The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness

[thorbiorn]

Considering that groups like Extinction Rebellion and The Climate Mobilization want all activity in society to be centered around combating a rise of CO2 levels, and strive to put citizens and society into a state of emergency mobilization similar to WWII, as argued in this post, one may wonder, if there might be a relationship between the more modern green movements with the green movements and policies of the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) in Germany during the early part of the 20th century? Although I could ask the question, I was not able to come up with a clear answer, but I did dig around the issue and found excepts and sources that might add perspectives to what is seen at present.

The relation between man and nature has been a subject in many traditions, dating back to a time when knowledge was transmitted also in stories. In Noway for instance a fairy tale collected around the middle of the 19th century, The daughter of the husband and the daughter of the wife is easily interpreted to include the moral, that if one listens to and is good to Nature, including the twigs of the trees, the cows, the sheep and listens to the songs of the birds then Nature is kind and will help you in return. More explicit examples of stories are some of the fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen, that dealt with the pollution of the environment as a result of industrialization. According to How 19th century fairy tales expressed anxieties about ecological devastation

As urban life became increasingly distanced from nature, Andersen’s fairy tales thrived. While Victorian fantasy literature often romanticised nature as an escape from the encroaching industrial landscape, Andersen showed human characters as the source of environmental degradation.

For example, Andersen’s stories The Fir Tree, The Daisy and The Flax, feature plants that are tortured and abused by human characters. In these stories, talking plants suffer the dangers of industry.

Despite the pain they experience, these plants are selfless providers willing to compromise their personal happiness for human interest. These sympathetic depictions of nature, during a century of environmental devastation, encouraged children to reflect on their impact on the landscape.

Other tales, such as The Great Sea Serpent, detail the emerging conflict between animals and technology. The story describes fish reacting to the installation of the transatlantic telegraph cable, which ran the length of the Atlantic ocean between Europe and America.

With the chaos of the installation, schools of fish become separated, sea-anemones “were so agitated that they threw up their stomachs” and the cod and flounders who once “lived peacefully” began to eat their neighbours.

When the fish rally together to destroy the cable, a shark is impaled by a sword-fish and “great fishes and small, sea-anemones and snails rushed at one another, ate each other, mashed and squeezed in” while “the cable lay quietly and attended to its affairs”. The telegraph cable is not a positive technological breakthrough, but a threat to the environment.

The issue of the relationship between the ecological movement and the National Socialist German Workers' Party has been a topic in How Nazi Are the Greens? National Socialism and the German Green Party from 2014, written by Kyle Bridge. It is a course essay by a graduate student, and reviews the conclusions of some of the books on the subject:

"Uekoetter, no doubt in response to the relative flood of work and renewed interest in the topic, soon offered a complete historiography of conservation in Nazi Germany. He found no singular, consistent elements but generalized that early work argued for a link between German conservationism and "racist, antisemitic, and antidemocratic idea." More recent scholarship, he observed, "raised significant doubts about such a narrative and essentially disproved its validity."

The source given is: Uekoetter, "Green Nazis? Reassessing the Environmental History of Nazi Germany," German Studies Review 30, no. 2 (May 2007), 267 The abstract reads:

The ideological lines between the conservation movement and the Nazi regime have received much attention. This article explores a new perspective by focusing on the level of practical politics. After several setbacks and disappointments since 1933, the passage of the national conservation law in 1935 became the crucial turning point. The law instilled a secular boom of conservation work, which lasted until about 1940, nourishing an atmosphere of almost unlimited enthusiasm for the Nazi regime in conservation circles. At the same time, conservationists were crossing sensitive thresholds in their desire to use the law to the greatest extent possible.

When one reads the above, one wonders if some ecological minded people and organisation even today, are continuing a pattern of being opportunistic? This subject was mentioned from the perspective of companies in this article from 2007: Is Big Business Buying Out the Environmental Movement? Corporate Research E-Letter No. 65, May-June 2007

This may turn out to be the year that big business bought a substantial part of the environmental movement.

That’s one way of interpreting the remarkable level of cooperation that is emerging between some prominent environmental groups and some of the world’s largest corporations. What was once an arena of fierce antagonism has become a veritable love fest as companies profess to be going green and get lavishly honored for doing so. Earlier this year, for instance, the World Resources Institute gave one of its “Courage to Lead” awards to the chief executive of General Electric. [...]
Everywhere one looks, enviros and executives have locked arms and are marching together to save the planet. Is this a cause for celebration or dismay?

Answering this question begins with the recognition that companies do not all enter the environmental fold in the same way. Here are some of their different paths:

They next list three areas: Defeat, Diversion and Opportunism. One may of course ask what the situation is today, 12-13 years later, diversion and opportunism is probably high, while the defeated may increasingly become the average taxpayer and consumer that has to pay for the green technology to combat CO2 while in many cases this CO2 reduction, when all is counted and included is much less than advertised.

Continuing with the essay by Bridge there is:

"In an April 2013 article on Nazi biodynamic agriculture, Peter Staudenmaier also found a "more complex history," indicating "ambiguous interactions between biodynamic proponents and competing groups of Nazi officials." The field has moved beyond Bramwell's continuity and historical parallels. Nuance characterizes new approaches to ecologism in Nazi Germany."

The article by Staudenmaier being referred to is: Organic Farming in Nazi Germany: The Politics of Biodynamic Agriculture, 1933–1945 and the abstract of that article has:

The controversy over the nature and extent of official support for organic agriculture in Nazi Germany has generally focused on the minister of agriculture, R. W. Darré, and his putative endorsement of biodynamic farming. By shifting focus from the figure of Darré to other sectors of the Nazi hierarchy, this article reexamines a contested chapter in the environmental history of the Third Reich. Using previously neglected sources, I trace several important bases of institutional support for biodynamic agriculture spanning much of the Nazi period. Both the biodynamic movement and the Nazi Party were internally heterogeneous, with different factions pursuing different goals. While some Nazi agencies backed biodynamic methods, others attacked such methods for ideological as well as practical reasons, particularly objecting to their occult origins. The article centers on the political dimension of these disputes, highlighting the relative success of the biodynamic movement in fostering ongoing cooperation with various Nazi organizations. I argue that the entwinement of biodynamic advocates and Nazi institutions was more extensive than scholars have previously acknowledged. "

The words "entwinement ... was more extensive" present a different picture than when Bridge merely quotes "ambiguous interactions" which admittedly fits better with how the essay ends.
In an article by Kaitlin Smith written for teachers and homeschoolers, one finds a reference to “Fascist Ecology: The ‘Green Wing’ of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents,'" by Peter Staudenmaier which is a chapter of a book, Ecofascism Revisited Lessons From the German Experience and according to this page the first edition was published in 1995. In 2001 Staudenmaier also published a shorter paper with the same title: Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents which contains some excerpts that might indicate why the ideas of ecology were popular in Germany at the time.

