pollution, etc. I remember the first Earth Day celebrations and for a number of years I considered that an important day. It seemed like the world was going in a good direction. We were focused on the health of the planet, a healthy ecosystem, and the health of the people.


During those times it was not unheard of for documentaries, and investigations to come out covering DIFFERENT kinds of pollution, how they impacted the world, and generally some ideas for how we could deal with them. It was a new and positive movement but it was gaining momentum quickly.

I remember discussions of smog, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), electromagnetic radiation, plastics, biodegradability, etc. Sometimes these and more would be discussed at the same venues, or in the same documentaries. They often referred to the studies being used and where you could go research the issues yourself. There was no secret barrier beyond which information was only obtainable by some.

Another very common topic that was discussed was deforestation. This in fact was considered one of the most dangerous things so it was always a topic.

This movement had an Achilles heel... a weakness...

It used emotions to try to inflame people to do the right thing. Earth day messaging would tie people talking emotionally often with concerts and other types of things that can amplify and evoke emotions.

This was working but the fact it was using emotion as it's primary driving force became a great weakness.

It wasn't completely about fear. There was a lot less talk of fear though there still was some. There was a lot of talk about loving the planet, loving life, and loving other people. The fear was but a partial aspect. The fear of what might happen if we ignore what was there but overall the movement at that time mostly stayed positive. It offered solutions and it didn't use doomsday speeches as its foundation.

To be clear there were people that were speaking doomsday as there have been throughout history. They simply were not the ones being amplified by this movement or the media at the time.

Some out there realized there was a way to steer this movement and gain control of it.

They did this by weaponizing fear. They seemed to understand that by focusing mostly on fear they keep people in a state of fight or flight. Some of them panic. Others get angry. What they don't have is thoughts of love.

When applied to a large population that already thrives heavily upon emotion which describes the generation, and the progeny (like myself) that was commonly speaking of "Peace, Love, and Flower Power".


That was the Achilles heel...

It didn't take long for them to turn a movement that didn't focus exclusively on one topic into a movement that was panic driven and does exactly that.

Gone was the pursuit of improving life, harmony, recycling, etc. That was all replaced by terror and thoughts of doom.

It worked incredibly well. One of the first large scale pieces of propaganda that yanked the rudder of this ship of thought to head it in the new direction desired by the overseers...

An Inconvenient Truth

It was voiced and represented on the stage by Al Gore who was former Vice President under Bill Clinton, and one of the more recent cases where a Presidential election result was challenged. These days that is a crime if you happen to be on the wrong side of the political divide. To be clear that wrong side is on the politically opposite side from Al Gore. He did not win the challenge back then. It makes me sometimes wonder if that is partially why they went full force into hijacking the "green" movement.

They weaponized fear to a degree I have never seen before. They went on to make prophets of doom throughout history such as Nostradamus look like amateurs.

Nostradamus, Blavatsky, etc. had prophecies. There was no suggestion of how to avoid those prophecies.

In hijacking the green movement they put fear at the forefront. Yet they did something different. They said essentially "These horrible prophecies that I foretell can be stopped if you and everyone else does this thing that I have directed, if you fail to heed my directives then we are doomed" then they proceeded to chant essentially "doom, doom, doom" over and over again.

It worked better than I suspect they even thought it would.

When they were afraid they would embrace the proposed "solutions" just like some psychological studies indicated they would. The fight or flight tendency became very useful. Those who embraced flight would run towards the "solution". Those that embraced fight would attack vigorously anyone that dare challenge the path towards this directed "solution".

It gave those like Al Gore that were framing and repeating the message over and over incredible power. It turns out people reacting in fear and driven by fear tend to pay a lot less attention to details. The idea known as common sense becomes much less present. Fear is the driving force. As some may speak up against inconsistencies or ACTUAL inconvenient truths about this narrative the fight part of those following the solution begins to feed anger which grows and grows. Soon it becomes a movement of fear and anger. Yet not love.

Where is love?

I find it interesting myself that this began within the heart of the "Peace, Love, and Flower Power" populace. This was a group that said things like "Make love, not war". Their solutions were so often about love. There was not a lot of talk about the concept of hate. There was also not a lot of talk about racism and things like that. These movements were diverse without requiring some central planner or government forcing it. They voluntarily formed on their own without help from a genius in government and politics directing them. In fact, they very often were a thorn in the side of these politicians.

