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

Sorry to tell you this...that's already happening! The elite already has power, the companies who benefit from denying climate change are numerous and vast.

If you guys wanna keep believing it's all a hoax, you do that, keep thinking you know better, I'll spend my energy on solutions.
You again ignore the fact that the huge energy companies would benefit from a global carbon emmissions regulation regime.

People like to claim that big oil spends a lot of money on "climate denying" science. The problem with that is the amount spent never even comes close to the billions spent annually by the U.S. government on climate alarmism, plus the many hundreds of millions per year spent by the big environmentalist organizations. The amounts are so far apart it isn't even comparable.

If you read my previous two posts you can see that I most definitely think climate change is an existential threat to the human race. It is not a matter of "if", but "when" as far as I'm concerned, and I am all in favor of exploring possibilities for solutions.

I just disagree that devolving our technology, or any kind of massive governmental regulation, or dampening our energy usage back to hunter-gatherer levels, are fruitful avenues to explore to find solutions.
And I definitely disagree that carbon dioxide, upon which all life in the terrestrial biosphere is completely dependent, is where all of our efforts should be focused.
 
You again ignore the fact that the huge energy companies would benefit from a global carbon emmissions regulation regime.

People like to claim that big oil spends a lot of money on "climate denying" science. The problem with that is the amount spent never even comes close to the billions spent annually by the U.S. government on climate alarmism, plus the many hundreds of millions per year spent by the big environmentalist organizations. The amounts are so far apart it isn't even comparable.

If you read my previous two posts you can see that I most definitely think climate change is an existential threat to the human race. It is not a matter of "if", but "when" as far as I'm concerned, and I am all in favor of exploring possibilities for solutions.

I just disagree that devolving our technology, or any kind of massive governmental regulation, or dampening our energy usage back to hunter-gatherer levels, are fruitful avenues to explore to find solutions.
And I definitely disagree that carbon dioxide, upon which all life in the terrestrial biosphere is completely dependent, is where all of our efforts should be focused.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
 
Final thought from me. This debate has been very interesting. I think it underscores how viewing the world as sets of mutually hostile dichotomies is unhelpful: e.g. orthodox vs heretic, believer vs infidel, so-called bourgeoisie vs proletariat, left wing vs right wing, etc.

Largely meaningless and destructive nonsense. Meanwhile, the string-pullers who promote these dichotomies and who manipulate both sides, run their 'problem, reaction, solution' operations till they weaken all sides and get ever increasing centralisation of power. Sad!

I'm trying to stop this forum becoming a conspiracy right wing circle jerk type forum where everyone just agrees with each other.
So being against centralisation of power, and being for sustainability, self-sufficiency and practicing permaculture is a 'conspiracy right wing circle jerk type forum where everyone just agrees with each other.'

Sad that there are these artificial and mutually hostile dichotomies, that are largely just in people's minds. Because if one reads between the lines there is actually a lot of agreement here on this thread and in the world generally, if one looks beyond the artificially imposed dichotomies.

Anyway, I'm going outside to continue creating my family's food forest.

Peace!

 
I didn't ignore it, this is why I specified this was an early stage of communism and I agreed with you prior that the USSR was not the fully fledged thing. As I already stated, Marx said to get to communism as a general guideline the workers would organize as the state.



What classes were there in the USSR, remember according to marx there are only capitalists and workers, was Stalin a capitalist? What about Lenin?


It doesn't look like we even really disagree, maybe you are feeling defensive because many people are very opposed to communism and have jumped into the conversation. Please remember though that for many people the Communists have performed monstrosities upon their families not so long ago up to 1991 so the memory and the wounds are still fresh for many.
Fair enough, I haven't really got anything to add everything you've said here is pretty reasonable :).
 
Final thought from me. This debate has been very interesting. I think it underscores how viewing the world as sets of mutually hostile dichotomies is unhelpful: e.g. orthodox vs heretic, believer vs infidel, so-called bourgeoisie vs proletariat, left wing vs right wing, etc.

Largely meaningless and destructive nonsense. Meanwhile, the string-pullers who promote these dichotomies and who manipulate both sides, run their 'problem, reaction, solution' operations till they weaken all sides and get ever increasing centralisation of power. Sad!



So being against centralisation of power, and being for sustainability, self-sufficiency and practicing permaculture is a 'conspiracy right wing circle jerk type forum where everyone just agrees with each other.'

Sad that there are these artificial and mutually hostile dichotomies, that are largely just in people's minds. Because if one reads between the lines there is actually a lot of agreement here on this thread and in the world generally, if one looks beyond the artificially imposed dichotomies.

Anyway, I'm going outside to continue creating my family's food forest.

Peace!

No I agree with you about decentralisation of powrrr, sustainability etc, but many members on this forum are pretty right wing and support a few conspiracy theories.
 
You again ignore the fact that the huge energy companies would benefit from a global carbon emmissions regulation regime.

