Hey everyone! This will be a somewhat unusual and informal format compared to my other posts, but I just wanted to share a couple links to articles and posts that have been on my mind lately and hopefully hear from some of you on what you think of the material (and my reaction to it).
I think I agree with the lilac dragonfly here. You and JC and JEP (love them both) are in agreement ideologically, I'm certain. The symantecs are getting in the way. They keep twisting language to confuse and divide us. But that doesn't mean we need to accept their definitions. It's impossible to talk about concepts without words that encapsulate them.
I really appreciate you taking the time to offer your take on this. I will have to read over what The Lilac Dragonfly said again and re-watch the NWNW episode I quoted JC from when I have more time before responding to you in full.
I do feel that I am ideologically in agreement with JC on most things, but I just wonder about where JC stands on the specific topic of protecting and regenerating wilderness/mature ecosystems. I place a high priority on protecting existing wilderness places (and I strive to work towards planting the seeds in the Earth and in hearts and minds to help do my part to regenerate damaged ecosystems as well) but I have not seen any material from JC that directly deals with describing his priorities and thoughts on those things. It is very likely that he has done podcasts, video episodes or editorials that broach that topic but I am a relatively new "Corbetteer" so I have not come across that content yet in my travels on his website. I would obviously never endorse depopulation agendas, nor would I seek to demonize humanity as a whole as some kind of "virus" or "cancer", so in that sense I know I am in agreement with JC. Where I am hoping to gain greater clarity is with regards to the degree of which JC sees protecting existing wilderness as important and worthwhile.
I agree that symantecs often get in the way. However, I would be interested in gaining a greater understanding of who the "they" is in your statement that said "They keep twisting language to confuse and divide us."
That's the million dollar question, Gavin, who are they? Nefahotep and Frances Leader, who comment on my site, have done a lot of deep research on that. They use names like the Black Nobility or Sabbateans. I don't get into it as much although I plan to do an article on their research sometime. I found I recognized few of the names. If you know the name of an individual or an organization, it's not the real power, which is covert.
Perhaps who "they" are is irrelevant if we acknowledge that "they" are just parasites sitting atop a parasitic empire (which is fed into by countless millions that are simultaneously being conditioned to accept being fed upon and conditioned to striving to become parasites themselves).
Knowing the precise genetic lineage, geographic origin and/or names of the dominant parasitic humans on Earth means little if removing them from the equation would only result in multitudes of others (who are suffering from the same mental diseases of fear, ego dominance and ignorance of the nature of their own eternal spirit) striving to replace their position at the top of that pyramid of corruption, fear, ego and parasitism.
Thus, I suggest that obsessing over what particular human beings reside atop such a corrupt empire is unproductive and I would rather advocate for taking courses of action that serve to create a broader environment that is no longer conducive to the creation of legions of fearful, greedy and parasitic human beings. Some would suggest that if we could positively identify all the dominant members of the transnational racketeering organization (which has gone by many names) and eliminate them we would be able to create lasting peace, equality and a world without malice and violence. I do not share that perspective.
Each of us can make choices that begin to change the psychological, energetic, economic and emotional environment of the communities and world we live in so that the environment we dwell in no longer favors the development of parasites. Pointing fingers at the parasites accusingly and/or seeking to end their lives is an exercise in futility.
The answer instead exists within the hearts and minds of each of us, dormant seeds waiting to be germinated and allowed to become the dominant members of an ecosystem of equanimity.
I was writing elsewhere that removing the money power would 'depotentate' the players and who ever was behind them. I think we need a system of reciprocity. I agree with you that the names and genealogies aren't important. Taking back power over our own lives is.
I like what James Corbett just wrote in his "Context Is Everything" article regarding 'depotentate-ing' (and/or "nullifying") our would be rulers and oppressors.