Yet using fear as a steering wheel the politicians seized control. The sick irony of this is that those holding the wheel benefitted quite a lot from the things the "green" movement was targeting to remove, fix, replace, etc. before the movement was hijacked.

The narrative became almost one topic and one topic only.

Initially they began with the "Global Warming" as the narrative. Yet sometimes the warming would not manifest as directed and it also seemed to be cooling. While people were being increasingly driven by fear they just made a slight adjustment to the narrative. It is however an amazingly brilliant one if you are wanting control but don't actually have a real measurable bad thing to target.

They changed the narrative to "Climate Change". When the world enters an ice age, we have climate change, when the world exits an ice age we have climate change. When anything changes in the climate, that is climate change. If you happen to be unaware we have been exiting an Ice Age for some time. What happens when we exit an ice age? You probably guessed it. The world warms up.

Do you know what the number one driving force for Climate Change is? I'll give you a hint, it isn't us, the humans. The answer is "The Sun". The solar activity and what is going on with the sun is the number one driver of climate change. How the orbit of the Earth is interacting with the sun as the sun goes through different phases tends to cause big climate shifts on the Earth.

We don't have a lot of control over the sun. Yet one of the proposals to stop climate change is to put things into the atmosphere to block some of the sun's rays. That actually would be "Anthropogenic Climate Change". Man would be fighting against the sun. What if they have been wrong, what if they've made it so you can't challenge them and thus they have eviscerated what is known as the scientific method? If they are wrong, and yet they are taking action to blot out the sun what would be a very possible result? Perhaps manmade ice age? Perhaps the world was getting warmer and they have stalled that. What happens when the suns cycle shifts? Planet ice ball?

Now that is me pushing the same FEAR type warning as they use but at this stage that is not completely avoidable if we are going to speak of anything. We have unfortunately let them control the battlefield for our minds for so long that some of the things we have to do to fight that war are distasteful. The love is gone...

I don't think it has to remain gone and I will explain how we might embrace it again but first I want to point out a few more Inconvenient Truths.

One of the biggest bad guys the Cult of Doom is pursuing now is Carbon Dioxide. This is also known as CO2. When you breathe out your body expels Carbon Dioxide. When you inhale your body takes in Oxygen. This is known as respiration. It is required for us and many other life forms to survive.

Yet it is one of the number one things the people steering the ship of fear are targeting.

Do you know a very important thing about CO2? Without it there is no GREEN. Eliminating CO2 effectively destroys everything the original green movement was speaking about. Carbon Dioxide is required for photosynthesis. Plants take in Carbon Dioxide much like we do Oxygen. They need it to live. They in turn give off Oxygen which we breathe. This creates an ecosystem where some life gives off CO2 and other life gives off Oxygen and there is symbiosis. If you look at that plants take in CO2 and give off O2. Where did the carbon go? The C? It went into the construction of the plant. It is vital to them for their growth.

There are some green houses that pump additional CO2 into the greenhouse because they get higher plant yields. Plants grow better. They thrive in CO2. When there are a lot of plants the rest of the life forms that thrive on O2 do much better as well. As such a green planet tends to be good for us.

If they are talking about blocking the sun to prevent warming, while simultaneously talking about reducing CO2 (sometimes they just say carbon) what do you think the obvious outcome of such a movement would be? To me there is only one possible outcome and it isn't green. In terms of color it is brown, gray, and white. A vegetation starved ball of ice that depending on sun cycles might sometimes be warm enough that it is just brown and gray with blue oceans. Those oceans would largely be dead as well. They would be water, yet it would be water devoid of most of the life we appreciate. There likely would be life that adapted but it would not be GREEN.

This movement is no longer green and at this point it hasn't been for a couple of decades. It has been completely weaponized and hijacked.

If you fight to protect the narrative you make yourself into nothing more than a mindless drone warrior following the dictates of what truly are evil masterminds. Yes, evil. I don't need any religious trappings to use that word. For me evil is about removing choice and forcing others. A person who is so certain their path is correct that they feel justified in FORCING everyone to obey their commands is evil.

Early on they framed it as a choice... It was still voluntary.

