Daniel Pinchbeck, How Soon is Now, Heavy-Handed Climate Apocalypse Stuff |343|

The reactions to this interview are exactly what I expected when I saw Alex had interviewed Daniel Pinchbeck.

The arguments against AGW always seem to involve ignoring vast amounts of data, being selective with which sources you believe, and a belief in some sort of 'global agenda' by 'them' (who is 'them'?) and a refusal to acknowledge the amount of money to be made from large corporations from not taking climate change seriously. Barely any country has made any real serious effort to tackle climate change, and fossil fuel industries are still very large and powerful. You don't think Oil companies don't stand to gain from the denial or inaction on climate change?

I think we also need to take related issues seriously, if we don't take AGW seriously, we ignore the overuse of finite resources, the amount of people killed by air pollution, and the fact we have an unsustainable economy and food system. I know some people don't believe in ocean acidification - people who have been to the Great Barrier Reef disagree, but what do my globalist friends know huh!?!

Somebody mentioned the biggest cause of deforestation is cutting down trees for biofuel, it's not, it's trees cut down for animal agriculture. Our love for beef is destroying the amazon rainforest.

At the end of the day most people much smarter then me who are just normal people accept AGW, no real serious effort has been made to tackle it, and if we don't tackle it and it's real, we lose much more then if we do do something about it.
 
This version of Marxism can only exist in someone's head if they never bothered to read any Marx.

I read Marx when I was a Communist in 9th grade.

I can tell you are unfamiliar with both History and Systems Theory.

"The purpose of a system is what it does. This is a basic dictum. It stands for bald fact, which makes a better starting point in seeking understanding than the familiar attributions of good intention, prejudices about expectations, moral judgment, or sheer ignorance of circumstances."

This book will help you begin to learn who set up Marxist systems around the world, and why:

https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X

51NLJ9x8hyL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 
Based upon both history and what I see in the world today, I think Marxism is an improved slave management system installed by Oligarchs to extract resources from the Proletariat so they can live comfortably and further their goal of a One-World totalitarian government run by Elites claiming to be a benevolent Intellectual Class.

Of course, I know this account probably differs from the schooling you received from the Fabians at Oxford.

This version of Marxism can only exist in someone's head if they never bothered to read any Marx.

Everything you described above completely goes against Marx's writings. Where did you get this from? Whoever or wherever you are getting this from is fooling you.

Actually Charlie made an insightful comment and he was spot on, namely that so-called intellectuals (such as Marx) tell workers what to do. Marxism is a globalist system ("workers of the world unite") that takes advantage of genuine grievances caused by the globalists themselves.

This follows the typical tactic: problem, reaction, solution.

It's the same type of trick the globalists use with so-called "global warming" (now called "climate change"). Said globalists fly around in squadrons of private jets telling us peasants what to do. They own companies that destroy the environment (Problem), then they hype it up in the media (to get a Reaction), and their Solution is a global tax system.
 
I read Marx when I was a Communist in 9th grade.

I can tell you are unfamiliar with both History and Systems Theory.

"The purpose of a system is what it does. This is a basic dictum. It stands for bald fact, which makes a better starting point in seeking understanding than the familiar attributions of good intention, prejudices about expectations, moral judgment, or sheer ignorance of circumstances."

This book will help you begin to learn who set up Marxist systems around the world, and why:

https://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X

51NLJ9x8hyL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Re-read it then. We've never had actual Marxism or actual Communism (I'm not even a Communist or a Marxist by the way).

There are no Marxist systems, the closest we get is things like universal health care, but please point me to America helping the ordinary Russian workers seize and control the means of production.
 
Actually Charlie made an insightful comment and he was spot on, namely that so-called intellectuals (such as Marx) tell workers what to do. Marxism is a globalist system ("workers of the world unite") that takes advantage of genuine grievances caused by the globalists themselves.

This follows the typical tactic: problem, reaction, solution.

It's the same type of trick the globalists use with so-called "global warming" (now called "climate change"). Said globalists fly around in squadrons of private jets telling us peasants what to do. They own companies that destroy the environment (Problem), then they hype it up in the media (to get a Reaction), and their Solution is a global tax system.

You're changing what 'globalist' means in this comment to suit whatever point you feel you're making. By 'globalist' you mean Elites who control everything and try to influence ordinary people to do what they say. Marxism and Communism is about ordinary workers owning and controlling the means of production - which completely goes against the Globalism you're talking about here.

Its frustrating to see posters changing what Marxism actually is to suit their theory of the world.

And oh no a tax system! I'd much prefer to take the risk on climate change and continue to let millions of people die from air pollution, have an unfit food system, continue overconsuming resources, and continue destroying the natural environment, that'll show those damn globalists ;).
 
Re-read it then. We've never had actual Marxism or actual Communism (I'm not even a Communist or a Marxist by the way).

There are no Marxist systems, the closest we get is things like universal health care, but please point me to America helping the ordinary Russian workers seize and control the means of production.

