360

George Monbiot: selling the 1% agenda in a Green box

Catte

The neoliberals of today specialise in using concepts of concern and inclusiveness as a cover for their frankly fascist agenda. Censorship is being repackaged as “anti-hate”. The destruction of the core idea of “innocent until proven guilty” is being repackaged as protecting (mostly female) victims from their persecutors. Reasonable doubt is being repackaged as “denialism.” Minority opinion is being repackaged as treachery or subversion. Facts that contradict a current state-sponsored agenda are repackaged as “fake news.”

Conformity is being encouraged, presented as a cosy and reassuring “consensus blanket”, under which we can all snuggle together, safe from confusion, doubt or the horrendous experience of having our cherished beliefs called into question. Most journos operating in the mainstream have already opted to crawl in and curl up for the long snooze into intellectual and ethical oblivion, while others, the kapos, are actively herding the remaining doubters inside.

George Monbiot is one of the latter. The last few years have outed this one time supposed anti-establishment figure as nothing more than a fully establishment goon, posturing in the sad tatters of his “dissident Green” cosplay. His performance during the Syria crisis made this too obvious. His sub-intelligent smears on those independent journalists daring to question the narrative made his real allegiances, and limitations, more than clear. His preparedness to brazenly lie and his refusal to debate the people he smeared in an open forum cemented this view.

Monbiot is revealed as the guy the establishment uses to try and lure the Left-Greens out in support of the latest agenda roll-out by the likes of Soros, Gates and the Atlantic Council. He’s booked for the same gigs as Avaaz. His brief, as ever, is to sell fascism – but this time in a Green box.

Today George is busy selling us on veganism.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Veganism is fine. It’s a human choice and it has a place. This is not an attack on veganism, or vegans.
But we need to separate what a thing is from what it’s being used for. Everything, even the best things, can be exploited. And we can’t let loyalty to the thing itself stop us from seeing when its being used for less than good ends.

Veganism is being promoted right now by the usual suspects. There has been a rash of articles in the Guardian and elsewhere about the supposed health and environmental benefits of giving up meat and dairy. Even if we happen to be vegan, we’d be insane not to wonder why. Especially when Monbiot is getting involved.

George is a poster child for the New Wave Vegan. Strange, perhaps, given he’s only a “97% vegan” himself. But let’s just ignore the 3% carnivore, since it’s only road kill. The more important point, anyway, is that George wants us all to think he’s a vegan. Because a salesman has to be seen to use the product he’s promoting. His latest article breaks no new ground on this really. He’s said most of it before, as have others. But still, given the mounting evidence for the political mobilisation of veganism, it’s a good idea to look at what he says.

He starts by offering a binary choice – between the current wasteful and insane industrial farming system and a somewhat poorly defined alternative in which everyone eats a plant-based diet, which he implies without really saying, will put an end to this insanity. He tells us not only will this choice fix the problem of worldwide food shortage (because plant-husbandry produces far more calories per hectare than animal husbandry), but it will also remove the problem of all that unused animal waste currently pouring into rivers and creating massive pollution.

George’s ideal future will also be gratifying for the processed food industry. Because vegans need ready meals!

Unless you can cook well – and many people have neither the skills nor the space – a plant-based diet can be either boring or expensive. We need better and cheaper vegan ready meals and quick and easy meat substitutes

And fake meat grown in a lab!

The big shift will come with the mass production of cultured meat.

George recognises the latter will be a tough sell, but he’s up for giving it a try. An objection to this might be that “artificial meat is disgusting”, says George, but:

If you feel this way, I invite you to look at how your sausages, burgers and chicken nuggets are currently raised, slaughtered and processed. Having worked on an intensive pig farm, I’m more aware than most of what disgusting looks like.

Mmmm…Lab-grown pseudo-meat, pink-dyed and not quite as disgusting as someting even worse! Lovely Roundup-saturated veggies processed into some approximation of the kind of protein humans can digest, and piped into microwavable sachets.

Who knew utopia would end up looking quite so much like – now? Who knew the new way would be just like the old way but with more “progressive” slogans?

George uses twisty self-contradictory arguments to claim one minute that eliminating livestock farming would “be a chance to break our complete dependence on artificial nitrogen”, while in his very next para admitting the exact opposite will in fact be the case.

the transition to plant protein is unlikely to eliminate the global system’s need for artificial fertiliser

Though he throws us a bone in the shape of

the pioneering work of vegan organic growers, using only plant-based composts and importing as little fertility as possible from elsewhere

This is blatant bait and switch. Green or green-sounding proclamations being swapped out for their very opposites with a deftness he hopes will fool us. We may, in some misty future time, not need to rely entirely on synthetic chemicals – but yes, ok, for now we will still be sucking up carcinogens with our lovely all veg diet.

Of course we could just use the animal manure to fertilise our veggies, which would entirely eliminate the need for chemical fertilisers…But let’s not think about that too much. Let’s instead soften that focus and just picture fields full of lovely cruelty-free plants waving in the even lovelier breeze…

In case you haven’t noticed, George’s entire article is hand-waving nonsense predicated on a lie, or a system of lies, and his trademark nifty footwork.

His claim that we need to produce more food is used as a blanket rationale for everything he advocates, but it’s a lie. We don’t need to produce more food. We currently produce more than enough food to feed the world. What we need and don’t have is equitable distribution. And that is because of the stranglehold of the minority interests George is carefully eliding.

His initial binary choice is a lie. We don’t need to choose between intensive animal farming and intensive cereal/veg farming. We have the option of non-intensive farming methods that treat the land, the animals and the crops with respect, and use age-old, sustainable methods to produce chemical-free and healthy food.

His dishonesty is nowhere more apparent than when he tries to elide this simple truth. Look at how he acknowledges the illogicality of unused animal waste

Today, the link between livestock and crops has mostly been broken: crops are grown with industrial chemicals while animal slurry stacks up, unused, in stinking lagoons, wipes out rivers and creates dead zones at sea.

but dodges away from the obvious solution – use the “slurry” to fertilise the land in place of synthetic chemicals – with a weak excuse:

When it is applied to the land, it threatens to accelerate antibiotic resistance.

Notice how he avoids mentioning the fact non-intensively reared animals don’t need to be pumped full of antibiotics in the first place. He even links to the source for sustainable husbandry I cite above, but does so only to dismiss it (without data) as “worse” than anything else on offer, by using, once again, the fake claim about the need to produce more food per hectare:

More damaging still is free-range meat: the environmental impacts of converting grass into flesh, the paper remarks, “are immense under any production method practised today”. This is because so much land is required to produce every grass-fed steak or chop

And adding that it’s also bad for the environment

Those who claim that “regenerative” or “holistic” ranching mimics nature deceive themselves. It relies on fencing, while in nature wild herbivores roam freely, often across vast distances. It excludes or eradicates predators, which are crucial to the healthy functioning of all living systems. It tends to eliminate tree seedlings, ensuring that the complex mosaics of woody vegetation found in many natural systems – essential to support a wide range of wildlife – are absent

You thought Monsanto, GM, monocultures and the ripping up of hedgerows was the problem? Nah. It’s fences. And herbivores eating the grass they’re designed to eat. And implicit in this nonsense of course is the greater nonsense that massive veggie monocultures drowned in pesticides and herbicides, are just teaming with wild life, tree seedlings and predators.

Just as he used frank lies to promote the Soros-backed White Helmets as unsung “heroes”, here, in the fake guise of promoting a healthy, organic, back-to-nature solution to the world’s problems, George is promoting the current power system of Big Ag and Big Food monopoly. Just as Avaaz sells us imperial regime change as grass roots activism, George is selling us industrial farming and denatured food as a return to Eden.

Don’t buy what he’s selling. Don’t surrender your sense of the real to this snake oil salesman. Go vegan if you want – that’s a fine personal choice. But not at the expense of the small producers who are already struggling to survive without the subsidies the big guys get. Don’t vote for some future “meat tax” that will drive them out of business, and penalise the poor, just as Big Ag wants. Don’t buy into this soft focus dreamland where our entire livestock herd disappears bloodlessly and completely from our landscape without being killed or culled, and is somehow better for it. Don’t be whispered into campaigning for a new and self-imposed serfdom, in which 7 billion compliant vegans munch their potage or their shrink-wrapped lab-grown Soylent Green, while the 1% quietly eat grass-fed steak and snigger with duping delight.

OffG co-founding editor. Writer. Opinionated polemicist.

Filed under: featured, latest, On Guardian

by

OffG co-founding editor. Writer. Opinionated polemicist.

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
William HBonney
Reader
William HBonney

How to get banned by the Guardian : reference Monbiots libeling of Leon Britten and his subsequent community service..

For me, it’s a legitimate question of the guys judgement.

roadwish
Reader
roadwish

Well, hate fake prophets like George ( calling him JihadiGeorge), but giving platform to a “meateater” that’s climbs on the “high ground” of traditional or conservative farming and looking down on all those “nutters” who broke the shackles of traditional animal killing “norm” is a bit of owngoal. And btw meat produced in the lab is not disgusting, but person who thinks: “That growing highly intelligent creatures in concrete boxes and killing them for “food” IS.

sabelmouse
Reader
sabelmouse

lol, the g is at it again big time this week. cholesterol deniers will cause deaths, and get your flu shot!

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

Now it gets even worse, he’s jumped on the anti-sugar bandwagon and basically pushing for State mandated food and menus. At this rate in 5-10 years we’ll be fully in an Orwellians totalitarian state.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/15/age-of-obesity-shaming-overweight-people

sabelmouse
Reader
sabelmouse

that i would agree with, anti sugar. not fat shaming.stuff is poison.

rogerglewis
Reader
Ex-Londoner
Reader
Ex-Londoner

There is nothing wrong with the story, it is all true but I have to say the saddest thing about the Off Guardian is the time spent on responding to utterly worthless stories found in The Guardian. The reason why most people switched off and don’t read The Guardian and don’t have to read more lies by Monbiot.
This is because the problem with giving energy and time to respond to fake people who create fake stories and peddle lies is a waste of precious time and means concentrating on the negative instead of the positive.
I thought that Off Guardian would give time and space for original stories that not only investigate what is really going on, not always positive but something that needs to be done. There can also be positive stories about countries making positive changes through grassroots movements, there are quite a few, none to be found here. There are many positive examples in the world that do not imitate the immorality of the UK Government or The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail. Sadly most news time is spent on the worthless edifices created by The Guardian, a weak imitation of the war criminal rogue Blair posing right as left and vice versa alongside working alongside the immoral peppered with the occasional lights just to keep the facade going.
This is the sole reason it will be my last post here.

manfromatlan
Reader

One might say the whole point of Off-Guardian is to counter the false arguments peddled by the likes of Blairite The Guardian, Ex-Londoner. It is nice to have a place where mistruths can be replied to so counter arguments can reach the wider population through the internet.
There is another example of such a magazine extant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies_of_Our_Times

Lies of Our Times (LOOT) was a political magazine published between January 1990 and December 1994. The magazine was published on a monthly basis.[1] Ellen Ray was both its co-founder and publisher.[2] It served not only as a general media critic, but as a watchdog of The New York Times, which the magazine referred to as “the most cited news medium in the United Slates, our paper of record.”[3]
In 1995, Lies of Our Times won the Orwell Award, given out annually by the National Council of Teachers of English for outstanding contributions to the critical analysis of public discourse. Among its most esteemed contributors was Noam Chomsky, who penned a regular “Letter from Lexington” for the magazine.

and this magazine was one of the many voices I appreciated. (There are of course many, including those with positive views, but we can all find, and contribute to them).
Another magazine I loved was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CovertAction_Quarterly

CovertAction Quarterly (named CovertAction Information Bulletin until 1992) was an American publication focused on and critical of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Covert Action relaunched in March 2018 as CovertAction Magazine.

rogerglewis
Reader

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/02/greens-announce-three-sets-of-contenders-for-uk-leadership-contest
This Risible piece in the Guardian about the Green Party Leadership election sums up the Guardin, There is no opportnity to comment and it seems to be drafted from the Green Party press release.
The Green Part Leadership election in 2012 , 2016 and again this time if the GP establishment gets it’s way will be very low again Less than 30% Leadership and Just above 20% turnout for Deputy leadership.
Low turnouts do favour encumbents adbvantage something which helped The Social Democratic/Democratic Soiclist policy manifesto of Labour in 2017 to get traction was that a High turnout confounded the Pollsters who had factored in apathy as encouraged by all the Brenda from Bristol coverage.
Anyway, How about some coverage on the GPO election 2018 here on Off Guardian.
I Made this Parody Video of the Current stae of the #NotTheLeadershipCoups.
Greens For Liberty 🔰 🏴

This account has not been verified by [email protected]
9h9 hours ago
More
“Two black blokes and a northerner” An astute satire on the leadership elections of This account has not been verified by [email protected] by This account has not been verified by MetaCe[email protected]
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Reply 3 Retweet Liked 1 Direct message
https://twitter.com/Greens4Liberty/status/1013932464539164674

Winterrun
Reader
Winterrun

I think that’s a little pompous, to sign off like that. Perhaps you should be a little less close-minded about the channels you think progress should take, and a little less smug that people working hard to produce these publications aren’t up to your standards.
While one can always criticise, your comment is pretty self-defeating and negative – rather ironic considering your lofty tone and appeal for more ‘positive’ stories.
Offsetting propaganda with truth is by necessity led by the propagandists. It is a useful resource where people can go to help balance their viewpoint and discover alternative perspectives.
Why not make a positive suggestion that stimulates and inspires instead? No one really gives a cr*p if you chose not to post here. Its legacy is nil.

binra
Reader

“And fake meat grown in a lab”
I see the outer reflecting the inner.
The factory pharmed human.
The fake life devolving to a degraded and paralysed living death.
While I do not align with tyranny under fake moral rage, I do see that what we give sets the measure of our receiving – but that faking morality as targets and rules is the dead letter that would usurp the Living Word.
What we give in this living now is the measure of our receiving. Not what we ‘think’ into complex instruments of self-justification.

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

The Alleged Human Global Warming or Anthropological Global Warming :
“AHGW / AGW as the Environmental 9/11” …
The IPCC was established by the WMO & UNEP on 9 November 1988
The first session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was held in Geneva, Switzerland, from 9 to 11 November 1988. The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc11887/
The same day that King George I of Planet Earth, GHW Bush became the US President Elect.
*
It was the IPCC’s 4 th Climate Assessment Report ( 4AR ) published on 2 February 2007 which first proclaimed “with 90 percent certainty” that :
“global warming is very likely man made”
BiBiC : Global climate change is “very likely” to have been human-induced, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.
Friday, 2 February 2007, 13:47 GMT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6324029.stm
*
This “confidence” increased to 95% with the publication of the IPCC 5 th Climate Assessment Report Summary on 27 September 2013.
*
From the IPCC established by the WMO & UNEP on 9 November 1988
( and GHW Bush’s Presidency )
to the landmark IPCC “very likely human life on earth causes the GW problem assessment report ( 4AR ) on 2 February 20017 is :
= 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 days
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=9&m1=11&y1=1988&d2=2&m2=2&y2=2007&ti=on
MG

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Paranoid pseudo-Kabbalistic garbage. The IPCC has been guilty of down-playing the extent and rate of anthropogenic climate destabilisation in its Reports, released at leisurely five-yearly intervals, because of the requirement to find ‘consensus’ with denialist regimes like those of Sordid Arabia and Austfailure.

