Launching “No Deal for Nature”
Image source here.
From Cory Morningstar on Facebook
After two months of hard work, we are proud to announce our new campaign and website to oppose the financialization of nature (as well as “social and human capital”).
No foundation funding. No advertising. No Vogue layouts. A grassroots volunteer effort – asking for nothing except your resistance.
No Deal For Nature
The financialization of nature (monetization of nature) is to be agreed upon this year (The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 15-28 October 2020). This is the corporate capture of the commons, global in scale. This represents the greatest transformation of the financial economic system in modern day history. Those with money will own nature.
The capture of nature is moving forward under the guise of the “New Deal For Nature” term/campaign led by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and WWF. The key players include the United Nations (WEF partner as of June 13, 2019), the Natural Capital Coalition, Conservation International, Business for Nature, IUCN, WBCSD, Al Gore, etc.
Founding partners of Business for Nature include the World Economic Forum, The Natural Capital Coalition, WWF, We Mean Business, WBCSD, The Food and Land Use Coalition, Tropical Forest Alliance, The Nature Conservancy, International Chamber of Commerce, World Resources Institute,Confederation of Indian Industry, and Entreprises pour l’Environnement (EpE).
Growing list of Business for Nature partners:
https://www.businessfornature.org/about
The “Super Year” campaign has been designed to establish the social license required of the citizenry. They want you to not only accept, but even demand, A New Deal For Nature. All roads, all campaigns that have saturated the media since the fall of 2018, have strategically led to this grotesque intent.
The sister campaign of New Deal For Nature is Voice For The Planet (WEF & WWF) promoted by Attenborough, Goodall & Thunberg.
Catte Black and all at OffG are proud to be working in concert with Cory and everyone at No Deal For Nature. We urge our readers to bookmark the website and follow them on Twitter at @nodealfornature.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
Can anyone having issues with the No Deal website either report them below or email [email protected] so we can pass the info on. The designer is still debugging and would appreciate feedback. Could you especially include the browser/device you’re viewing on.
Thanks all.
What is the Great Global Warming Scam all about?
The International Panel On Climate Finance (IPCF), together with the IMF and World Bank, (Little Greta’s sponsors), are creating a Global Climate Capital Raising Plan, under the leadership of that great saviour of polar bears, Mark “Goldman Sachs” Carney.
Pension funds will be raided to the tune of $1 trillion a year to finance green boondoggles and transfer wealth upwards.
The Apollo Space Programme cost $25.4 billion, or $150 billion in current values.
So Mark C. and his chums will be helping themselves to the equivalent of 7 space programmes each and every year.
Well worth their investment in Little Greta.
AS a framework or medium for communication – I abhor the chosen template format.
There was something to be said for ‘simple’.
The development of gizmo and slick is generally the art of hyping lack of content or hidden payload.
So I see the fragmented mind in the use of such a (ubiquitous template).
I bought Cory Morningstar’s ‘The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg’, and found it was such a mishmash of factoids as to be almost unreadable – thought of controlled opposition entered my mind – not least because the era of the pre-emptive strike anticipates and usurps even its own opposition. But it may be that Cory simply published web content as a ‘book’ without redrafting – in desire to get it out fast.
I see the increasing desperation of the powerful in sustaining the unsustainable – such as to raid or monetise anything and everything in the same way addicts betray or rip off their own loved ones to keep their fix.
Hallelujah! The ecodharma is telling it like it is. On a personal note: maybe I’ll get a hand trying to start the eological conversation from now on? The most important conversation humanity will ever have: given the consequences of the outcome(s). 😉
Every corporation in the world has developed their green strategy to conform to the BIS/WEF green deal for neoliberal globalisation. Ditto: every government. The City of London will determine what projects get funded: according to green criteria. Those who do not consent will be put out of business: as Mark Carnage – the de facto BIS/WEF ecological finance minister – has already warned. A successful resistance to the GDFN(eoliberalism) and people (corporate personhood) is a successful resistance to capitalism, globalised market, transnational corporate, private property, privateered money (and debt), and state ontologies. There can be no tweaking. A new vision for humanity is required. And a new humanism.
Along with a new value system; a new relationship with language; a new way of relating to the (commodified) Other (more-than-human socio-ecological relations – culture v nature); and a new way of Being. When Being becomes fixed, ossified and sedimented: it becomes the market, corporate, and state capitalist ontology of private property and private debt. Consciousness itself is epochal and largely economically determined by the dyadic ideology of exponential Progress and Prosperity. Human relations – and more-than-human relations (socio-ecological culture v nature relations) – are embedded in illimitable market relations …and become market commodities themselves. Money commodifies all felt affectual and emotional more-than-human qualities into abstract quantities. As Simmel affirmed: all human social relations become a ”problem of arithmetic”. As does experience itself. The NDFN is the ultimate expression of the objectification, commodification, and dehumanised instrumental rationality of a cold economic calculus of private property and privateered profit.
The question becomes: does the the co-evolution of humanity and nature – the extended more-than-human nature – become determined by the narcissistic wellbeing of 2,153 people? Or is it a positive outcome to be determined for the inclusive, egalitarian, and liberation praxis for all? Nature is everyone and everything interbeing: with no privatisation of priviliged status for anyone or anything. Everything is contributary and of equal value. That value-ethics being price-less …beyond the conceit and narcissism of quantification in privateered financialised private ownership. Nature belongs to everyone and no one: inter-temporally and inter-generationally. Every aspect of neoliberal modernity stands against that. So we must stand in opposition to all of neoliberal modernity. The alternative to the devaluation of everything by private money and privatised ownership is the re-evaluation of everything by life …and as life. TINA: the neoliberal alternative to a life-coherent value-ethics and means of life economy are simply unconscionable.
Capitalism is cancer. It’s that simple. Capitalism is excised, and chemo or some other therapy, applied to the metastases, or Life on Earth goes.
Rick Simpson’s prescription for cancers is 60 grams of cannabis oil taken by mouth over 90 days (no mean feat in itself!) Wonder how it might be deployed to destroy the cancer of capitalism; oh, and that other cancer trying to take over and obliterate Palestine…?
That other cancer oblierating Palestine took a great leap forward just last week. Plenty of commentary elsewhere but nothing in Off-Guardian yet.
“On a personal note: maybe I’ll get a hand trying to start the eological conversation from now on?”
Where, how?
Why all the vindictiveness against Greta?
She’s got people out on the streets and it won’t be long before some of them put two and two together and realise Corporate Capitalschism is the problem.
The MSM have embraced her because they had no choice. The elephant in the room was/is too big.
BTW, the no deal for nature site shows all the hallmarks of more corporate spin.
An attractive young woman as Mother Earth/ Gaia?
Give me a break.
She is just another example of child abuse, another grossly over promoted utterly synthetic product of globalist corporate interests, so now we have Little Greta to go with Little Baana and Little Dusty Boy and Little Malala and all the rest. Convenient tools to promote the agenda of endless war, exploitation and financial looting, headed up by Mark Carney doing a Madoff with trillions of pension find money shortly.
A convenient diversion from real issues. Just charge down the global warming rabbit hole, or the identity politics rabbit hole, or whatever other rabbit holes they direct us towards, so long as you don’t ask any awkward questions about what’s really going on.
And if say Pamela Anderson or some other female icon was in Greta’s position, would you be saying the same things?
Do we have reverse ageism happening here?
No, I’d say the same thing about vacuous self serving celebrity hypocrites like Di Caprio, Clooney, J.K. Rowling, Elton John, Gwyneth Paltrow, or Michael Moore.
Greta is just an easily exploited and manipulated mentally handicapped little child who no doubt believes all the global warming brainwashing she has been fed by her abusive activist parents.
It just reflects the infantilism of western society that this garbage is taken at all seriously. But let’s just get out the bongo drums and paint our faces and follow Little Greta.
Greta was either authentic, to begin with, and now exploited by the capitalist brainwashing system, or a project from the beginning. Unless and until she denounces the root cause of all our travails, capitalism, she must be considered suspect. A limited hang-out at best. If she did, of course, she would cease being the MSM’s darling, but there you go. A hard choice for a 16 year old. But her basic message, that anthropogenic climate destabilisation is destroying the habitability of the planet for our species, is irrefutable.
She was inauthentic from the beginning. Her mother who is in the entertainment industry promoted her as a possible icon of the Green movement, and, before that, pitched her as the star of a reality TV show. Her very first ‘protest’ was staged and filmed. She is the managed property of very exploitative people
Short, to the point, and truthful.
Thank you.
If we want confected garbage, we read The Guardian or Washington Post.
