The climate agreement: stealing the people in a nice jacket

Filed in NEWS ANALYZES by on 29 June 2019 19 Comments


You just have to laugh at the sophistication with which the people are robbed under the name of the 'climate agreement'. The Orwellian new speech in particular is masterfully chosen. That's how you do that: ,,We are going to tempt everyone to participate. That does not mean that things are not going to change. But we have 30 years for those changes, a generation. ''

Everything is turned around in Orwellian news. Examples of this are: compulsory volunteering, peace mission (sending troops into the war), mental health care (imprisonment and medication administration) and many others. But this statement is also a brilliantly chosen Orwellian statement: "We are going to seduce everyone". In practice that means of course as much as: 'We are going to punish everyone who does not participate.

We see that later in the same article of the AD:

Yet the aim of the Climate Agreement is to emit nearly half as much CO2030 in 2 in eleven years than in 1990. To this end, the Cabinet will present a list of measures, such as an increase in the price of gas and a decrease in that of electricity. There will also be subsidies and loans for heat pumps and the insulation of houses.

But exactly how everything will look will have to be worked out in the coming period. Now the cabinet is mainly opting for soothing words. For example, Minister Kajsa Ollongren (Living) says that everyone is free to decide for themselves how much they want to do with their home. ,, People who want to make some small changes can get advice about this in the short term. It may be that you can adjust your boiler much better. "

Ollongren is more cautious about the major blow that homeowners have to take - by insulating their homes or by getting rid of the gas. ,, Is your roof not well insulated? Then you can probably get a subsidy for that. "" But how much subsidy and under what conditions remains a question mark.

It is clear that there will be a national heat fund from which people can borrow up to such an 25.000 euro to make their home more sustainable. Anyone who does not want to borrow such an amount of money or to pay for this investment out of their own pocket, will be spending a lot more on energy costs due to the rising gas tax in a few years' time.

Anyway it seems smart to wait until the end of 2021 with a major renovation. Then all municipalities must have made a plan for the energy supply in neighborhoods. Heat networks will be installed in large cities in particular. For houses that are connected to it, the boiler can leave the house. "You don't need anything right now," says Ollongren.

The first paragraph therefore states that the price of gas is going up and electricity is becoming cheaper. If we are realistic this means that you have to renovate in order to switch from gas appliances to electric. That costs you anyway money and if, for example, the gas rises 90% and electricity falls only 1%, you have not lied as a minister, but everyone on balance still loses more. If, in addition, the efficiency of electricity with, for example, heating a house is lower, you will therefore have to purchase more electricity and on balance you will also lose more.

The second paragraph contains a hint of the obligation to hire a consultant who will assess your house for necessary changes. You can say that this will cost money and that it will be mandatory to have such an official report drawn up. Cash desk!

In the third paragraph, a cloth for bleeding is already offered in the form of a grant to be determined. However, we can already assume that that subsidy will only bear part of the costs of the changes that you are likely to have to implement (after you have hired a mandatory energy consultant who will impose some mandatory changes on you).

Subsequently, a large pot of tax money is reserved for a national heat fund from which people can borrow money to implement these imposed changes. That, of course, will be a loan at a certain interest rate, and this is how the people are thrown at their throats: “You do not have to change, but then your tax will increase considerably. If you want to change, you must have an official report prepared and you can get a little subsidy, but above all borrow a lot of money". In short, people are forced to pay extra in debt and they have to pay left or right. By who? By the mob.

In the area of ​​driving, everything is made more expensive and changed. Just read for a moment:

The government would like the Dutch to switch to electric cars. That may also be a second-hand car, for which there are favorable subsidy schemes. In the original climate plans, a purchase subsidy of 6000 euros would apply to new plug-in cars, but that subsidy has been canceled.

The new purchase subsidy 'is to be determined', as the Climate Agreement now states. In short: people who want to buy a plug-in car in the coming years, do not know exactly whether this can be done. That the amount will be a lot lower than 6000 euros, seems to be certain.

Here too, the government says that Dutch people are not obliged to dispose of their petrol or diesel car. No, it's not necessary, but it does cost some motorists extra money. Because the excise duty on diesel will be increased step by step in the coming three years.

The new purchase subsidy is further specified. In short: "you don't know what you get to buy such a car, but it becomes mandatory". Well, you still have the choice to drive gasoline or diesel, but then you just go nice lot pay more. Of course, paying a lot more happens in “steps”, of which we can all think that in practice it will be seven-mile boots.

In short, you have been considerably played with the CO2 climate hoax last year with just one clear reason: Creating an alibi to be able to steal even more money from the people.

It is remarkable that the announcement of the climate agreement comes in a week that the hottest days of June have been spoken of for a long time throughout Europe. We are not going to talk about the technology that is needed to influence the weather. The majority of them do not, under the guise of 'conspiracy theories'.

Where are the proofs that show the positive effect of all those energy changes? For example, the production of batteries for electric cars is a major disaster for the environment, and there are many efficiency issues related to the switch from gas to electricity. And what is the environmental impact of the production of all kinds of insulation materials?

We are once again witnessing a wonderful example 'Problem, Reaction, Solution', where a self-created problem in the media and politics is hyped; the reaction among the people is fueled by the same propaganda machine; to then push the (very expensive) solution through the throat of the people.