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

Mulga Mumblebrain : “Paranoid pseudo-Kabbalistic garbage” …
Is that the best you can do Mulga Mumblebrain ?
You have nothing to contribute on the subject of kabbalistic event scheduling, so you go straight to the insult phase of your claptrap, dogma.
Since you, self-evidently, appear to be sufficiently aware to be able to identify what you coniser to be “pseudo-Kabbalistic…”
such esoteric awareness implies that you therefore also know, what is not “pseudo-Kabbalistic …”
So please, do share your insights with the world Mulga Mumblebrain …
So far, your insulting, dullard, instant rejection of this subject, about which you know nothing, does not bode well for those seeking the scientific approach and reasoned, logical based arguments from you on the climate change scam…
Maybe you should stick to your faux Jew baiting instead, since it seems to be what you do best …
*
Wikipedia : John Tyndall
John Tyndall FRS ( 2 August 1820 – 4 December 1893 ) was a prominent 19th-century physicist.
Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth’s atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it.
*
Wikipedia : United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. It then entered into force on 21 March 1994, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified it. The UNFCCC objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.[3]
*
From Climate : The first scientist to prove the Greenhouse Effect : John Tyndall died on 4 December 1893
to the Rio Earth Summit : UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change CIF on 21 March 1994
INTerval =
= 36630 days
= 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666
+ 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 + 666 days
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?d1=4&m1=12&y1=1893&type=add&ay=&am=&aw=&ad=36630&rec=
Mulga Mumblebrain : “Paranoid pseudo-Kabbalistic garbage” …
Surely you are not “denying” date arithmetic are you Mulga Mumblebrain ?
Are you a “date arithmetic denier” Mulga Mumblebrain ?
MG

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

UNFCCC : Greenhouse Effect : Joseph Fourier
Wikipedia : Joseph Fourier
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier ( 21 March 1768 – 16 May 1830 ) was a French mathematician and physicist born in Auxerre and best known for initiating the investigation of Fourier series and their applications to problems of heat transfer and vibrations. The Fourier transform and Fourier’s law are also named in his honour. Fourier is also generally credited with the discovery of the greenhouse effect.[2]
Discovery of the greenhouse effect
While he ultimately suggested that interstellar radiation might be responsible for a large portion of the additional warmth, Fourier’s consideration of the possibility that the Earth’s atmosphere might act as an insulator of some kind is widely recognized as the first proposal of what is now known as the greenhouse effect,[16] although Fourier never called it that.[17][18]
*
The Rio Earth Summit’s UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change CIF Came Into Force on 21 March 1994
Joseph “Greenhouse Effect” Fourier’s 226 th birthday …
MG

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

The Fichte / Hegel Dialectic : The IPCC’s 4 th Climate Assessment Report ( 4AR )
Fichte / Hegel : Thesis, Anti-thesis, Synthesis = Problem, Reaction, Solution …
Dialectics : The default modus operandi, used consistently, because it works …
*
Wikipedia : Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel ( August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831 ) was a German philosopher
Hegel has been seen in the 20th century as the originator of the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad,[19] but as an explicit phrase it originated with Johann Gottlieb Fichte.[20]
*
From Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel died on 14 November 1831
to the landmark 4th IPCC “assessment report” ( 4AR ) : “very likely” human life on earth causes the GW problem on 2 February 2007 is :
INTerval ILUAF and INClusive ISUAF =
= 1665 months, 1665 weeks, 1665 days
= 555 + 555 + 555 months
= 555 + 555 + 555 weeks
+ 555 + 555 + 555 days
MG

manfromatlan
Reader

As a long-time spiritual seeker, much respect for Kabbalah. Interesting to read the Bible Code etc. and very much a believer in numerical correspondences.
On a slightly connected note; astrologer Michel Gauquelin
The Gauquelin work
1. A concise history with photographs
http://www.astrology-and-science.com/g-hist2.htm

monostrovich
Reader
monostrovich

666 + 666 + 666 + …
Why should we listen to somebody who appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of multiplication?
It’s not hard to believe that numerology appeals mainly to mathematical illiterates, people who believe that numbers such as “666”, especially when repeated, have some kind of magical significance.
Even the original appearance of “666” in a seemingly-mystical context was actually perfectly materialist; “him that hath understanding” understood it to be a coded reference to the Roman emperor Nero.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast#Nero
Anti-imperialists from two thousand years ago, such as the writer of “Revelations”, would have laughed their heads off, if they knew how their samizdat would be mystified by generations of obscurantist loons.

manfromatlan
Reader

The apostle St. John was an anti-imperialist? Funny, but most seem to think it was a book of religious prophecy written in the style of Daniel and referred to future events http://bibleprobe.com/revelation.htm

binra
Reader

Curiously I read yesterday that Isaac Newton devoted his latter years to investigating literal explanations for Daniel and Revelation. I’m not ‘up’ on Daniel – but my sense of Revelation is that it is based on past human experience projected and expected as a future event. This apocalyptic fear operates as catastrophic inducement to appease an overwhelming power and delay, so as to escape or be saved from a terrible fate. This also describes the human conditioning in which a personal sense of self is ‘saved’ from fear of total loss, to seek reinforcement and defence against exposures that would ‘bring down’ its defences, and so a world of lies by which we ‘save ourselves’ are framed in the belief ‘too big to fail’ – as if the whole basis for order (as we know it) depends on secrets and lies that must remain secret so as to continue supporting all that has been built upon them.
The undoing of self-illusion may be resisted and cast in (and attract) physical expressions, or sickness, conflict and calamity even to death, but my understanding of ‘apocalypse’ is the revealing of false foundations to their undoing and release in a recognition of the true. In that sense all deceit is self-deceit – but of a cast out and rejected sense of self that another then ‘brings home’.
I accept that some find number, geometries and patterns of ratio and relationship beneath the surface or screen experience, and perhaps then some can choose to get lost in that – as their particular way of hiding in personal fascinations. Is that not true of everything? – that it is given meanings for us what we are using if for? And thus those ‘meanings’ are communicated in the framing of our thought, phrase and communication. to find resonant match in others or indeed a dissonant reaction?
I see that the intent to obfuscate the revealing of feared perspective, is part of the ‘defence’ of the mind against a projected sense of pain and loss – and so has all the attributes of a self-protective identification as the core justification for what otherwise would be seen as deceit. But in ‘war’ deceits are not only weapons of the first order, but the very nature of the mind so baited.
In this and other forums I find myself wondering if a poster is ‘real’. That is if they are knowingly of not and agent of sowing disinfo, distrust and division. (I also receive such suspicion for not taking ‘sides’, and attempting to articulate to the issues that I feel or see beneath the appearances and defended identities.)
But the only thing that practically matters (manifests) is what comes forth from me – regardless of what others may or may not intend or why. The deceiver is a mind by which we consent to deny and limit our self and life under false promise or wishful thinking given power.
So instead of a ‘war’ I find an ‘education’ that uncovers me to myself in unexpected ways – if I am paying attention. Not the ‘me’ of a self-reinforcing loop, but a drawing away of coverings that allow such negative identity to run in positively framed masking.

manfromatlan
Reader

Curiously, in Islam ‘Jihad’ is either a war against others or against one self. In the 8th century there was a split within Islam between the literalist and the mystical elements of the faith, likewise within science, a split between the rational and the mystical, and Isaac Newton probably exemplified that split.
From my 2011 article “Isaac Newton: First Scientist, or Last Sorcerer?” https://manfromatlan.blogspot.com/2011/06/isaac-newton-first-scientist-or-last.html
“Somewhere along the history of mankind there was a split between Science and Mysticism. We are all the poorer for it.”

Sir Isaac Newton FRS (4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727 ) was an English physicist, mathematician, alchemist, astronomer, natural philosopher, and theologian who is considered by many scholars and members of the general public to be one of the most influential people in human history. His 1687 publication of the Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (usually called the Principia) is considered to be among the most influential books in the history of Science” http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Isaac_Newton
Yet many writers of the post Enlightenment Age only recognized his work in the “sciences” and it was only the rediscovery of a large trove of his alchemical papers by the economist John Maynard Keynes in the mid-twentieth century that led scholars to realize the inspiration for Newton’s laws of light and theory of gravity came from his alchemical work.
In fact, Newton — the revered founder of modern science and the mechanistic universe — also ranks as one of the greatest spiritual alchemists of all time. In his The Religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford 1974), F.E. Manuel concluded: “The more Newton’s theological and alchemical, chronological and mythological work is examined as a whole corpus, set by the side of his science, the more apparent it becomes that in his moments of grandeur he saw himself as the last of the interpreters of God’s will in actions, living on the fulfillment of times.
The Hermetic Tradition
This view has become more accepted in recent years, as more of Newton’s private papers and alchemical treatises are being reexamined. “Like all European alchemists from the Dark Ages to the beginning of the scientific era and beyond,” states Michael White in Isaac Newton:The Last Sorcerer (Addison Wesley 1997), “Newton was motivated by a deep-rooted commitment to the notion that alchemical wisdom extended back to ancient times. The Hermetic tradition — the body of alchemical knowledge — was believed to have originated in the mists of time and to have been given to humanity through supernatural agents” http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

You might also enjoy this book:
The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy, B.J.T. Dobbs (Cambridge Paperback Library)
…(cont’d in the article)

binra
Reader

Indeed, manfromatlan, the ‘separation’ or split is in a sense an inverted jihad and a self-deprivation in terms of the developing ‘consciousness’ of such a split.
I notice ‘wrong turnings’ in history where the true was unwanted or diverted from by the appeal of that which serves (power and wealth in) self-image. I say wrong turnings in quotes because if it is part of our experience it is serving purpose if only to mark out where not to go – once uncovered as an experience of who we are Not.
So I also feel that ‘waking up’ to deceits or self-illusion is the rekindling of a core curiosity and uncovering of gifts from a ‘past’ that wait only on recognition and acceptance.

jdseanjd
Reader

A book you may enjoy also, manfromatlan:
Our Occulted History, Do The Global Elite Conceal Ancient Aliens? By award-winning journalist Jim Marrs, RIP.
Was mankind created as a slave/servant race by ancient aliens?
Is this the meaning behind the earliest books of the Bible, which seems to be a rehash of Man’s oldest story, the Legend Of Gilgamesh?
Based, in part, on ancient Sumerian baked clay tablets, which predate the Bible by 2,000 to 4,000 years, with modern info that tends to point at our Moon as a spaceship, this is a hugely informative & interesting book, which I thoroughly recommend.
John Doran

manfromatlan
Reader

Thanks, jdseanjd. I believe we were visited by people from another space/time dimension millennia ago, who created the ancient civilizations of Lemuria and Atlantis, but somewhere .. lost their way, creating the races through genetic experimentation.
But they came out of idealism. My screen name, Man From Atlan is a novel I wrote in 1974 (published 1990) which is readable for free till I get around to putting up on Kindle is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20050219000822/http://www.manfromatlan.com:80/manfromatlantext.html

A Search for One’s Soulmate and Destiny That Spans 14,000 Years
The Man from Atlan came to Earth thousands of years ago. He and his fellow space-travellers had a mission; to teach a way of life that would form the basis of mankind’s religions. To the people of that time, they were the gods of myth and legend, but in truth they were very human.
‘Man from Atlan’ is about one such man. There was that one moment, just once, when he held the future of the world in his hands, then his destiny led him away from his original path.
This book is based on the lives of this man, as he dies and is born again into other lives. Through ancient Egypt and Rome, as an Arab chieftain and a priest in medieval Spain, a pirate and then a guerilla in the Spanish Republican War, we see the same man whose ideals brought him to Earth, still seeking to return to what he had once been.
And it is above all a love story, about a passionate search for his soulmate who came to Earth with him, whose love was central to his moment of destiny in an Egyptian pyramid, the love that continued through all his lives. These were the magical moments in time, and her love would be his salvation.

jdseanjd
Reader

Atlantis disappeared, according to Plato, who had it from Solon, about the time of the Younger Dryas cooling, 12,900 to 11,600 years ago, followed by the holocene warming a, 11,600 to 8,500 years ago. There is much debate around the cause of this sudden, steep plummeting temperature, followed by a sudden steep rise. An asteroid impact?
JD.

binra
Reader

The discernment of the historical in the mythic, and the consequent redefining and amalgamation and association of other histories within the archetypes of meaning that shape our subjective consciousness is more than just looking in the terms we (are) set (in). For what we are looking with is part of the effect we are looking through – OF the thing we are looking for.
One possibility for the end of the Younger Dryas is the forming of the Great Lakes (perhaps in minutes) by plasma discharge interactions between ‘heavenly bodies’ (The Gods were later called planets).
http://saturniancosmology.org/dryas.php
The ‘planes of consciousness’ of the activating and development of a subjective consciousness are of an ‘inner quality’ but the outer embodiments of our physical history were both awesome or overwhelming and catastrophic or terror-forming (pun intended).
“A carbon-rich black layer, dating to 12.9 thousand years ago, has been previously identified at 50 Clovis-age sites across North America and appears contemporaneous with the abrupt onset of Younger Dryas cooling. The in-situ bones of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, along with Clovis tool assemblages, occur below this black layer but not within or above it.” (quote within linked page above).
One possibility for a ‘Heavenly City’ that sank in a day that later became associated with floods and catastrophes around the world is indicated here – clipped out of:
http://saturniancosmology.org/flood.php
Plato’s Atlantis is the only instance of the “Atlantis legend” in antiquity. If the Atlantis legend was current in Greece or Egypt, we would have heard about it from many other sources, although Hamlet’s Mill (1969) by Giorgio de Santillana and H. von Dechend recounts hundreds of versions of this legend worldwide — of a land held up by a giant, a tree, or a river rising in the sky. The tree, river, snake, bridge, or giant at some time in the past was cut down, and the land sank into the sea. That can be placed at 3147 BC. The “sea,” of course, is the Absu of the south into which all the planets, but especially Saturn (“the land”), disappeared.
Plato’s date of 9600 BC is the weakest link in his story. An old man (Critias) has to go home to think over what it was that he might have heard his grandfather tell of what his father had heard tell by Solon when he was a little boy. Plato actually places Atlantis in the Gulf of Guinea, west of equatorial Africa. As seen from Greece, this is a sightline for the southern plasmoids, which rotated into view to stand over South America. Thus it could very well be suggested that Atlantis represents the ball plasmoids of the south*. Atlantis was ruled by the water god Poseidon and his two queens.
http://saturniancosmology.org/peratt.php
The site I linked (by jno cook) is part of what I opened this posting with. A reevaluation of who we are and how we came to experience and believe ourselves to be, as a willingness to revisit the accounts of our ancestors as symbolic account of actual experience that then became the cultural archetypes of human development. This is also supported by the light of new scientific information from cosmology, archeology, geology and perhaps most specifically plasma physics.
Opening to question in seeking for true is necessarily a guided imagination. Invested identity polarises in ‘charged’ relation to its opposite. But a relational identity is a dance within an embracing nature of balance.

jdseanjd
Reader

Thank you, I will look at this site. 🙂
Plato’s date fits well with Holocene Warming a, 11,600 to 8,500 Before Present. This sudden steep warming would have released the water locked up as ice by the Younger Dryas Cooling, very possibly, causing floods. This interesting period is discussed in Geology Prof Ian Plimer’s History Chapter & in Jim Marrs book Our Occulted History.
You may also enjoy putting Younger Dryas (or whatever) into the search box at http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
a lively climate debate site.
JD.

binra
Reader

While the link I gave may be found wrong in its willingness to attempt to date and detail some of what its authro has gathered and studied – I have found far too much congruency in the fundamental idea of an ‘electric universe’ to persist in models that are blind to it. Along with that is my deeper sense of reintegrating the ‘inner and the outer or appreciating ‘one thing’ as many faceted – and so I do not regard the physical or ‘thing-objects’ as standalone self-existing be they patterns of energy or sentient beings. In this sense object persistence is a basis for experiencing time and space within the Idea of its unfolding. I don’t see anything in our current model that begins to hold for infinite creation excepting very very big things, very very small things, and very very long ago, but not so much instantly, or always already and without a second. For models are structures through which to reflect experience – or indeed to set up the parameters for opening and exploring such experience as feedback to the Idea in motion.
I lean into attempting to speak off the edge of the world because of course I feel moved to expand the framework of our current focus or ‘fixation’.

jdseanjd
Reader

The Electric Universe theory is definitely worth looking into.

binra
Reader

The other war around is interesting: that of the making our own being alien to our sense of self.
The alien then is who we are identified with and thus defended against losing to an ‘overwhelmingly greater’ – read uncontrollable – reality. So the ‘illusion’ battles against and yet is captive to the reality that it depends upon to live the denial of.
This is similar in principle to Jesus parable of the tenant farmers and the ‘absent Master’. Or a prodigal son of a false inheritance (because the Father Lives the giving of inherence).
This is not to deny the ‘aliens’ who may be facets of unrecognised or forgotten being – just as can the grass blowing in the wind, the postman or a ladybird.

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

Date arithmetic or “numerology” …
an exceptionally peculiar internet phenomenon …
*
monostrovich : 666 + 666 + 666 + …
Why should we listen to somebody who appears to be unfamiliar with the concept of multiplication?
It’s not hard to believe that numerology appeals mainly to mathematical illiterates, people who believe that numbers such as “666”, especially when repeated, have some kind of magical significance.