If we want the truth, we come to sites like this one.
“Short, to the point,”
Indeed
“and truthful.”
The last sentence excluded, how do you know?
Well that just about settles it. I expect that she’ll become a devotee of ‘Green capitalism’ or some other racket now. Or perhaps she’ll rebel. The fact that she got such intensive attention from the Evil and morally corrupt Western MSM was always a bad sign.
“Well that just about settles it.”
Points in ‘that’ that I have not yet seen verified:
Personally, I am inclined to believe both all of “Admin”‘s post and take its implied subtext at its intended face value, especially in light of subsequent events, but what any “I” believes and so takes to be true is not any sort of validation of actuality.
Are the ‘staff’of the Off-Guardian prohibited, as is the case with many other commercial enterprises–and increasingly likely to be the case the bigger, more interlocked with approved mores and more bureaucratic those enterprises get–from airing their personal opinions in public, in their own name or under their preferred personal pseudonym, or is there some other reason for their(?) choice of identification to be one resembling a phalanx?
This post in itself comprises no disagreement with the content of the post to which it is a reply (or, at least, its concluding sentence: the exact circumstances of Ms Thunberg’s early route into the company of Nobel nominees, outlined between the words ‘promoted’ and ‘filmed’ in that post, were previously unknown to me. I, personally, have seen only one still photograph of her earliest appearance as the world’s leading champion of its biosphere and have no knowledge of how it or any other audio-visual materials that might have been produced at that same time were or were not organised).
She’s got people out on the streets campaigning for the corporate banksters! If they’re dumb and manipulated enough to do that what makes you think they’ll suddenly start thinking for themselves?
You seem to have an idea that a fake Green cause is some sort of segue or halfway house to the real thing. It isn’t.
To assume that all ER protesters are ‘dumb or manipulated’ is a tad simplistic.
The Kraken wakes.
It’s like saying that all denialists, so late in the day, are ‘dumb or manipulated’. Well-no it’s not.
Wasn’t the Kraken dumb?
He, or rather they, pretty much rooted humanity if I remember well. Melting the ice-caps-how spookily prescient was that!?
Go study some real science.
How would you define ‘real science’. Anything you can, or think you can, understand?
Well most Climate scientists I have spoken with cannot seem to understand or explain how energy is transferred from a battery via switch to a light bulb. And they call themselves scientists .Can you?
It was the MSM that gave us her!
You’re shooting the messenger.
Here’s the message>>
https://medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebellion-isnt-about-the-climate-42a0a73d9d49
Anthropogenic climate destabilisation is only part of the ecological Holocaust, all of it brought to you by global capitalism.
“Anthropogenic climate destabilisation is only part of the ecological Holocaust”
And, possibly, not the ultimate clincher.
It’s like being forced to swallow ricin, anectine, strychnine, arsenic, Po 210 and cyanide all at once. Whichever kills you is beside the point.
“Whichever kills you is beside the point.”
I didn’t say it was. My point was that the current monomaniacal concentration on AGW obscures acknowledgement of any of the other possibly still addressable, potentially terminal ecopoisons, thus increasing the likelihood that the only activity that may be marginally existentially productive, best preparing to weather the storm, will also be neglected beyond the last moment of feasibility.
Interesting list of “the problems” there:
• white-supremacy
• patriarchy
• Eurocentrism
• hetero-sexism/heteronormativity
The last one: “class hierarchy” sounds a bit closer to the mark but then I find it defined as “delusions” that “uphold the theory that the rich elite are better/smarter/nobler than the rest of us, and make therefore better decisions.” i.e. defined as if it were a mere bit of prejudice and not an inescapable structure of capitalist society. And there’s the problem. That little word “capitalism” is not mentioned once.
Seriously FD, you can’t be that naive? The mainstream presstitutes are Part Of The Problem. They are promoting Greta for a very obvious reason, which sadly, and tragically, many millions around the World have swallowed hook line and sinker.
Greta is yet another Trojan Horse for the Capitalist scum around her to make vast fortunes. Its about $$$$.
The replies of both Paul and Admin to you FD hit the nail on the head.
It appears that divide and rule works just as effectively on offguardian readers.
Greta, manipulated or not, has got more people pissed off about the inaction or ambivalence of the ruling class than anyone who came before her.
If she’s their pawn (according to the latest ‘hero’ Cory) I don’t give a shit.
Their game plan will be exposed as the climate becomes more catastrophic.
Without mass movements the Left will continue to piss in the wind.
Why are you so reactive and defensive when it comes to Greta Thunberg?
I’m not having a go at you FD, and I’m definately not having a go at Greta Thunberg.
I am taking aim at, and having a go at The Greedy Capitalist Vultures who have surrounded Greta and are Using her for their own agenda.
That’s who I am angry at, but with respect FD, you also seem to take umbrage at the fact that Cory Morningstar, who has gone into great detail in exposing these bastards, as being a personal attack on Greta.
As I told you last time, Cory Morningstar is NOT attacking Greta. She is attacking Those who have Latched Onto Greta.
And to repeat, Paul’s reply nails it in one. Have a good evening.
First things first Geezah:
Greta is still a child. She is being demonised and belittled on this site and many others.
Greta has, what I call, an ‘unability’ (as opposed to a disability). Her Aspergers makes her extremely perceptive and focused on some aspects of Life.
We both know, along with most of the Folks who use this site, who the Parasites are. Greta will learn.
The MSM and the Masters of Destruction have made a miscalculation.
When Greta and her followers wake up and speak up (and have no doubts, they will). The ugly corporate edifices the Parasites have constructed will start to crumble.
The Green/Left movement has been kicking and screaming for at least fifty years, with little to show.
Extinction Rebellion is our last chance to stop the Behemoth of full blown corporate fascism. Occupy was stomped on, but ER is now too big to be stomped on.
Cory Morningstar and her ilk are on the sidelines barking at the moon.
It’s already far too late-Copenhagen 2009, personally torpedoed by St. Obama, was about our last, slim, hope. The end will probably be quite quick now, depending on when the nukes and bio-weapons are unleashed.
That’s the basic situation for the global population. The managers of our “democracy” are delivering showbusiness. The imperative has always been: figure out what the plebs want and give them it …as a spectacle. They want rebellion? Fine! We’ll deliver! And as we do, the plebs have two choices: cheer the show on or bark at the moon. Either way, they are just spectators.
Protests, blockades, boycotts, strikes, corporate AGM disruptions and many arrests.
Not exactly sidelines.
Yes it’s a good show!
Showbusiness? Brzezinski, Evil Incarnate, recommended ‘titietainment’ ie titillation plus entertainment to keep the serfs stupefied.
“Give me a break.”
You like some feedback on the new website https://nodealfornature.org/?
Great deal of good photography and videography as well as advanced features in webpage programming.
However .. all laid to waste as superposing various imagery and text elements have rendered text unreadable (eyesore?) and resulted in INCOMPREHENSIBLE gibberish.
“However .. all laid to waste as superposing various imagery and text elements have rendered text unreadable (eyesore?) and resulted in INCOMPREHENSIBLE gibberish.”
You wanted shiny new phones and toys that set you apart from the crowd. Then the commercially motivated ghouls who saw them and your fondness for them really really needed shinier and newer GI fizz and pop, the better to exploit your pocket. A complete consumer immersion experience. And all the time you and they wanted more and more. And private enterprise ensured you had both hundreds of competing combinations of hardware and software all with their unique profit lock-ins. So, between you all, you all you engineered getting it all. And you all still want more and you’ll all continue to hustle for it. So now you’ve got an increasingly divergent array of not quite compatible generators and renderers and their “developers” and their “designers” and HTML 5 and counting. Up. Stop whining.
We fail to understand why you post these pseudo-tech-savvie comments in which you frequently misapply or misuse terms in streams of semi-gibberish apparently designed to do nothing but convince people you’re a coder or computer whizz (you’re clearly not) and/or patronise or insult random commenters. Stop.
“designed to do nothing but convince people you’re a coder or computer whizz (you’re clearly not)”
We? ?
Coder? Clearly I’m not, but clearly I was, up until about 40 years ago. My specialty was coding at the metal level (assembler and lower) and includes a couple of specialized OSs). Later, communications applications started to predominate.
Convincing people (retrospectively)? Couldn’t give a shit.
Computer whizz? I’m happy with what people voted with their wallets for up until about 25 years ago when I supposedly retired from all day jobs. Still happy with the result$ of occasional consultancy for people who know more about my competence than you.