Germany is not only the birthplace of the science of ecology and the site of Green politics' rise to prominence; it has also been home to a peculiar synthesis of naturalism and nationalism forged under the influence of the Romantic tradition's anti-Enlightenment irrationalism. Two nineteenth century figures exemplify this ominous conjunction: Ernst Moritz Arndt and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl. While best known in Germany for his fanatical nationalism, Arndt was also dedicated to the cause of the peasantry, which lead him to a concern for the welfare of the land itself. Historians of German environmentalism mention him as the earliest example of 'ecological' thinking in the modern sense. 4 His remarkable 1815 article On the Care and Conservation of Forests, written at the dawn of industrialization in Central Europe, rails against shortsighted exploitation of woodlands and soil, condemning deforestation and its economic causes. At times he wrote in terms strikingly similar to those of contemporary biocentrism: "When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important -- shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity." 5
[...]
Riehl, a student of Arndt, further developed this sinister tradition. In some respects his 'green' streak went significantly deeper than Arndt's; presaging certain tendencies in recent environmental activism, his 1853 essay Field and Forest ended with a call to fight for "the rights of wilderness." [...] Riehl was an implacable opponent of the rise of industrialism and urbanization; his overtly antisemitic glorification of rural peasant values and undifferentiated condemnation of modernity established him as the "founder of agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism." 7
[...]
In 1867 the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the term 'ecology' and began to establish it as a scientific discipline dedicated to studying the interactions between organism and environment. Haeckel was also the chief popularizer of Darwin and evolutionary theory for the German-speaking world, and developed a peculiar sort of social darwinist philosophy he called 'monism.' [...] The pioneer of scientific ecology, along with his disciples Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and Bruno Wille, profoundly shaped the thinking of subsequent generations of environmentalists by embedding concern for the natural world in a tightly woven web of regressive social themes.

Staudenmaier has also written a number of comments and articles on the founder of Anthroposophy and biodynamic farming including a book Between Occultism and Nazism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race in the Fascist Era. Apparently after the WWII the anthroposophist were reluctant to acknowledge their interactions and contributions to the NSDAP and this is one subject that Staudenmaier is interested in revealing, but not because he is against pure grown food. In this essay from 2011 Right-wing Ecology in Germany: Assessing the Historical Legacy Epilogue to Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, Ecofascism Revisited the author explains his own position:

I want a vibrant and politically conscious organic farming movement, and that means coming to terms with the less pleasant aspects of the movement’s past

On Amazon where the updated version of their book is sold, there is about the author:

He has also been an active participant in the anarchist movement, the green movement, and the cooperative movement in the United States and Germany for over two decades.

The above essay is a few years old, but any danger of a totalitarian regime coming from the liberals or from the left was not visible at the time, at least he ends:

I remain a social ecologist fully committed to a thoroughgoing transformation of society and of human relations with the natural world. If ecological thinkers and activists do not foster lasting links to a broader left political practice and a comprehensive outlook based on radical social critique, we risk losing the creative potential, subversive possibilities, and challenging prospects of an approach which takes natural and social change equally seriously.

One wonders how he sees the present developments, but it is great he has had the tenacity to stay with the subject, has updated and commented on his earlier work on several occasions.

Earlier I quoted the essay by Bridge who wrote: "The field has moved beyond Bramwell's continuity and historical parallels. Nuance characterizes new approaches to ecologism in Nazi Germany." Maybe the research has move beyond, but the books by Anna Bramwell were some of the very first on this issue and resulted in much later research on the topic. Two of the books were:
Blood and soil: Richard Walther Darré and Hitler's "Green Party" from 1984
Ecology in the 20th Century: A History from 1989
To give an idea of the content, there is Review of Bramwell's Hidden History of Environmentalism. by William Water Kay, author of The Green Swastika who posted the following on his webpage ecofascism.com

What follows is a critical and supplemented condensation of three books on the history of environmentalism written between 1985 and 1994 by Oxford History Professor Anna Bramwell. The latter two books were published by Yale University. The books make clear the Third Reich was a radical environmentalist regime. The Nazis promoted organic farming, reforestation, species preservation, naturalism, neo-paganism, holistic science, animal rights, sun-worship, herbalism, anti-capitalism, ecology, anti-urbanism, alternative energy, hysterical anti-pollutionism and apocalyptic anti-industrialism. At the same time the British ecology movement was stridently, treasonously fascist. While these aspects of Bramwell’s writings have been commented on, however inadequately, much less has been said about her treatment of post-WWII environmentalism. Here she provides useful insights into the wholesale corruption of the scientific community, the capturing of key organizations and the manipulation of the mass media by the environmental movement. Bramwell is not a passive observer of this process and conceals key players, interests and motives.

One reason why advocates of green policies may easily become associated with power is, because in order for policies and regulations to become implemented power and support is needed. If the analysis of Bramwell really brings out some of the corruption of the scientific community, as it was in the 1970'ies and 1980ïes, then little has changed.

 

[thorbiorn]

The description on Amazon of the book Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex by Rupert Darwall is relates to the subject of this thread and like the previous post can serve as a comment on the developments in Germany after WWII and recent events and policy suggestions from The Climate Mobilization, The Extinction Rebellion and the Green New Deal.

Climate change was political long before Al Gore first started talking about it. In the 1970s, the Swedish Social Democrats used global warming to get political support for building a string of nuclear power stations. It was the second phase of their war on coal, which began with the acid rain scare and the first big UN environment conference in Stockholm in 1969.

Acid rain swept all before it. America held out for as long as Ronald Reagan was in the White House, but capitulated under his successor. Like global warming, acid rain had the vocal support of the scientific establishment, but the consensus science collapsed just as Congress was passing acid rain cap-and-trade legislation. Rather than tell legislators and the nation the truth, the EPA attacked a lead scientist and suppressed the federal report showing that the scientific case for action on curbing power station emissions was baseless.

Ostensibly neutral in the Cold War, Sweden had a secret military alliance with Washington. A hero of the international Left, Sweden’s Olof Palme used environmentalism to maintain a precarious balance between East and West. Thus Stockholm was the conduit for the KGB-inspired nuclear winter scare. The bait was taken by Carl Sagan and leading scientists, who tried to undermine Ronald Reagan’s nuclear strategy and acted as propaganda tools to end the Cold War on Moscow’s terms.