Anti-imperialists from two thousand years ago, such as the writer of “Revelations”, would have laughed their heads off, if they knew how their samizdat would be mystified by generations of obscurantist loons.
*
The monostrovich fantasy : Mystical and / or “magical significance” …
Link : off-guardian.org/2018/06/07/consensus-reality-has-outlived-its-usefulness/#comment-123603
Are you a “date arithmetic denier” also monostrovich ?
MG

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

monostrovich
A proper “obscurantist loon” would have attempted to negate, deride, ridicule each of the 3 digit rep-digits or triplets ( 111 to 999 ) not just the “Biblical one in the middle” = 666 …
So you still have 8 triplets to do your “thing” with monostrovich …
Link : off-guardian.org/2018/06/10/ronan-tynan-kicks-off-world-cup-anti-russia-campaign-by-implying-us-war-crimes-work-of-putin/comment-page-1/#comment-123851
MG

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

The “Father of Eugenics” : Francis Galton : Climate : UN World Meteorological Organization Convention Ratified & WMO established on 23 March 1950
*
Wikipedia : Francis Galton
Sir Francis Galton, FRS ( 16 February 1822 – 17 January 1911 )
was an English Victorian era statistician, progressive, polymath, sociologist, psychologist,[1][2] anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, and psychometrician. He was knighted in 1909.
He was a pioneer in eugenics, coining the term itself[3] and the phrase “nature versus nurture”.[4]
*
Wikipedia : World Meteorological Organization WMO
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 191 Member States and Territories. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established by the ratification of the WMO Convention on 23 March 1950, WMO became the specialised agency of the United Nations for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences …
*
When they want to hide the kabbalism, they do so by using Prime Ordinals or Prime Sequence Numbers …
The Number 3119 is the 444 th Prime Number : 3119 = P444
See : The 3119 day sequence from GHW Bush DCI CIA on 30 January 1976
Link : forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062656639#post1062656639
*
From “The Father of Eugenics” : Francis Galton born on 16 February 1822
to the UN World Meteorological Organization Convention ratified WMO established on 23 March 1950 is :
INTerval =
= 46785 days
= P444 + P444 + P444
+ P444 + P444 + P444
+ P444 + P444 + P444
+ P444 + P444 + P444
+ P444 + P444 + P444 days
Link : timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?d1=16&m1=2&y1=1822&type=add&ay=&am=&aw=6238&ad=3119&rec=
MG

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

Nazis : Reichsfuhrer-SS : Heinrich Himmler : Climate : The UNFCC
Wikipedia : Heinrich Himmler
Heinrich Luitpold Himmler ( 7 October 1900 – 23 May 1945 ) was Reichsführer of the Schutzstaffel (Protection Squadron; SS), and a leading member of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) of Germany. Himmler was one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany and one of the people most directly responsible for the Holocaust.
*
Wikipedia : United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992 and opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992. It then entered into force on 21 March 1994, after a sufficient number of countries had ratified it. The UNFCCC objective is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”.[3]
*
From the Nazi WW2 Holocaust narrative : Heinrich Himmler born on 7 October 1900
to the Rio Earth Summit : The UNFCCC UN Framework Convention on Climate Change CIF on 21 March 1994 is :
INTerval =
= 888 months, 888 weeks, 888 days
https://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadded.html?d1=7&m1=10&y1=1900&type=add&ay=&am=888&aw=888&ad=888&rec=
MG

BigB
Reader
BigB

So the political hopium ‘debate’ about the biogenic or abiogenic origins of oil rolls on. Bottom line: biogenic oil contains biomarkers, carbon isotopes (C-12; C-13), and trapped helium (that came from the surface) which make it conclusive that it was organic in nature; produced by sedimentation and geological conditions (depth, pressure, time).
http://richardheinberg.com/richard-heinberg-on-abiotic-oil
Bracketing off the question of drilling into the igneous basement rock strata; and finding sustainable oil (LOL!) …we would have to contend with the moral question: why do we want more oil? Two of the leading oil rich nations are currently engaged in genocide in Yemen. I would propose that imperialism is a function of oil. One might argue that KSA; UAE; logistically backed by USUK; are not directly motivated by oil …but they certainly would not be perpetrating genocide, in the manner that they are, without it. So, what would we do with more oil: more genocide? Including eco-genocide?
Carbon capitalism has been an evolutionary blind alley for humanity. One we may not exit alive. We took billions of years of resources; converted them by burning hydrocarbons; dumped the waste as heat and pollution, and discarded single-use designed obsolescent residues of materialism – turning the biosphere into a toxic waste sink; toxified and depleted the land with unsustainable BigAg biotech GMO “Green Revolution”; pushed the biodiversity (certainly at the large faunal level) to the verge of extinction; etc …for what? To create a few thousand strong ungrateful billionaire superclass: who psychopathogenically still want more? Oil has (very nearly) cost us the earth: do we want to carry on the carnage to its logical short-term conclusion …or do we want change?
[BTW: the techno-fix hopium is another specious oil materialism continuum proposition. The Jevons Paradox states that new technology does not save, it increases energy consumption (by paradoxically increasing demand) …as the source code of valorisation of capitalism states we must keep consuming more and more …until there is no more to consume. Then what?]
More oil is an indirect and inveigled argument for the continuation of psychopathogenicism. It supports only the superclass: as such, I do not believe that it can be a considered POV. For the 99.99999% of humanity: the end of oil is our only real hope. I do wish we could break out of this change-averse, risk-averse consensus materialist mindset (itself an emergent property and function of the faux-prosperity enabled by ‘cheap’ oil) and start to envision the post-production future we want …built on the more solid foundation of love: not carbon materialism derived from biogenic (or even abiogenic) oil.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Dear me-what a most excellent contribution. I am imitating the broccoli, so envious am I.

Kathy
Reader
Kathy

Very well put Big B

manfromatlan
Reader

It might be said that the substitute for “cleaner” ME oil used as a club over the rest of the world, the plentiful oil sands in North America, are greater contributors to environmental genocide. The Saudis just have to do the bidding of their imperial masters (helped along by the timely assassination of King Faisal).

balkydj
Reader

“If you want to overcome the whole world, overcome yourself.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Demons
Can somebody tell Monsieur Monbiot, please ? if you happen to pass by the Guardian, coz’ particularly George, seems to be sadly absent from the Arena of Sacred Facts & Scientific Reason ..
(and I’m banned from commenting ; dat’s my excuse 🙂 )
I hear nothing has changed @Mon-bio-T’ode2narcissism ..
The lies & hypocrisy that people convince themselves of , never cease to amaze me, since 9/11 ..
Cognitive dissonance pure & simple ‘Consensus’ ,
by ‘George’ Mon-Bio-T ‘oad ..

Orthus
Reader
Orthus

The Guardian has another veggie burger article today.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/12/fake-meat-plant-based-burgers-vegetarians-vegans
Comments about agribusiness or the frequency of such articles are being moderated at a rate of knots.
I have posted a link to here, 5, 4, 3…

manfromatlan
Reader

Repeated: Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the project for the exploration of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, at the VII-th International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust Through Drilling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

Kathy
Reader
Kathy

This article rather seems to have put the Catte amongst the pigeons if you pardon the pun. My apologies for this.I think that the original point was that Monbiot is arguing the case for veganism at the same time as continuing support for mono culture and artificial farming methods that are not sustainable given the intense nature of the method. It would also seem that on a personal level Catte does not agree with veganism but does not condemn those who do. This does and has led to great debate and comments. Mostly these have been civil but it is a contentious issue and brave to take it on. It all comes down to an individuals own choice and free will in the end. The most important thing is that animal or vegetable. All life we take for our own needs should be respected,asked of and thanked for its sacrifice. In m,h,o. there is a great likelihood that plants do feel. They certainly are aware of fear and grow better for those who treat them with respect. We all have capacity to sense and vibrate on much higher levels then we tend to do. Maybe if we were more connected to the land and our own food production we would understand this more. This also comes back to Monbiots attitude towards a lot of issues. They often seem superficial and bombastic to me. It is a problem with modern life in general and our detachment from our food its production and how it comes to us. The depletion of nutrients due to long term storage and the loss of habitat mono culture causes etc. If we were able to have greater access to self sufficiency we would be healthier happier and more in tune with life force and nature and have less need for consumerism and capitalism generally.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

[Verse 3]
Then a sentimental passion
Of a vegetable fashion
Must excite your languid spleen
An attachment a la Plato
For a bashful young potato
Or a not-too-French French bean!
Though the Philistines may jostle
You will rank as an apostle
In the high aesthetic band
If you walk down Piccadilly
With a poppy or a lily
In your medieval hand
And ev’ryone will say
As you walk your flow’ry way
“If he’s content with a vegetable love which would certainly not suit me
Why, what a most particularly pure young man this pure young man must be!”
[Gilbert & Sullivan, “Patience” (a comic satire on Oscar Wilde) ]
[The hero’s character is in a romantic battle for the heroine Patience, in which his rival is an ‘earthly poet’, Grosvenor who “dines upon chops, and roly-poly pudding with avidity” ]

Stephen Green
Reader

It’s a great article and courageous to poke the vegan dragon, even ever so gently. I object to the vegan assertion that raising ruminants for slaughter is in some way cruel or inhumane. They are designed to turn grass, which is low-nutrition but prefect for its purpose, into muscle-meat which carnivores and omnivores can eat. They are prey animals everywhere they exist, and eating them is participating in the eco-system and dare I say the purpose of God. And just to be practical rather than metaphysical, If we turned our twenty-acre farm here in West Wales entirely over to vegetables, where are the forty people we shall need to work the land going to live? And what will they eat in hungry gap? Unless we are going to fly produce up from the south, and fly ours there in our summer?
I’m afraid the vegan model depends on processing and machinery and transport and indeed agri-chemicals rather more than some of its advocates might like to admit. The moral high ground is so not the preserve of vegans!

monostrovich
Reader
monostrovich

One might observe that very few “primitive”, indigenous societies had a vegan diet in their original, pre-capitalist state. Especially not the ones existing in relatively harsh environments, where some form of omnivorism is a pre-condition for survival.
However, contradictions such as this are usually beneath the notice of middle-class eco-moralism. As is the destruction of traditional societies by the forces of imperialism, which they are usually happy to cheer for, if given even the most transparent propaganda pretext, as in Syria and Libya.

binra
Reader

(This is not a personal response monostrovich – but rose from reading your own in the theme of manipulative deceit).
The targeting and destruction of traditional ideas is in a sense traditional… as the replacing of the father by the son, of one god-king state by another, the idea of god-king rule replaced by rights of consent, and the idea of consent replaced by the regulatory capture under deceit. The mind runs a script as a substitution for awareness of being, the movement or desire of being, the recognition or appreciation for being.
I have a sense that the ‘script’ of the intent to assert, undermine, deny and usurp runs our minds and frames our experience of a world as power struggle, under threat and fear of loss. It is all the script of the self as the body – or rather limited to and confined or defined to the body in personification.
The personification of power has both the terror and rage of the destructive, wielded or suffered, and the alignment in supplication and appeasement.
The ‘survival of the fitting’ in the human psyche is not merely to physical environments, but to psychic associations – that operate a dissociated reenactment of the past in changing forms.
Destruction and loss is associated in the personal mind with personal guilt and punishment. The accusation of evil and penalty in others works also a kind of magic in which the denial and loss of others ‘pays for’ or offsets one’s own guilt.
Denied, hidden and thus protected guilt and fear thus operate an undercurrent layer of hatred that masks behind or hides within the ‘good intentions’ or shifting forms of ‘answer’ that arise in the mind’s attempt to cover its own shame or self-hate in fig-leaf diversions and disguises that cost ever more in death and taxes to maintain the appearance of.
Who has taken life must believe in the power to take it back, and to save their own, seek someone else to pay, or wrap up the guilt in complex financial instruments and sell it as a source of wealth and power.
Regardless that the acting of roles, persists the drama of the wheat and the tares, such a script runs its own undoing in its exposure or unmasking to a recognition waiting only on welcome.
The mind of the assertion of power may seek to dictate reality, and enforce outer conformity and compliance by fears masked in righteousness that must ‘take life to seem to have it’, but it cannot make illusions true.
And must willingly sacrifice the true to maintain the belief in possession of the false.
In our tradition or inheritance, what is the baby and what is the bathwater?
What is truly worthy of conserving in spirit and what forms of ‘stuckness’ in forms of substitution need to be recognized and released to new forms embodying the core appreciations or indeed a more integrated appreciation of being?
The ‘globalist agenda’ works destruction to ‘create’ its dream of domination and control. And works through our own destructive propensities to draw its power. But yet delivers us to our beginning with the opportunity to see it for the first time.

mikael
Reader
mikael

Dunka, dunka, this creep knows nothing, delivering an string of bullshit wrapped in an carpet of nonsense.
Vegan, well, to me, everything is life, and I treat everything acodingly even tomato plants, I dont differentiate,and whats the borderline, where is it, Fish arent, right, etc, to sheeps. Why do we in Norway have millions of sheeps, ok, some for own food, etc to wool, but this producion of meat is way to large and leaves us with an massive over production of meat, witch is then done what with.
Dumped on others, to keep the price, uh…. right for us, and we subsidice everything thru tax/tarifs and price levels.
Yeah, wild life, humped with an extenicive expansion of grounds where the sheeps can be, and feed them selfs, during summer time, and this millions are kicked out into the open land, and of course, predatores arent that stupid but is unfortunate to take the wrong game, the sheeps.
Of somehwere around 2. something millions sheeps, ca 120 000 dies out door, but the agenda is about wild life, witch takes 20 000 anually, and I doubt the numbers,( our Artic Sea Eagles are acoding to what they catch of domesticated animals the largest fying creatures ever roamed the earth, somewhere around the size of an DC 9, because they eat 50 kg of meat, every day, every single Eagle, yeah lions, beat that, and the farmers never lies, right) and of this 20 000 wolfs take what, 2000, in an country like Norway.
And the farmers go bananas, the MSM?? goes balistic, since they can fuell the so called fight between the farmers/outback and the citys, etc, and whines and I have to watch images of sheeps killed by an wolf, yeah, nasty isnt it, where they are torn to death, at least, they died fast, what the sheep farmers dont tell you about and shows images off, is sheeps stuck and uses weeks to die, while they try to chew of their feet/s.
Hammered by insects, eaten slowly alive, day by day, and yet, its the wolf that is the bad guy in this reality, where people are so ignorant its slack jawing.
This goes to the over 100 000 that dies of something else, yeah, but hey, lets drool something about this evil, the wolfs, huh, vikings, yeah, I bet they are used as turbo fans in hell. volantirly, since whats left is an pussyfied shit hole.
The problem is over production, industry farms, fishfarms, etc all of this have to go before we can begin to talk sustainability, and ecology in an time where as if I say, Bottom Trawling, some of the most insane way of catching anything witch is equall to carpet bomb an forest with napalm to have your self an Turkey.
Yeah, its dead silent, and I have thru the decades not read anything about this, the AGW scammers are silent since this so called enviromentalists are so called caring for our planet, and they only thing this scums whines about is f…… CO2.
Overpopulation, is an staistical fluke made by people whom is either stupid or have an agenda, because if you gave everybody on this globe an square mile, and dropped us all in Australia, what do you think happens, do the math.
The Biofuel scam, yeah, its de facto horrible but everybody is so bloody conserned, right, about boiling our planet.
The goal justifyes the means, to scam or not to scam.
Yup while our bedside is burning.
This man is an shame and a sham, period, aka an drooling idiot, yapping new public managment language, the art of spewing abolute nonsense for hours, in an way that fools ignorants/public, since they are usually even more ignorant/missinfomred, and we end up with politiciens whom in some cases even belivies their own bullshit.
And I dont know how big or what kind of pedigree this creeps claims, but I grew up with books, read an entire f… library, almost.
Hurmf, the decay is obvious, an degeneration of mind and wisdom, to what we have now, an seespool of manure, an bonfre of and the tyrani of vanity, yup, and the only thing protecting this creeps are the MSM, witch thanks to them self are going down to the bottom of the pit.
I can even smell the air been fresher.
hehe, no wounder they are so hyped upon censuring everybody/everything this days, when they have morons like this, on their, uh….. side.
peace

rilme
Reader
rilme

“if you gave everybody on this globe an square mile, and dropped us all in Australia, what do you think happens”
Everybody dies, obviously.

jdseanjd
Reader

If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
JD.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Alt-right poster-bo Jordan Peterson reveals he eats a diet composed exclusively of meat.
https://youtu.be/tw8Rf9h0-Sk
So this is proof that a red-meat-based diet can turn even an allegedly intelligent person into an aggressive, shouty, contemptuous short-tempered individual with utter disregard for the opinions or arguments presented by others.
A syndrome we have already noted elsewhere.

dermot reilly
Reader
dermot reilly

i have been “vegan” for 12 years now, its is so easy to cook and eat a plant based diet, i am same weight as when i was 18, i am in my 70s now, you are way off base in many of your comments which means you have not fully examined a plant based diet, i recommend you read the china study or some objective science regarding veganism…this is the craziest article i have read on offguardian, will make me examine the other ones with more scrutiny……

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Be careful what you say here – because you will be ambushed by our resident troll, with a series of ad hom attacks on your personal credentials.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Discuss the ideas here, and don’t turn the argument towards the people or their perceived failings. That is NOT content

binra
Reader

Fear nothing true, but be vigilant against cunning laid deceits that induce reaction to a guilt and fear sown in division, presented in forms that auto-run in unwatched minds. You cant trust the face value of anything – but that does not mean there is no basis for trust – but is starts within ourself and trusts others to be also themselves instead of setting up relationships to fail. Fantasy worlds keep us in fantasy solutions.
I don’t think anyone took the bait of the plant based diet, the plant based diet, the plant based diet.
Theres freedom to embrace a plant based diet and to embrace whatever you want to eat – you can eat a junk based diet and donate your life to the science of a sickness farm – and fend off the end-times for Big Food and Friends.
And so the issue isn’t a plant based diet so much as a planted or incepted meme of a negative guilting agenda – packaged in crafted ‘subtle’ (sic) appeal to moral guilt and its accomplice; morally ‘justified’ hate – seeking pharmakoi against whose denial to ‘outsource toxic guilt’.
As a result a movement of a genuine exploration and discovery becomes associated with a blame-hate device.
A phished identity is the proxy for the manipulative deceit. Where do we get our self from?
If it is gotten from reacting or opposing fear, hate, guilt etc – then there is a back door open to robbers who know you not, nor care to.
Love the truth as you recognize it because without it the capacity to recognize anything true is taken from you.