Frequently misapply or misuse terms? No contest, always have to some extent, especially after I stopped coding. Not interested since then in much else beside overall metaviews (architecture, implications). Point out some specific misapplied or misused terms if you want clarifications or capitulations.
And/or patronise or insult random commenters? Seldom, never by intention, and certainly not in this case. The ‘you’ did not refer to ‘Universal’ in particular, but us(ers), hardware manufacturers, software producers and speculators in general, and any failure “to understand” that is not surprising in this age of self contained tunnel vision (plus my disinclination to be overbothered enough to clarify myself further). Been too polite to too many for too long to take it to the grave as an irksome obligation.
As an aside: if you believe that the entire field of consumer and SOHO/SME computing and a goodly hunk of more heavyweight computing is not one big mess of conflicting practically everythings that is essentially beyond the competence of most of its practitioners at any level to get and keep under control, let alone within comprehension, you may have a seriously suppressed anxiety problem.
Finally: computing has been only one of three different and distinct ‘career’ lines in my working life, from time to time the most intense (it is very consuming in an ASD sort of way) but never the most important. In fact, in terms of what I have considered ‘important’ across the whole range of activities, in both day jobs and time offs, into which I’ve put significant effort, none of the aforementioned three even gets into the top three.
Stop? Yes miss. If I remember to do so at the time.
“Could you especially include the browser/device you’re viewing on” (re glitches on the No Deal for Nature website): says it all.
It’s not our design. And this isn’t helpful to the people trying to make it work. There are a few glitches, but no major issues we know of. Try not to gloat.
“It’s not our design.”
FFS, what is wrong with you? I have been making the point (for many years, since before O-G was born) that the too frequently impossible or near impossible demands of technical outsiders–business managers, advertising agents, users etc–on the design of hardware, firmware and software (including compilers, interpreters, internal and external protocols and such)–to meet their various requirements–marketing, sales, advertising, glitz, wilful technological ignorance, finance, artificial deadlines to meet reports, seasons, fashion, whatever–has created a mountain-range sized rat’s nest minefield of tangled spaghetti that no amount good intention and aquired skill will enable any individual or any conceivably affordable hardware, firmware or software team to get work out of the door without treading on eggshells, thereby courting anything from at least egg on face to at most infrastructural, financial or social disaster with every release.
Given that that’s life for system engineers, what chance do “developers” at the application level have of avoiding the manifold problems of using such shit to build their final product, from the often-trivial to the effectively insoluble?
Do you have any idea of the number of significant flaws discovered in the first releases of programmable devices that remain unfixed for the entire lifetime of the product, from v2010 to v2025, because they’re in the too hard, too expensive or too thoroughly embedded to change now category?
This is nothing to do with anybody at your level’s design, though that’s too often contributory too (“doesn’t work?…let’s try a different library” syndrome and variations thereof).
“Try not to gloat.”
Apart from the fact that it all works pretty well here, on this cheapo big print tablet, it’s absolutely dismaying that such an important website as No Deal For Nature is so widely beset by the fallout from the use of yet another wildly out of control technology, in an out of control, over financialized, over exploited, politically hegemonous society. It’s true that pushing the technological limits of such a system in pursuit of nothing more than fashionable eye candy for the numbed-brained, and apparently taking the output on the “web designer”‘s monitor as being a reliable guide to universal viewability is, in itself, a pretty basic professional misjudgement, especially in view of the diametrically opposed political viewpoints involved, together showing that a viable way forward out of the ecocrisis concerned still has a long way to go in escaping the chains of a long-since captured, manipulated technology (the medium is the message).
Don’t gloat? Until you haul yourself out of the depths of a narrow entrapment in the very pit that has engendered the crisis that No Deal for Nature seeks to address to somewhere close enough to the edge for you to get a sufficiently wide viewpoint to encompass some idea of the fundamental problem involved (give me one good reason why the designers of No Deal for Nature should have to waste their time fricking around physically testing any, let alone potentially scores, of physical devices, with or without the limited aid of what should be superfluous “tools” like Sizzy, that does not directly or implicitly cite precisely the same enclosure ure of the commons that, far more distastrously, is full speed ahead into the existential crisis that “It’s not our design.”
FFS, what is wrong with you? I have been making the point (for many years, since before O-G was born) that the too frequently impossible or near impossible demands of technical outsiders–business managers, advertising agents, users etc–on the design of hardware, firmware and software (including compilers, interpreters, internal and external protocols and such)–to meet their various requirements–marketing, sales, advertising, glitz, wilful technological ignorance, finance, artificial deadlines to meet reports, seasons, fashion, whatever–has created a mountain-range sized rat’s nest minefield of tangled spaghetti that no amount good intention and aquired skill will enable any individual or any conceivably affordable hardware, firmware or software team to get work out of the door without treading on eggshells, thereby courting anything from at least egg on face to at most infrastructural, financial or social disaster with every release.
Given that that’s life for system engineers, what chance do “developers” at the application level have of avoiding the manifold problems of using such shit to build their final product, from the often-trivial to the effectively insoluble?
Do you have any idea of the number of significant flaws discovered in the first releases of programmable devices that remain unfixed for the entire lifetime of the product, from v2010 to v2025, because they’re in the too hard, too expensive or too thoroughly embedded to change now category?
This is nothing to do with anybody at your level’s design, though that’s too often contributory too (“doesn’t work?…let’s try a different library” syndrome and variations thereof).
“Try not to gloat.”
Apart from the fact that it all works pretty well here, on this cheapo big print tablet, it’s absolutely dismaying that such an important website as No Deal For Nature is so widely beset by the fallout from the use of yet another wildly out of control technology, in an out of control, over financialized, over exploited, politically hegemonous society. It’s true that pushing the technological limits of such a system in pursuit of nothing more than fashionable eye candy for the numbed-brained, and apparently taking the output on the “web designer”‘s monitor as being a reliable guide to universal viewability is, in itself, a pretty basic professional misjudgement, especially in view of the diametrically opposed political viewpoints involved, together showing that a viable way forward out of the ecocrisis concerned still has a long way to go in escaping the chains of a long-since captured, manipulated technology (the medium is the message).
Don’t gloat? Until you haul yourself out of the depths of a narrow entrapment in the very pit that has engendered the crisis that No Deal for Nature seeks to address to somewhere close enough to the edge for you to get a sufficiently wide viewpoint to encompass some idea of the fundamental problem involved (give me one good reason why the designers of No Deal for Nature should have to waste their time and dissipate their energy fricking around physically “testing” any–let alone potentially scores–of physical devices, with or without the limited aid of what should be superfluous “tools” like Sizzy, that does not directly or implicitly cite precisely the same enclosure of the commons that–far, far more distastrously–No Deal for Nature seeks to avert) then what does that even mean?
Further on that line: if I only wished to gloat, which is far from my didactic intent, I would start at a much simpler level and ask you what that bullshit “Could you especially include the browser/device you’re viewing on” is good for if the problems turn out to be even slightly more subtle than trivial, in which case you should/could need to ask anything up to “which browser (platform and release)/device (make, model, firmware revision, motherboard revision) and perhaps more, just to maybe begin solve it. And take it up with increasing overlays of sarcasm from there.
As for the waspish superciliousness of your gratuitous attacks on my intent and integrity (whether they actually matter to me or not (not)) for the second time now, how fucking dare you.
Tempory confinement to a tablet resulted in a double-draft post, below. Skip to second FFS for the intended post.
As a former IT bod, I have sympathy for what you say, and in view of what seem to me to be Admin’s slightly unfair attacks on you, I feel the need to declare solidarity with you, as a fellow member of the no-longer-employed computer programmers’ trade union. (I dislike the term “coder”, clearly used here by admin, or at least often by others, in a pejorative sense; there is a lot more than “coding” to what people like me, and probably you used to do for a living, involving things like problem analysis, specification, system design, logic, and no doubt many other things I’ve forgotten. “Coding” (i.e. writing lines of non-human language in order for it to be compiled, assembled, or interpreted ultimately into bare machine code for a computer to execute, was only one aspect (although quite an interesting one for many of us).
Sounds like we were in the industry at similar times, although I went on with it well into the age of the web, and still do a bit of “webbery”, and even occasionally “coding”, for fun, profit, and keeping the mind alive.
I’m not particularly familiar with your oeuvre here on Off-G, but I assume that you and Admin must have some “history”.
“…I feel the need to declare solidarity with you…”
Thanks Mike. I have no particular problem with the word ‘coder’ when it’s used to specify the act of physically writing the programming intructions for compilation or interpretation (which can require considerable skill in itself, quite apart from the other activities you mention) except, sometimes, when it’s used to describe doing simple hypertext markup, scripting or library manipulation from a very simple program for the purpose aggrandizing these tasks, but it is certainly a word that wasn’t around a lot when I was at the sharp edge of such things.