I also just did an interview with Cassie (JEP's partner) for Media Monarchy and was talking about how powerful the simple act of saving (and sharing) heirloom seed year after year is (in the context of taking back our own power and resisting the corporate oligarchy's blitzkrieg to dominate the world's seed/food supply). Saving and sharing good seed when the oligarchs seek to patent, buy out and or hyperconsolidate control over all sources of seed is a powerful form of resistance against corporate hegemony, and something that James Corbett might describe as an act of "Simple Sabotage" (with regards to the intended goals of those with the most material influence on Earth at this time).
Oh I just read that article. You did an interview with Cassie? You're famous! I love JEP and Cassie. I was just thinking about them in relation to trying to get my book to JC since it doesn't sell in Japan. I wrote this comment on the Context article:
"Haha, I’d like to submit as a contender for your illustration the cover of my book, in which some are throwing off the eye at the top while others free those crushed under the pyramid at the bottom and ‘petrodactyls’ circle with nowhere to land: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607.
"I thought of you when I wrote this line on my recent episode: “Controlled Opposition only works when what you think depends on who said it.” Rather than context from facts and logic, that’s a context of authority that gives up authorship of our own thoughts.
"In this case, I’m looking at Leigh Dundas as the CIA agitator who planted weapons in the Trucker Convey when Trudeau was salivating for Emergency Measures and recruited patsies on J6 by saying the traitors and turncoats should by taken out back and hung or shot … all without a single inquiry from the police or media.
Oct 5, 2023·edited Oct 6, 2023Liked by Gavin Mounsey
Ummmm, yes, Caitlin kind of lost me on that one too. It does seem like she is saying we need to adjust our own mindset to see modern civilization as just another part of nature -- ~ and that might reduce the cognitive dissonance of modern life ~ or something.
I'm agreeing with you on this one, Gavin. Accepting unhealthy offices as just the new 'nature' is not sensible. We need to stick with seeing it this way - and change it: "Take a normal healthy human animal and throw it into the mess of this dystopian corporate nightmare and tell me how it’s meant to live a happy and satisfying life. It’s like expecting dolphins and orcas to live happy and satisfying lives in concrete pools at theme parks, or factory farmed pigs living in cages barely bigger than their bodies. It’s just not the kind of living we’re built for." - a quote from earlier in her post.
Humans need to walk or run or move regualrly and we ned sunshine and fresh air and office life is not "the new nature". It is sickening and therefore change may require redesigning offices too.
Corporate profit is not natural. That is the real problem. Absolutely nothing in nature, except locusts who contain themselves by an every 17 year cycle (roughly), just keeps taking and taking and taking from their surroundings endlessly in increasingly greater amounts. Nature lives in balance with itself and humans as a group are no longer living in balance with nature - or with ourselves. The divide between the poor and wealthy is sickening to me. Why do the wealthy act like that?
Edit addition - I like Caitlin's work, nothing negative meant. We are all not going to agree on everything.
I had listened to the CR episode you reference here, but went back to listen again to see if I had misunderstood or missed something. I still agree with what James and James said. It may have something to do with one’s definition of “environmentalist,” which may have had the simple definition you gave … a long time ago. Now, it has accumulated some baggage (connotations), as can be seen by these definitions that popped up at the top of the search I just did:
“environmentalist noun
One who advocates for the protection of the biosphere from misuse from human activity through such measures as ecosystem protection, waste reduction and pollution prevention.
Someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution.“
(Think Green New Deal, “Climate Change,” carbon credits, and every other Orwellian scheme and propaganda the powers that shouldn’t be are trying to force on all of us.)
The next one in the list that popped up is from Wikipedia:
“An environmentalist is a person who is concerned with and/or advocates for the protection of the environment. An environmentalist can be considered a supporter of the goals of the environmental movement, ‘a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities’.[1] An environmentalist is engaged in or believes in the philosophy of environmentalism or one of the related philosophies.”