Nuclear energy was to have been the solution to global warming. It didn’t turn out that way, most of all thanks to Germany. Instead America and the world are following Germany’s lead in embracing wind and solar. German obsession with renewable energy originates deep within its culture. Few know today that the Nazis were the first political party to champion wind power, Hitler calling wind the energy of the future.

Post-1945 West Germany appeared normal, but anti-nuclear protests in the 1970s led to the fusion of extreme Left and Right and the birth of the Greens in 1980. Their rise changed Germany, then Europe and now the world. Radical environmentalism became mainstream. It demands more than the rejection of the abundant hydrocarbon energy that fuels American greatness. It requires the suppression of dissent.

And about the author there is:

Rupert Darwall is a strategy consultant and policy analyst. He read economics and history at Cambridge University and subsequently worked in finance as an investment analyst and in corporate finance before becoming a special adviser to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has written extensively for publications on both sides of the Atlantic, including the Wall Street Journal, National Review, the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator and is the author of the widely praised The Age of Global Warming: A History (2013).

I understand why the Germans did not wish to have nuclear power stations, being the country where the US had stationed missiles and the country where any conflict between the US/NATO and the USSR would be fought.

 

[thorbiorn]

Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex by Rupert Darwall

There are a couple of videos where Rupert Darwall explains some of the the concepts of this book. One is in fact an audio more than a video. Of the more than one hour it is only the first 51 minutes of the 71 min that is on the subject of the book.

Another, a genuine video, is an interview in the US. from 2019. The sound is very poor, but if one turns on everything it is better, and as I used a Chrome type browser, I installed an extension that can boost the sound. After about half an hour of interviewing, the rest is Q&A

A shorter interview is one with Encounter Books

Darwall points out the parallel with the green energy policies of the period of the National Socialists, but since wind mills had been used in many European countries to pump water or grind flour for centuries, I don't think a policy for wind energy, was unexpected, but rather a result of a rising technological society with insufficient energy resources trying to meet the needs.

At the end of the video Darwall comments on the financing of the environmentalist movement by super rich individuals, and he thinks they do it to protect their wealth. When asked what the weak point of the strategy is, he argues that the green movement is loosing touch with its base among common people and the working class., because it has aligned itself with the interests of the super rich. This is basically exactly what some among the radical left and radical greens also have against movements like the Extinction Rebellion and The Climate Mobilization.

Below are three pictures with excerpts from the book that are read and discussed in the video:

And:


About this interview there is an article with quotes that was posted on SOTT

Author: Global warming and environmentalism scare has roots in Nazi tactics -- Sott.net

Generally speaking, the first person in a debate who compares their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis at that moment loses the argument. When the Third Reich is invoked, it's usually clear evidence that that person's position is so weak that they...

www.sott.net

• KERRY JACKSON
• 2/12/2018

Generally speaking, the first person in a debate who compares their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis at that moment loses the argument. When the Third Reich is invoked, it's usually clear evidence that that person's position is so weak that they have had to resort to a gross misrepresentation of the other's position.

There are exceptions, of course, because sometimes the Nazi label fittingly applies. Sometimes the lineage of a movement, institution or political figure can traced right back to the German fascist regime.

This is the case with today's environmentalism, according to a one-time British investment banker.

"If you look at what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s, in their environmental policies, virtually every theme you see in the modern environmental movement, the Nazis were doing," said Rupert Darwall, author of "Green Tyranny," in a recent interview with Encounter Books.

"I think actually the most extraordinary thing that I came across was this quote from Adolf Hitler where he told an aide once, 'I'm not interested in politics. I'm interested in changing people's lifestyles.' Well, that could be ... that's extraordinarily contemporary. That is what the modern environmental movement is all about. It's about changing people's lifestyles," said Darwall, who is no crackpot on the fringe and whose background includes duties as a special advisor to the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The Fuhrer's interest in "changing people's lifestyles" is, not at all shockingly, similar to the goals of today's climate fanatics who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with an economic system — run by them, naturally — that would certainly change lifestyles in the West.
Darwall further notes in the interview that "the Nazis were the first political party in the world to have a wind power program," and were also opposed to eating meat, a delightful and nutritious activity that the warming alarmists consider a sin.

When interviewer Ben Weingarten asks Darwall about the "link between Nazism and Communism, and the trajectory from that (initial) union to today's climate movement," the author provides a brief history lesson that is inconvenient for the alarmist community.
The union fits perfectly, of course, with the watermelon analogy that explains today's environmentalist excesses — green on the outside, red on the inside.

It also reminds us of the validated-many-times-over aphorism that when a socialist or communist is thrown out of the window of polite society, he returns through the front door as an environmentalist.

Darwall, who seems uninterested in sugarcoating his observations, also discusses "the 'shock troops' of the climate industrial complex," which he identifies as nongovernmental organizations such as "Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth," and other "large foundations," as well as "the Bill McKibbens of this world."

Other Nazi parallels with climate alarmists and radical environmentalists include their efforts "to delegitimize dissent" and bully "people into silence," and suppressing arguments "not by having an argument but just making sure you don't have an argument," Darwall says. In other words, brand skeptics as "deniers" and "anti-science" rubes so they'll shut up.

Accusing its political opponents of being Nazis is an exhausted trick of the left. Think of how many times that President Trump has been called Hitler of late. It doesn't tax the imagination greatly, though, to presume that this could be done to cover the left's own kinship with fascism.

For another article with the same author see: The game is up for global warming believers -- Sott.net

 

[Ursus Minor]

To give an idea of the content, there is Review of Bramwell's Hidden History of Environmentalism. by William Water Kay, author of The Green Swastika who posted the following on his webpageecofascism.com

What follows is a critical and supplemented condensation of three books on the history of environmentalism written between 1985 and 1994 by Oxford History Professor Anna Bramwell. The latter two books were published by Yale University. The books make clear the Third Reich was a radical environmentalist regime. The Nazis promoted organic farming, reforestation, species preservation, naturalism, neo-paganism, holistic science, animal rights, sun-worship, herbalism, anti-capitalism, ecology, anti-urbanism, alternative energy, hysterical anti-pollutionism and apocalyptic anti-industrialism. At the same time the British ecology movement was stridently, treasonously fascist. While these aspects of Bramwell’s writings have been commented on, however inadequately, much less has been said about her treatment of post-WWII environmentalism.