‘…I assume that you and Admin must have some “history”.’
Not as far as I know. I’ve never knowingly had two-way contact with any of them although several months ago one(?) of them posited an outright falsehood about the content of some of my earlier comments posted over a considerable period of time and followed up with some very similar abuse. (Perhaps he or she is using a library written in Angry? 🙂
Robbobbobin used ‘you’ 13 times in one paragraph!
13 times?! Not a good number for a technojesus like me. As for my bad choice of pronoun, I got caught somewhat short when I discovered that the paper had run out and I had to rip a page out of my mental grammarian, with which to temporarily plug the gap. Unfortunately that page was… you guessed it. Would you be so kind as to remind me, apart from the reflexive case, what the plural of “you” is and I’ll do my best to remedy my post so it no longer relies on reader savoire-faire.
Agreed! Something needs to be done urgently about the website. Good ideas and images, but woefully graphicked.
100% agree. I could not bear to “read” it. Too much gloss and no apparent content (with very slow load time on Safari browser using IoS). I shan’t bother parading my credentials but have worked as a web author for approx 15 years. Very unlikely to look at it again.
“Very unlikely to look at it again.”
Assuming it will be updated as events require (after fixing), that would be a misstep if you have any real interest in keeping up with one of the more significant initiatives in these matters in our time.
Powerful imagery in the photo (above) by Mario Sanchez Nevado. It sums up well the madness of the reality of today.
“Powerful imagery in the photo (above)…”
Same old same old destructive schmaltz: ugly, bad, square-cornered industrial urbanization v wispy lovely virginal beautiful maiden nature. Well, parts of nature are as hard edged, ruthless, nasty and ugly as anything modern warfare-based industrial capitalism can produce, and then some. Time to ditch the wiffly waffly New Age Gaia is love and harmony bullshit–the paradoxical Nietzschean triumph of wishy-washy God Is Love crap over the hard sole and complicit conniving wiliness of the Roman boot–and see nature in its unified wholeness, to be protected from hegemonic, financialized, civilized us in its entirety, if only to continue to experience its scattered times and places of higher life-form benificence rather than its vicious revenge and retribution on everything we have bred and wrought.
If you did your emotional feeling first – and allowed all that you feel to move through you, then you would be able to make your point without the angry dump.
I feel you have a point but are losing it to your own reactive grievance.
The rest of this is not personally to you but to the themes your post raised in me.
The term ‘Nature’ can be and is used for so many ‘meanings’ that it becomes degraded by abuse – as is the way of all language divorced from direct experience of its territory or domain.
Beauty or joy of transcendence becomes associated with the image and conditions of its occasion – and such image and form become ‘currency’ of reference that becomes then a groupthink identity and the masking for manipulative intent – of seeming to have or be worthy, justified or natural.
Transcending conditional lures and triggers is the nature of an innocent perception.
For ‘nature’ is also used for our inner, spiritual or psychic-emotional construct of thought, perception and response.
A ‘second nature’ or learned and acquired worldview and self, operates the love-hate alloy that you point to. A false profit being driven and invisibly structured by its debts and denials.
Insofar as we are invested in a world of death, we are driven and structured by it.
So much so, that the operating system of such thinking becomes unquestionable.
However, transcendence – as a glitch in the Matrix of ‘possession and control seeking more time or ‘sustainability’ – directly reveals unto Itself what cannot be formulated or conceptualised without becoming lost in translation – and a basis for war of marketisation and weaponisation.
Some tangibly felt sense of worth or value underlies our outrage – does it not?
Or else the words simply run as systemic templates of life’s (awareness’s) subjugation as a conflict-management set over being truly moved.
When we polarise in reaction – we always throw out the baby with the bathwater – or indeed deny the firstborn nature of others, to assert our own ‘authority’ of possession and control.
We are not going to stop the romanticising and sentimentalising mind by ‘proving’ how ugly life is!
In my re-learning as alignment with ‘original nature’ – ie – unalloyed being, I see that perspective is everything – because everything reflects the perspective we have accepted as true by looking FROM there. The ability to enquire, question or observe our own thought-in-act is the art of listening through the impulse to react.
No matter how long I live I remain a beginner – because in noticing a reactive perspective is active, I have to choose a new beginning, instead of proceeding on the basis of gratifications or grievance of a past that is not here unless – like Big Brother, I stamp it on the face of the presence that would expand a future like Itself.
A world of love framed in loss of love and its fake substitution, remains a world of love – but discarded, unnoticed and unheeded to the defence against total loss (life set against death). And as you notice, the fakery of ‘presentations and manipulations’ in love’s name are false profits that peel back to reveal debts from which our concept of death may seem now a saviour – as an escaping from life as responsibility for its own thought and being by the discard and denial of the Body Politic. For being is relational and ‘thing-in-itself’ is a closed system or structure that depletes and ‘dies’.
To mean what we say is to be in the quality of Meaning as an expression of that movement.
But to possess and control life is the taking of ‘meanings’ as narrative identifications – out of context, to weave a self-and world set apart from Meaning – and thus to be set (by our own act) in a realm if conflicted and divided ‘meanings’ as ‘All the king’s horses and all the king’s men, trying to put Humpty together again.
The words themselves are not the territory. To communicate (in any real sense) is to find resonant connection in the territory – of felt and tangible qualities of life – that are never truly quantifiable.
The template of words as spells of manipulative illusion and deceit, is an interjector or alien will into and upon our natural or given and received (Created) being.
‘Sweeping out the interjector from the Temple’ is releasing allegiance to what does not belong, so as to align wholly in what DOES resonate. As noted above, this is not a matter of ‘doings’ so much as pausing from ‘doing’s so as to check in at the heart of relational honesty as to what is true here and how to or whether to respond, relate, engage or perceive and accept as both understanding and appreciation.
A peaceful breath of fresh air, binra, in the midst of the minor chord fugue playing in the comments above.Read Caitlin Johnston ICH: 2020 Is Going To Get Much Crazier. Prioritize Your Mental Health informationclearinhouse.info/52955.htm
Yes, Caitlin also reads ‘outer’ effects to ‘inner’ causes. Thanks for the links – I’ll take a look.
Better to paste links – you missed the g!
http://informationclearinghouse.info/52955.htm
“I feel you have a point but are losing it to your own reactive grievance.
The rest of this is not personally to you but to the themes your post raised in me.”
OK, then I feel I’ll skip them.
Except to say that your self-professed contact with your inner self, which seems–BICBW–to lead you to wild presumptions about others’ perceptions of their own inner selves, could be seen by at least some of those others as manipulatively offensive.
Right, I’m off. Gotta see a man about a dog.
And also, nature isn’t ‘out there’. There is no division between humanity and nature. There is only nature and thus nothing that is not natural. Cities, shopping malls and motorways are as natural as rain forests, the moon and deserts. Sickness, error and catastrophe are facets of nature because everything is. Short-term, greedy, erroneous thinking are facets of nature because everything is. To say humanity’s enterprise, creations and imagination – however unwisely applied – are somehow unnatural is rooted in the very anthropocentric hubris the environmental movement wants to end. What is needed is the decentering of humanity, a post-anthropocentric change of course towards seeing “nature in its unified wholeness”, a wholeness that is nothing less than All That Is.
And I say all this as someone wholly committed to wise, patient, long-term thinking that seeks to humbly serve biodiversity in all its glorious, messy richness.
In recognition of the inner and outer as one, I may say that any active and invested belief in the split of unrecognised and excluded, discarded and ‘externalised’ Self or Nature gives rise to an ‘unnatural’ framing definition that denies its wholeness or natural fulfilment as the drive to GET it from others or from outside – rather than extend wholeness and share in its reflections and resonances.
As an experience of lack seeking fulfilment rather than resting or balancing within All That is – as it is (arising as experience).
It can be said that even ‘unnatural’ deceits or self-illusions that conflict and divide the mind of purpose. attention and acceptance are within our natural imaginative capacity – but that doesn’t make them true, and so would they not belong to ‘All That Isn’t’?
The belief in ‘out there’ is the self and world we (generally) take to be a human life or incarnation – in the body-form of an externalised or imaged representation.
Thoughts can seem ‘outside’ the mind of the thinker – especially when they are given power of denial – by being disowned or hidden in shame or fear of pain of loss.