Hmmm… “the goals of the environmental movement.” That sounds like a can of worms to me…
Someone who is unaware of what has been going on for the past several decades might think this sounds benign, but to see how Wikipedia identifies an environmentalist, click on the “Notable Environmentalists” heading to find, among others, such distasteful people as Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.
These people are not just “concerned about the environment,” they are convinced humans are toxic and the population needs to be reduced.
I think the line James was referring to people stepping across was about people who are willing to offer themselves to die for the good of the planet. That is what “they” want - the Al Gore’s, the Bill Gates’, the Clinton’s, the WEFers, the Trudeau’s, et al. They want us to die because human life is the least valuable life of all (to them).
So, the bottom line is that I didn’t have a problem with what James and James said the first time, and when I listened again, I still couldn’t find anything that I disagreed with.
Thanks for sharing your interpretation of what James Corbett was intending on saying in that episode of New World Next Week.
I suppose I really just wish I had a better understanding of where James Corbett places preserving existing wilderness places on his list of priorities. I have not come across any written or recorded video/audio material where I heard him talk about his view of the value of wilderness and what he feels we should do to protect (or perhaps even regenerate) it. Perhaps you could help me in this regard if you know of any episodes or articles he has published that broach that matter?
Ok, so the term environmentalism and environmentalist (as with many terms) has been hijacked, distorted, weaponized and twisted into something weird by various interests. I could go into how there are different types of environmentalism (eg. from so called "bright green" environmentalism to so called "deep green" environmentalism) but that is again choosing to walk on the thin and shifting ice of semantics and I do not have time to play such games. Thus, let us get to the heart of the matter.
As I said above, humans are not inherently toxic, and nor are they inherently beneficial or 'more deserving' than other species, we are just beings, each with our own God given gift of free will, each capable of choosing to be an agent of regeneration, symbiosis, healing, nurturing and peace or an agent of hubris, fear, ego, domination, vanity and greed (to become like a cancer cell).
There are many institutionalized systems of propaganda and brainwashing (both political and religious) that have served to feed into a great many people's delusional ideas of humanocentric self importance. Some of these fallacious ideas involve stories of how there will be some kind of dramatic judgement day in which the humans who have followed a list of magic rules will be given a ticket to a four seasons all inclusive resort in the sky (so who cares what happens to the pristine forests on Earth when we are gonna be wooshed into a super fun cloud resort right?) and others involve delusional (manmade) ideas about how humans were given "dominion" over all other species on earth by the Creator and that we should do with them as we see fit (use/abuse them for our own amusement or selfish gain). Political propaganda pushed forward by various involuntary governance structures also appeals to the ego but in somewhat different ways (yet it leads to similar results).
Puppets like the Al Gore’s, the Bill Gates’, the Clinton’s, the WEFers, the Trudeau’s, are distractions, what is important is what everyday people prioritize and act upon, without the support of our dollars and our actions, their seemingly mighty empires are nothing more than flimsy houses of cards.
What do you prioritize in life Lilac Dragonfly? Where does preserving the last few pockets of intact ecosystems and wilderness fall on your list of priorities ? How about regenerating degenerated ecosystems? Let us abandon the limiting labels such as environmentalist and just speak honestly, from the heart, as conscious beings declaring our will.
If you could declare your will and have it be done upon the face of this beautiful Earth, what would that look like?
Thanks again for the comment and for sharing your thoughts.
Oct 5, 2023·edited Oct 5, 2023Liked by Gavin Mounsey
It is interesting that you use Wikipedia as your reference when Wikipedia itself says, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues." It seems by their own standards it isn't a reliable source to cite for reasons they themselves give.
I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, especially on topics that are not politically correct (“conspiracy theories”) - things that are considered by the powers-that-shouldn’t-be to be misinformation/disinformation…. The only reason I included it was because I just grabbed the first two definitions that came up in my search.