Thorbiorn, you're presenting such a wealth of material which will probably take some weeks of reading and digesting.

I got stuck at this passage you have cited. I think some of the points Bramwell mentions are slightly over the top.
The Nazis were certainly not anti-capitalist, they tried to evade the world banking system because it wouldn't provide them credit. To prepare for war they worked very closely with big industry and in the end you couldn't tell who owned whom. All we can say is that finally the Nazis went down but the corporations didn't.

While having mentioned the power of the corporations I had to chuckle when Bramwell refers to hysterical anti-pollutionism and apocalyptic anti-industrialism. I think the latter two rather relate to the present-day Green/Left movement.

I'm having trouble assigning most of the items mentioned by Bramwell as particularly nazi, since they are about health and ethics.
Nonetheless they were useful for the Nazis in order to invigorate their nation's health in their game of "Survival of the Fittest."

While the modern-day Green movement is getting more tyrannical by the day, their aim is not to invigorate the people's health. They have turned from saving nature to deindustrializing countries, messing up traditional nutrition and restricting individual freedom.

 

[Voyageur]

Matthew Ehret writes a week ago on the issue of the 'Central Bankers Go Green… Why?'

At core in the article is the Canadian Banker, Mark Carney (originally heading up the Bank of Canada (an old alumni of Goldman Sachs) and head of the Bank of England) who with his bretheran bankers role out the decarbonisation scheme:

By Matthew Ehret

I was told many depressing things as a child.

Watching World Vision infomercials educating the west to the want and misery suffered by millions of children in the third world, I wasn’t alone in asking adults “why”? When I enjoyed all the comforts of food security, electricity and running water, why were these other children living in poverty? I know that I was not the only bewildered child to receive the shallow response that I did from family and teachers when I was told that this “simply is the way it is”. At best, we privileged few in the 1st world could hope that $1/day would alleviate their pain, but really there was no great solution.

Later in life, as my closest friends found themselves enmeshed in university political science and economic programs, the innocent curiosity that recognized injustice for what it was not only died under the weight of materialist theories of human nature which their parents paid good money to feed them, but upon leaving school, those same friends actually became witting accomplices in that very system which their youthful hearts recognized as wrong so many years earlier. Since humanity was intrinsically selfish and our economic system so immutable, the best we could hope for was success in life and enjoy being on the receiving end of destiny.

Again, I know that I’m not alone in this experience, as tens of millions of citizens took to the streets all around the world on September 27 to march for the earth, repulsed by corrupt consumerism and celebrating the advent of a Green New Deal.

This activation of “people power” driven by such institutions as the Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for the Future and the young Greta Thunberg could never have occurred had not a deep sense of injustice and malaise not already been festering in our collective hearts. That sense of injustice and malaise connects us to our deepest humanity and is a purity which unites each of us in a field of compassion with the whole of which we are but parts, and should be celebrated and protected at all costs.

In spite of that purity something much darker showed its ugly face on September 27 which used that inherent goodness to its dark advantage. It is that dark something that I would like to discuss.

You Know Something Isn’t Right When…

The first clue as to the ugly problem can be found in the simple fact that leading central bankers had already issued a call for the same new green banking system which Greta and the countless masses also demanded long before Extinction Rebellion, Fridays for the Future or There is No Time were ever created.

While officially announced on September 22nd at the opening of the UN Climate Summit in NY, a Central Banker’s Climate Compact was unveiled under the leadership of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney that had already been in the works for over 18 months representing over 130 of the world’s largest and corrupt banks calling for a radical decarbonisation of the world economy by 2/3 according to commitments laid out in the 2015 Paris Climate accord.

Bank of England head and Chair of the Bank of International Settlement’s Financial Stability Board (2011-2018) Mark Carney announced at this venue that “climate disclosures must become comprehensive, climate risk management must be transformed and sustainable investing must go mainstream”. Carney then took on a more threatening tone by saying “the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.

Now Mark Carney has been hailed by the environmental lobby as the leading “eco-warrior” of central bankers and those doing the hailing seem to rarely take notice of the blatant fact that the person who sits atop the technocratic power structure that has given rise to the world’s greatest economic and environmental injustices for decades is also the person designing how this dysfunctional world is supposed to be restructured.

So how do Carney and his fellow hive of central bankers propose the world transform?

The New Green System Becomes…

For starters, Carney believes that a new global reserve currency must replace the U.S. Dollar.

What should this post-dollar system be based upon? Well, as of August 23, during a central bankers’ summit in Jackson Hole Missouri, Carney stated that it should be modelled on Facebook’s cryptocurrency the Libra, which is scheduled to start issuance by early next year. Unlike the Libra however, Carney’s cryptocurrency will be entirely controlled by private banking institutions and totally removed from sovereign nation states, which are just too influenced by short term political interests rather than an “enlightened technocratic elite” who know how to truly think long term.

Knowing that China’s Belt and Road Initiative is increasingly becoming the foundation for a viable new economic order, and knowing that the financial oligarchy’s monopoly over world finance will come undone if that were so, Carney also warned that a crypto-digital currency is the only way to stop the Renminbi from becoming the US dollar’s replacement. Carney called his digital solution to be a “synthetic hegemonic currency… through a network of central bank digital currencies” which would base their value upon new standards not existent in the 1971-2019 globalized model.

Redefining value

In a 2015 Lloyds of London Speech preceding the Paris COP21 Climate summit, Carney stated “the desirability of restricting climate change to two degrees above pre-industrial levels leads to the notion of a carbon “budget”- an assessment of the amount of emissions the world can “afford”.

This statement essentially defines the parameters which Greta and her minions of green followers are being induced to call for as a new “post-consumerist” world of monetary valuation while actually merely destroying what little remains of a middle class and empowering an already entrenched oligarchy.

Like all good lies, this one hinges upon a truth.

Carney and the green new dealers recognize that pure “market demand” has totally failed as a standard of assessing “value” of money or any other primary asset in our economy. $4.5 trillion of currency speculation grows like a cancer every day without any positive payback to the real economy while $700 trillion of derivatives hover like a Damocles sword over the world waiting to fall at any moment that “market confidence” disappears as it did in 2007.

But after that truth is acknowledged, what does the “carbon budget” entail which professes to somehow lower the world temperature to within two degrees of pre-industrial temperatures which we must assume to be a solution to an under-defined problem?

According to the Green New Deal proposed by Carney and his allies, in order to bring world carbon dioxide production down to net zero emissions by 2050 as demanded by COP21, several things must happen.