I feel the distinction between manufactured realities and given Reality is ALL the difference – and that our wish and capacity to fall for our own spin is an invested narrative identity. In noticing we are ‘out of our true environment’ as a result of manufacturing a private agenda and becoming entangled or seduced by our own reflection, we have the opportunity to be still and allow realignment from what is (always already) Given.
This is to say that we do not create what and who we are – but we do make self in image – and can become ‘unnaturally’ split against our Good for the sake of something that seemed good – but which in failing to attain, possess or command, we then feel deprived of or denied.
Perhaps it is the ego-centric that doesn’t truly belong while anthropocentric is the gift of extended Meaning – when HU is God (Creative), and MAN is Measure – of qualitative richness given quantitative expression in form.
It is putting our unaligned and thus unnatural thinking at the centre, that loses the Creative for the cover-story over a hollowness covered with fear, pain and loss. In a sense, the prodigal runs off with a copy mis-taken and be-lived real. The Original is un-editable inherence.
Restoring a shared and sustainable balance of wholeness calls for noticing the ‘mistaken and unnatural’ thinking as costing Meaning, while posing or presenting as desirable or necessary. I use Meaning here as the quality and context of shared or relational existence – not as ‘thing-meanings’ that shortcut a relational connection to effectively block the channel of communication.
My own sense of this is of both transparency to connected peace or joy of being – AND living the willingness to bring all that does NOT align into a free and open awareness. Many THINK they want peace – but only on their own terms of conditions – which generally set against directly reliving ‘separation trauma’ by which the mind was ‘set’ in masking persona – that is part of our ability to grow and hold the focus of our human ‘world’.
My response is to muse, as I have many times, on what constitutes existence.
You reason that deception and deceit ought to be considered part of All That Isn’t. I find myself wanting to disagree. Deceptions are real to the degree that they exist. Change is the only constant, so to qualify for existence a ‘thing’ need not be durable or somehow 100% ‘real’, it need merely to have happened in some way.
I cannot agree with the notion that there is a True Reality as distinct from various ‘inaccurate’ or ‘illusory’ realities except, perhaps, as a summation of all experiencing as it continually evolves. But the subsets of the summed superset must be ‘real’ for the superset to be ‘real’. The superset thus necessarily includes, in an ever changing way, ‘erroneous’ perceptions/interpretations. ‘Erroneous’ interpretations are still necessarily interpretations and thus information. There is nothing more real than information.
Where we err, correction will come, and that correction will be interpreted, and that interpretation cannot capture 100% of the truth of the total situation and is thus, notionally at least, erroneous to some degree. Rinse and repeat. It’s the core dynamic of evolution, a euphemism for “change is the only constant”, but in my casting here with consciousness learning as it goes, rather than mechanical, dead, laws-of-physics, negative-feedback-loop corrections in a material universe.
All that reasoned, I can now argue the ‘unnatural’ exists as an idea that will be corrected. The idea originates from, serves and defends the split you characterise in your opening paragraph. As we know, humanity is deeply invested in its hubris, in its anthropocentrism, sees huge stored wealth and power in its massive, millennia-long investment, so the correction will not come lightly, will be kept at bay for as long as humanly possible.
On HU as God and MAN as God’s creativity given concrete form: There’s more to concrete form than humanity alone; it’s ego-arrogance to believe otherwise. There is the rest of nature, where nature anyway extends out to include God as creativity, love, etc. Distinctions are a fundamental element of how information is possible in the first place, pain-born splits are not, nor is hubris. But as we draw distinctions, we say as much, if not more, about ourselves than we do about the ‘external’ reality we analyse via those distinctions. But so it must go. It’s all grist for the mill, all part of All That Is…
Surely Existence only Is . That is its (timeless) Universal quality or attribute. It has no other. One can state this as ‘I Am That I Am’ (A Name of God) or as you did, in stating there IS no separation (from the nature of Is). But there is seeming to be, as a result of self-definition by which to experience the ‘reality’ of our extended thought – as World or Universe.
Thus ‘I am human’ or ‘I am alive’ ‘I am here’ I am typing’ are limiting and excluding definitions by which to focus through thought and open or unfold and share in the experience it brings.
The downside of habitual focus is the discarded background or context and the identification in our self-image becomes similar to identity in a screen persona – excepting on the screen of our consciousness – as a frame or lens of interpretation.
Deceit is illusion in which appearances are taken to be something they are not and are EXPERIENCED as real – that is – they are experienced as replacing truth with adulterated and derivative reality construct instead of truth – which is unadulterated as distinct from formulated.
Truth is not separate or conflicted – and so the focus of the particular is not separated from the Infinite (All That Is)
Truth then is not in the realm of phenomenal change but in recognition of transparency to Is or Being – which is formless and yet gives rise to forms.
When self-image generates a sense of self conflict, it substitutes truth with self-reinforcement set against ‘external’ reality. You are presuming Hu-Man or the Measure of All That Is – as persons or homo-sapiens – I am pointing to the Soul of Conscious or Living Universe – of which there is no ‘Other’,
Mistaking a level of construct or effect, as an agency of Cause is the investment in self-illusion by which Love comes to here to die – because illusions do not rest in truth but require protection and reinforcement to be maintained – and so they are temporary.
Much of what WE think is error may be true – and much of what WE think or hold true may be in error. Peace is the test of truth, for if no part of you is in conflict with or coercive over any other, you are wholly aligned in whatever you are giving attention to.
If there is in truth nothing separate – then the state of Total Communication is always true – but our willingness to receive it may be deferred by generating our own meanings – that conflict with or wrap conflict into packages of doublethink – so as to deny truth while we engage in something we give priority to something ‘else’. Put this in terms of denying that which truly moves us such that we become a masked artifice of personal gain or protection.
Truth is the always already flow of being – within itself. But truth in the world is conformed and compliant to the framing of the world.
It isn’t a value judgement on making or discerning distinctions, so much as an embracing awareness of THAT we are doing so – such as to recognise the fruits of our sowing (thought) rather than believe reality is actually OUT there. We will always be in an opportunity to open an embracing context because nothing is real in itself or to put in terms of ‘unseparateness’ – nothing exists in and of itself alone and apart.
The implications of a living reality’ as distinct from a conceptual construct given ‘life as preferred meaning’, is to be truly moved – or unselfconsciously in the flow of (being no more and no less than who and what we are).
Therefore the wisdom is not so much ‘thinking’ as it is of taking no thought for self – or indeed ‘the bridegroom cometh when ye thinketh not. Because getting out of our own way allows the already Living to register with us as a perspective of ‘correction’ to thought-errors that can indeed recycle and self-reinforce.
I didn’t say ‘concrete’ form. I see more of a dance of fluid interrelationships.
Form as a tangibility and visibility of relation. The setting of the mind in exclusive terms is the loss of humanity to a machine.
To intuit upstream is not the same as looking at the realm of effects. The thought we accept and identify in determines all downstream effects.
The More of Who we Are is hidden in large part as ‘others’, ‘world’ and worlds beyond our current measure – but such ‘Self’ has nothing to do with this notion of possession and control – which can NEVER get enough and is never so powerful as to be free of the fear of dispossession and loss of control – though we may compartmentalise or repackage our fears like Bankers hide toxic debts – so as to dump onto ‘other’ or ‘world’.
I don’t look to agree or disagree – but invite intuitive pondering in the themes. In human terms, truth is an alignment and thus a willingness to stop and listen. What comes through is then more aligned with who you know and accept yourself to be as distinct from who you thought you were. This is a responsibility for decision and not merely sitting on the fence of thinking about or deciding NOT to decide by running on inherited defaults of old choices made perhaps under confusion or from a specific set of limitations that are no longer applicable.
We appear to be talking past each other, but I can’t quite tell.
I believe I disagree with this, and with your general thrust that – as I understand you – draws a distinction between Being as an unchanging and eternal ‘something’ on the one hand, and ever changing (illusory, transitory) phenomena on the other. I don’t see it that way. I see the latter contained in the former, one formulation of which is evolution. When I say evolution here and above, I don’t mean of life on earth, but evolution of consciousness, which includes life on earth and everything else. Consciousness is All That Is, in my view.
That Is or Being may be “formless” – which I don’t agree with since the forms it gives rise to are ‘contained within’ it – subsets of the superset – isn’t a very potent observation to me, in that I don’t see it as particularly helpful or meaningful. I can see the logic behind the assertion, a logic that begins with your opening paragraph, but cannot take it beyond the wordplay it seems to be. Being’s notional formlessness becomes moot, in my view, as soon as we accept that Being (synonymous with All That Is?) ‘contains’ or entails countless forms. All are patternings that are always evolving and changing, which then means by extension that Being is in constant change too, and thus subject to time. Change without time is impossible since change needs before and after.