Why do self described Marxists always get Marxism wrong?
 
...a belief in some sort of 'global agenda' by 'them' (who is 'them'?)

Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.jpg


and a refusal to acknowledge the amount of money to be made from large corporations from not taking climate change seriously.

Big oil makes more money with cap and trade. Enron pioneered the scheme in the 90's with cap and trade on SO2. They drove competition out of business increasing market share and made more money on trades. We might know even more about this if it weren't for the fact the SEC's investigation files on Enron blew up in WTC7 on 9/11.

I think we also need to take related issues seriously, if we don't take AGW seriously, we ignore the overuse of finite resources, the amount of people killed by air pollution, and the fact we have an unsustainable economy and food system.

I agree we live with finite resources and need to find ways to get out of this system. But lying to people on a mass scale to sell them on a solution to a problem which very likely does not exist which was developed by rich corrupt globalists interested in consolidating wealth and control... is not the way to fix legitimate environmental issues. In many respects I agree with Pinchbeck's notion that we need to think outside the box, and need a new monetary system, and need to live in balance moving away from so many pathological aspects of our current system. No real change will happen unless we have honesty.

Honesty and trust is something Jordan Peterson has been harping on because of his studies of the Soviet and Nazi systems and how everything went horribly wrong... it boils down to a fundamental lack of honesty and trust (and other elements too of course). That's why Climategate 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, x.x are important. They reveal a fundamental dishonesty and deception at the bottom of Climate science... and it's no wonder with governments pumping billions into climate science and Dr Evils like Soros and Gates running around pulling strings.
 
"Samsara is Nirvana"

According to Mahayana Buddhism, yes. According to Theravadan Buddhism, no.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
Dhamma and Non-duality
by
Bhikkhu Bodhi
...
The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective. The validity of conventional dualities is denied because the ultimate nature of all phenomena is emptiness, the lack of any substantial or intrinsic reality, and hence in their emptiness all the diverse, apparently opposed phenomena posited by mainstream Buddhist doctrine finally coincide: "All dharmas have one nature, which is no-nature."

The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit within the Buddha's discourses. At the same time, however, I would not maintain that the Pali Suttas proposedualism,the positing of duality as a metaphysical hypothesis aimed at intellectual assent. I would characterize the Buddha's intent in the Canon as primarily pragmatic rather than speculative, though I would also qualify this by saying that this pragmatism does not operate in a philosophical void but finds its grounding in the nature of actuality as the Buddha penetrated it in his enlightenment. In contrast to the non-dualistic systems, the Buddha's approach does not aim at the discovery of a unifying principle behind or beneath our experience of the world. Instead it takes the concrete fact of living experience, with all its buzzing confusion of contrasts and tensions, as its starting point and framework, within which it attempts to diagnose the central problem at the core of human existence and to offer a way to its solution. Hence the polestar of the Buddhist path is not a final unity but the extinction of suffering, which brings the resolution of the existential dilemma at its most fundamental level.
...
Any authentic system of spiritual practice is always found embedded within a conceptual matrix that defines the problems the practice is intended to solve and the goal toward which it is directed. Hence the merging of techniques grounded in incompatible conceptual frameworks is fraught with risk.
...​
More at the link.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the question: "is the world perfect exactly the way it is?"

What "perfect" means depends on how you frame it.

One of the other closely related fundamental questions of life is: "Is it serious?"

For a year, I taught 4 and 5-year-olds Sunday school, and a lot of insight into these questions can be gained by watching a group of children play with legos. After all, we're merely highly sophisticated children and we are all engaged in either creation or destruction - the imposition of structure or the return to chaos. One child builds a spaceship, another a gun... another builds a new Tower of Babel rather unimaginatively stacking one Lego on top of another to dizzying heights. Construction peacefully progress thus for approximately 60 to 90 seconds until a new dynamic takes over. Legos become scarce and fights break out over resources needed to complete construction. The one building the Tower of Babel gets accused of hoarding all the pieces and so in short order the partially completed guns and space ships and dinosaurs become operable and go into battle. "Pew Pew Pew!"

Now when the destruction phase begins we find that some conscientious children take their projects very seriously... "Stawwwp!!" they moan as pieces are snatched away for the greater good of the collective where they are of course used to develop the next generation weapons. "Pew! Pew! Pew!"

The serious child (usually the one building the precarious tower that begs to be knocked over) continues with ever more shrill and squealing refrains of "Stawwwp!!" The unserious devil child wreaks havoc on her creation. The space ship and dinosaur remain engaged in dramatic battles - whizzing around the room faster and faster and louder and louder until the apocalypse comes: someone trips and busts their head, imaginative combat crosses a dimensional threshold into visceral veridical reality in the form of a great shove and a punch, the serious child is still screaming in rage and sadness at being "taxed"... and the only thing the adult can do at this point is shake them out of their micro-scale reiteration of all of humanity's problems with an offer of goldfish and juice.

Now back to the question...