CO2 is a necessary component in the atmosphere that is used by trees and plants to make oxygen. It is in such a small amount in the atmosphere that it is harmless and CO2 is an increase in the known measurement values ​​(from the short period of time that these measurements take place), rather a consequence of increased solar activity than a cause of global warming. You could discover this by doing the necessary research. However, the internet has become so full of deliberately created desinfo that the media are trying to win you back through the false pretext of fake news and the illusion that they are still telling the truth. The controlled opposition now serves as a safety net. Once the fish are hoisted aboard the opposition safety net ship, that ship is sunk and the drowning people are lifted back on board the mainstream media and the old political order.

So if you get angry with messages like the one about the climate agreement, remember that you should no longer expect the change from above. The robber gangs in The Hague and Brussels are not there to help you. They only play the appearance of democracy, through the game of left and right, conservative and opposition. So you have to make the change yourself and take action. read here how.

Source link listings:


Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About the Author ()

Comments (19)

trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jaline Bies wrote:

    If I have listened to a trick, we may first pay tax and then borrow the paid tax money, hmmm sounds logical anyway.
    The nonsense that she and the cabinet are getting crazier every week. If you think you've heard everything, they have made up something new.
    In addition, the state cars in which they are allowed to drive are already completely electric, has their house been made climate-proof to the finesse?

  2. Riffian wrote:

    With the relaxation of euthanasia legislation we can drastically reduce CO2 emissions. And thanks to the D666 legislation on organ harvesting, it is also sustainable, two birds with one stone.

  3. Camera 2 wrote:

    And here again the controlled oppostion Patrick Moore, the double bottom, first he sets up the LGBTQ Logo Greenpeace together with a few so-called green journalists, and then he can later conduct the controlled opposition against Greenpeace, how nicely ingenious this has been done.

    Patrick Moore the masterly move in the controlled opposition profession

    And here the German who massively lied to everyone with his rainbow logo,
    It is a long slow agenda that we see unfolding here.

    • Sun wrote:

      Well, "German". That is their hideous nationality.

    • SandinG wrote:

      The rainbow logo is an indirect reference to the kabbalah, freemasonry / new age etc find its nauseous origin. So it's Babylonian Jewish mystical doctrine that pushes everyone around the world.

      Kabbalah and Meditation for the Nations

      • SandinG wrote:

        The first documented rainbow is in the Biblical story of Noah, who survived the flood that destroyed the world's population due to its transgressions. The rainbow - "my rainbow in the clouds" - serves as the covenant between Gd and "all living souls," reminding Gd of his promise after the flood never to destroy the world again, despite its sins. Why a rainbow? What is unique about the rainbow that makes it a sign of peace?


        an act that goes against a law, rule, or code of conduct; an offense.
        I'll be keeping an eye out for further transgressions (An eye symbolism)

        The LGBTQ agenda is therefore a deliberate part of "Redemption through sin"

  4. SalmonInClick wrote:

    Here an even better documentary about the world of the usual suspects and how it is intertwined with the monarchy.

  5. white rabbit wrote:

    Very good article, with all measures CO2 emissions are not reduced at all but moved to other countries such as China. Nobody talks about the extra CO2 emissions from the production of electric cars, nobody talks about tree felling due to biomass plants. They certainly produce CO2, but that is not included.
    And then we are not yet talking about the efficiency of the entire cycle.
    Recently I was busy with an electrical installation of a house which must be prepared for the energy transition. You don't want to know how much the standing charge goes up if you want 3x 40Ampere instead of 25A,
    Anyone who calculates everything and takes everything into account will find out that CO2 emissions are increasing rather than decreasing, so the climate agreement is very unbelievable.
    The only advantage of the measures is the stimulus of the economy, which is of no use to ordinary citizens.

  6. No wrote:

    And to think that in Germany and France you will get a subsidy if you switch to gas. They will then have different gas there? Right ...
    And… off the gas in the Netherlands, will they also stop drilling in Groningen or will it not deliver enough?
    Conclusion: a few people become very rich and the crowd will pay ...

  7. Coco Flannel wrote:

    Filling bags at the Dutch level is of course not the ultimate goal. That is the temptation that is offered so that entrepreneurs can respond and thus strengthen the climate religion and spread it further among the people and especially the new generation. The Dutch politicians are also very small, a lower section of the global climate church, with many sincere believers.
    The high-level goal (far above the docile dwarf country of the Netherlands) is to transform societies worldwide as quickly as possible, to transform them into technology-controlled societies, consisting of technology-reduced puppets ('we crush you' tech and aesthetics go hand in hand with tech-dictated aesthetics that must seduce). This in favor of the real big money, the real power.

    • Camera 2 wrote:

      @Coco Flannel

      Thank you very much for recommendation book.
      And in the context of the rigged organizations, here's another nice piece of siwilliamism in London

      Where do all these organizations suddenly come from

  8. Coco Flannel wrote:

    I recommend Nikos Salingaros' book Anti-architecture (there is also a free version somewhere on the internet), this is the playing field of power through aesthetics. The climate church is on the side of eco idealism / moralism, aesthetics, aesthetics generated by tech is the other major playing field of power, not limited to architecture, but architecture is fundamental and ubiquitous (see modernism church, neo-modernism / post-modernism and deconstructivism) thus the means for power symbols and the means for influencing and controlling the human mind ...
    The climate church appeals to morality and survival, aesthetics is the means through seduction, a very powerful means, and therefore must be exploited to the utmost in all possible areas.

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to 'allow cookies' to give you the best browsing experience possible.If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click on "Accept" below then you agree with these institutions.