Another point is that this (“climate change” environmental radicalism) is a topic the Wikipedia leadership approves of and wants to show in the best light possible, so for them, this “article” is a bragging page. (I highly suspect Wendell Berry would not be thrilled to have his name on their list of environmentalists.)
So, I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a dependable source of truth, but the definition is what I would consider a mainstream description. Granted, many of those words are loaded, which makes those of us who know what THEY mean by the words, and who disagree with their Orwellian plans a “bit” uncomfortable…. :)
Based on your response I have 3 questions. They are...
1) If you agree that Wikipedia is an unreliable source why wouldn't you go to the 3rd and 4th definitions that came up in your search?
2) Why would anyone who is not part of "them" care what is mainstream? I certainly don't. Mainstream information, especially connected to the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are all too often filled with propaganda and lies.
3) Why would you assume anyone feels uncomfortable with what "THEY" say or have planned? Being aware of a plan that goes against what one wants is a blessing because it gives one a heads up and therefore affords the person or people time to make their own plans to either prevent, or reduce the effects of " said plan."
I was going to write something similar about the Corbett phrasing. The insider elites propaganda and carbon tax schemes are where "environmentalism TM" has headed.
You are a true steward of the Earth Gavin and I agree, humans could help our planet but with physical labor. We need to get out en masse and pull invasive species that are just harmful like glossy buckthorn and pick up litter and grow food in traditional ways. All things that need more humans out in the sunshine daily, or other weather with suitable gear on. Funding that sort of project would take some money, but so much money is being wasted on the culling tactics we could just stop trying to poison people and the planet and that would save money.
Tough times. Hang in there. I will have to look at Caitlin's piece closer.
I think I agree with the lilac dragonfly here. You and JC and JEP (love them both) are in agreement ideologically, I'm certain. The symantecs are getting in the way. They keep twisting language to confuse and divide us. But that doesn't mean we need to accept their definitions. It's impossible to talk about concepts without words that encapsulate them.
I really appreciate you taking the time to offer your take on this. I will have to read over what The Lilac Dragonfly said again and re-watch the NWNW episode I quoted JC from when I have more time before responding to you in full.
I do feel that I am ideologically in agreement with JC on most things, but I just wonder about where JC stands on the specific topic of protecting and regenerating wilderness/mature ecosystems. I place a high priority on protecting existing wilderness places (and I strive to work towards planting the seeds in the Earth and in hearts and minds to help do my part to regenerate damaged ecosystems as well) but I have not seen any material from JC that directly deals with describing his priorities and thoughts on those things. It is very likely that he has done podcasts, video episodes or editorials that broach that topic but I am a relatively new "Corbetteer" so I have not come across that content yet in my travels on his website. I would obviously never endorse depopulation agendas, nor would I seek to demonize humanity as a whole as some kind of "virus" or "cancer", so in that sense I know I am in agreement with JC. Where I am hoping to gain greater clarity is with regards to the degree of which JC sees protecting existing wilderness as important and worthwhile.
I agree that symantecs often get in the way. However, I would be interested in gaining a greater understanding of who the "they" is in your statement that said "They keep twisting language to confuse and divide us."
Thanks for the comment.
That's the million dollar question, Gavin, who are they? Nefahotep and Frances Leader, who comment on my site, have done a lot of deep research on that. They use names like the Black Nobility or Sabbateans. I don't get into it as much although I plan to do an article on their research sometime. I found I recognized few of the names. If you know the name of an individual or an organization, it's not the real power, which is covert.
Perhaps who "they" are is irrelevant if we acknowledge that "they" are just parasites sitting atop a parasitic empire (which is fed into by countless millions that are simultaneously being conditioned to accept being fed upon and conditioned to striving to become parasites themselves).
Knowing the precise genetic lineage, geographic origin and/or names of the dominant parasitic humans on Earth means little if removing them from the equation would only result in multitudes of others (who are suffering from the same mental diseases of fear, ego dominance and ignorance of the nature of their own eternal spirit) striving to replace their position at the top of that pyramid of corruption, fear, ego and parasitism.