My sense is that your logic suggests perception itself is somehow a root problem of some kind. I am reminded of that generalised advocacy to not be attached to ‘material’ things – which are transitory and thus ‘problematic’ – but to reach instead for the unchanging, the Infinite. I’ve never really agreed with that line of reasoning. What’s wrong with transitory? To me, if All That Is were totally changeless, featureless, it would be a logical impossibility for there to be anything to perceive, as perception requires difference/change. Consciousness is in essence about perception/awareness/experience: without any differences to make perception/awareness possible, what would consciousness be? And perception is never 100% ‘accurate’ of that which is perceived, hence ‘illusion’ is always involved to some degree. It’s baked into the consciousness cake, so to speak.
At root, information is perceivable difference, but is also anything and everything, the very ‘stuff’ of All That Is. Love, by way of example, is information: it is distinct from notLove, ever changing, can be given, shared, experienced, etc. As awareness, consciousness is the ‘business’ of creating and experiencing and sharing information with and through Self as composed of all souls/entities/whatevers. Simple logic perhaps, but hopefully it explains my thinking, my insistence on phrases like “change is the only constant” and “information is discernible difference”.
And thus I have no particular interest in the Changeless. To me, ‘Nirvana’ would be boring if it were utterly featureless, i.e., without any quality whatsoever and thus unperceivable. The notion strikes me as impossible, for the reasons I sketched out above. However, my own path is to not be attached to outcomes and ‘things’, but to become Love as best I’m able, and be wholly engaged in life. For me, this path is a reflection of consciousness as it evolves, both severally as souls and singularly as the summed continuous interactivity of those souls: All That Is.
I find these conversations almost impossible to keep coherent online. They are much better face to face in my view. I hope I haven’t grossly misunderstood your position, and I also hope I have made an adequate attempt to sketch out mine. It may well be that our general positions are alike – more Love, less fear 😉 – but that the finer detail is rendered through us, as unique entities, quite differently. Which is a beautiful thing!
Yes its impossible to talk such things without common experience via verbal concept – without getting the wrong end of the stick.
Concepts divide and rule-set a realm of division. Our predicate is that there is nothing really separated and existing in and of itself – but there is a way to believe and perceive it so.
The ego sense of self in image and form and can be seen as a ‘love of form’ or acceptance of form as if Reality as opposed to the recognition of life through the form.
This is the core ‘separation’ fallacy – that things are meanings in themselves. When in truth everything has all the meaning you give it.
Love’s Meaning is unconflicted – but much more than this is that love automatically or naturally radiates of extends (gives’ itself) to All That Is – and meets the resonant reflection as ‘knowing its is Good’ – none of which need any special conceptual understandings to operate.
The realm of most OG discussion is of deceits in which the forms and appearances of life are used to mask in, and phish the mind as identity theft or belief thief.
The antidote to deceit – self or other – is firstly Peace – because the undivided are not seeking ‘outside themselves’ so much as unfolding purpose of alignment in who they are. But secondly vigilance against a false peace or mistaken identification in self-conflict. Pride or false assurance – comes before a fall.
That is all a matter of transparency or self-honesty of looking within – which as you are intimating you understand is looking out and seeing it tells you all about YOU – and not all about ‘them’.
What is the value of the formless and timeless?
Whenever you are suffering pain, conflict, fear, loss, and all the progeny of a negative or separative sense of denial or deprivation – yield now and fully to being – to All That Is – as the releasing of your own invested meanings and outcomes. Every moment literally is a New Creation – but we rarely see with Innocent eyes if we are invested in narratives of attempt to resolve a past upon the present into the future such as to always miss the time and timing of our lives.
So yes, fragmentation is engaged in its own humptydumpty attempts to become love – instead of letting love be through this moment as it is – exactly as it is.
The idea of becoming love is the belief you are NOT Now.
The unfolding of an expansion of recognition is not really becoming loving, so much as removing the blocks to love’s awareness now – but of course we can take the journey and process of our beliefs – and shall in any case. The freedom is in knowing your purpose. The ideas we accept as resonant match to our core sense of self and life, we hold true and experience our reality through them – whether they are unconscious, invisible structures of frozen fear or a creative interplay of relational wonder.
The former leads to the privatisation of Nature as an act of possession and control, the latter uncovers resonances of communication in what seemed ‘chaotic’ that serve the kind of order we see in biology or biota – in which unified purpose aligns seemingly separate, or conflicting parts.
The reason I feel this cannot be taught is because the human mind is trained to usurp spiritual function – as in painting the roses red or adding legs to a snake. IE: it is a matter of recognising blocks to awareness so as to no longer DO or give identity and allegiance to them – rather than special DOing.
We can of course become willing to learn, and the way to learn is practice.
But while we are embodied – do, we must. So the way in which we do and the purpose to which we dedicate or align in – is everything. Can the Universe was dishes through you – who are also the dishes, the splash of water and the unbounded space of awareness in which every instant of noticing rises to fall away.
Anyone who rests in the flow of their work, or play knows that timelessness is in some sense within and yet embracing time. Only verbal mental concepts fragment a Continuum into conflict.
If we can learn this in our ordinary day, we may start to see its potential in the Big Illusions – but note – truth undoes all illusion equally. It is our attachment that makes some illusions ‘too big to fail’ hence truth (the living) has to be sacrificed that a lie can stamp a narrative dictate on in its face.
I have no doubt I would enjoy your company in a wider context that ‘text boxes’ – and as I said i feel for intuitive resonances – not constructing towers of thought as if to reach to a heaven that is already with us – but not in the terms of conditions of a conditioned mind-set.
“> Truth then is not in the realm
> of phenomenal change but in recognition
> of transparency to Is or Being – which is
> formless and yet gives rise to forms.
I believe I disagree with this, and with your general thrust that – as I understand you – draws a distinction between Being as an unchanging and eternal ‘something’ on the one hand, and ever changing (illusory, transitory) phenomena on the other. I don’t see it that way.”
Nor have various other perceptions outside of the Abrahamic.
“I see the latter contained in the former, one formulation of which is evolution. When I say evolution here and above, I don’t mean of life on earth, but evolution of consciousness, which includes life on earth and everything else. Consciousness is All That Is, in my view.”
To the objection that humanity has evolved beyond the concept of God, an ABL commentator (and working scientist) on the ‘great ideas’-type site concerned (location lost) noted that ‘God is evolving too’.
“My sense is that your logic suggests perception itself is somehow a root problem of some kind.”
My assessment of the deeply reactionary nature of binra’s seriously problematic postings, too. There used to be a long-time BTLer here, Maggie, who used to explode with unexplained rage every time his accidental pseudonym appeared. More recently his toxic, opiate outpourings have begun to irritate me too.
“However, my own path is to not be attached to outcomes and ‘things’, but to become Love as best I’m able…”
Why? What is this ‘Love’ with a capital ‘L’?
I’m not irritated. Though, as a phrase, I’m quite fond of “opiate outpourings”.
“Nor have various other perceptions outside of the Abrahamic.”
I’m not sure which you might mean, as my shallow sense of the philosophies of e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism and Zen seem to postulate such an ‘eye of the storm’, unchanging stillness at the heart of All That Is. My disagreement is with placing this stillness on a pedestal, as it were, plus some logical issues I have with things like infinity and timelessness.
What is Love? That is indeed the question. To begin with the capital L: it’s a convention to distinguish Love (unconditional, adult, grown up) from love (romantic, immature, insecure). However, love is unconditional or it isn’t love. Romantic love is just a window onto love proper, a prelude. But because we don’t have two words for the job, a capital L quickly suffices.
As for the Why? … Choosing love is, for me, synonymous with choosing health, so being guided in my choices by it leads to better/healthier outcomes for all concerned, and to a joyous existence, to put it very simply. Love itself is what consciousness becomes by way of its defining quality as we remove all belief and fear. A handy metaphor is a tuning fork that cannot sing due to all the crap stuck to it. The more clean we get the tuning fork, the more it sings. Love is a natural ’emanation’ of consciousness uncluttered with fear, ego and belief. Or at least, that’s how I picture it. In that ‘clean’ state, one’s concern is then helping others to the degree one can, without judgement, without mothering, without micro-managing etc., and fully respectful of the free will and uniqueness of each and every path or vector that every other consciousness evolves along.
These Green business types were gathering at Davos recently: it is also a new ploy to save the Greenback.