Then the fear tactic proved so effective they shifted their attack dogs into overdrive with the help of the media dutifully repeating ad nauseum their narrative. Blasting it over and over into the minds of everyone. Banning any scientists that dare offer challenge, firing them, keeping them out of journals...

While they tell the rest of us to "Trust the science" and "the consensus says"...

Neither of those phrases are remotely within the scope of the scientific method. In fact, they run counter to it. What they have been calling "the science" is not science based. It is politics and ideology based. The beauty of the scientific method is that it removed our opinions, biases, and ideologies from the results. Now those are all the things they push when they tell you to "Trust the science". When you dare ask questions they call you a denier. Much like in religion you might be called a heretic, or blasphemer. If you are a lettered scientist that dare challenge the desired narrative you are treated as an apostate, or infidel.

The "Trust the science" masters are not pushing science. They are pushing dogma. It is a cult. They have used fear to indoctrinate and control the masses. They have found the fight or flight mechanism produces different types of people that they can use for different purposes in their agenda. The people embracing fight become the artificial immune system for the cult that attacks and attempts to destroy anyone that dare challenge the cult.

From this power base of fear they have expanded like a great Tsunami of the mind. They have been dictating all aspects of life. They have been drumming up more and more fear. They have replaced love with hate. Though the people they have indoctrinated still think they are about love. Why? That is where they began. They cannot see what they have become. They talk about tolerance while brutally attacking the lives of anyone that dare think different than they have been conditioned to think. They talk about cancelling hate speech, and hate when they are the ones that will say "I hate X, I hate Y, that's okay they died I hated them". I don't actually hear the word hate tossed around as much by any other demographic. Even when it is targeted against the cultists. Most people just want the people in the cult to start thinking for themselves. They don't even have to agree. We simply want them to be free from the control of those with the hand on the steering wheel. We could be wrong, all of us. We thus need as many ideas as possible to make it through problems in the future. We can't do that if everyone blindly follows the narrative of a few controllers.


Can we get the love back? Sure. We need to get back to the green movement as it began but this time perhaps make certain we are not driving it so heavily upon emotions.

Love the wonders of life. Make suggestions that we think can help life flourish. Understand that some change is natural. Embrace it. Adapt.

We must not continually seek to force our will upon the planet and the people.

Follow the scientific method and realize that is never about "TRUST" or "BELIEF". Those things are personal. The scientific method is simply a tool to help us keep our personal from blinding us to the facts. We still embrace personal things but when solving problems we use the scientific method.

What about faith? Nothing I stated stops prayer. Pray. Observe religion. Those things still all apply. If they are voluntary then it is a good thing. If you force it upon others then it is an evil thing.

Lead by example, not by force.

I could go on and on. I had no idea I would write this much when I began this but I obviously had some things I felt I needed to get off my chest. Thank you as always for your time.


YOU are the carbon that T.H.E.Y. want to reduce.

The most horrifying thing... because it is like, completely opposite of the narrative
Regenerative Agriculture
People living on raising and killing cows!

Instead of sending the water down the storm drain, they put it into the soil with swales and catchments.
Instead of just letting mother nature take its course, they graze cattle through the area.

But, what they have done is quite evident. These farmers are making the soil more rich and their entire land more green.

Joel Salatin, one of the best known faces of the movement, wrote a book Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal because that is what it is. Any real green movement is stopped with severe regulations.

The hippie movement itself was co opted by the CIA. So all that love and crap, was only a tool for the elite, controlled opposition.

That totally wouldn't surprise me. Though I can assure you where I grew up we didn't interact with CIA. Middle of nowhere U.S.A. surrounded by mountains. Population in area around 400 for three quarters of the year, and upwards to 15,000 the other quarter.

I don't doubt they may have helped plant some seeds in the minds. Yet they are still just people. They are not gods.

Peace and Love are definitely worthy things to pursue. It is just naïve to only keep those as your options in face of all the things we might encounter in life.

I still think Peace and Love are admirable goals but I think as we introduce new tools that change the world. We have to learn the life lessons about those tools as a people. The good lessons, and the bad lessons.

How powerful the tool happens to be also tends to be reflected on how powerful those lessons can be.

The question is... can we survive the bad lessons? That is what we must strive to do no matter what.