BigB
Reader
BigB

It keeps recurring: but can we please put the abiotic oil theory to bed; once, and for all? In fact, there are two versions of the theory; ‘weak’ and ‘strong’. Weak posits that oil reforms on the same geological time-frame as it originally formed …which is of no use at all. Strong means we would be drowning in oil, and we are not. There is no reason to take it from me: but Ugo Bardi is an actual Professor of Chemistry:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-10-03/abiotic-oil-science-or-politics/
As for the provable and reclaimable amount of oil left: this is an irrelevant and sophist argument. It is the quality, not just the quantity of reserves that matters (see below). Socio-economically: what counts is the Energy Returned On Investment (EROI). This states that the surplus energy (exergy) available for socio-economic needs will inevitably DECREASE over time: in ratio to the amount of energy required to recover, refine, and distribute that energy. Simply stated: all the easily refinable, non-viscous, uncontaminated, low sulphur, high octane ‘sweet’ crude has either gone, or is running low. What is left, and that which is yet to be discovered are various qualities of tight oil (that need fracking); and keragen (tar sands that need boiling, wasting natural gas). These will require greater and greater energy investment to recover, refine, and distribute: which will mean less and less surplus energy (exergy) for our socio-economic requirements.
[I have deliberately not included energy invested in future exploration and capital expenditure (CapEx); because these budgets are by and large begin put toward present debt. As such: the reserve replacement ratio is at its lowest for some 40 years; and exploration and future investment is minimised.]
As an analytical tool: EROI is rock solid science – unlike the abiotic oil theory. It is ‘Second Law Statement’ derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The derived concept is considered as sound and provable as the Law from which it comes. As Charles Hall, the originator of the concept, says …if you want to argue the science, you can: but you better have good data.
So, our primary resource, which is still oil: will become more and more of an economic drag. Oil, quite literally, is money. Total energy in (primary energy consumption) equals total money out (GDP) on a more or less 1:1 ratio (0.99%+ correlative). This is true over time, though recently the money out (GDP ‘growth’) has shown signs of a weak decoupling – but this is probably due to financial engineering rather than alteration in the correlation (which will revert in time via ‘price readjustment’: aka ‘crisis’). To quote Tim Morgan: our economy is a ‘surplus energy equation’.
[His blog – on surplus energy economics – is well worth checking out. From it: the fact that for each £1 of GDP (Grossly Distorted Pseudo-science) requires £5.45 of debt creation would support my claim of the weak decoupling being debt-fuelled. Are we just “spending borrowed money”? What happens when it is time to pay it back? Our economy is indeed a ‘menopausal’ basket-case. For further support of my argument, you’ll need to read his blog.]
The peak oil debate is often simplistically reduced and dismissed. It is not reducible to the ‘Hubbert Curve’: which would state that once past peak (circa 2012) we will have an equal quantity of equal quality oil to last, until we find more reserves of equal quality. So, we have used one trillion barrels, we have a trillion left, and as reserves deplete we will find another trillion barrels …happy days. Bracketing off the ecological ‘unburnable carbon’ argument: this is still the industry standard specious assertion. One, we are only minimally exploring for oil, as mentioned. Two, is that it is quality, not quantity that is the limiting factor. Bracketing them together, this makes it a quality and quantity problem. We do not have enough quantity of oil of a sufficient quality to grow GDP exponentially.
Fracked oils are low in octane; keragen (which has to be boiled to 200 degrees); or Venezuelan heavy crude (high in sulphur and needs lighter grades of imported oil to dilute and transport); are not equivalent to ‘West Texas Intermediarry’ …and so have little or no replacement value. And the notion that we are going to find another 1.2 trillion barrels of WTI or lighter crudes is specious hopium.
[As for oil replacement with renewables to maintain the current global economy in exponential growth: I recommend the Cubic Mile of Oil page on CIA-ipedia for an idea of what a massive undertaking that would be. Recent studies of the true EROI of renewables – inter alia Hall’s own – are not encouraging.]
The peak oil debate is much more sophisticated and nuanced now: in fact, oil will NEVER run out …but it will become a stranded asset: too expensive and uneconomically viable to recover. Only, not in the future, NOW. A huge and deliberately ignored factor is debt. This acts as a demand side constriction on the price of oil: too high, and global economic activity slows and the price of oil must fall …or systemic fragility will kick in. The current price of oil, particularly fracked and boiled oil, is ALREADY too low for producers. CapEx budgets are being cannibalised and huge amounts of unrepayable debt is being used to SUBSIDISE oil (and other hydrocarbon) production and extraction.
As it stands: we do not have the primary energy input to sustain exponential growth. Stasis or degrowth (using less) would require debt restructuring or write-off to avoid systemic collapse due to default. Primary energy consumption has become a prime limiting factor. We can neither grow; degrow; or remain static without system change.
Debt fuelled ‘growth’ is in fact grand larceny; transferring fictitious self-maximising money streams from the obscenely rich to the even obscener psychopathically ‘rich’. This amounts to a foreclosure of the future and its tax-free transference into the offshore accounts of the future stealing kleptocrats. My only hope is that it becomes increasingly obvious that the current system has no future: people will act to reclaim it. Not before the oil runs out: before the worst effects of its continued use kick in …which, I’m afraid, is already happening?
[As for the rest of my thesis: it is mainly interpolated from “Energy and the Wealth of Nations” by Hall and Klitgaard. I can’t recommend Gail Tverberg’s blog (ourfiniteworld) enough, particularly as she has recently covered some of these topics. My conclusion is my own. If it appears I have misrepresented my own proposition from Gail’s headlines alone: you will have to read Charlie Hall’s reply to judge whether I have interpolated correctly. All mistakes are my own.]

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Well said B. I hadn’t seen ‘abiotic oil’ save in a nostalgic way, yearning for idiocies long past, for some time. And burning a single ml more hydrocarbons that necessary during the de-carbonisation process simply adds more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere and more energy retained in the Earth system as heat. That is very bad indeed. In fact we have already caused an extra 150 zettajoules (ten to the 21st power)of heat to be sequestered in the oceans in the last 200 years. And that heat guarantees millennia of climate destabilisation and chaos, and possibly a total break-down of the global thermo-haline circulation system, oceanic de-oxygenation and the ‘Canfield Ocean’ death by hydrogen sulphide eruptions from anaerobic bacteria in the deep. Our worst enemy at the moment may be techno-optimism, the lunatic belief that we are so ‘clever’ that we’ll find a techno-fix even for the disasters caused by our technology.

binra
Reader

A curious observation. Many posters here show awareness of some deceits in various other arenas that those that find a target in their identification. yet they all use the same fear-guilt-danger false saviour tactic.
If I was in the purpose of sowing division in forums such as this, I would make sure to attract trust for some exposures while sowing disinfo in regard to others – and come in from a range of different vectors.
By all open accounting a significant budget is allocated to ‘cyber war’ under the claim of defence.
I am not concerned as to whether posters are or are not genuine so much as joining with truth as I recognize it and not taking the bait of mis-communicational intent. There are so many in polarised positions that there may be enough confusion simply from triggered reaction that then trigger further reactions. There may be no need for ‘agents of a trojan intent to set up ruses by which to distort the signal. And even the pondering of such a deliberate false witness – is an invitation to lose trust – but all of this is in some sense the nature of the internet and of the personality level of human interactions.
But I hold out for a growing capacity to recognize the tell tale devices that reveal a lack of substance. My sense is that there are those who are caught by reaction – an experience that in time may be educational – and there are those who notice and choose to check within, rather than be phished and incorporated into a bot-net that can effect a ‘denial of service’ upon the activation of their cultured reflex.
We find what we are looking for, to a large extent.
A lack of natural identity in genuine communication, seeks it in image.
Am I desiring to save the world from those who work a destructive agenda in the name and self righteous blindness of saving the world?
True communication restores sane perception, allowing sane choices.
Hence any investment in the insanity will operate to block or undermine true communication when it affects there sense of survival as that invested identity.
The original article is a study in the way forms of communication can be used as a weapon of intent to deceive. There has been little commenting directly to that. Perhaps because we want to focus and hold attention somewhere further from home. Not as a conscious (sic) agent of the state – but as a bias in consciousness we are not even aware of running.

jdseanjd
Reader

Abiotic oil proven in lab experiment:
http://www.viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html
John Doran

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

That abiotic oil is feasible is not the question. Whether it exists in appreciable quantities on Earth, and whether combusting ANY type of hydrocarbons is wise, are the real questions. The answers appear to be No and No.

BigB
Reader
BigB

jd: no it was not. You did not read the Abstract. What they produced was gaseous hydrocarbons – not oil. From this, they adduced that they might be able to produce liquid hydrocarbons …equally, they might not.
There are many scientific reasons to presuppose that this will be of no practical value (see Heinberg’s paper above.) On is that there is an “oil window” below which hydrocarbon bonds break down, reverting liquid to gas. Which your experimental friends proved. So, do we need more oil imperialism? If we can ever drill 60 miles into the crust; do we need more methane? As I suggest above, what we really need is a sustainable future …actually, just a future? Because ‘sustainable oil’ would ensure that we do not have one. Oil has cost the earth, and the future, already. Why on earth would we want more?
http://richardheinberg.com/richard-heinberg-on-abiotic-oil

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The Rightwing omnicide wish is, indeed, bemusing to non-psychopaths.

jdseanjd
Reader

Unsustainable nonsense.
The Abyssal, abiotic oil “theory” has been producing oil in many fields this past two decades: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
H/T manfromatlan.
🙂
JD.

jdseanjd
Reader

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhP4wrnAWFM
or put in search box:
William Engdahl – “The world isn’t running out of oil; it’s running into it: Part three
July 2013. 26 mins.
Gaseous hydrocarbons are manufactured under heat & pressure deep in the Earth & forced upwards through fissures, under pressure. Depending upon what elements, microbes, bacteria etc they encounter on the way up, they wind up as coal, oil or gas etc.
the deepest fossils ever found were at ~16,000 ft. We regularly drill for oil at 30,000 ft +.
Diamonds are carbon formed under heat & pressure then ejected toward the surface in Kimberlite pipes such as are found in South Africa.
Both fresh water H2O & Carbon Dioxide CO2, & much else are constantly manufactured & ejected by the 40,000 mile chain of undersea volcanoes along our mid-ocean ridges.
JD.

binra
Reader

What has been unsaid – I think – is that availability of oil does not mean it is the best energy source. I also hold to the possibility that oil may serve a function in the Earth’s crust that we are not aware of – as we are not aware of so much else while we presume to subsume everything to lack based ‘getting’ agenda.
The established power structure may have grown through the energy cartel – but is by no means identical.
The capture and control of corporate cartel power over human institutions and therefore human thinking, is more the issue – because they have the means to set up and direct outcomes from an ‘insider’ and ‘upstream’ position to any strategy of reaction – because we are effectively hacked and in a sense ‘phished’ BY reaction to then operate in framing that they have influence over.
The idea of the banker funding all sides of conflicts is an example of profiting from the sowing and nurturing of conflict. This idea trickles down to Military complex, Pharma, and BigAg/Biotech. The ‘cancer’ is a negatively induced thought complex that protects the negative (ie sickness, war, scarcity etc against threat). I see this as being part of our subjective consciousness as a systemic support for a segregative sense of self-specialness that in a sense has extended itself through technologies as the idea of dominance, control and ‘god-like’ status.
As we used to say in the ‘pictures’, “this is where we came in”
(When I was a kid we went to cinemas that showed a film repeatedly through the day and we might come in anywhere during the film and then stay through to ‘where we came in’, when we might leave or choose to stay to watch it again.

jdseanjd
Reader

You blame oil for the rapacious nature of our bankster owners? Ridiculous.
Book: Pawns in the Game, William Guy Carr.

jdseanjd
Reader

Catte is correct: we live in a web of lies advantageous to the 1%s, pushed by our fake news MSM traitors to the truth like Moonbat.
Getting oil classified as “Fossil Fuel” was a con arranged by Rockefeller, 1892, to keep the price up: if it was revealed to be a product produced by natural geological processes, it would not have the finite qualities the 1%s so desire to try to limit our numbers & progress, while maximising their profits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cUg3lDgJ20
Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty: The Origin Of Fossil Fuel & Peak Oil
8 mins.
Rockefeller used Maurice Strong to set up the fraud factory UN IPCC to set up the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) con.
It’s a complete crock: Dr. Tim Ball’s lovely little book: Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History exposes the Who What Where When Why & How of this con.
Maurice Strong died in disgrace, in China, where he had to flee ahead of the cops after stealing a near $1 Million cheque from the Iraq “Oil for Food” fiasco.
John Doran.

jdseanjd
Reader

More energy lies we labour under: nuclear power is both safe & clean, but is relentlessly demonised by our fake news MSM.
At Fukushima, for example, there were deaths from the Tsunami & from the panicked govt’s evacuation order.
There were zero radiation deaths, yet the MSM calls Fukushima A NUCLEAR DISASTER. In fact it was a demonstration of nuclear safety, even from an aged design reactor sited in the most stupid place on Earth: a region known for hundreds of years as Tsunami-prone.
An insignificant amount of radiation escaped into the vast Pacific Ocean.
Three Mile Island? Zero deaths, zero environmental damage, but ANOTHER NUCLEAR DISASTER. Chernobyl was operator error, to be too kind, & a very poor Soviet-era reactor. About 55 deaths among emergency crew & according to IAEA reports, perhaps 4,000 deaths long term from radiation.
Coal fired power stations kill more people each & every year.
A book by PhD nuclear engineer Robert Zubrin, who has 9 patents to his name or pending: Merchants of Despair, Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism
This book reveals also the depopulation agenda of the 1%s & their minions, such as the perhaps 100 millions deaths caused by the “banning” of DDT.
Mostly women & children in the 3rd world, through the horrible death of malaria.
John Doran.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Go on, John-tell us how good radiation is for us, and how Chernobyl is a paradise on Earth.

jdseanjd
Reader

Robert Zubrin’s book: The Case For Mars is also good reading.

jdseanjd
Reader

ROUTINE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RADIOLOGICAL EMISSIONS
Radiation doses are measured in units called rems, or, more often,thousandths of a rem (millirems, abbreviated mrem). While high doses of radiation delivered over short periods of time can cause radiation poisoning or cancer, there is, according to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,”no data to establish unequivocally the occurrence of cancer following exposure to low doses & dose rates – below 10,000 rems.” (Note 36) The annual radiation doses that each American can expect to receive from both natural & artificial sources are given in Table 11.2 (note 37)
Blood……………………………………………………………..20 mrem/yr
Building Materials…………………………………………….35 mrem/yr
Food………………………………………………………………25 mrem/yr
Soil…………………………………………………………………11 mrem/yr
Cosmic Rays (Sea Level)………………………………….35 mrem/yr
Cosmic Rays (Denver Altitude)…………………………..70 mrem/yr
Air Travel (New York to LA round trip)……………………5 mrem
Medical X-Rays……………………………………………….100 mrem/yr
Nuclear power plant (limit, at property line)……………..5 mrem/yr
Nuclear power plants (dose to general public)…… 0.01 mrem/yr
Average annual dose (general public)…………………270 mrem/yr
….we see that the amount of radiation dose that the public gets from nuclear power plants is insignificant compared to what they receive from their own blood (which contains radioactive potassium-40), from the homes they live in, from the food they eat, from the air travel & medical care they enjoy, from the planet on which they reside & from the universe in which their planet resides.
In fact, far from increasing the radiological exposure of the public, nuclear power plants reduce it. Coal contains radioactive constituents. Worldwide, coal-fired electricity stations release some 30,000 tons of radioactive uranium & thorium into the atmosphere every year (as well as millions of tons of toxic chemical ash).(Note 38) By replacing coal, nuclear power serves to eliminate these emissions.
Excerpt from Chapter 11 of Robert Zubrin’s book: Merchants Of Despair, Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the fatal cult of Antihumanism.
Zubrin is a PhD nuclear engineer with 9 patents to his name or pending.
John Doran.

manfromatlan
Reader

Doesn’t address the issue of cancer clusters around nuclear power plants
A study: childhood cancer near nuclear power stations https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757021/

jdseanjd
Reader

Sorry mfatlan, but I’ve seen so much fake “Pal”-reviewed literature this past few years, that I barely glanced at this anti-nuclear hitpiece: this is adequately dealt with in Chapter 11 of Zubrin’s book: Merchants of despair.
I’ve seen the nonsense science of human CO2 drives climate deified since the 1988 farce of the Hansen/Wirth performance in Congress.
I’ve seen the monumental fraud of the 1998 Mann/Bradley/Hughes paper which tried to wipe out the historically proven Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age, 1,000 years of history.
The fraudstar Mann has had over $6,000,000 in govt grants. The retired climatologist drtimball.com who quipped he belongs in the State Pen (prison) rather than Penn State University has been bludgeoned into near bankruptcy by an assault expensive of court cases.
Friends have saved Dr. Tim & he has won a case against another alarmist tosser Andrew Weaver. He is still pursuing the execrable idiot Michael Mann, who continues to conceal his data, as any good scientist does not. 🙂
The fraud factory UN IPCC, set up by Rockefeller front man Maurice Strong lapped up Mann’s fraud like catnip. Say no more.
2005 Ben Santer Human CO2 fantasy.
2006 Al Gore’s fake film contains 35 lies & 60(?) exaggerations re climate science. 9 proven in a Brit court of law, 35 proven by Lord Christopher Monckton on youtube, & geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s book Heaven & Earth, global warming: the missing science, which has over 2,000 refs to proper peer-reviewed papers, etc.
2009 climategate scandal.
I could go on & on & on..
Even medical science has been corrupted.
John Doran.