People like to claim that big oil spends a lot of money on "climate denying" science. The problem with that is the amount spent never even comes close to the billions spent annually by the U.S. government on climate alarmism, plus the many hundreds of millions per year spent by the big environmentalist organizations. The amounts are so far apart it isn't even comparable.

If you read my previous two posts you can see that I most definitely think climate change is an existential threat to the human race. It is not a matter of "if", but "when" as far as I'm concerned, and I am all in favor of exploring possibilities for solutions.

I just disagree that devolving our technology, or any kind of massive governmental regulation, or dampening our energy usage back to hunter-gatherer levels, are fruitful avenues to explore to find solutions.
And I definitely disagree that carbon dioxide, upon which all life in the terrestrial biosphere is completely dependent, is where all of our efforts should be focused.
1) Check out Malf's post, big oil knew about manmade climate change for years and suppressed it. All in name of the mighty dollar!

2) It's not just the money spend on denying it, its the money earnt from fossil fuels etc.

3) I have personal issues with many environmental groups, such as ignoring one of if not the biggest use of resources and biggest polluters - animal agriculture.

4) The US government has hardly spent any meaningful money on climate change. If you're gonna complain about government spending - look at the military.

5) I don't mind too much about disagreement about solutions. I have my own ideas about this. What solutions do you think would be best? You can go first haha.
 
4) The US government has hardly spent any meaningful money on climate change. If you're gonna complain about government spending - look at the military.
The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year -- about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#c27608f7ebbe

Regardless dumping money into things often does not solve problems, if that worked our education system would not be so dismal.
 
No I agree with you about decentralisation of powrrr, sustainability etc, but many members on this forum are pretty right wing and support a few conspiracy theories.
1) Check out Malf's post, big oil knew about manmade climate change for years and suppressed it. All in name of the mighty dollar!

2) It's not just the money spend on denying it, its the money earnt from fossil fuels etc.
Well, I'm not right-wing at all, yet I also support A FEW "conspiracy theories" - the ones which pass my personal three-criteria test for separating (potentially) valid "conspiracy theories" from invalid ones:

1) they have specific verifiable evidence behind them,

2) they use falsifiable rational argumentation,

3) they do not require support of reactionary and/or authoritarian ethics and policy.

9-11 false flag / controlled demolition and JFK organised assassination theories are a perfect example of a valid - in my opinion, correct and vindicated - "conspiracy theories" that fully pass the test. Note that both are LOCAL "conspiracy theories" - the ones which, unlike GLOBAL ones, do not require the idea of an incredibly complex, worldwide, prolonged for decades (or even centuries), united superconspiracy behind them. Neither they are based on baselesss, incoherent and repressive moral panics - the outbursts of sex-negative, reactionary, parental-anxiety-based witch-hunts like the infamous Satanic Panic debacle of the 1980s and its "reincarnation" - the modern mythology of Pizzagate.

I want also to remind that some local "conspiracy theories" - such as Watergate, Iran-Contra and COINTELPRO - or, to mention to more recent times, WMDs-in-Iraq deceptive propaganda campaign - were officially, institutionally confessed and accepted, so the very existence of conspiratorial activities in the Western elite circles is an undeniable fact. What is open to debate is where, when, how often, how successfully, for what reasons and by whom such activities are pursued; but, as I said already, insistence that they they do not occur at all requires complete divorse from veridical reality.

And - do you understand that your claim that Big Oil knew about the consequences of their commercial activities for decades and supressed it - in an intentional, organised, clandestine way - is, effectively, a "conspiracy theory" of its own? That's what is especially funny about the critics of "conspiracy theories" as such: they ALWAYS support some "conspiratorial" notions of their own - they just refuse to accept that their explanatory models are "conspiracy theories", preferring to call them "investigations", "exposures" etc. But, no matter what names they use, they still require postulation of a conspiracy - so, they are "conspiracy theories" in a strict descriptive sense.

What makes me sad is that a lot of Skeptiko people are eager and willing to move much, much, much beyond the logically and evidentially valid support of a few conspiracy theories and support many - if not most, or even almost all - of them, including the global and united ones, as well as moral panics, with all their wild and empty speculations, their repressive and regressive implications.

P.S. And, Roberta, I want to ask you once more about Green Party presidental candidate, Jill Stein, and her support of alternative "conspiracy theory" of 9-11 events (which is not just her personal opinion, but a part of her presidental campaign claims). Does it make her "right-wing"? I hope you will answer this time!
 
Last edited:
9-11 false flag / controlled demolition and JFK organised assassination theories are a perfect example of a valid - in my opinion, correct and vindicated - "conspiracy theories" that fully pass the test.
I'd love to see you and Manjit slug 9/11 out. Manjit appears to be convinced that it wasn't a conspiracy, he says he went into it in depth.

For me that (Manjits opinion) is just yet another of those things I go 'wtf' about. I see so much that I'd like to ask questions about.
 
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.
I think we could well be dealing with the type of American who thinks Hitler was left-wing because the Nazi party had 'Socialist' in their title.
 
You again ignore the fact that the huge energy companies would benefit from a global carbon emmissions regulation regime.