Thus, I suggest that obsessing over what particular human beings reside atop such a corrupt empire is unproductive and I would rather advocate for taking courses of action that serve to create a broader environment that is no longer conducive to the creation of legions of fearful, greedy and parasitic human beings. Some would suggest that if we could positively identify all the dominant members of the transnational racketeering organization (which has gone by many names) and eliminate them we would be able to create lasting peace, equality and a world without malice and violence. I do not share that perspective.
Each of us can make choices that begin to change the psychological, energetic, economic and emotional environment of the communities and world we live in so that the environment we dwell in no longer favors the development of parasites. Pointing fingers at the parasites accusingly and/or seeking to end their lives is an exercise in futility.
The answer instead exists within the hearts and minds of each of us, dormant seeds waiting to be germinated and allowed to become the dominant members of an ecosystem of equanimity.
I was writing elsewhere that removing the money power would 'depotentate' the players and who ever was behind them. I think we need a system of reciprocity. I agree with you that the names and genealogies aren't important. Taking back power over our own lives is.
Well said my friend.
I like what James Corbett just wrote in his "Context Is Everything" article regarding 'depotentate-ing' (and/or "nullifying") our would be rulers and oppressors.
I also just did an interview with Cassie (JEP's partner) for Media Monarchy and was talking about how powerful the simple act of saving (and sharing) heirloom seed year after year is (in the context of taking back our own power and resisting the corporate oligarchy's blitzkrieg to dominate the world's seed/food supply). Saving and sharing good seed when the oligarchs seek to patent, buy out and or hyperconsolidate control over all sources of seed is a powerful form of resistance against corporate hegemony, and something that James Corbett might describe as an act of "Simple Sabotage" (with regards to the intended goals of those with the most material influence on Earth at this time).
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Oh I just read that article. You did an interview with Cassie? You're famous! I love JEP and Cassie. I was just thinking about them in relation to trying to get my book to JC since it doesn't sell in Japan. I wrote this comment on the Context article:
"Haha, I’d like to submit as a contender for your illustration the cover of my book, in which some are throwing off the eye at the top while others free those crushed under the pyramid at the bottom and ‘petrodactyls’ circle with nowhere to land: https://www.amazon.com/How-Dismantle-Empire-2020-Vision/dp/1733347607.
"I thought of you when I wrote this line on my recent episode: “Controlled Opposition only works when what you think depends on who said it.” Rather than context from facts and logic, that’s a context of authority that gives up authorship of our own thoughts.
"In this case, I’m looking at Leigh Dundas as the CIA agitator who planted weapons in the Trucker Convey when Trudeau was salivating for Emergency Measures and recruited patsies on J6 by saying the traitors and turncoats should by taken out back and hung or shot … all without a single inquiry from the police or media.
"And I contrast this to Russell Brand by putting his ‘rape and pedophile’ jokes back into context where they do the exact opposite of normalizing: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/russell-brand-and-leigh-dundas"
And yes on seed saving as oligarch sabotage!
Ummmm, yes, Caitlin kind of lost me on that one too. It does seem like she is saying we need to adjust our own mindset to see modern civilization as just another part of nature -- ~ and that might reduce the cognitive dissonance of modern life ~ or something.
I'm agreeing with you on this one, Gavin. Accepting unhealthy offices as just the new 'nature' is not sensible. We need to stick with seeing it this way - and change it: "Take a normal healthy human animal and throw it into the mess of this dystopian corporate nightmare and tell me how it’s meant to live a happy and satisfying life. It’s like expecting dolphins and orcas to live happy and satisfying lives in concrete pools at theme parks, or factory farmed pigs living in cages barely bigger than their bodies. It’s just not the kind of living we’re built for." - a quote from earlier in her post.