Mark Gobell
Reader
Mark Gobell

jdseanjd : “… I’ve seen the monumental fraud of the 1998 Mann/Bradley/Hughes paper which tried to wipe out the historically proven Medieval Warm Period & Little Ice Age, 1,000 years of history.”
Wikipedia : Hockey stick controversy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
The 1998 Mann/Bradley/Hughes paper ( MBH98 ) was first published by nature.com on 23 April 1998
The 5th anniversary of the publication of the Agenda 21 document on 23 April 1993
MG

binra
Reader

Terror symbols are necessary to the guarding of the borders – as are the foot soldiers of allegiance to the ‘protection’ of the borders. One does not have to flip to an opposite belief to question the terror symbols – or take the tempt of pride in presuming no danger – when such deceits can be worked into unconscious beliefs that we may not be aware of holding until triggered.
But the capacity to pass through is part of an unwillingness to simply accept the voice for fear in the framing that it forms – but to acknowledge it and persist in the desire to know the truth here.
I put it that way because from where I see, any attempt to override or attack the fear-symbol is its reinforcement. But to unified purpose it may become an unexpected ally.
Wildlife is flourishing in the Chernobyl area and mutated critters and plants are not evident.
Without terror symbols, the fear-looping confinement to the contraction in an exclusive physical sense of self and world would fade to a ‘rising’ awareness of being that is sometimes called ‘multi-dimensional’ because it is open and expansive and relational in ways our ‘3d’ mapping cannot ‘see’ or cope with what is ‘sees’ in place of recognition.
I notice the law of resonance is the basis of communication and relationship. The world you see, meet and experience is the match of your current sense of self. The ‘thinking’ self presuming its borders real, is the experience of meeting reinforcement of its own thinking. But the ‘framing of its consciousness’ is kept hidden.
The other side to terror symbols are utopian symbols. I don’t want to buy a book to find the author’s take on WHY we (anyone) would want to colonise Mars. I can understand why vast budget programs are attractive to those who profit by them. I think the dust storms are way worse that what drove the Okies from their homes and farms. Is the ‘scientific-technologism’ driven by the intent to create life? Replicate, control or terraform and engineer life?
There is also an underbelly of indications that non-fuel (plasma) propulsion technologies are already in use and that backstage to the ‘Westworld’ of our reality show’ is more than is allowed in role – except in movies and plausibly deniable leaks. I don’t have to believe to look at the idea – but I choose to desist from believing against it – for nothing can reach a mind that is determined not to see.

jdseanjd
Reader

In the ground Uranium is typically 0.7% fissionable.
In a nuclear power plant the uranium is about 3% to 5% fissionable.
In a nuclear bomb the uranium is about 90% fissionable & a critical mass has to be brought together to sustain the explosion.
Nuclear power stations CANNOT explode: they lack both the mass & fissionable material.
Chernobyl is now a wildlife refuge.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki were habitable one year after the bombs.
Chernobyl would have to happen every day to equal the toll on human life & health that coal-fired plants extract, worldwide. December 1952 a weather inversion over London caused 4,000 deaths immediately from coal smog, then another 8,000 deaths in subsequent weeks from respiratory disorders. Over 30,000 American coal workers have died from pneumoconiosis, black lung disease, since 1968 alone.
Nuclear power stations are orders of magnitude cleaner & safer, & not much research is required to show these facts.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx
John Doran.

manfromatlan
Reader

When a nuclear disaster occurs, however, the effects can be felt worldwide. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-01-link-nyc-cancer-cluster-chernobyl.html

jdseanjd
Reader

Puhleeese, the radioactive output from Chernobyl 1986 wafts across Europe, the Arlantic Ocean settles over New York & causes a “cluster” of 10 cancers?
Nothing whatever to do with the thermite/nuclear weapons which caused 3 steel framed concrete floored & concrete clad buildings to turn to dust, blow away in the wind & collapse within their own footprints in 3 perfectly controlled demolitions after the impacts of 2 planes for which they had been designed to withstand?
Puhleeese.
http://www.ae911truth.org
JD.

binra
Reader

Exposure to radiation is a world of difference to inhalation of radioactive particles.
The bod’s ability to repair and regenerate can be compromised such as to be susceptible to what otherwise would not generate functional breakdown or fatal disease.
A cancer DIAGNOSIS can kill by the way.

manfromatlan
Reader

Indeed, binra. I do believe the world’s energy needs can best be served by nuclear power in the short term, as long as it relies on safer nuclear power plant technology, rather than unsafe US/Canadian/Russian designs. China’s Thorium reactor research is probably going to lead to cleaner power, though the US wants to supply the dangerous MOX fuel to its plants-which led to the Fukushima disaster https://newrepublic.com/article/86335/fukushima-nuclear-mox-flaws
On the other hand particles of depleted uranium likely is the cause of cancers, infant deaths, and genetic abnormalities in Iraq http://climateandcapitalism.com/2015/02/08/pentagon-pollution-5-deadly-impact-depleted-uranium/

binra
Reader

I don’t buy the USE to which radiation is put as terror symbol – and all the police state powers that go with it. I don’t like concentrations of power that deny convivial ways of living. I have {{{ brackets}}} around issues where more clarity is needed – and I remember to NOT let the accepted currency of problem as defined be the maker of my mind.
I believe the mind that fears its own denials and projections is compelled to seek and find false flag diversions – not least complex conflicts and problems that engage huge resources at expense of inner freedoms.
I’m not completely sure that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in FACT destroyed by atomic weapons. But the belief they were – (regardless whether true or not) initiated nuclear terror under a ‘superpower’ as part of the post WW2 world order. The use of psychological manipulations backed by power is not new.
I can look perhaps at any age of human history and culture and see terrible experience being suffered or inflicted within a world where life is not as wished, and yet power is given to such wishing as the intent and attempt to force outcomes – and claim that power as a ‘divine right’ by means of god-given or victim-defending – or anything else that serves ‘my’ wish/will – including managing all the consequence and conflicts rising as a result of coercive intent, and the sense of betrayal and withdrawal of support – including pyrrhic or hollow victories.
The abstracting of life to definition, predictive strategy and a sense of control in personal power is our seeming human superiority and dominion over that which is made subject. It is also our willing but hidden subjection to the shadows or denials of of our own making.
So I am in a sense interested in reversing the ‘reversal’ of consciousness by which a mind became subject to its own creations, or perhaps the term could be ‘mis-creations’ because when we think without love, we give power to lack, and then seek power outside ourself to regain what we have ‘lost’ as a result of buying into loveless thinking. Love being the capacity to be with what is, in the recognition of what is true – not the attempt to cover over or pass off the lack of love as a mitigated or justified.
I have the intuitive sense that before we can re connect to inherent energy sources or supply, we have to become clear in ‘what for’. The purpose – as embodied i the thinking of the world – is not aligned with what is – as it is – but dissociated, conflicted and incoherent – regardless the invoking of terrors by which to ‘unify’ over and against ‘something worse’.
Do we align in fear of sickness, war, catastrophe or do we align in love of life? For the first is the reversal that works anti-life while seeming to offer power and protection – and demanding sacrifice.
The reality that demands sacrifice of the freedom and joy of living is a fear-made world. If this calls for alien overlords it is simply because fear USED as a splitting off or conflict device, draws power from grievance to maintain the segregated state. Should your children hate and fear you as a result of grievances real or imagined – you may not be able to ‘tell them’ anything but they hear and see differently or not at all. As creators they have the right and freedom to accept or neglect thought, and to have the experience that they both receive and give into the whole. But no less and no more than I. Whoever is temporarily or in the timing of a relationship, in a position to extend love to a sense of lack seeking in terms of lack, is in a sense extending a communication of connection that ‘knows its own purpose’ to the willingness to truly know and be on purpose. How exactly realigning in the true shall ‘deal with, overcome or resolve’ the problems of the self/world is always a specifically unique application of universal principle and so is experience as taking one step at a time in the trust that we know what we need to know when we need to know it. This is a reversal of define, predict and control – and yet the process of releasing ‘control’ is to a recognized embrace of a greater perspective – and is in fact the truth hidden beneath what seemingly private capacities we claim to have.
Power structures only seek power source and supply that maintains their sense of power. The suppressed and denied technologies are too ‘uncontrollable’ and therefore ‘dangerous’ to their position as gate or temple keepers – and ‘dangerous’ to being used by others in the same intent to dominate and control. Of course we project our own intentions onto others and fear them. Misperception runs a false and adulterating currency of exchange by which at some level we choose to be deceived – but it is not recognized AS a choice until the habit is brought to awareness.
Unclear power? Thanks but no thanks!
Open to a greater integrative clarity – yes of course.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I’ve not seen anthropogenic climate destabilisation this paranoid and extreme since the last time I read a Murdoch title. Has Murdoch made a take-over offer?

jdseanjd
Reader

First the scare was CAGW: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, then it stopped warming, ~1998.
Then the scare was climate change, man-made, of course, then people realised the climate’s ALWAYS changing: “for about 4.5 BILLION years.” as Buzz Aldrin said.
Now the scare is “anthropogenic climate destabilisation” ????? When, in fact, warm times have more stable weather than cold times. http://www.realclimatescience.com
John Doran.

Jen
Reader
Jen

Surely the issue here that Catte is trying to focus on is that The Fraudian’s promotion of the vegan diet ideal plays into the ambitions of Monsanto (soon to merge with the German company Bayer) and what those ambitions might mean for the long-term future of the natural global environment.
For one thing, there are rumours (for lack of a better term) on the Internet that one reason among others that Ukraine was pulled away from the Russophere by the West with promises of EU membership and its purported benefits was to prepare the country (by ruining its economy) for privatisation, including privatisation of its agricultural land for GMO exploitation. GMO soy among other plants would then be grown in Ukraine and the profits accrue to corporations like the merged Monsanto-Bayer monster.
Whether we are carnivores, omnivores, vegetarians or vegans, or points in-between would make no difference: some of us die earlier, others die later from the effects of GMO foods, in meat form or plant form.
Arguing the benefits or otherwise of going all vegan actually diverts us from the real problem of industrialised corporate agriculture supplanting local or public ownership and control of natural resources and endangering the natural environment (and the future of life) as a result. This is an issue George Monbiot fails to address in his article urging people to abstain from meat and dairy products. This is also part of the classic divide-and-rule strategy that keeps the public distracted. Monbiot fell for it. We must try not to fall for it.

manfromatlan
Reader

Great article, Catte. As you say, Veganism is a fine personal choice, but for most us, moving away from large scale farming to organic and small scale farming would be the better choice. Will respond to a few points made in the comments above:
-We can’t get the full range of nutrients the human body needs, fats, proteins and carbs amino acids, DHA (essential for developing infants) from plant based sources, and vegetarian/chemical alternatives are poor (and expensive) copies. I recommend Dr. Weston Price’s research and Sally Fallon’s “Nourishing Traditions-The Cookbook that challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats” as a viewpoint that counters these specious arguments.
-Peak Oil’s a Western oil industry based myth. Oil isn’t fossil based, it’s Abiotic and grows from the earth’s natural processes. Stalin’s Russia, faced with Western oil sanctions, did quite well on its own.
-Meat industry may once have contributed to deforestation, but the wider damage to the Amazon rain forests for example comes from soy farming in Brazil thanks to Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. (He’s an Archer Daniels investor), and widespread corn farming for agri-fuels have now depressed corn prices to the point that traditional farmers are being forced out.
-There’s a larger cost to the environment and human health with the Monsanto than Meat model. We’re being killed more surely with pesticides, hormones, and chemicals.
-Not interested in moral arguments, sorry.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

[[ -Not interested in moral arguments, sorry.]]
Your credibility is tanking on empty.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

please don’t start posting content-free insult or ad hom again. You achieve nothing by it.

Devan
Reader
Toby
Reader

The soy then becomes mostly feed for livestock.
The pesticides bio-accumulate in the livestock. The problem there is monoculture farming and mass factory farming, not vegetables per se.
I question whether you are in fact not interest in moral arguments. The very fact that you went out of your way to post here information you hold to be true suggests you believe in the truth as a good. How is this not a moral preference?

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Apparently it’s quite acceptable to say that you won’t accept moral arguments posted in response to your postings.

manfromatlan
Reader

Prefer fact based arguments, sorry.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

‘Abiotic oil’-fact-based???!! You are a caution.

manfromatlan
Reader

Already stated, a preference for science and observable phenomena, not moral argument and assertion. And yes, we should move away from monoculture.
An Inconvenient Cow
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/vegetarianism-and-plant-foods/an-inconvenient-cow/
“the production of (soy) which is a principle reason for deforestation in the Amazon. The other use for soybeans from these degrading land use practices is feed for confinement animals—beef and dairy cattle, pigs, poultry and fish—for which pastured cows continue to be blamed.”
Union of Concerned Scientists
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/drivers-of-deforestation-2016-soybeans#.WxxUX5VzaUk
“Only about 6% of soybeans grown worldwide are turned directly into food products for human consumption. The rest either enter the food chain indirectly as animal feed, or are used to make vegetable oil or non-food products such as biodiesel. 70-75% of the world’s soy ends up as feed for chickens, pigs, cows, and farmed fish.
On top of these commercial products, soybeans have had an unfortunate by-product: tropical deforestation.”

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

So growing soybeans services the beef industry, and is the primary reason for deforestatsion.
FACT.
Since you love facts so much.

manfromatlan
Reader

So stop growing soy, and feed livestock with grass. Don’t you get dizzy from all your circular arguments? Bye.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

But the problem is the livestock. It makes extraordinarily inefficient use of land. The same field that produces beef to feed 10 people can feed ten times more people if not used to raise beef. This would halt deforestation at a stroke.
But I see you’ve already fled the argument with your ‘Bye’.