• Green bonds must be expanded en masse, in the similar fashion that victory bonds were created in WW2 to pay for the growth of industry needed to battle Hitler. In this 21st century version of course, it is the Bank of International Settlements which financed Nazism which today wishes to define how the new victory bonds will behave. Rather than finance industrial and scientific growth as occurred in the 1940s, these new bonds promise to shrink it. The associated constraints upon humanity’s ability to support its 7 billion lives is not lost to some cold hearted technocrats and their aristocratic managers at the top.
• In reducing industrial growth through the transition from a carbon-based society towards a “green” energy- fueled society of windmills and solar panels, carbon footprints must be diminished. The degree to which humanity diminishes its carbon footprints is the degree to which Carney and his masters promise to reward economic players with monetary profit. Again this is the very opposite process when compared to the 1938-1971 system of industrial growth which tied dollar values to the growth of the REAL economy (agriculture, industry, science and technology) which tied money to the betterment of human life.
• Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade mechanisms must become hegemonic which then creates measurable values for the reduction of humanity’s carbon footprint.

Embarrassingly Bad Science

By acting on a purely emotional state of fear and panic as Greta demands we do, Carney-ite technocrats hope that no one bothers to shine light upon the blatant scientific fallacies underlying the entire “green new deal” which the Bank of England is proposing the world adopt.

We must ignore the fact that the “99% of scientists who all agree that global warming is caused by human activity” is really only based upon a survey of 79 anonymous scientists (77 of whom believed in the claim).

We must believe that it has been proven that CO2 is a cause of climate variation, even though all long term measurements of climate and temperature indicate that CO2 follows rather than precedes temperature changes.

We must also believe that this reduction in humanity’s contribution of CO2 to the entire greenhouse effect (which accounts for less than 0.1% of the total) would have any impact whatsoever upon a 2 degree reduction of the global mean temperature from pre-industrial levels (which we have no ability to assess anyway).

We must ultimately assume that perpetual economic growth is a delusion which only fools believe in and that population growth is a problem which must be corrected by a technocratic elite who have the “stomachs to handle the bloodletting”.

Breaking out of our Carrying Capacity

The fact is that there has always been a carrying capacity to humanity and no one should try to deny that reality.

What green technocrats hate to admit is that humanity’s carrying capacity is very different from that found among all other species of life in the biosphere.

While other species find their population potential limited by genetic traits, and environmental constraints, humanity alone can transcend those material limits by leaping into the creative realm of discovery both in the sciences as well as in the arts. The fruits of humanity’s discoveries as outlined in Abraham Lincoln’s brilliant speech On Discoveries and Inventions (1860) is entirely connected to our unbounded capacity for scientific and technological progress.

The reality of the coherence between mankind’s creative powers and the creative power shaping the universe as a whole has been a powerful concept identified millennia ago by Plato, St. Augustine, Nicholas of Cusa and his followers Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Benjamin Franklin and Friedrich Schiller (1). Its expression (though not always fully understood by those acting upon it) has been the object of hate and fear by an entrenched oligarchy which has launched innumerable wars, assassinations and regime changes to prevent its awakening.

The New Silk Road… Not the Green New Deal

Today, Russia and China have recognized this necessity of unbounded human progress and are fully committed to integrating their economies into an “alternative” financial system centered on the Belt and Road Initiative. While 135 other nations have increasingly joined in this new system, the oligarchy which signs Carney’s paycheques is well aware that a USA under the control of a president who says “the future belongs to patriots, not globalists” creates an intolerable risk that may re-orient America towards this new system and that cannot be tolerated.

Most importantly, when one truly inspects the Belt and Road Initiative’s accomplishments both in Asia as well as Africa and the Middle East, it becomes apparent that the only system which truly has the means to not only replace our bankrupt order while also eliminating war, environmental destruction and squalor is tied directly to what China has built and which has already pulled over 800 million souls out of poverty. NASA even recently confirmed that earth’s biomass grew by 10% entirely because of India and China’s commitment to industrial progress- overturning the foolish notion that economic growth and environmental health must always be at odds.

This is the system which existed only as a dream unknown to most in the west as I watched World Vision programs encouraging me to beg my mother to give $1/day to a kid in Guatemala whose life had been destroyed by that same system which today threatens to destroy what little is left of the third world through a Green New Deal.


(1) In the 20th century it found a unique expression in the figure of the late American economist Lyndon LaRouche.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...ife-of-lyndon-larouche-held-in-new-york-city/

 

[thorbiorn]

I'm having trouble assigning most of the items mentioned by Bramwell as particularly nazi, since they are about health and ethics.
Nonetheless they were useful for the Nazis in order to invigorate their nation's health in their game of "Survival of the Fittest."

One could also mentions the many inventions made during the time of the National Socialists that we still use today without thinking much about when, or where and how they came about. That was a short comment, but now for a much longer about facism, National Socialism, definitions of facism and various kinds of state administration and finally a couple of comments on the content of the videos with Rupert Darwall.

I got stuck at this passage you have cited. I think some of the points Bramwell mentions are slightly over the top.

Many researchers that came after her were occupied with what had to be removed, what was too much or inaccurate. Another reading of Bramwell that does not strictly focus on establishing the links with Germany, but rather is occupied with Bramwell as an English historian and writer is presented by a UK Amazon reviewer Jeffrey John Dixon. He relates what he reads to his own English background, although he does begin his long review with "Bramwell has been studying the roots of the twentieth century ecology movement and has discovered that they drink from some muddy pools, if not poisoned wells." Staudenmaier, that I mentioned in a previous post, has a close relation with Germany, apparently doing a great job teaching at a University in the US, and being interested in Germany and the history of ecology he paid more attention to what Bramwell had to say about Germany regarding this issue.