People like to claim that big oil spends a lot of money on "climate denying" science. The problem with that is the amount spent never even comes close to the billions spent annually by the U.S. government on climate alarmism, plus the many hundreds of millions per year spent by the big environmentalist organizations. The amounts are so far apart it isn't even comparable.

If you read my previous two posts you can see that I most definitely think climate change is an existential threat to the human race. It is not a matter of "if", but "when" as far as I'm concerned, and I am all in favor of exploring possibilities for solutions.

I just disagree that devolving our technology, or any kind of massive governmental regulation, or dampening our energy usage back to hunter-gatherer levels, are fruitful avenues to explore to find solutions.
And I definitely disagree that carbon dioxide, upon which all life in the terrestrial biosphere is completely dependent, is where all of our efforts should be focused.
No one is suggesting limiting energy usage. What is suggested is harnessing energy from non fossil fuels.

To the bold. Big fossil fuel companies had not just hundreds of millions in profit, but billions in profit.
Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming
 
I think we could well be dealing with the type of American who thinks Hitler was left-wing because the Nazi party had 'Socialist' in their title.
Here is an ex-slave of communism (born in the USSR) who thinks that, too. As a lot of historical evidence suggests.

Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini (Editor-in-chief of the emblematic socialist magazine "Avanti"). During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn't working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a ``Third Way'' between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.

Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was ``socialist'' and that its enemies were the ``bourgeoisie'' and the ``plutocrats'' (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.

Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx's theory to work in the death camps, that he copied from Lenin (the first extermination camp was created by this monster in a Siberian island Solovki in 1918), and, as the documentary I post here demonstrates, he learned to run and manage these camps directly from Stalin in the 30's.

The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets ``internationalists'' and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard ``national'' socialism as the scourge of humanity consider ``international'' socialism a benign or even superior form of government.

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documents in his book Death by Government that the two most murderous regimes of the past century were both communist: communists in the Soviet Union murdered 62 million of their own citizens, and Chinese communists killed 35 million Chinese citizens. The Nazi socialists come in third, having murdered 21 million Jews, Slavs, Serbs, Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and others. Additional purges occurred in smaller communist hellholes such as Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, and Cuba, of course. Communism does more than imprison and impoverish nations: it kills wholesale. And so did ``national socialism'' during the Nazi reign of terror.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches. At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

The Nazis also had something else in common with the modern left: an obsessive preoccupation with race. Hitler and his Nazis considered races other than their own inferior, of course. Modern ``liberals,'' who vociferously oppose the elimination of racial quotas, seem to agree. They apparently believe that non-white minorities (excluding Asians, of course) are inferior and unable to compete in the free market without favoritism mandated by the government. Whereas Hitler was hostile to those racial minorities, however, modern white ``liberals'' condescend benevolently. Hitler's blatant and virulent form of racism was eradicated relatively quickly and very forcefully, but the more subtle and insidious racism of the modern left has yet to be universally recognized and condemned.
 
Last edited:
But ExxonMobil disagrees that any of its early statements were so stark, let alone conclusive at all. “We didn’t reach those conclusions, nor did we try to bury it like they suggest,” ExxonMobil spokesperson Allan Jeffers tells Scientific American. “The thing that shocks me the most is that we’ve been saying this for years, that we have been involved in climate research. These guys go down and pull some documents that we made available publicly in the archives and portray them as some kind of bombshell whistle-blower exposé because of the loaded language and the selective use of materials.”​
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

Alex Jones Apologizes for Pizzagate: ‘I Made Comments About Mr. Alefantis That in Hindsight I Regret’

Yes, you’re reading that correctly. The radio host famous for conspiracy theories including that fluoridated water is causing homosexuality and the Sandy Hook massacre was staged, has apparently thrown in the towel on another fan favorite: Pizzagate.

In a highly unusual six-minute video, Jones issued a direct apology to James Alefantis for promoting the rumor that he was running a child sex ring out the basement of his restaurant, Comet Ping Pong. The belief that Alefantis, his restaurant, and the alleged child sex ring were tied to former Clinton campaign chief, John Podestasubsequently become known as Pizzagate.

“I made comments about Mr. Alefantis that in hindsight I regret, and for which I apologize to him,” said Jones in his video, A Note to Our Listening, Viewing and Reading Audiences Concerning Pizzagate Coverage. “We relied on third-party accounts of alleged activities and conduct at the restaurant. We also relied on accounts of reporters who are no longer with us.”
 
No I agree with you about decentralisation of powrrr, sustainability etc, but many members on this forum are pretty right wing and support a few conspiracy theories.
The other point I made though is that terms such as "left wing", "right wing" etc. are largely meaningless. They have changed definitions over the centuries and decades so drastically that there is no real rooted meaning there. It's an artificial construct, I think, to have vaguely defined polarities and then different "sides" fight over them. For what it's worth, I try to look at each issue on its merits, whether it be a conspiracy theory, etc. without having the filter of a belief system, political party affiliation or any such thing in between.

Anyway, thank you to you and others here for an interesting discussion.
 
Top