There is the serious perspective on life and the unserious perspective. We need both I think, and we need to get really good at swapping them out as necessary. We need to discover each of the above types of children within our own being and integrate them. Sometimes we need to seriously build something better. Sometimes we need to laugh maniacally and smash it. The serious perspective builds structure, but when it becomes too stressful, the unserious perspective zooms out to reframe reality so that it is perfect as it is. Neither perspective is wrong unless it is not balanced with the other.
 
And oh no a tax system! I'd much prefer to take the risk on climate change and continue to let millions of people die from air pollution, have an unfit food system, continue overconsuming resources, and continue destroying the natural environment, that'll show those damn globalists ;).

It's not either-or / a dichotomy of the world. The options aren't limited to 1. a global tax system or 2. risk destroying the planet.

Why on earth would you accept a tax by those who create the worst environmental problems... namely the globalist scum who control the system, who engineer super-states that try to ban private vegetable gardens! (as the E.U. tried to do), the same globalist SCUM involved with Monsanto etc. - the same psychos who fly around in their squadrons of private pollution-spewing jets telling others what to do.
 
Suddenly clueless, Roberta?

Hint: A so-called intellectual such as Marx telling workers what to do spawned a system in which other so-called intellectuals tell workers what to do.

Not suddenly clueless, always ;).

I can't answer why others don't know what Marxism is!

He didn't spawn that system though, the Communusm manifesto is nothing like what has been claimed as examples of Communism in action, which in reality were authoritarian dictatorships. It's like people that claim the Nazis were Socialists.
 
Global_Distribution_of_Wealth_v3.jpg




Big oil makes more money with cap and trade. Enron pioneered the scheme in the 90's with cap and trade on SO2. They drove competition out of business increasing market share and made more money on trades. We might know even more about this if it weren't for the fact the SEC's investigation files on Enron blew up in WTC7 on 9/11.



I agree we live with finite resources and need to find ways to get out of this system. But lying to people on a mass scale to sell them on a solution to a problem which very likely does not exist which was developed by rich corrupt globalists interested in consolidating wealth and control... is not the way to fix legitimate environmental issues. In many respects I agree with Pinchbeck's notion that we need to think outside the box, and need a new monetary system, and need to live in balance moving away from so many pathological aspects of our current system. No real change will happen unless we have honesty.

Honesty and trust is something Jordan Peterson has been harping on because of his studies of the Soviet and Nazi systems and how everything went horribly wrong... it boils down to a fundamental lack of honesty and trust (and other elements too of course). That's why Climategate 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, x.x are important. They reveal a fundamental dishonesty and deception at the bottom of Climate science... and it's no wonder with governments pumping billions into climate science and Dr Evils like Soros and Gates running around pulling strings.

Big oil makes money from oil Hurm. That was just one example, we also have cold industries, the majority of the transport industries, fracking, and companies that benefit from animal agriculture which massively sucks up resources and pollutes the environment. There is so much more money in industries that benefit from inaction on climate change, then say solar panel companies.

I don't think we're being lied to about climate change, you may believe that but I disagree with you. These rich corrupt 'globalists' are doing fine out of fossil fuel and energy industries etc - that's where the money lies. Like I said in another comment, relatively little had been done economically and policy wise about climate change. I don't know where you guys get the idea from the AGW is where the money is at, when all the information and evidence points the other way.

And whilst we continue to not invest in renewable energy etc, people will continue to die from air pollution, fracking will cause more problems with water, and so on.

The risks of inaction are massive, the benefits of action are massive, on this issue I know where my cards lie.
 
It's not either-or / a dichotomy of the world. The options aren't limited to 1. a global tax system or 2. risk destroying the planet.

Why on earth would you accept a tax by those who create the worst environmental problems... namely the globalist scum who control the system, who engineer super-states that try to ban private vegetable gardens! (as the E.U. tried to do), the same globalist SCUM involved with Monsanto etc. - the same psychos who fly around in their squadrons of private pollution-spewing jets telling others what to do.

True, but what global tax is there that you can link to climate change? A Carbon tax has been floated but it's hardly worldwide. And in many countries, taxes are going down, corporation tax for example.

Big businesses laugh at us whilst they continue to make money at the expensive of us and our beautiful planet.

Yeah Monsanto sucks, as does many fossil fuel companies and most multinational corporations. Most of these corporations rely heavily on fossil fuels, animal agriculture and other things that use massive resources and pollute our planet.
 
the Communusm manifesto is nothing like what has been claimed as examples of Communism in action, which in reality were authoritarian dictatorships.

Communism comes in stages, the early stage of Communism is an authoritarian state while the late stage of Communism requires no state at all (according to Marx), while I haven't seen anything in Marx's writings that say a dictatorship is integral it certainly lays the grounds for a dictatorship in its massive centralization of power in the ever nebulous state.

from https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
 
Sadly Steve I must disagree - Isn't this how things like serfdom, the caste system, and slavery were justified? That there was a Plan to it all?

I'm interested how those things were justified by thinking there is a plan, something behind it all Sci.
 
Back
Top