To get a feel for what Bramwell is writing, rather than the interpretations by others, I found the first two books by Bramwell, and looked into how she treats her subjects. One notices there are pages of notes to each chapter as well as an index, which makes it possible to move in several directions on the basis of her research. One point I learned from her second book, was that Italian Fascism and German National Socialism did not agree with each other on several issues. Bramwell mentions examples in Ecology in the 20th Century: A History by Bramwell, Anna (1989) where from page 170-171 there is:

Not Nature, but Culture, was the watchword of Italian Fascism. The link between the two that was the heart of green Nazism, that the German philosophical anthropologists had argued was inevitable, that future ecologists would maintain was the motor of society, was rejected. At the heart of Italian Fascist philosophy lay a hostility to nature, despite the land reclamation and food subsidies. And 'to the humanism of culture, which was a great step in the liberation of man, there succeeds today or will succeed tomorrow the humanism of labour'. 36 This is surely the apotheosis of urbanism, the glorification of human labour

Thus, in this context, the philosophy of Italian Fascism had little in common with the German National Socialism with which it is so often linked. Italy was seen by Nazi intellectuals in the 1930s as too 'from above', too inorganic and inflexible. Otto Ohlendorf, a lawyer and economist who was head of the German Trade Council in 1936 (and later, of course, notorious as Einsatzgriippe leader, besides being active in the Resistance against Hitler), visited Italy in 1934, as an active NSDAP party member, to examine Italy's economic and social policies. He concluded that they were too etatist, totally unsuited to the 'from below' strivings of German National Socialism. 37 The little-known philosopher of the Italian radical right, Julius Evola, was actually banned by Mussolini because of his pagan, rural philosophies and sympathies with national socialist naturist ideas. Evola criticised Darre's marketing organization for being too democratic. But, like the German ecologists of the time, he was drawn to Eastern religions, and wrote a book on Buddhism. 38 In December 1934, Mussolini tried to start a 'Fascist international', but Germany was not invited. Mussolini also attacked National Socialism, saying that the two movements were 'in many respects at opposite poles'. 39

The above apparent rejection of nature in favour of culture by Italian Facism and the differences on this topic with National Socialism are surprising when reading how the term ecofacism are explained:

Ecofascism is a theoretical political model in which an authoritarian government would require individuals to sacrifice their own interests to the "organic whole of nature".[1]

The term is also used as a rhetorical pejorative to undermine the environmental movement[2] and in the United Kingdom, it has been used to describe far-right efforts to gain influence within the Green Party of England and Wales.

Some writers have used it to refer to the hypothetical danger of future dystopian governments, which might resort to extreme or "fascist" policies to deal with environmental issues.[1] Other writers have used it to refer to segments of historical[3][4] and modern[5] fascist movements that focused on environmental issues.

If it is unclear how exactly a facist movement with a genuine facist ideological background could be much concerned with nature, it is also unclear what facism actually means, besides a quality of being totalitarian. Fascism - Wikipedia explains the etymology as:

The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning "a bundle of sticks", ultimately from the Latin word fasces.[14] This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates. According to Mussolini's own account, the Fascist Revolutionary Party (Partito Fascista Rivoluzionario or PFR) was founded in Italy in 1915.[15] In 1919, Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista(National Fascist Party) two years later. The Fascists came to associate the term with the ancient Roman fasces or fascio littorio[16]—a bundle of rods tied around an axe,[17] an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrate[18] carried by his lictors, which could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[19][20]
The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[21] Similar symbols were developed by different fascist movements: for example, the Falange symbol is five arrows joined together by a yoke.[22]

From there, one can move to the definitions of Fascism on the same page, but it is more clearly layed out on a page dedicated to definitions alone: Definitions of fascism - Wikipedia

A significant number of scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

I went to the page of one of the scholars mentioned in the definitions to get a few more details. He studied the subject for a lifetime and researched Marxism, especially in the beginning of his academic career. This may explain why he saw similarities between facism and marxism that were ignored by others. A. James Gregor - Wikipedia

Gregor argued that scholars do not agree on the definition of fascism, stating in 1997 that "Almost every specialist has his own interpretation."[5] He argued that Marxist movements of the 20th century discarded Marx and Engels and instead adopted theoretical categories and political methods much like those of Mussolini.[6] In The Faces of Janus (2000) Gregor asserted that the original "Fascists were almost all Marxists—serious theorists who had long been identified with Italy's intelligentsia of the Left."[7] In Young Mussolini (1979), Gregor describes Fascism as "a variant of classical Marxism."[8][non-primary source needed]According to Gregor, many revolutionary movements have assumed features of paradigmatic Fascism, but none are its duplicate. He said that post-Maoist China displays many of its traits. He denied that paradigmatic Fascism can be responsibly identified as a form of right-wing extremism.[9][...]Andrew Muldoon in Canadian Journal of History says, "Over a long and distinguished career A. James Gregor has advanced some controversial interpretations of political ideologies. In particular, he holds that the Italian Fascist regime is best understood as a "developmental dictatorship," distinct from Nazism in key ways; a thesis that has proven surprisingly influential since 1945."[12]

The confusions about what is facism and what is National Socialism makes it more difficult to come to agreement about whether a particular movement is facist. One may wonder if this confusion is by intentions, but with such a variety of meanings for facism, it is no wonder I sometimes feel unsure when to apply in a way that is both fitting and consistent at the same time. Fortunately there are many alternatives, and below are some explanations and definitions.

Liberal democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called Western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.

Within the above there is also

Neoliberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism[1] is the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism and free market capitalism.[2]:7[3] While it is most often associated with such ideas, the defining features of neoliberalism in both thought and practice have been the subject of substantial scholarly discourse.[4] These ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade[5] and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[13]These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[14][15]

Liberalism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism (free markets), democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[11][12][13]

The backdrop of the above ideals is colour revolutions, regime change, sanctions policies, economic warfare, military intervention of doubtful merit, and transnational pressure groups like IMF, NATO and others. Next comes the variety of possibilities that are open to the countries within which much of the climate activism supported by green companies, some governments, and NGOs takes place: Along the line one may consider which form of administration best fits with the demands made by climate activists that plan to mobilize a few % of the populations to force the governments to do what they want, while overriding any notion of debate and token of democracy.

Totalitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Totalitarianism is a political concept of a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism.

When one reads the above, it is tempting to think of inventing a concept like digital totalitarianism which is a present possibility. Examples listed are Stalinism, National Socialism, Italian Facism, the rule of Taliban from 1996-2001 in Afghanistan, and others. If facism always involves something totalitarian, perhaps a better word than ecofacism would be ecototalitarian or should it be ecoauthoritarian?