Humans need to walk or run or move regualrly and we ned sunshine and fresh air and office life is not "the new nature". It is sickening and therefore change may require redesigning offices too.
Corporate profit is not natural. That is the real problem. Absolutely nothing in nature, except locusts who contain themselves by an every 17 year cycle (roughly), just keeps taking and taking and taking from their surroundings endlessly in increasingly greater amounts. Nature lives in balance with itself and humans as a group are no longer living in balance with nature - or with ourselves. The divide between the poor and wealthy is sickening to me. Why do the wealthy act like that?
Edit addition - I like Caitlin's work, nothing negative meant. We are all not going to agree on everything.
Thanks for the thoughtful and candid comment Jennifer. I will contemplate what you shared and respond fully when I have more time.
I had listened to the CR episode you reference here, but went back to listen again to see if I had misunderstood or missed something. I still agree with what James and James said. It may have something to do with one’s definition of “environmentalist,” which may have had the simple definition you gave … a long time ago. Now, it has accumulated some baggage (connotations), as can be seen by these definitions that popped up at the top of the search I just did:
“environmentalist noun
One who advocates for the protection of the biosphere from misuse from human activity through such measures as ecosystem protection, waste reduction and pollution prevention.
Someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution.“
(Think Green New Deal, “Climate Change,” carbon credits, and every other Orwellian scheme and propaganda the powers that shouldn’t be are trying to force on all of us.)
The next one in the list that popped up is from Wikipedia:
“An environmentalist is a person who is concerned with and/or advocates for the protection of the environment. An environmentalist can be considered a supporter of the goals of the environmental movement, ‘a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities’.[1] An environmentalist is engaged in or believes in the philosophy of environmentalism or one of the related philosophies.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalist
Hmmm… “the goals of the environmental movement.” That sounds like a can of worms to me…
Someone who is unaware of what has been going on for the past several decades might think this sounds benign, but to see how Wikipedia identifies an environmentalist, click on the “Notable Environmentalists” heading to find, among others, such distasteful people as Al Gore and Greta Thunberg.
These people are not just “concerned about the environment,” they are convinced humans are toxic and the population needs to be reduced.
I think the line James was referring to people stepping across was about people who are willing to offer themselves to die for the good of the planet. That is what “they” want - the Al Gore’s, the Bill Gates’, the Clinton’s, the WEFers, the Trudeau’s, et al. They want us to die because human life is the least valuable life of all (to them).
So, the bottom line is that I didn’t have a problem with what James and James said the first time, and when I listened again, I still couldn’t find anything that I disagreed with.
Thanks for sharing your interpretation of what James Corbett was intending on saying in that episode of New World Next Week.
I suppose I really just wish I had a better understanding of where James Corbett places preserving existing wilderness places on his list of priorities. I have not come across any written or recorded video/audio material where I heard him talk about his view of the value of wilderness and what he feels we should do to protect (or perhaps even regenerate) it. Perhaps you could help me in this regard if you know of any episodes or articles he has published that broach that matter?
Ok, so the term environmentalism and environmentalist (as with many terms) has been hijacked, distorted, weaponized and twisted into something weird by various interests. I could go into how there are different types of environmentalism (eg. from so called "bright green" environmentalism to so called "deep green" environmentalism) but that is again choosing to walk on the thin and shifting ice of semantics and I do not have time to play such games. Thus, let us get to the heart of the matter.
As I said above, humans are not inherently toxic, and nor are they inherently beneficial or 'more deserving' than other species, we are just beings, each with our own God given gift of free will, each capable of choosing to be an agent of regeneration, symbiosis, healing, nurturing and peace or an agent of hubris, fear, ego, domination, vanity and greed (to become like a cancer cell).