manfromatlan
Reader

Again with the faulty arguments which rebutting would be an extraordinarily inefficient use of my time, sorry. Still, back at ya since I actively dislike your passive aggressive voice:
https://www.treehugger.com/natural-sciences/80-percent-tropical-deforestation-caused-agriculture.html
80% of Tropical Deforestation Caused by Agriculture
“Industrial activities are the principal driver of deforestation and degradation worldwide, but subsistence agriculture and fuelwood consumption remains an important direct driver of deforestation, especially in Africa.
As you can see in the chart below, the balance of commercial v subsistence agriculture varies by region. In Latin America commercial agriculture—cattle ranching included—is far and away the largest driver of deforestation, with subsistence agriculture also contributing substantially. In Africa and Asia though the effect of commercial versus subsistence agriculture—the former taking the additional form of palm oil plantations and pulp and paper plantations—is more balanced between the two, with other factors playing a much larger role than in Latin America.”
You also missed where I said veganism is a terribly unhealthy diet (and backed up my argument) so arguing you can feed 10 times more people with an unhealthy diet is not an option I’d chose for my family, thanks. Please take your intellectually deficient arguments elsewhere,

binra
Reader

Aligning in our own integrity is our core responsibility – no one else can make us choose for our good – but they may reflect the choices we are making that work against our good – to the willingness to listen.
Systems of thought in identity and culture may adopt moral codes, ethical rules – but these are a currency of agreement that may be linked to a ‘gold standard’ ie something tangible, or they may be derivatives that no longer mean anything except to make of complex financial packages of concealed debt. IE: a lack of integrity will seek to act as if it had any by and every mimicry or presentation – and back up its lack of substance with appeals to ‘Authority’ or smearing with hateful unworthiness. Often, the lack of integrity accuses the other of what they are doing while believing their own spin – because if the ’cause’ and the ‘right’ to engage and further its aims is presumed necessary and unquestionable, then we are not being lied to but saved. Collateral damage is part of the price of saving… whatever.
And so the arena of morals is more often that of the intent and attempt to force agenda or suppress freedom. But of course the baby in the bathwater is what gets thrown out when there is rebellion against a sense of corruption no longer able to maintain a moral status. Of course anyone can use the current anger to point the finger at anyone else. Opportunism is the masking in the new ‘movement’ for entirely different agenda than that which activated and formed it.
I cannot judge the intentions of another without my own but I can see that we do in the moment what we take to be our self interest in that moment according to the self definitions that are active. And so I see integrity as the aligning of thought word and deed such that we are whole in what we do. Thought in this sense is also the meanings we give our self and world and if these are out of true, we mis-identify and misperceive such that our behaviour automatically embodies what we in that moment are accepting or believing true. The behaviour may be expressed or suppressed but either way a dissonance follows that may be blamed on conditions and people associated with it. “Now look what you made me do!”
The seeking of moral justification or the sense of having to apologise for our existence is a symptom of ‘not knowing what we do’, because part of us is seeking reinforcement and permission for a movement or desire that lacks true conviction.
The noticing, owning and accepting of what is really going on in our thought, feeling and reaction is the honesty in which alignment within integrity occurs as a spontaneous shift – unless the fear of pain, shame or loss interjects to suppress the true desire. Again, persisting in noticing is the key. Judging and blaming is the guilt of hindsight . No one judges us like ourself – and if we have people in our life who do, it is still through our own judgement of ourselves that the knife goes in.
So I offer this because ‘morality’ like most every other word, has been corrupted and distorted by misuse.
I am not your judge – but not all behaviour is acceptable and without consequence. Regardless your subjective intentions, the intent do do harm is appropriate to be met with limitation – with proportionate force if needed. But that is not a basis to project our sins onto them and attack them in hate claiming moral righteousness – although the feelings that come up in such incidents deserve to be acknowledged and accepted – but not given the power to enact vengeance. In truth every situation is unique and any laws applied without discernment and discretion are blind and dehumanising.
The desire to attempt to engineer human society – and indeed human consciousness by laws, regulations and penalty will always claim a moral necessity. This is also a clear and unmistakable sign of a lack of substance or integrity. There is no need to force people to obey to what their hearts would naturally move to align in given a true freedom of information and discovery.
I can only ‘give’ this to my world by living it. Not by ‘moral crusade’. Yet standing in integrity is not passive, not without a voice and not without a vibrational communication that seeds wherever there is a willingness to extend it. It is not ‘my’ integrity I stand in – but my willingness to align in an integrity of being as a commitment to the valuing of freedom of will – that of course is our heart’s recognition and acceptance and not a usurpation of mind games played out upon bodies.
Moral and ethical codes – along with common sense are necessary until something better can replace them. The idea of destruction to create a perfect new order is in error. Raising the awareness and tasting the quality of experience of a better way becomes the condition in which the old habit yields or falls away.
The difficulty is not in the change but in the procrastination and conflicts of a fear of change. Yet we have to walk with our fear rather than deny it – to truly learn not to use it as a protection racket.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

‘Abiotic oil’-the very nadir of the ‘conspiracist’ mind-set. Do you not see the irony? I believe it was invented by the KGB. And growing soy to feed to animals is part and parcel of the process of destruction of bio-diversity.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Mulga – If you don’t agree with the theory of abiotic oil, show your reasoning and evidence, but don’t even think of dismissing it a priori with the word “conspiracist.” We expect more of our commenters than to recycle stale old CIA tropes.

manfromatlan
Reader

Thanks, admin. Not going to bother rebutting ad hom arguments, though it’s funny how they parrot capitalist viewpoints. Still,
“The eleven major and one giant oil and gas fields here described have been discovered in a region which had, forty years ago, been condemned as possessing no potential for petroleum production. The exploration for these fields was conducted entirely according to the perspective of the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abyssal, abiotic petroleum origins. The drilling which resulted in these discoveries was extended purposely deep into the crystalline basement rock, and it is in that basement where the greatest part of the reserves exist. These reserves amount to at least 8,200M metric tons of recoverable oil and 100B cubic meters of recoverable gas, and are thereby comparable to those of the North Slope of Alaska. It is conservatively estimated that, when developed, these fields will provide approximately thirty percent of the energy needs of the industrial nation of Ukraine.”
Professor Vladilen A. Krayushkin, Chairman of the Department of Petroleum Exploration, Institute of Geological Sciences, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev, and leader of the project for the exploration of the northern flank of the Dnieper-Donets Basin, at the VII-th International Symposium on the Observation of the Continental Crust Through Drilling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994.
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html

binra
Reader

Oil, like diamonds and of course so much more, is controlled scarcity – not to mention the doomsday ruse. However the oil cartels happen to be a root corruption in the rise of an international corporate hegemony – at least until the financial overlords change the rules. Pharma – and all that goes with it – plastics – and all that goes with them, and toxic effluents and exhaust. I welcome CO2 for a greener planet – but I don’t welcome toxic destruction via broad spectrum dominance. Nor the chokehold on better energy solutions. ‘Too big to fail’ means nothing is too big to sacrifice to fend of the end of our ‘world’. Including the world itself. Fear works a self fulfilling prophecy.
What is water’s molecular make up – rocket fuel?
What is the Electric Universe and why is it not openly accepted?
Too big to fail?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

‘CO2 for a greener planet..’, is truly misguided. Added CO2 will lead to a browner planet due to rising temperatures, derangement of the hydrological cycle, particularly worse droughts and down-pours, and increasing mega-fires. Add CO2 WITHOUT the temperature rises and extremes, say in a laboratory green-house, and things will ‘green’, somewhat, but planet-wide it will be, indeed already is, a disaster.

binra
Reader

I don’t buy the ‘greenhouse’ gases as a major influence on climate and have reason to believe the CO2 follows changes in temperature rather than leads.
Nor do I buy cholesterol levels as significant biomarkers for heart disease – but for decades the scam run as ‘consensus science’ – which means risking your funding or career to challenge.
I have no doubt that a broad spectrum of industrial and biotech toxicity is operating a progressive biocide/genocide and that the CO2 is a false flag to capture the environmental movement -and divert attention – while providing a narrative ‘moral justification, for disempowering and subjugating humanity.
I hold all human institutions to be corrupted – if not all of those who work within the frameworks of belief that are taken on trust. But I don’t say that in righteous anger – but simply a recognition of that nature of fear driven self interest as a ‘blind spot’ seeking to defend itself against exposure.
Even apart from computer modelling; garbage in, garbage out.
Or put another way, any false of incomplete premise will lead to false and incomplete results.
Many studies are run and never published such that those which suit can be picked out and framed in such a way as to seem to prove a something advantageous to a masked agenda of those who do so. How will the scientific community deal with the ‘toxic debt’ that becomes obvious as a very significant body of the Literature? Too big to fail – nothing to see here and don’t forget your flu shot!

manfromatlan
Reader

The ‘solutions’ are sometimes worse than the problem. Electric cars? Dependent on Lithium. Afghanistan’s sitting on vast reserves so I guess invading it makes sense. Chile is probably up next for corporate takeover, if that hasn’t happened already.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Chile suffered the ‘corporate take-over’ in 1973, remember. The current regime, of a fascistic billionaire, whose Cabinet is stuffed with Pinochetists, is a real Imperial favourite.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Well that ‘not buying’ does not redound to your credibility. That CO2 as a major greenhouse gas, which levels in the atmosphere have been associated with other climate destabilisations in the past, is science as firmly settled as science comes. The physical basis for its role as a heat-absorbing gas is firmly established, and the paleo-climate record is also solid. Your ‘not buying’ it, is quite irrelevant. And as to the rise in CO2 following temperature increases, that occurs when glacial periods turn into inter-glacials, thanks to the Milankovitch Cycles, as at the beginning of the late, great, Holocene period, and is most unambiguously NOT the situation here, as anthropogenic emissions drive temperature rises. That difference has been pointed out innumerable times, but facts never stop denialism. The rest, sadly, is paranoid gibberish of the direst kind.

manfromatlan
Reader

You seem afflicted by the same reading comprehension skills as the other one, or maybe simple reactiveness: where have I ever said I don’t believe CO2 levels are rising or a factor in climate change?
“CO2 fetishist” was applied to those who propose simple-minded solutions or vague shite, and I already agreed that reversing deforestation could only happen with a change in farming methods.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Man, I was replying to binra.

monostrovich
Reader
monostrovich

That CO2 as a major greenhouse gas, which levels in the atmosphere have been associated with other climate destabilisations in the past, is science as firmly settled as science comes.
That would seem to be a compelling argument against the “anthropogenic climate change” theory, but apparently we’re not supposed to notice such things.

binra
Reader

Hello Mumble
You are welcome to your view.
Tit for tat assertions are pointless. There are clear comments in this page to very different interpretations of the data than making CO2 from human activity the CAUSE of Global Warming – or if it doesn’t fit the models, climate change.
Perhaps for your own reasons you WANT to believe as you do – or at least invest your identity there.
I am active in denying deceits to run as if true.
Thanks – but no thanks.
Any view that rests in truth doesn’t need to resort to smear tactics.
I don’t believe this issue is about truth – but about power – and if you assign or accept human guilt for catastrophe based on an increase in carbon dioxide, you give your power to the agenda to enforce self-denial under tyranny and fanaticism. The accusation of ‘denial’ is indicative of your own attitudes and actions.
I do not question that the climate changes and is noticeably changing – indeed is it ever static? I question the generation and incitement to fear within the pronouncement of guilt for a falsely flagged gas.
If you got worked up about the real toxins that are actively undermining the health of Life on Earth – including ourselves – then there is a conversation as to the underlying causes of such a destructive relationship – or indeed lack of relationship with Life or indeed Our Living Planet. Not stopping at guilt gratifications in attempts to persist in such a lack of relationship under cover of ‘moral righteousness’.
I hold that that most of what we accept true is at best mistaken, misguided and yet defended against correction or expansion by fear and guilt operating not least from assuming responsibilities beyond our function or capacity – and neglecting or actively seeking to escape that which remains ours whether we align in it or seek to deny it.
Uncovering deceits is re-opening a true curiosity of a desire and love of truth.
Whereas the persistence in deceit always repackages fear and guilt into new forms of belief and identity that run ever more deeply in dissociation from a truly felt quality of being in relation with anyone or anything. You haven’t got your own voice, witness or enquiry because you sacrificed it for the power to wield guilt. But I hold for the true of you regardless of your current choices in the knowledge that you will never utterly eradicate the capacity to choose and so remain able to recognize it and grow it – regardless the apparent ‘dictates’ of your current thinking.
Biodiversity is not a ‘jealous’ mono-polar god, but a creative expansion of the fitting.
I maximise my joy footprint in the energy I draw upon and give to what I hold worthy.
Joy operates a different quality of being to guilt in self-denial.
This is recognisably… ‘ourself’ in truth – but not to the pontifications of theoretical assertions given power.
What if guilt given power is the cause of human ‘evil’ and not the other war round?
I’m all for repenting of mistakes that are recognized in desire to put them behind us – and realign in the living, but an ‘economy’ of blame trading and redistribution is valuing grievance and victimhood as currency in place of open and honest communication. I remain open to your communication – should you choose to extend it.
You perhaps cannot receive mine because it simply cannot run on the operating system of your current choice. But that does not mean I am ‘against you’ – even if I do not support your views.
If you love life then don’t cling to fear as if it is your protector or to guilt as if it gives you power.
Reduce your footprint of negatively defined self and life. Don’t invest identity in that which robs you. Of course there is another way of seeing – but only to the willingness and desire to notice.

jdseanjd
Reader

I agree: CO2 has zero effect on temperatures, in fact CO2 concentrations rise after the planet warms, as warming oceans outgas CO2.
Vostok ice core studies show this to have happened on an approx time lag of 800 years, + or – 200 years, going back 400,000 years.
Matt Ridley, science writer for the Times gives19 mins of good sense on species extinctions, economic development & CO2 from “Fossil Fuels” are greening the planet since the 1980s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsDaIZE&t=610s
John Doran.

jdseanjd
Reader

If the link does not work, put in youtube search box:
Matt Ridley on how Fossil Fuels are Greening the Planet
JD.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Matt Ridley???!! Hilarious!!!

jdseanjd
Reader

Matt Ridley is science writer for the Times, & an author. I enjoyed The Rational Optimist. His website: http://www.rationaloptimist.com
You seem to post a lot of sneers, snide & totally incompetent climate gibberish. I know who I’d rather read.
JD.

binra
Reader

Hello Mulga Mumblebrain, you are free to believe what works for you. I find it hard to believe you believe it – but perhaps one man’s psyop is another man’s crusade. I haven’t met a love of humanity or of our planet in the ‘green fascist’ or follower. Its another version of victimism.
Is Life on Earth under threat – well yes we are behaving toxically from toxic thinking as a result of being taken in by reaction to false flags that divert attention so as to persist in destruction as a means to maintain an illusion of power, not just in the shadow manipulators, but in those who buy into powerlessness at their hand and align in their framework for survival (the power of protection from terrible outcomes that in this case have already happened on computer models).
Giving trust to mainstream science is no different from mainstream media. It does not have to be a ‘conspiracy’ for the way things work to become corrupted and useful to mask agenda in.
There’s a harvest being called in. Make sure you recognize your name before following the call.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Equating ‘mainstream science’ to the mainstream media is bizarre. The true equivalence is between the denial of climate science, driven by the fossil fuel industry, the Right, and a weird tendency of paranoiacs on the putative ‘Left’, and the fakestream media that fosters anthropogenic climate destabilisation denialism, or simply ignore the coming Holocaust.

binra
Reader

“No one understood better than Stalin that the true object of propaganda is neither to convince nor even to persuade, but to produce a uniform pattern of public utterance in which the first trace of unorthodox thought immediately reveals itself as a jarring dissonance.”
~ Alan Bullock, in Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Admin, I was just taken by man’s previous contributions re. the ‘conspiracist’ mind-set, in regard to the discussion re. RFK’s assassination. I just found it a little, as I said, ironic. I believe abiotic oil has virtually no defenders among geologists and oil industry figures, but is rather fondly regarded by a minority of those who deny Peak Oil prognostications. ‘Conspiracist’ probably is not quite the perfect word to describe it. Perhaps ‘bizarre’ and ‘unsupported by evidence’ would be better.

manfromatlan
Reader

And as I replied earlier, it is supported by Russian and Ukrainian geologists as well as a former BP oil engineer and president of the Royal Chemical Society (links provided then). Odd that you should only hold western industry figures as ‘evidence’.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Man, I am ‘only’ holding 99% or so of geologists and oil industry figures as evidence. Abiotic oil may be true, but the evidence so far is overwhelming that it is not. The theories are beguiling, but the evidence is scant. Oil reservoirs are still depleting, with few, if any, showing any signs of replenishment.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Science isn’t about consensus though. Every breakthrough has been a minority opinion at one time. This doesn’t mean every minority opinion is correct, of course, but the “99% of scientists agree X” argument is never valid as a response to data.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

The probability that minority positions are correct, and the vast majority wrong, or engaged in a huge conspiracy to hide the truth, as with anthropogenic climate destabilisation, is very low. That probability is reduced by the advance of science, where serendipitous breakthroughs by individuals have become less likely as the edifice of science has grown. Even lower is the probability where the ‘dissenters’ are financed by gigantic moneyed interests, none more gigantic than fossil fuels.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Asserting a collection of incalculable probabilities isn’t science either. The only way to oppose data is with data. The abiotic oil question, and any other scientific question, should be addressed with competing evidence, not with a priori dismissals based on supposed reasons to disregard said data.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Probabilities are data.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Only if they are calculated. You can’t do a probability calculation on human behaviour that has any value as data. Science is about observable physical phenomena. The discussion should focus on that, and only on that.

binra
Reader

Probabilities can be extrapolated from observable trends and predicted. but they remain guesswork even if they are informed estimates. Prophecy is more of an energy reading that takes data from an intuitive attunement. Big gov and its corps are know to use all avenues to predict and position for control of the ‘future’. They also have the ability to manipulate of invent data and astroturf adjustments to the flow of events so as to ‘make the future’. But pride’s function is to come before a Fall. Everything we give power to as a manipulative intent, is a double edged weapon.
Manipulations and distortions of data make much of the scientific literature of the same nature as junk bonds and toxic debt. There is simply too much at stake for those invested in their ‘survival’ to not seek every avenue to maintain their positions of privilege – or not lose the job that feeds their family. Huge money and power interests distort everything – and the system stacks the odd for the banker a co by engineering conditions in which its influence is dominant.
The probability of system (civilisation) collapse is high if there isn’t a cancelling of debts.
the ‘moneylender in the Template’ does not truly belong there. Start with cleaning your room.