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Under an authoritarian regime, individual freedoms are subordinate to the state, and there is no constitutional accountability. Authoritarian regimes can be autocratic, with power concentrated in one person, or can be a committee, with power shared among officials and government institutions.[1]

Autocracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An autocracy is a system of government in which a single person or party (the autocrat) possesses supreme and absolute power. The decisions of this autocrat are subject to neither external legal restraints nor regularized mechanisms of popular control (except perhaps for the implicit threat of a coup d'état or mass insurrection).[1]

Dictatorship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A dictatorship is an authoritarian form of government, characterized by a single leader or group of leaders and little or no toleration for political pluralism or independent programs or media.[2] According to other definitions, democracies are regimes in which "those who govern are selected through contested elections"; therefore dictatorships are "not democracies".[2]

Anocracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Anocracy is a form of government loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship,[1][2] or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features".[2] Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances".[3][4] Scholars have also distinguished anocracies from autocracies and democracies in their capability to maintain authority, political dynamics, and policy agendas.[5] Similarly, these regime types have democratic institutions that allow for nominal amounts of competition.[1]

Next comes a group of words and definitions of types of administration that have already been applied as descriptions of the "Liberal democracy" of the United States, and others probably too. What these names leave out is the

Inverted totalitarianism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The political philosopher Sheldon Wolin coined the term inverted totalitarianism in 2003 to describe what he saw as the emerging form of government of the United States. Wolin analysed the United States as increasingly turning into a managed democracy (similar to an illiberal democracy). He uses the term "inverted totalitarianism" to draw attention to the totalitarian aspects of the American political system while emphasizing its differences from proper totalitarianism, such as Nazi and Stalinist regimes.[1]

Illiberal democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy,[1]is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes".[2] This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist.[3]

Guided democracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Guided democracy, also called managed democracy,[1] is a formally democratic government that functions as a de facto autocracy. Such governments are legitimized by elections that are free and fair, but do not change the state's policies, motives, and goals.[2]

In other words, the government controls elections so that the people can exercise all their rights without truly changing public policy. While they follow basic democratic principles, there can be major deviations towards authoritarianism. Under managed democracy, the state's continuous use of propaganda techniques prevents the electorate from having a significant impact on policy.[3]

Have we not seen the above in the UK, France, the US, and ...?

Corporatocracy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Corporatocracy (/ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, from corporate and Greek: -κρατία, romanized: -kratía, lit. 'domination by', short form corpocracy,[1] is a recent[when?] term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[2] It is most often used as a term to describe the crony capitalism economic situation in the United States.[3][4] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.[5][6]

There is no entry for chaocracy, the rule of chaos, the term is described in the literature as a situation where central power breaks down and chaos rules, while local areas of strong power arises. Perhaps a situation with warlords would be an example.

To the last point on neoliberalism, when listening to Rupert Darwall that I referred to in one post he mentions fracking as a wonder, it is around minute 22 in the last video in the post. He is a great supporter of American capitalism even though he concedes in at least one of the videos, that big companies have greater power than most people are aware of.

Comments to the videos with Rupert Darwell
Darwall claims acid rain wasn't a real issue: Here are two articles that explain his point of view: What made the acid rain myth finally evaporate?

The situation turned out to be much more complex than had been predicted. The acidity of a lake is determined as much by the acidity of the local soil and vegetation as it is by acid rain. Many lakes in north-eastern America, dead in the 1980s, had plenty of fish in 1900. It was surmised by environmentalists that 20th-century sulphur dioxide emissions had choked these lakes to death with acid rain. But the NAPAP showed many of these lakes were acidic and fishless even before European settlement in America. Fish survived better in these lakes around 1900 because of extensive slash and burn logging in the area. The soil became more alkaline as the acid vegetation was removed, reducing the acid flowing into the lakes and making the water hospitable to fish. Logging stopped in 1915, acid soils and vegetation returned and the lakes became acidic again. The study also found that in many cases forests were suffering debilitation due to insects or drought and not acid rain.

See also

The Myth of Dangerous Acid Rain

Data suggests it is a non-problem By Steve Goreham For almost a month, the ongoing saga of the eruption of Hawaii’s Kilauea volcano has captured the attention of world media. Fountains of red-orang…

wattsupwiththat.com

I tried to look for the old report he referred to, but only found the most recent one: USGS Publications Warehouse
Personally I am sceptical of his claim, at least in the area of the world I live, because I know farmers regularly, depending on where they farm and what they farm, add lime to the soil to make it more alkaline, as the rain water, the process of farming and the use of fertilizers tend to make the soil acidic in fields where crops are grown. For a table of the ranges within which plants grow well see: Soil pH Levels for Plants
A page that describes how pH affects the availability of plant nutrients: How Does pH Affect Plants?

Nutrient Availability
Important nutrients are absorbed by plants at varying levels of effectiveness based upon the soil's acidity level. Nitrogen, potassium, sulfur, magnesium and iron are available along a broader range of acidity, while the availability of phosphorus, manganese, copper, boron and zinc lessens as alkalinity increases. Molybdenum, a trace nutrient, increases in availability proportionate to the soil's alkaline level.

Even if one accepts some effect of acid rain as valid, although more complex than initially thought, it is still true that the acid rain scare became the CO2 scare. This can be seen from the amount of coverage acid rain received in the 1970'ies to 1990'ies compared to later years when CO2 received much greater coverage.

In one of the videos, Darwell claims that Gert Bastian,, who founded Generals for Peace, worked for the East German Stasi, but one researcher and author, Peter Wivel, who wrote a book about Petra Kelly and Gert Bastian (They died together due to suicide or murder) looked into the Stasi files, all the material about peace politicians for the years before the wall between East and West Berlin fell, and he found nothing. Stasi knew of Gert Bastian, but he was not an agent for Stasi. Peter Wivel also found in his research that the couple crossed the border to East Berlin 25 times to support the local and illegal peace and grass root movement against the DDR government led by Honnecker. This fact should rest the case about the claim Bastian was a Stasi agent. The misconception of Darwall might be understood, as he did not live in the areas that only a generation before had been in ruins, he simply could not imagine that apart from the initiatives of the agencies in Eastern Europe there were genuine people in "occupied" West Germany, (Kelly was the daughter of a US officer and a German mother), who accepted the thought more tension was a wrong idea.

 

[Voyageur]

With all the ism-acy's listed above, one might add the more hidden Pathocracy, which has not a specific place in Wikipedia, although it is getting traction (good on you, Steve Taylor Ph.D.) from articles like this in Psychology Today:

Collective Pathocracy

But pathocracy isn’t just about individuals. As Lobaczewsk pointed out, pathological leaders always attract other people with psychological disorders, who seize the opportunity to gain influence. At the same time, individuals who are moral, empathic and fair-minded gradually fall away. They are either ostracised or step aside voluntarily, appalled by the growing pathology around them. As a result, over time pathocracies tend to become entrenched and extreme.

Wiki does cite Pathocracy in their Political Ponerology link:

There are various identifiable stages of pathocracy described by Łobaczewski. Ultimately, each pathocracy is foredoomed because the root of healthy social morality, according to Łobaczewski, is contained in the congenital instinctive infrastructure in the vast majority of the population. While some in the normal population are more susceptible to pathocratic influence, and become its lackeys, the majority instinctively resist.

