Destroying Art To Save It From Global Warming

“Think of the earth, artists think of the earth. All artists think of the earth. That’s why I did it”

Man Tries To Vandalise The Mona Lisa

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Destroying Art To Save It From Global Warming

  1. Heretic Jones says:

    Rather than taking a cell phone video of this violation, as the pansies in the room did, physically prevent him from vandalizing your people’s art. Have a spine and restrain this Soylent degenerate.

  2. Vince Manetta says:

    I’ve had the privilege of listening to, several times in the 2000’s, Dr. Elwynn Taylor, climatologist and agriculture meteorologist with Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa speak about his predictions of the coming year’s crop weather, very important in Iowa! He would always get the question “what do you think about climate change?” He responded… “the climate is changing, the climate has always changed, the climate will always change”. Then he would discuss the Solar “Gleissberg Cycle” and what it might mean when it comes back around. He would talk about the extreme weather of the 1930’s, 1936 + 88 years = 2024, so just around the corner.
    https://www.messengernews.net/news/local-news/2019/12/are-we-on-the-edge-of-a-dust-bowl/

    The Gleissberg Cycle is a rather rare topic on the Internet for a major weather phenomenon that is just a couple years away… or is the Western drought we are seeing today just the warm up to the main event.

    https://www.keloland.com/keloland-com-original/are-we-dust-bowl-1957-1976-1988-dry-and-hot/ http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/faculty/etinfo1.html https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002JA009390

    It would be interesting for you to take a dive into this subject and report back on your thoughts. My prediction is that Gleissberg Cycle will soon be an internet censored phrase as the resulting drought will be a major selling point to convince us all of human caused climate change?

  3. Daniel Smeal says:

    This dude’s mind is obviously not working very well.

  4. Robert Rust says:

    Pick a better example. The Mona Lisa is meaningless, vacuous, ego- and profit-serving, modern vanity. True art accomplishes representing descriptions of Nature/Universe while appealing to the human senses and mind in order to establish cultural remembrance and establishment of the vitally important information recorded, see the drawings and statutory of Angkor Wat as a precious example, the entire artistically designed complex a brilliant model of the Earth’s place and behaviour in the universe.

    The parasite clan that has brainwashed modern humans into worshipping the dark, insipid, cult-serving, human embarrassment called the Mona Lisa and the rest of modern art is the same one that has economically subjugated and self-servingly manipulated modern humanity into accepting banking, corporations, monarchy, central government and central this and that, consumerism, profit-making (skimming other’s work), warmongering, politics and politicians, alcohol, junk foods, commercialism, religion, spirituality, bacteria-phobia, endless faked events such as 911, holocaust, moon landing, various shootings and bombings, and serial killers, to mention a few, as well as silly and idiotic but highly profitable nonsense such as dinosaurs, theoretical physics, global warming/climate change, viruses, Hollywood idol/idle entertainment, and endless more cult-ingrained practices of dumb-downed, lost and confused modern civilization.

    Modern Art, which includes meaningless muck like the Mona Lisa and similar vanities, is pollution of the human mind, relegating humanity into meaninglessness and soon-coming extinction for the sake of a self-serving clan scamming up endless ways to make easy money for itself, that is, skimming work off of others in order that it doesn’t have to work itself, euphemistically called profiting.

  5. Russell Cook says:

    Global warming increasingly causes people to do wacko things to draw attention to a situation in which the amount of long-term temperature change is so small that nobody could tell the difference between now and 150 years ago if their life depended on it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.