There are many institutionalized systems of propaganda and brainwashing (both political and religious) that have served to feed into a great many people's delusional ideas of humanocentric self importance. Some of these fallacious ideas involve stories of how there will be some kind of dramatic judgement day in which the humans who have followed a list of magic rules will be given a ticket to a four seasons all inclusive resort in the sky (so who cares what happens to the pristine forests on Earth when we are gonna be wooshed into a super fun cloud resort right?) and others involve delusional (manmade) ideas about how humans were given "dominion" over all other species on earth by the Creator and that we should do with them as we see fit (use/abuse them for our own amusement or selfish gain). Political propaganda pushed forward by various involuntary governance structures also appeals to the ego but in somewhat different ways (yet it leads to similar results).
Puppets like the Al Gore’s, the Bill Gates’, the Clinton’s, the WEFers, the Trudeau’s, are distractions, what is important is what everyday people prioritize and act upon, without the support of our dollars and our actions, their seemingly mighty empires are nothing more than flimsy houses of cards.
What do you prioritize in life Lilac Dragonfly? Where does preserving the last few pockets of intact ecosystems and wilderness fall on your list of priorities ? How about regenerating degenerated ecosystems? Let us abandon the limiting labels such as environmentalist and just speak honestly, from the heart, as conscious beings declaring our will.
If you could declare your will and have it be done upon the face of this beautiful Earth, what would that look like?
Thanks again for the comment and for sharing your thoughts.
It is interesting that you use Wikipedia as your reference when Wikipedia itself says, "Wikipedia is not a reliable source for citations elsewhere on Wikipedia. As a user-generated source, it can be edited by anyone at any time, and any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or simply incorrect. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues." It seems by their own standards it isn't a reliable source to cite for reasons they themselves give.
I do not consider Wikipedia to be a reliable source, especially on topics that are not politically correct (“conspiracy theories”) - things that are considered by the powers-that-shouldn’t-be to be misinformation/disinformation…. The only reason I included it was because I just grabbed the first two definitions that came up in my search.
Another point is that this (“climate change” environmental radicalism) is a topic the Wikipedia leadership approves of and wants to show in the best light possible, so for them, this “article” is a bragging page. (I highly suspect Wendell Berry would not be thrilled to have his name on their list of environmentalists.)
So, I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a dependable source of truth, but the definition is what I would consider a mainstream description. Granted, many of those words are loaded, which makes those of us who know what THEY mean by the words, and who disagree with their Orwellian plans a “bit” uncomfortable…. :)
Based on your response I have 3 questions. They are...
1) If you agree that Wikipedia is an unreliable source why wouldn't you go to the 3rd and 4th definitions that came up in your search?
2) Why would anyone who is not part of "them" care what is mainstream? I certainly don't. Mainstream information, especially connected to the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are all too often filled with propaganda and lies.
3) Why would you assume anyone feels uncomfortable with what "THEY" say or have planned? Being aware of a plan that goes against what one wants is a blessing because it gives one a heads up and therefore affords the person or people time to make their own plans to either prevent, or reduce the effects of " said plan."
Thanks for the comment, i`ll read and respond when I have time.
I was going to write something similar about the Corbett phrasing. The insider elites propaganda and carbon tax schemes are where "environmentalism TM" has headed.
You are a true steward of the Earth Gavin and I agree, humans could help our planet but with physical labor. We need to get out en masse and pull invasive species that are just harmful like glossy buckthorn and pick up litter and grow food in traditional ways. All things that need more humans out in the sunshine daily, or other weather with suitable gear on. Funding that sort of project would take some money, but so much money is being wasted on the culling tactics we could just stop trying to poison people and the planet and that would save money.
Tough times. Hang in there. I will have to look at Caitlin's piece closer.
strike a chord (idiom)
If something strikes a chord, it causes people to approve of it or agree with it:
Their policy on childcare has struck a responsive chord with women voters.
Her speech struck a sympathetic chord among business leaders.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/strike-a-chord#google_vignette
Ahh interesting, that is obviously not my take on that phrase, but thanks for the grammatical correction.