I don't know, yet sometimes one can wonder if so many of these ism-acy's, when they fail - as they mostly do, if they are not just a cover word for a Pathocracy that ephemerally is going on under the surface during whatever it is that is in its downward spiral.

The eco-pathocracy in environmentalism has its own undercurrents, like when genuine good causes are hijacked (e.g. Greenpeace originally et cetera) and then spun up as it has been and incorporated into other plans (always financial).

The late John Trudell might be pointing to a pathocracy as a binding undercurrent when he said (related to a mining process of humans):

...They own democracy. They own socialism. They own fascism. They own communism. They own it all. They own every bit of it.

Do they "own" environmentalism? Currently it looks that way, osit.

And "every bit of it" is used against one another repeatably, and with new nuances, such as this AGW in environmentalism with its evil child C02, or false NGO's concerns in humanitarianism (religion famously) where their lies are incorporated by the pathocracy and used against Syria, Libya (and the rest). Ready made solutions greet people's every ism offering up poles to circle around with enemies in abundance - "over time pathocracies tend to become entrenched and extreme".

It's bloody frightening.

 

[Ca.]

Japan is getting kicked in the head with climate unrest and they have this to say:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1183389445741056002

Meanwhile in Britannia:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1184715576742207488

https://twitter.com/x/status/1182606994034909191

https://twitter.com/x/status/1184528573127954432

https://soundcloud.com/guidaboni%2Fmanufacturing-of-greta-thunberg_political-economy-of-the-nonprofit-ind-complex-act-i

 

[SummerLite]

I Love seeing people come out like this. Look at all these tractors! I'm trying to link a video from twitter that shows them rolling through the streets but I may not be able to do it so check out the link for it. BEAUTIFUL! If only the climate protests where focused on something like stopping 5G we'd have something productive.

POLITICS https://summit.news/2019/10/16/dutch-farmers-stage-new-revolt-against-climate-change-restrictions/ Dutch Farmers Stage New Revolt Against Climate Change Restrictions

• • Farmers in the Netherlands are staging a new revolt against restrictions on livestock related to climate change, with one telling the state broadcaster how he is sick of being lectured about nature by middle class city dwellers “who have two plants on their balcony.”
    
    The demonstrations began earlier this month after the Dutch government announced that Dutch livestock farming should be slashed by up to 50% to meet commitments on reducing nitrogen emissions.
    
    Farmers were irate after learning that the same restrictions would not apply to the aviation industry.
    
    Demonstrators clogged up major roads and highways once again today, causing traffic jams across the entire country and leading to the Dutch army being called out.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Last year you didn’t hear anything about nitrogen, and now suddenly it’s a mortal question,” farmer Micha Bouwer of the Farmers Defence Force told state broadcaster NOS. “These are all people in the city who have two plants on their balcony and say ‘nature is suffering’.”
  
  Farmers also argue that their crucial role in food production is being overlooked and that they are being blamed for climate change.

 

[Cosmos]

The following from good old George Carlin couldn‘t be more to the point at this day and age. Spot on:

[...]
The following words of George Carlin, come to my mind every time I hear such "saving the world/climate" ideas:

 

[SlipNet]

George Carlin may just be the finest comedic mind of all time. Such a clear thinker, and just brilliantly vulgar at times, which just makes me like him more.

 

[Chu]

Thanks, Pashalis, that was good! Shared.

 

[Alana]

I was thinking along similar lines Carlin talks about the other day.

All these people in the streets to save Mother Earth, all they have to do is just watch one of the installments of the monthly SOTT Earth Changes summary to see whether the planet or its environment needs their help. The earth rocks, volcanoes are awakening, the skies pour tons of rain, hail, snow; there are fireballs, tornadoes, firenadoes, waterspouts, what have you, and in all these, human beings are being tossed around like ants.

Really, these people don't have the proper respect, sense of awe, in the face of the power and force of nature, the earthly and cosmic environment. Despite their BS proclamations, they are totally unaware of what environment even is or means, but No! they are here to save it. The hubris!

 

[angelburst29]

Climate-change protesters disrupt London rush hour
Oct. 17, 2019 - People look at Extinction Rebellion protesters glued onto the train at the Shadwell DLR station in London, Britain in this still image obtained from social media video dated October 17, 2019. TWITTER @MAXIMUS3005/via REUTERS

Footage showed protesters unfurling a banner on top of a stationary train carriage at Canning Town before commuters on a crowded platform began hurling insults and pelting one of them with food.

The protester then tried to kick away a commuter who clambered onto the carriage. After a brief struggle the protestor was dragged to the platform, where he was swallowed by a crowd of people shoving and shouting before a woman and a member of the Tube staff intervened to restore order.

“The crowd became hostile very quickly due to wanting to go to work. I sympathize with the aims of Extinction Rebellion but this was an own goal,” said Turan Basri, 57, an environmental health manager, who witnessed the incident.

“Canning Town is a very working class area. Seeing what they perceived to be middle-class protesters preventing working class people from earning a living didn’t go down well,” Basri said.

British Transport Police said eight arrests had so far been made at Canning Town and two other stations.

Police condemned the Extinction Rebellion action, but also expressed concern that members of the public had used “violent behavior” to detain the train protester.

A spokeswoman for prime minister Boris Johnson said the protest caused “unnecessary disruption” and London Mayor Sadiq Khan condemned it.

Separately, small Extinction Rebellion groups held protests against the arms trade by gluing or locking themselves to the London offices of defence companies Leonardo UK, Lockheed Martin Corp and Britain’s Supreme Court, the movement said. At least seven people were arrested.

Police said on Wednesday 1,642 people had been arrested after action targeting the Treasury, financial institutions and City Airport.

Extinction Rebellion says more than 1,400 of its supporters have also been arrested in 20 cities around the world since Oct. 7, including in New York, Brussels, Melbourne and Toronto.

 

[loreta]

Oh my, this is becoming crazy more and more. But what the people of Extinction Rebellion have in their minds? they don't need to go to work, evidently. They are so far away of the reality, the day by day, of people, workers, mothers that need to go to work, of families that have money difficulty, etc. They are a bunch of egocentric egoistical and individualist people. But you see, people start to see things with more clarity thanks to these idiots that are like the crazy prophets that sometimes are pictured on movies, remember, that announced the End of the World on the street. In fact they are clowns in this life that is a circus.