The US dollar is held up by Sunni Arab oil & gas reserves plus the US stock market. The latter is on life support of QExx by the FED: bottomless printing. https://www.keiserreport.com/
The US dollar is controlled by that group yeshiva, the Federal Reserve, a concatenation of a dozen or so private banks, nearly all controlled by elite Jewish interests. You should be proud, Antsie, and brag of your tribal power.
Hallelujah.
Finally something to smack, my sjw xr Greta goddess worshiping, Assange is rapist, Corbyn is judaeo phobic, believing friends, around the heads with a dead fish.
Carbon credits were on the Chicago exchanges and made a few people very rich.
Credit default swaps made the banks too big to fail.
95% of humans got screwed everytime.
Maybe with the collapse of empire and rise of the new one it may yet fail to launch.
Al Gore trousered a cool $500 million from the Chicago Climate Exchange before it folded. There’s a lot of money in saving the planet for the Global Warming Brigade.
Just leave the little people to pick up the bill.
That, if it happened, doesn’t change the science.
This simply illustrates yet again that the neo-liberal capitalist system is just neo-feudalism. The aim of this end-stage shifting of the antimacassars on the deck-chairs will be, as always, profit maximisation and neoplastic growth, precisely the opposite of what is required. I rather suspect, in fact strongly, that the global overlords intend destroying Nature, to eliminate the ‘useless eaters’, then they expect to be able to repair the devastation with high-tech means and methods, but without 90% or so of the present human population. My maxim is to think the worst of the ruling psychopaths, then sit back and be astounded as they exceed expectations.
“…shifting of the antimacassars on the deck-chairs…”
Very good. In fact, even better than.
Catte…. Thank you! Just had a look at the site Nodealfornature, and it looks the perfect antidote for those who are fawning at the feet of Greta Thunberg, who has just been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously.
They are herding the masses like sheep to the slaughterhouse, and sadly, Greta Thunberg is yet another Trojan Horse for these evil bastards.
All with their eyes on Trillions $$$$.
Check out the documentary Banking On Nature (2015) to witness for yourselves the mindset of these Neoliberal zombies.
Nothing matters but making money. Of anything and everyone.
I don’t know when I first stumbled across Cory Morningstar and her Wrong Kind Of Green site, but when one spends ages on the internet looking for the truth of how our World operates, sooner or later you come across sites like Wrong Kind Of Green.
Appreciate your work also, and the links.
Yes-until Greta denounces the capitalist cancer consuming Life of Earth, she must be suspect. However, if she did, her denunciation would be covered up, and she would suddenly disappear from public view, like so many others.
It already happened: around Katowice …just over a year ago. Speculation was that Greta got talking to Kevin Anderson: and went on to denounce the ‘1%’. Then her Avaaz-type managers disappeared any such reference. She has gone off script a few times: most notably recently when she said they should all be ”put up against the wall”. Which was quickly rectified as a translation error. Apparently: she meant ”put under the spotlight”. I think she got it right first time.
Very interesting. Poor child.
Like Malala Yousafzai for example as she advocated socialism and criticised US imperialism and poverty?
All the slightly to the Left of Hillary Luvvies dropped her like a hot potato.
Funny how the Western ‘media’ literally disappeared her as well, aye.
The same would also happen to Greta. As you say.
I’m not questioning Greta’s sincerity, but the Neoliberal Sharks surrounding her don’t Really care about the environment.
They only Care about the vast fortunes; maybe trillions to be made from this attempt at saving the Capitalist system itself.
Why do you think there’s so much coverage in the mainstream media, and that the same celebrity zombies who were once falling over Malala are now falling over Greta.
There’s a dark agenda behind the curtain, out of sight. There are so many gatekeepers out there Richard, But I trust what Cory Morningstar says. She does a huge amount of work in detailing the activities of these bastards.
Malala keeps wearing a headscarf although supposingly shot by Taliban. She never criticizes attacks on non Muslim girls in Pakistan, only in India.
She is a puppet for the Pakistani ISI.
More Islamophobic hatred drooling out of the resident Zionassty.
Which I chose not to answer – you did it for me…
I’m your burakumin Gezz-I clean up the shite that they fling at you, so you don’t need to.
Have you tried to access this site? I’m still waiting…
I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t under a DDoS attack by the evil ass clowns over at Silly Con Valley. This is how they go after actual grass roots movements as opposed to astro turf.
The UN obviously has become totally corrupt if they are embracing this neoliberalism as policy. Obviously they’ve been bought off by the got bucks elitists AKA 1% who consider themselves Masters of the Universe.
This R2P BS which is just colonialism by any other name tells one exactly where they’re are going or think they’re going.
They are using (very nice) videos as a background which makes webpage loading slow. Nice videos but they could have used still photos from these recordings to the same effect.
Recommended: To put the videos on separate pages to better showcase the talents of the photographer.
+1
The Establishment controlling oligopoly of the Western Empire actually lost control of global Finance & Central Fractional Reserve Banking cartels when they realized their misguided partisan zealotry led them to actually believe in the macroeconomic tripe that Dr. Alan Greenspan was feeding them en masse for decades on end as their “Maestro” of Central Banking & Wall Street asset inflation. Greenspan was their Finance demigod until Glass-Stealgall Act deregulation manifested nine years after Greenspan deregulated it with assistance from his elite peers in _The Committee to Save the World_ [see Time Mag] et al.
If UN bureaucracy cannot rebuild the Western Empire of Fractional Reserve Banking with the pseudoscientific rehabilitative proactive stance of Carbon Sequestration & Climate Engineering they will have admit defeat in terms of control over Macroeconomic Finance & Macroprudential Policy as a governance tool to justify their top down controlling adhocracy.
If you cannot accept the fact that the American Government was rendered insolvent and bankrupt post Lehman Moment you will never fully understand that the whole of the Western empire was destroyed in the wake of the weapons of mass destruction that let loose to take the entire Western empire down as a defunct atrophied old so-called ‘superpower’. Today, the entire USA is only existing on debt & a future of Carbon Based Trading in the new synthetic growth model of pseudoscientific ‘Climate Change’.
Building a new macroeconomy for their derivatives nightmare is the only choice they have to justify their adhocracy & overarching ‘authoritarian’ rule. They will sell their new economy to the world in the same way they learned to sell the world iPhones, Hula-hoops, Frisbees, & baseball.
If you don’t like the shitty deal call God.
MOU
“Pseudoscientific climate change”? Do you think it isn’t changing, then? Have you been living for years in a deep coal mine? If so, try coming up and taking a look around, with prejudices on ice, and common-sense at maximum setting. (Sorry in advance if I’m misinterpreting you.:) )
Volcanic activity under Antarctica is melting the Antarctic Ice Shield. Geological activity is making certain that the temperature of Planet Earth is on a trajectory of likely & probable climate disaster worldwide due to the melting of the Antarctic Ice Shield & increasing global temperature.
The old defunct elite of Finance are classic opportunists that have already brainstormed what they will do to continue controlling global Finance even if it means inventing causal connections to global climate so that they can commoditize the buy in for all populations.
They are skilled enough in Experimental Psychology to know that they have to launch pseudoscientific ‘Climate Change’ as being a worldwide superordinate goal for all people and all governments. Global capture gives them their justification for neo-oligopoly & central banking renewal for a short time until even that blows up in their collectively dense brains for yet another synthetic form of central banking growth that they need to survive as fraudulent central banking so-called ‘authorities’ of macroeconomic Finance.
I know more about the calculus & mathematics behind their new quest for worldwide domination & hegemony than they do. Simply, they are confidence men & women that will sell you on their new plans of elite banker largesse to the extent of brainwashing & central banking mind control that is issued via MSM & anti-social media.
Even Internet Social Media pretends that the USA is not completely bankrupt & insolvent.
I assure you that the entire edifice of USA centric central banking is completely finished & insolvent to the core of the Pentagon missing trillions USD.
America is broke but still quite willing to sell you the con that they are still in the game as long as you are dumb enough to fall for the ruse.
Wall Street is programmed to steal your money and that of your neighbours’ too.
Kill or be killed is the Wall Street ethos.
I was raised to kill Wall Street.
MOU
You cannot argue with a denialist. It is an article of their paranoid faith that science and reality are simply conspiracies, cooked up by the global overlords, to mysterious ends. That this obscurantist dogma is, in fact, itself a propaganda machine created by the overlords to protect capitalism and the tens of trillions in fossil fuel assets and the petrodollar in particular, is beyond their capacity to understand.