balkydj
Reader

@Admin & @M.M.
“Science is about observable physical phenomena. The discussion should focus on that, and only on that.” Logic !
But , not all Data is observable universally and here lies the problem of withholding Datasets for Corporate self interest &&& or national intelligence or Politician’s Lobbyists interests & agenda.** In theory , both you & M.M. are correct in many ways & perceptions are many & absurdly varied. But Carbon deposits in our Biosphere from human activity are Clear and one can even see it ! like I used to be able to see the smog in London in the 60’s and white collared shirts were the direct visual evidence .. before 11 am.
Fossil – Fuel Air Pollution with a cocktail of chemical ‘additives’ , is horrendous today and Collective Data Science needs to get real, real time, real fast as one constant picture of all human activity evolves: one that we can all access & reference , with no secret engineering or self interested intelligence report.. a matter of >>
Gobal Sovereign interest: (GSI) ! Collective interests, that transcend all borders in terms of Duty & Charge of individual sovereign nations and of the individual Corporation , all the way down the tree to the individual consumer & production related to need.
The Pseudo-Scientific World is living in Corporate Lalaland and they too have been ‘gassed’ & had minds controlled to the core of Education , with fear too & many other illicit means of Corporate Minded directorship & control .. with the demonic purpose of shaping progress & society in their own image of what is best for the masses … !
*******
Imagine:-
“I got entangled in my own data, and my conclusion directly contradicts the original idea from which I start. Starting from unlimited freedom, I conclude with unlimited despotism. I will add, however, that apart from my solution of the social formula, there can be no other.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Demons
** Cambridge Analytica asserted a collection of calculable probabilities & projections, that had a profound outcome utilising Kosinski’s ‘CANOE’, & when harmonised with other efforts: and it is an incalculable probability, presently, how much influence they have had on whom, elsewhere ..
We endure not a world of Transparent DataSets with true Accountability:
All is Morally Corrupted , yet one thing remains a ‘clear’ pointer ..
Our Biosphere & Air Supply is Neither Clear nor Clean, 100% visible ! in every way , sense of being ..
We must change: be the change,
every way possible .. ’Tis also plausible.
and it starts by thinking global & drinking local quality products & eating local quality, along with the regional production quality prided on recognition, locally >> therefore regional outlets must first become networked , then distributed & markets serviced: not to the highest bidder on the other side of the world, first ..
And the U.N. has Declared said Regional Production priority.
Commodity Markets need re-structuring, quite obviously ..
Brazil produces twice as much coffee, more than any other nation: yet still Nestlé won’t confirm that their sourcing of coffee beans is G’teed Slavery Free and they are not forced to declare their supply chain Free of Slavery, either .. and what more does one need to know, where to begin ? !
“Nobody has a right to clean drinking Water ” Ex-Nestlé CEO Brabeck ..
Move the U.N. to a location that considers all territories, culture & history as equal, to be respected within the guidelines of UNESCO >>
coz’ Food is Culture & key to Life, realtime .. make Food & Water the first Globalised Scientific Databases of Datasets ,
publicly declared universally.
Centralise all Datasets of Food Banks:
9 distributed Databases for back up ..
9 distributed Databases for Land Rights
9 distributed Databases for Water Quality
usw. >> I say , “Think Local Logistics & grow some .. ” 🙂
(not saying what , lol, ladies present)
Linear Economics Failed : now Regional Circular Economics must be instilled, and installed as priority to quantifying any surplus, to be identified & recorded in Databases for universal consumption , what is superfluous to regional need & for distribution further a field , (wherever nearest and in most need ? )
Coz’ there is no question that we can produce enough food for all:
& clean water: if we wanted , veggie burgers too !
And Givaudan S.A. can engineer just the smell alone for you,
if you love that hint of Broccoli or Rucola, in the morning ..
from the micro-wave 😉 to please G.M.OnBio-T’s K-Wave mucky mentality.
No Question , Q.E.D. > it has been proven > a fact ..
There see? and I never even mentioned Geo-Engineering & weather modification , (whoops, almost: never say never, eh ? 😉 )
Regards 2U both,
balkydj

binra
Reader

If you say so then for you it is so.
It has nothing to do with minority positions excepting that anything not supporting the established paradigm is ‘minoritised.
If you for a moment think that the energy cartels would let themselves be so behind the game you are engaging in folly. It doesn’t matter what the forms of power take as long as they are running the show. ‘They’ are not foolish in terms of protecting their investments as they see them. A token sacrifice rolls over as part of a deeper deceit. In some sense it is simply opportunism within the framework of power struggle.
The arrogance and audacity of the influence now being wielded is that of ‘making the reality’ that everyone else accepts as true by reaction OR conforms and complies to by virtue of not attracting penalty by speaking our or not showing support.

monostrovich
Reader
monostrovich

I am ‘only’ holding 99% or so of geologists and oil industry figures as evidence.
Even lower is the probability where the ‘dissenters’ are financed by gigantic moneyed interests, none more gigantic than fossil fuels.
So when gigantic moneyed interests promote the biotic origin of oil, that is inherently credible, but when they dispute anthropogenic global warming, that is inherently non-credible.
It’s always nice to see intellectual standards consistently applied like this.

manfromatlan
Reader

You mean 99% of western geologists, not ever having studied Russian or Ukrainian scientific papers. Funny how you have such fixed opinions without studying all the evidence 🙂

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

And have you read these papers in Russian and Ukrainian?

manfromatlan
Reader

Already referred to New Eastern Outlook economist, engineer and journalist F. William Engdahl, who has been writing about oil since the 70’s. http://peakoil.com/geology/how-i-came-to-realize-i-was-wrong-about-peak-oil-f-william-engdahl

manfromatlan
Reader

Who did read them. Try not to respond with ad homs 😉

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

But please tell us if you personally have read this material in the original Russian and Ukrainian? SInce you keep berating others for not doing so. An honest and straight answer would be appreciated, for a welcome change.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

I don’t think having read it in the original language should be an issue. If the studies have been translated into English, we must assume they’ve been done so in a way faithful to the original.
May I suggest everyone finds it in themselves to discuss the research and not each other’s shortcomings?

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Engdahl is not Russian. You claimed it was essential to read the original Russian texts,. So name the authors, please, in Cyrillic, with the Russian and Ukrainian titles of these papers. I am a professional Russian-English translator and I intend to look into the content of the material you boast about.
And don’t flip me off with a “Bye” either, because your online bullying and aggression is a disgrace, and certainly doesn’t suggest someone with any kind of education in a foreign language,.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

The names of the papers and their authors, in Russian, please.
Without any more rudeness.

reinertorheit
Reader
reinertorheit

Dear Admin
[[ You mean 99% of western geologists, not ever having studied Russian or Ukrainian scientific papers. ]]
The ManfromAtlan demands they are read in Russian. Please stop making excuses for him.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

Suggesting you read Russian scientific papers obviously does NOT = suggesting you read them in Russian!
Your argumentativeness is regrettable and based largely on a failure to read or comprehend what others are writing. Since I know from experience you will continue to be disruptive and will simply ignore my request to behave sensibly I’m putting you on pre-mod until you start discussing the subject rather than trying to provoke fights

binra
Reader

Appeals to external authority and claims of consensus reality are nothing new. There is a sense of warmth in a herd, and a sense of being unsupported, misunderstood ridiculed or walled out, penalised and denied that comes with standing in an integrity that cannot be denied without trashing yourself.
I wonder if there is any cause in you that would want the story to be true or not – whether or not it is in fact true?
I’m inclined not to accept corporate top-down astroturfed memes as true which means I do listen to those who sometimes risk a lot in challenging the official narrative.
I am in no doubt but that information give to the many is very different from insider information. And that it isn’t just a cover story but a manipulative intent to further vested interests and private agenda.
Almost everything scientists believed is found to not be as they expect when further science is conducted. This would be a sign of science in action if the old model was released – but its value as a basis from which to exercise power, attract and maintain wealth, status and privilege, hold more attraction than aligning and acting in truth that threatens your skin in the game. Scientists as a ‘consensual’ extension of a corporately owned world are not seeking truth any more than medical ‘science’ seeks to heal (or to study and understand more of the nature of health).
Scientific ‘correctness’ operates under a top down mandate.

binra
Reader

Truth is never popular and honesty can lose you your career.
If it isn’t supported by top down power, everyone will soon learn not to go there.
That in itself is not an argument FOR abiotic oil as something the Earth is constantly producing – but in response to your ‘it cant be true because it doesn’t have many (open) backers.
No one came out to back Andy wakefield. One could make a list.
And of course any particular can be ‘attacked’ and obfuscated to evade the point.

manfromatlan
Reader

Yet, Andy Wakefield WAS exonerated in the court of public opinion.(His co-researcher’s medical license was reinstated since he was financially able to defend himself). Subsequent revelations have proven how research into the vaccine autism link was suppressed.

binra
Reader

Indeed and well said. I suppose calling him Andy indicated that I do not regard him as a fraud nor join the demonizing that led to the term ‘Wakefielded’ in the medical profession. The film Vaxxed is not about Wakefield but about a CDC insider leaking and confessing to the hiding of a study revealing known autistic outcomes with MMR – particularly for black males.
Whistleblowing is one way to gain access and publish withheld self-incrimating insider information and another is via a court of law.

manfromatlan
Reader

Admin, please delete. I misread the article, and apologize.

Martin Larner
Reader
Martin Larner

There’s literally no evidence for “Abiotic Oil” on any practical renewable timescale. Oil fields are observed to deplete. It’s the reason they’re now chasing tar sands & shale & other “tight oil” which are much lower quality resources with a lower net energy that struggle to make profit. It’s because that’s all that’s left to find. The reason Russia did Ok is because they have lots of oil!

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Martin-how dare you bring facts to a nonsense-fight!

manfromatlan
Reader

Ask him about oil, and Dr. Richard Pike has a rather sunny outlook. Oil and gas, he says confidently, will be around well into the next century.
Pike can maintain his optimism because he knows something no one else knows. He believes that a simple mathematical error – the sort made by first-year university statistics students – is causing much of our panic over a worldwide oil shortage.
It’s an error that oil companies, riding high on skyrocketing crude prices, may want you to believe.
Pike is an oil industry insider, an engineer by training. An employee of British Petroleum for 25 years, he is now the chief executive of England’s Royal Society of Chemistry”

manfromatlan
Reader

Source: https://www.thestar.com/business/tech_news/2008/06/21/oil_oil_everywhere_well_just_maybe.html
“”This might be hard for some of your readers to take,” he warns. With oil at $132 a barrel yesterday, tensions over gas prices are at a boiling point. But listen, he says: at 1.2 trillion barrels, we have grossly underestimated the world’s proven oil reserves. If he’s right, we likely have double the amount of recoverable oil that we think we have in the ground, or perhaps even more.”

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I find these massive over-estimates of remaining hydrocarbon resources unconvincing, first because they rarely, if ever, produce estimates of the EROEI, the energy return on energy invested, for these ‘resources’, which are becoming lower and lower as all the easy resources are depleted, and second because burning even a fraction of such resources would make the catastrophe of anthropogenic climate destabilsation caused by emissions of greenhouse gases even more calamitous-if there is something more dreadful than Near Term Human Extinction.

BigB
Reader
BigB

MM: I put my tuppence worth in which came out above. Oil will be around in the next century: in the ground! Quantity has to be tempered with quality, then interpreted economically with debt. I tried to develop this above. We are in the midst of a primary energy crisis NOW: when all the factors are taken into consideration. Quantity alone does not mean anything. We will likely never run out of oil. Carbon capitalism is already dead and cannot be sustained on debt forever.
Abiotic oil is bunk: I posted Ugo Bardi’s rebuttal …probably won’t make any difference though …these things have a habit of becoming a salvational sustaining hopium?
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-10-03/abiotic-oil-science-or-politics/

binra
Reader

I read the linked ‘rebuttal’ and don’t see anything of substance.
Most of what is accepted history is bunk.
History is as controlled like oil because it is a choke and control point. And isn’t mined from the past so much as bias that is produced by conflicting underground effects of a denial and coercion.
Where there is such a concentration of power, there be secrets and lies.

manfromatlan
Reader

Yes, to the secrets and lies of power, and interesting insight into those committed to Peak Oil.
From F. William Engdahl http://peakoil.com/geology/how-i-came-to-realize-i-was-wrong-about-peak-oil-f-william-engdahl
Ugo Bardi’s Association for Study of Peak Oil (ASPO), is an offshoot of Mike Ruppert’s From The Wilderness website, which came into prominence during Bush’s Iraq war. Their analysis, that the Ghawar oil field and Russian oil production had already reached their maximum output turned out to be wrong, and designed only to promote high oil prices. (A corollary is the need to develop domestic oil sources, including the shale oil fields and Alaska North Slope and Arctic Refuge fields).
No one’s ever studied translations of Russian scientists abiotic oil papers so their arguments against are indeed, bunk.
Conclusion:

Indeed I realized that the entire foundations of Western petroleum geology was a kind of religion. Rather than accept the Divine Birth, Peak Oil “church-goers” accepted the Divine Fossil Origins. No proof needed, only belief. To this day there exists not a single serious scientific paper proving the fossil genesis of hydrocarbons. It was posited in the 1760’s as an untested hypothesis, by Russian scientist Mikhail Lomonosov. It has served the American oil industry, especially of the family Rockefeller, to build an immense fortune based on a myth of oil scarcity.

BigB
Reader
BigB

I find the idea that Ugo Bardi and Mike Ruppert are part of a conspiracy to drive up the price of oil ludicrous, to the extreme …and barely worthy of a rebuttal. Mike was a flawed individual, but honesty was not one of hid frailties. In fact I would describe him as terminally honest …by which I mean it was the dominant part of his makeup that killed him.
When you say they got it wrong about one field, and use this as a lynchpin to discard the entire argument …we nevertheless get closer to the truth: which is political. “It turns out they were wrong” means nothing …the industry is well practiced at discovering oil on paper. Figures are like jealously guarded state secrets: and Trump’s EPA and NASA cuts prove one thing: TPTB don’t want a different interpretation, backed by science. This is a known fact among researchers: the data is becoming harder and harder to come by.
There is a cast iron case to be made against abiotic oil and for Peak Oil. The bottom line is that it makes little difference. If we have more oil: the rapine cannibalistic dominant culture will use it to destroy the planet anyway. The oil would need to stay where it is: six miles deep and economically unrecoverable.
Morally: what are we defending: the status quo? Carbon capitalism runs on oil and every facet of it, including the consensus reality mindset, is a function of cheap oil. How cheap is cheap in terms of alienation, exploitation and death. Cheap oil costs the equitable lives of the overwhelming majority of humanity …and in the end (which is about now) it costs the earth.
Has anyone thought through the argument against Peak Oil? Because it is a fear and change averse POV. The world has to change: whether for better or worse …and specious arguments for the retention of carbon capitalism ensure it will be for the worse. So when you suggest that it is an insight into those who support Peak Oil: you create a sophist strawman. Have you thought your position through? Who is really supporting TPTB Lords of Carbon?

binra
Reader

Of course the world IS change and those who fear the loss of their possession or position will seek to exploit the changes by subversion and control of the emerging narrative.
Look at y/our own mind and see how the narrative mind operates, instead of running under its script.
The mind of reframing interjects after the fact to take credit, and a personal sense of control seeks reinforcement and disregards gaps or breaks in continuity.
The idea that we are in control is an idea we give sacrifice to in order to maintain it as our self. Surely appropriate to early stages of finding flow and balance of an integrated being. But otherwise a fear switch jammed on.
Change is not any more or less that all the meaning we give it – and instead of being conditioned by fears of the past projecting such ‘meanings’ ontop the ‘unknown’, we can look to the meanings we ARE giving and test them for truth in terms of a present relationship instead of a habit-reaction.
All the intensity given to avoid a ‘Catastrophe’ is the energy and attention that expects, attracts and brings it about.
We don’t need a wrathful god, comet-collisions or any outer calamity any more – because we are conditioned to kill ourselves under the ruse of ‘survival’ – but not in my acceptance, with CO2 but perhaps the diversion serves to keep attention away from what is truly occurring so as to shift as much ‘power’ as possible in the collapse that is already here but put into slow motion by every kind of deceit. Fear creates destructively. Don’t accept it upon the altar of your desire or it becomes your prayer to be killed. trying to kill fears is mistaken. They need to be truly opened and brought into the light or a present awareness. Otherwise they simply run the ‘machine mind’.
Meaningless prayer is not answered by the Meaning of Life – but because you asked you will interpret all data in terms of your accepted desire.
The call to death is masked in the seeming of wanting to live but without the embracing of what life is the unfolding of – because that is out of ‘control’ in terms of protecting a fixed sense of identity from change.
The fundamental shift occurring is not inherently negative. Midwives attend to the birth to serve the living. Feeling our way in emergence cannot afford to think – in terms of scattered and diluted focus in past and future rehearsals and imaginations.
The belief that we know what the problem is, is the successful displacement of cause onto symptoms assigned causality. We often have personal investment in wanting the guilt and punishment to target certain people or institutions or ideologies. Our self gratification then takes priority over truly attending and we join in the very errors that we hate in others.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

True-your contribution above is excellent. Abiotic oil is an interesting concept, but its use by Peak Oil denialists, when the evidence for it making any contribution to hydrocarbon resources is very meagre, indeed, is very vexing.