One aim of No Deal for Nature is pointing out how corporate interests have co-opted the Green movement. Inevitably this includes creating fake fear stories and simplified narratives in order to sell their phoney solutions. This means we can’t simply accept every aspect of the mainstream climatd narrative uncritically. It turns out the situation is nuanced and non-binary. Who knew.
This is not denialism!
To use the existence of the ruling capitalist powers to assert, without evidence, that climate science is fraudulent is a nonsensical position to take. Quite clearly the global overlords have FAR more invested in fossil fuels, valued in the tens of trillions in assets, and which underpin the entire global financial system, and the US petro-dollar, the key to US economic hegemony, than they have in climate science and its consequences.
Climate science can only be questioned, as it must be, by science and facts, not paranoid conspiracy goobledegook, most of it concocted by denialists paid for by the fossil fuel and Rightwing ideological interests. The denialists have come up with NO scientific rebuttals to the science, just assertions, like MOU’s that it is all ‘pseudoscience’ when it is not. As for capitalists exploiting the climate crisis-that is a given, but does not alter the basic scientific facts, facts that concern the very existence of our species. Not accepting every aspect of the science is fair enough, if your aim is to improve the theory, but the reject it all as ‘pseudoscience’ is another thing entirely.
Geological time is much longer than the entire scientific & empirical era.
Climate Science is an oxymoron empirically speaking. Science is not old enough to grasp geologic time. Moreover, science has no frontal cortex and cannot plan or foresee the future. Science & technology is not even advanced enough to conduct quantum computing to the extent that a human being’s central nervous system can.
The edifice of empirical deduction & empirical scientific discovery is vastly inferior to myself, and others.
MOU
What happened in geological time, at periods like the End Permian and the PETM, tells us what will happen in the near future. Science tells us, with high confidence, that four of the previous mass extinction events were caused by ‘hot-house Earth’ conditions, caused by forcings of greenhouse gases into the troposphere, and the consequent derangement of the planet’s heat balance. And the current, anthropogenic, forcing is greater and more rapid that any of the others.
The original poster implied that the dramatic, exponential rise in ‘greenhouse gases’ was not a–or the–major factor in the melting of Antarctic ice sheets (“…em>inventing causal connections to global climate…”) and proposed instead the well-known but still, for Antarctica, very inadequately tested and modelled (and certainly not certain or even a likely possibility (only)) that the principle driver of that phenomenon is sub-surface vulcanism (“Volcanic activity under Antarctica is melting the Antarctic Ice Shield. Geological activity is making certain…)”
And that, as yet, is denial. Denial followed by self-aggrandizing, half-cognized, barely absorbed, purely suppositionary, wildly over-asserted (and therefore) bullshit.
MOU is the same pompously, self-important crap artist that he was when he first started posting and told us he sat at the conference tables of the high and mighty. That is before his veneer slipped and he turned out to be just another headbanger with inbuilt loudspeakers, rattling the stones in his brain.
As for the rest of your intervention, that the ‘ruling elites’ are, for the most part, the same vicious, clinically narcissistic, manipulative, voraciousy greedy and opportunistic, lying, thieving, predatory, unmitigated sociopathic areseholes that they always were, only now empowered by amplification technologies with planetary-wide powers of obliteration and destruction: well, Duh…
I direct the conferences of global Finance from afar, man. I’m too cool to attend conferences of the lowly so-called ‘high & mighty’ as they are beneath me when it comes to epistemological understanding & knowhow of Macroeconomics, Quantum Physics, & Behavioural Finance.
You are merely talking shit as per usual, eh.
Worldwide capture of Finance is wholly my domain, and always has been.
There is only one MASTER OF UNIVERSE and I’m it.
MOU
“I direct the conferences of global Finance from afar, man. I’m too cool to attend conferences of the lowly so-called ‘high & mighty’ as they are beneath me when it comes to epistemological understanding & knowhow of Macroeconomics, Quantum Physics, & Behavioural Finance.”
I know. I just, until now, missed the telekinesis bit.
“You are merely talking shit as per usual, eh.”
‘From afar’ being from New Zealand?
“There is only one MASTER OF UNIVERSE and I’m it.”
There’s another one that I’d missed. I’d assumed (reasonably in my opinion) that it was ‘MASTER OF UNIV’ and that ‘MASTER OF UNIV’
was some sort of intern/apprentice. Sorry about that, but the book has seemed (does seem) to match the cover in it’s relative unimpressiveness.
Second that Admin! I say, as so often, approach it all with **open-minded** scepticism. The truth can be teased out, mostly, though with some uncertainties which just have to be endured. It’s doable!
Of course climates change constantly over time: thirty years is a second on the Geological clock. The rest of Nature also is not frozen: constant evolutions and sometimes extinctions.
It is exactly denial-ism to believe the opposite.
I suppose it rather goes against the Talmud’s assurance that the world belongs to your tribe, to the detriment of all the other Moabites, Midianites, Jebusites, Palestinians and the rest, to see all that lovely property crumbling before your eyes. Perhaps God doesn’t exist after all, and your supremacist delusions are just ancient pipe-dreams.
“Of course climates change constantly over time: thirty years is a second on the Geological clock.”
So how many ticks and how much change in hominid-sustaning parameters since hominids emerged to need sustenance? Since mammals in general predominated?
Global Warming is the newest fastest growing quack religion, like Scientology or the Moonies or the Reverend Jim Jones.
There are even websites where you can “confess” your global warming “sins” and seek absolution after a suitable penance that usually involves giving global warming scam artists your money.
What gives the game away (IMO), is the way that no one is allowed to question any part of the Climate Alarmist story. If you do, you are not treated like a healthy sceptic (and all scientists should be sceptics), you are treated like a religious heretic. You have offended the great Goddess Gaia, and her priestess St Greta, and the ancient prophet D’v’d ‘ttnb’r’gh (blessed be he).
One reason why scientists must be sceptics is that their fellow scientists are only human, as are they themselves. It’s very easy to “get married to your theory” and do all to protect it. This is why before papers are published, they are sent out for “peer review”, so that in theory, new theories can be critically and impartially examined, before publication is allowed. Unfortunately, there are all sorts of problems with what “peer review” has become, and even mainstream science is now acknowledging that it is often not working as intended.
Then there is the ever-present risk of scientific fraud, whether it consists of “tweaking” of data to match the theory, or outright falsification. Even without actual fraud, published papers can still be wrong, and one study claimed that most of them are:
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
So, when anyone says “the science is settled”, it is time to be ultra sceptical. There is no such thing as settled science, so anyone who claims that it is, is not speaking scientifically. Similarly, the phrase “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron. Science is not done by consensus. It’s done by an iterative series of: observation: theorising;experimentation; measurement of data;analysis of data; comparison of results to theory; repeat. Consensus means a generally held opinion. And that’s why “scientific consensus” is an oxymoron, because science does not deal in opinions, but in observations (facts), and theories to explain those facts.
There can be different interpretations of facts, which can appear a little like opinions, but interpretations need to be supported by established scientific laws. Of course, that’s more difficult in the “soft sciences” where the “laws” are a bit iffy in the first place. But even the so-called “hard sciences” can have their problems.
However, when Einstein proposed that the laws of motion established by Newton did not apply as one approached the speed of light, he was not accused of being a “denialist” (what a silly, stupid, brainless, offensive word that is) of Newton’s laws. He was met with scepticism at first, of course, as well he might be but gradually his Theories of Relativity were accepted.
In his turn, he had great difficulty in accepting (much later) the theories of Quantum Mechanics, by Bohr and others. Apparently there were heated exchanges between Einstein and Bohr, but I like to think that neither of them would have called each other by silly names, even though Einstein did allow himself the emotional outburst that “God does not play dice with the universe” (even if he didn’t believe in God, as far as we know).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-03793-2
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/reading-into-albert-einsteins-god-letter
From the Nature article:
Certainly true in the case of climate science. Unfortunately, we also have to be somewhat circumspect about the data, especially the proxy sources of historical climate data, such as tree rings, and even ice cores. And modern sources of temperature data are also not without their own problems.
It was the US National Academy of Sciences that declared anthropogenic climate destabilisation ‘settled science’. If forced to choose between that august body (and ALL the other Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth, without exception)and denialists, I find it any easy choice.
Q.1 – Yep. Q.2 – Yep. Q.3 – Nope.
Still waiting for the New Ice Age “all the scientists” were promising us years ago.
As I have pointed out before, ‘all the scientists’ were NEVER promising a New Ice Age. A few were, but even then, forty years ago, they were greatly outnumbered those predicting a warming. Even the oil companies knew it at the time, as did LBJ who lectured the Congress on the dangers, in 1965.