BigB
Reader
BigB

A simple common sense pro-Peak argument against abiotic oil is: where dafuq is it? Why are we boiling keragen uneconomically when we could harvest WTI? False scarcity in extremis?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

There is some outrageous stuff being ventilated merrily hereabouts, in the interests of free speech, of course. Blank rejection of the firmly established role of CO2 as a major greenhouse gas, makes me think that I’m reading one of Murdoch’s shite-rags, or watching Austfailian TV or listening to talk-back radio.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

There are a large number of well-qualified scientists who question some or all aspects of the CAGW hypothesis. Let’s try to create a non-doctrinal and open spirit of discussion.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Admin (below)-there are NOT many ‘well-qualified’ scientists who question ‘all’ of the anthropogenic climate destabilisation hypothesis, but a tiny cabal of corrupt deniers on the fossil fuel payroll. They are outnumbered by thousands to one by scientists who accept the basic hypothesis because it is rooted firmly in basic science, paleo-climate research and basic observation of the rapid climate destabilisation currently being experienced. Of course many scientists do dispute certain aspects of the hypothesis-that is real science, always working to perfect a theory and make it better in describing eality. But blanket rejection of all the science is confined to ranks and the corrupt.

binra
Reader

Like diamonds – many huge fields are left untapped. Once set up such a system of controlled scarcity can be used and extended in so many ways. I think a willingness to search a little would soon find some interesting perspectives.
Perhaps the presumption that the world works a certain way under certain expectations of accountability is the wool over our eyes that doesn’t let us see the unthinkable. HG Wells wrote of a future where humans split into two kinds. The Time Machine. Are you familiar with the relation between the two? Its vernacular is not uncommon insider talk; do you want to be predator or prey?

binra
Reader

How does corruption creep in?
You illustrate one vector:
Oh we cant allow anything to get official acceptance if a rival or threat to our institutional identity can use it as ammunition against us.
War, not honouring the true, as a defence against and attempt to undermine anything that upsets the Notional Security of a fear of losing face, wealth, and the power to keep it and grow it.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

One doughty chap finds a ‘…simple mathematical error..’, that all the other oil industry experts did not? Bizarre. Or are those nassty industry fellows just lying? And burning hydrocarbons into the next century is NOT a ‘…sunny outlook’. It is a recipe for gigantic climate destabilisation and Near Term Human Extinction.

binra
Reader

Engineered or not, panic over (support and supply of sustenance) oil running out is another issue than a directed addiction to it, and in my view a suppression or withholding of new technologies that would undermine the existing power structure perhaps because of not being so ‘controllable’ patentable or even profitable.
What if water can be used as fuel?
Sources of electricity from the atmospheric capacitance or even from the innately electrical process of nature?
The other side of the coin is responsible relation with energy and its consequences.
I believe until we accept this as our self-responsibility for consciousness, we will not find alignment in the outer world of law, finance, politics and culture.
I see magical solutions as the redistribution of psychic energy by cooking the books or moving the furniture around without a real change. Adapting to self-denial under a ‘moral crusade’ to self-deny is nothing but a ruse to evade the true responsibility. As with so much – our technology is marketed and weaponised to ‘egoic’ support.
I think peak ego has come and gone and the disintegration of the structure of its ability to pass of as who we are, is always accompanied by desperate attempts to reassert the protection racket that sacrifices the whole to save its ‘self’.
“What for?” is the uncovering or purpose. When the cultural framework of self-defnition and core belief is effectively surrendered/hijacked by social engineering that hacks into and deconstructs our psyche so as to work it without our conscious awareness – then our perception and experience reflects someone else’s manipulation of our own fears – that automatically align us to defend the identity we defend as ourself.
A false sense of rationally defined or emotionally convenient materialism calling on ‘moral imperative’ will demand sacrifice of self and others to its dictate. But what is called for is not self hate and self denial but a rebalancing in a greater Self embrace. The thinking of the world is lost to polarised identity conflict. One can persist in this – but what for? Purpose in life can seem to be got from identifying against an evil. This way everyone justifies choosing what in their particular moment of choice is a lesser evil – and so the devil we know runs in place of a true knowing.
In that sense I see what seems a ‘jealous god’, because while we resist the acceptance of not knowing, we persist in the mask of asserted identity. But abiding in the not-knowing or unknown – without projecting our fears onto it, is the condition in which a wholeness of being moves or rises to our awareness. Each of us can notice our own version of a ‘control mentality’ that can be seen writ large in our world. The attempt to use it to get rid of itself is of course the way no real change of a healing direction of discovery is welcomed, supported or allowed to develop.
To engage in futility is to waste our own energy and assign blame to the seeming adversity. Perhaps on a deeper level we simply cannot trust ourselves and so limit and control life rather than let it run beyond our capacity to integrate and so a kind of split mind works against itself. Lies are a lack of substance asserted or defended against true.

manfromatlan
Reader

I do believe alternative sources of energy are available, once you get past the CO2 fetishists 🙂

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

‘..the CO2 fetishists..’-a ray of sunlight onto your true motivations, I would say. Thank-you for the candour.

manfromatlan
Reader

Sorry, my comment was unclear. I’m totally against oil sands and fracking, and it com applied mostly to those wedded to the carbon economy they discount alternative sources.
I also dislike simple ‘solutions’ to climate change like taxing fuel, cap and trade, and vegetarianism.
Human ingenuity CAN find solutions to climate change if we can shift priorities and avoid divisiveness. Cold Fusion research, geothermal, hydro?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

I see. Yes, we might, possibly, just sneak through if we act as a whole, with a mega-Manhattan Project effort, which would have to include humane population reduction, massive decreases in consumption, planetary ecological repair, and some method, or methods to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Oh, and a restoration of global albedo lost in the Arctic and elsewhere as ice melts. But even then, (and the rulers of mankind won’t allow it, of course)the question of the heat sequestered in the oceans (150 zettajoules in the last 200 years)seems intractable, to my mind at least.

manfromatlan
Reader

“Humane population reduction” and yr earlier crack about “free speech” really hints at the fascistic impulses of extremism.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

What is ‘fascistic’ about the word humane? What is utterly fascistic is to work to make an ecological collapse Holocaust inevitable, with the consequent entirely INHUMANE destruction of billions of human lives-possibly all of them.

manfromatlan
Reader

The West’s ‘humane’ methods of population reduction include vaccines laced with sterilizing hormones in Africa and the Philippines https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/polio-vaccines-laced-with-sterilizing-hormone-discovered-in-kenya-who-is-controlling-population/ and vaccine shill Bill Gates musing on how vaccines could reduce world populations. Smacks of Hitler, China, or India’s Indira Gandhi. Fascist is as fascist does.

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

Man, my idea of ‘humanely’ is the ‘demographic transition’ to lower family sizes that you almost inevitably get when poverty is reduced and women educated and empowered. That a theocracy like Iran can go from an average of six children per woman, to around two, in two generations shows what is possible when the world’s stolen wealth is removed from the kleptocrats and returned to the people who created it. What you cite, with examples like Bill Gates and sterilising vaccines, is most definitely NOT my preference, or the best way to proceed.

Admin
Moderator
Admin

But how could we ever confer that much power on any government and hope for a good outcome? Governments are by their nature inclined to be amoral, self-serving and power hungry. Giving them the remit to “reduce the population”, but only by “humane means” is asking for abuse and exploitation on a massive scale, surely?

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

So, Admin, what do we do then? Allow human populations to grow until they INEVITABLY cause an ecological Holocaust, whereupon you will get population reduction, alright-possibly to zero if it leads to thermo-nuclear war. Humane population reduction is possible. It is happening in Japan and much of Western Europe simply by voluntary reductions in family size, a move that could be encouraged by tax policies, but more crucially, by poverty reduction and female education and empowerment. I really fail to see how one can argue with that, given the alternative that is already assailing the planet.

binra
Reader

This attitude proceeds from an error.
Who is the ‘we’ in your assertion?
Why would growing population cause an ‘ecological burnt sacrifice” or do you simply reach for that term for the most emotional leverage in dramatic effect? But lets just say catastrophe.
Is population in itself the core issue here? or is it really about our (lack of) relationship with nature – that reflects that of our own nature – our intra personal and interpersonal conflicts. Might the attempt through the Millennia to use coercion and deceit to eradicate ‘problems’ assigned to symptoms be the false drive and structuring of our thought such as to develop and multiply a corrupted sense of power or control?
That logically results in the Financially and Corporately captured State of the regulatory protection of its own interests as the primary despoiler? Not just in poisoning air, water, land and food, but in the pharming of deceits by which to manipulate (polarised and conflicted) identities, along with degradation of consciousness and health. The communication system and even our frameworks of thought are effectively subverted to run the PR cover story against exposures of corruption that must be defended against at all costs because they are in the foundations of a pack of cards. And so the drive to use cunningly crafted lies to capture and subvert any movement of a threat to the ‘survival’ of a negative Economy in a world where ‘Everything is BACKWARDS’; everything is upside down! Doctors destroy health, Lawyers destroy justice, Universities destroy knowledge, Governments destroy freedom, Major media destroys information, And religions destroy spirituality”. (~ Michael Ellner)
Of course there are balance points for the sustaining of a richness of diverse and unique facets to the whole – but the idea of a ‘top-down’ coercion is the way to ‘upside down’ the consciousness.
Life does not function this way – regardless we project our (false-god) self idea onto it. The implicit result of not aligning in life at a functional level is disfunction, dissonance and desperate attempts to force a ‘balance’ from a divorced or dissociated perspective.
How much of what we cling to as moral, is in fact an integrity we truly stand in – and how much is a cover story for that in our own self that we seek to evade, escape, nor face nor be exposed in?
Trying to right wrong with fake solutions that generate more complex or subtly concealed wrong grows the tares at expense of the wheat.
Uncovering the false within the context of the desire to align true is thus a way to restore a fundamental sanity in which the need or purpose for fakery fades.
While there is a sense that one cannot communicate with those who are unable or unwilling to communicate – I sense that this is because we limit communication to a control agenda.
Those who want and believe they have the power to enforce their solutions by stealth and by guile, engineer the minds of their captive populations to run under such a distorted ‘narrative’. But only to the degree that people are already subject and open to such thinking. hence the conditioning of societies to fear and division so as to maximise their harvest.
Freedom to love is freedom to be – and the nature of being sets the guidance and support or ‘limits’ that are specifically appropriate. A false sense of ‘escape’ or divorce from being runs as a mind alone and apart – perhaps joining with others in temporary alliance but only to maintain separateness (from being) as the hidden agreement of the joining. Amy true intimacy is of a different order than contractual trades and manipulations – and intimacy is the nature of being recognized as it is of recognizing being.
Fear of evil fates is used as a cover story for fear of intimacy – because our experience of losing such an embracing connection was both a guilt-sense and a projection of guilt away from a ‘self’ apart and alone and conflicted.
If anyone is reading as if this is written as ‘ideas’ to use to persuade or manipulate an outcome – then they are giving attention only as such a framework dictates.
The influx and acceptance of new perspective is received individually by free and willing consent – integrated within their own lives and thus communicating by example. The top-down attempt to hack into the Template level and redirect the currency of being is the ‘original error’ of a self-exclusion within a false sense of self and reality – no matter how many reflect that back to you.
Education is too ‘dangerous’ to the maintaining of control over the uneducated. Empowering people would mean releasing the disempowerment by which power over them is taken and effected.
However, you do not have to run as you are programmed.
I do not trust the top down or astroturfed news, data or narrative devices of guilt, fear and protection racket. But apparently The Duke of Edinburg will reincarnate as a deadly virus and wipe out the population. Why does this serve the population armageddon meme rather than reveal a planted thought-virus? Because few listen in their heart.

manfromatlan
Reader

And Mulga, it isn’t ’empowering women’ that reduces the population, that is already happening in Western society thanks to its economic system making that choice necessary; and assault on Mother Nature with attendant chemicalization making you er, infertile. Which is a good thing for the planet perhaps since one Westerner has ten times (I guess) the impact on the environment than ten Africans. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/29/infertility-crisis-sperm-counts-halved

manfromatlan
Reader

Good point about giving government the remit, Admin. I was thinking of the communist Chinese and Indira Gandhi experiment in forcible population control then http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/24/china-indias-population-control-atrocities-sown-gale-force-wind/

Mulga Mumblebrain
Reader
Mulga Mumblebrain

After wading through binra’s maunderings, I find myself in agreement with much of the kernels of truth buried therein.Of course we must find a new economic model that does not reward destruction of Life on Earth, and reduces everything to a sordid materialistic calculus. And of course the current system produces results utterly antithetical to real human welfare. But even if we had such a more beneficial and sustainable economic and social system, that prioritised Life values rather than greed and profit, we would still need to reduce the human burden on the planet, unless it is envisaged that the bulk of humanity must live at the lowest standard of living enforceable. As for man’s appeal to the ‘authority’ of the arch-Rightist ‘Federalist’ to abuse China and India’s population control efforts, well I remain firmly, as I’ve reiterated but the ecological Holocaust denialists seem keen to continue to ignore, in the humane camp. Which is where population reduction is determined principally by female desires, which seem, almost invariably, when child survival is guaranteed, more or less, and educational and career opportunities open up, to be expressed as smaller families. A little economic incentive to having fewer children, and you get the ‘demographic transition’, so well-known, but, strangely, apparently feared by the various ecological Holocaust denialists hereabouts.

manfromatlan
Reader

Sigh. Whenever a person invokes Godwin’s Law in an interminable argument you know you’re wasting your time. And The Federalist is a conservative magazine, not an ‘arch-Rightist’ magazine. Argue with the facts, not the source. ‘China and India’s population control efforts’ were coercive and abusive, as any number of sources can tell you. Forcible abortions, sterilizations and fines were the rule, not exception.
And people who invoke the Holocaust to gain some sort of moral supremacy over those who disagree with their position-a reductio ad Hitlerum hyperbole because they have no argument. Bye.

jdseanjd
Reader

A book I’m sure you’d enjoy mfatlan: The Ultimate Resource 2, by Julian L. Simon.
An economist who first thought that wars & overpopulation were mankind’s largest problems, he studied the data & found that greater population numbers caused greater prosperity, always, throughout human history.
The mechanism he deduced is, roughly, more people, greater specialisation, better productivity, more inventors, more entrepreneurs, more prosperity, which would make it easier to clean up our industrial messes, if the “money out of thin air” parasites were not so busy hoovering it all up, aiming to reduce us all to serfdom.
Simon got fed up with all the doomster sh1te being pushed out since the 60s. He challenged arch-doomsters & depopulation fanatics Paul Ehrlich & John Holdren to a bet. They were predicting commodity shortages & price rises as well as food shortages & huge famines. Ehrlich & Holdren were aided & abetted by the UN depopulation project, The Club of Rome, which sponsored the “Limits to Growth” book, which received such huge publicity that one reviewer said: “The Limits to Growth is not just a book, it is an event.”
All frauds perpetrated by the 1%s get huge publicity via the fake news MSM: Rachel Carson’s anti DDT novel Silent Spring, which cost perhaps 100 million dead in the 3rd world, “fossil” fuel, peak oil, man-made CO2 based global warming, oops sorry, climate change, oops sorry again climate disruption, HAHAHAHAHA.
John Doran.

jdseanjd
Reader

The 1972 Limits to growth nonsense included oil to run by 1992, aluminium by 2003, copper 1993, gold 1981, tin 1987, Manganese 2018.
It was alarmist hysterics, sanctified by use of a computer, exactly like the computer climate models of today.
Economist Julian Simon issued a public challenge:
“This is a public offer to stake $10,000, in separate transactions of $1,000 or $100 each, on my belief that mineral resources (or food, or other commodities) will not rise in price. If you are prepared to pay me now the current market price for $1,000 or $100 of any mineral you name (or other raw material including grain & fossil fuels) that is not govt controlled, I will agree to pay you the market price of the same amount of that raw material on any future date you now specify. Will the doomsayers, who now say that minerals and other raw materials will get more scarce, also put their money where their mouths are?”
Ehrlich, Holdren & Harte, took the bet, named the dates, metals & a 10 year period & on 29 Sept 1990 had to pay out $$576.07 to Simon. The price of every single one of the metals had fallen,
copper, tin, nickel, chromium & tungsten.
The Club of Rome’s book had predicted tin would run out by 1987, so it should have reached platinum like levels. Instead its price per pound weight had fallen from $8.46 in 1980 to $3.86 a decade later.
Human ingenuity expressed as improved mining technology etc has meant that, despite a sixfold increase in population numbers globally, commodity prides have dropped over the last 200 years.
We are not overpopulated, not going to run out of anything, & not in a warming/climate/destabilisation crisis, whichever suit of clothes the crisis Emperor is wearing this week. 🙂
We are not well served by the lies spewed by the UN Club of dictators.
John Doran.

binra
Reader

Of course. Everything is in some sense energy in motion. Responsibility of conductivity and balance are all part of energy – as is joy and depression. I sense that these ‘inner’ qualities are not unrelated to what seems as if a denial and suppression of new sources.