James Cameron is just a PMC pod person liberal. He built a bunker in New zealand and then made a movie about the Maori and how much he loves them (but he owns his land there, and don’t you forget it!).
James Cameron is just a PMC pod person liberal. He built a bunker in New zealand and then made a movie about the Maori and how much he loves them (but he owns his land there, and don’t you forget it!).
Removed by mod
Are you doing alright, seriously? This is some cranky, conspiratorial stuff you're posting here, and it's not even correct. I've now read the "Jaffe Memo" and have come to the conclusion that climate change isn't mentioned in it. Additionally, from your "quote", the "induce"part is missing entirely in the memo. Further, "chronic depression" is listed in the "economic deterrents/incentives" column, leading me to believe they are talking about, well, economic depression. There's no conceivable link to climate science whatsoever in here.
I'm not gonna go on and research sun spots and your preferred crank scientist or whatever, this seems just entirely silly tbh. Just another flavour of climate change denialism, this time it's extremely proletarian tho :agony-limitless:
Piece these together plz
David Rockefeller was second half of 20th century most prominent capitalist-eugenicist and Neomalthusian
The Jaffe Memo was written by the Population Council (tasked with reducing the earths population) which was funded by the Rockefeller foundation which drew up ideas on how to lower the population by forced sterilisation, manipulating image of the ideal family etc
That's a charitable assumption in a paper where they're talking about putting sterilising agents in the water supply but... I dont care to split hairs on that and you may be right that they were talking about economic depression, actually.
An economic depression would produce a societal depression as they always do with a massive rate of suicide accompanying every economic depression. So po-Tay-toe Po-ta-toe
David Rockefeller also funded the modern climate movement. He also founded the Club of Rome that financed Limits to Growth (the best selling "environmental book of all time")
In other words the same capitalist-eugenicist that was spitballing open eugenics was on the other hand financing garbage non-scientific bullcrap like Limits To Growth
This culminated in the Kissinger Report btw that outlined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Study_Memorandum_200
So you have the rise of the neomalthusians (Kissinger belonged to neomalthusian institute as did Rockefeller) to the head of the US State in 60s and 70s who for purposes of imperialist control wanted to limit population growth in both US and worldwide and they used the debilitating effect of so-called "limts to growth"(there are no limits to growth), so-called global cooling, then global warming then climate change to achieve this agenda.
Because older populations don't revolt, ease of access to their resources and the ability to removed (OK they censor the word r e t a r d but I was using in Lenin's imperialist definition not insult) technique and production to maintain capitalist domination. (Because the obvious conclusion they got to was an expanding population would break the current mode of production and produce a socialist revolution)
Yea no, I'm sure D. Rockefeller was some grade a asshole with corresponding ideas, deeds, funding - but the pieces are still quite loose indeed.
Could you please elaborate here, what do you mean by this? Whatever the 'modern climate movement' is exactly, it's certainly not controlled by the club of rome, hell I don't think it's even centrally funded at all; just a loose collection of various groups, right?
I have no doubt that neo-malthusians are looking to instrumentalize climate change science for their ends, that whole 'overpopulation' angle is still way too popular, all true - but to claim that all climate science is fundamentally nothing but a plot to... make people depressed so they have less kids, is ridiculous.
Also, your throwaway 'there are no limits to growth' made me curious: Do you truly believe that? Do you truly believe infinite growth on a finite planet is sustainable? Like, I get that some claims in Limits to Growth have been proven wrong, especially highly specific claims about certain resources - but the general main claim, that there are some limits to growth, as idealized by (neo-)liberal economists, still stands as far as I'm concerned. Right?
So David Rockefeller also funded the Tri Lateral commission with Zbigniew Brzezinski - the mastermind behind the soviet Afghan trap.
Tri Lateral Commission is massively influential - Epstein was a member and so is Keir Starmer of the current Labour party.
Movements that arise are not organic in imperialist society. The British divided Kenya by funding and arming 'counter-gangs' for eg.
It's not an accident of history that the Green German party is the most pro-Atlanticist war mongering party in Germany right now as another example, that first destroyed Germany's nuclear industry (actual clean energy) and replaced cheap Russian pipeline gas with with fracked LNG gas that needs to be shipped across the atlantic to Germany
Most scientists that want to study the climate wait until they retire so their jobs can't be taken from though by the climate lobby and even then many choose not to say anything publicly due to the backlash they get.
Take Henrik Svensmark, physicist in the Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics division at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) talking about it here but I could provide many examples of Scientists insisting they are silenced by a fraudulent movement. The IPCC (interplanetary panel on climate change) btw stated its goal was the collapse of industrial societies back in the 1980s
Biologists do this again and again and their predictions fail consistently (look at Paul Erhlichs Population Bomb or Famine 1975 that was predicting collapse in 60s
The planet is essentially infinite for the human race because humankind are not dogs. Everytime a resource runs dry in humanity a spacerace is pushed on the human population who go in hunt for more of that resource or a better replacement for that resource. One example is how scientists were predicting we'd run out of trees in the 1800s because we'd cut down all the trees by X date for shipbuilding. Instead we moved to steel ships.
A worthless rock like Thorium has been noticed recently as essentially an unlimited amount of free energy
Not a chance. The very definition of resource is nebulous due to the changing nature of resources and humankinds ability to use their brain in a myriad of ways. A resource today (like I dunno plastic) may be replaced tomorrow with an organic substance.
We could already feed 500 billion utilising 1990s technology utilising factory buildings 100 stories high on 1 percent of farmland
Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian Simone will demolish your conception of "Limits" and shows you how wrong all the "Limits" people were going all the way back to the 1800s and the various wrong predictions made since
Interesting points about resources, to be sure - I do think the various resource scares are generally mostly hysteria as well. However, that isn't what climate change science is actually all about, though it may feature heavily in that Limits to Growth book. Full disclosure, I haven't read that book, so all I can do here is make some assumptions regarding its contents based on your word. To me, the problem of climate change is not one of resources, and I think framing it that way is fundamentally misguided - exactly because it is so easily co-opted by malthusian thought, or maybe even a product of it to begin with. Doesn't make much of a difference in this case for sure.
I do think climate change is fundamentally a problem of waste, not resource. And as far as 'incentives to recycle' go, carbon is extremely common on this planet, so getting to a 'space race of thought' to capture the -at that point supposedly- scarce resource carbon, would mean depleting all sources of solid carbon first... which I don't think is feasible, not a scientist tho
Also yea, the German green party is bad, so are all the other political parties in Germany. They are also all war hawks, with some scarce exceptions here and there, now and then. It's not like the SPD or the CDU or the FDP was against any of the recent investments in tanks, jets and LNG terminals. [Edit:] Also, to equivocate here 'the climate change movement' with the green party is overly simplifying it imo, as the party wasn't even founded as a climate party, it was originally more of a classically ecological party, concerning itself more with local environmental protections and such. Their pivot to climate change is at least in parts just opportunistic triangulation and their internal contradiction stemming from that originally different focus is predictably tearing at the party still. The actual climate change movements in Germany are generally also criticizing the Green party for a variety of reasons (albeit some rather timidly), it's not like the party and the movements are in lockstep. [end of edit] Still, to claim that any and all movements arising in imperialist society are fundamentally inorganic is... an extremely grand claim, that seems, even if somehow proven true for you through high-level anti-imperialist theory, fundamentally unproductive. I believe this line of thinking will only lead you to another armchair, leaving you resentful towards the people that dare to change the world anyway, without you. To pronounce 'inorganic' by way of physical location that whole great mass of people, The People, because they reside within 'imperialist society' is to pronounce away any and all agency of the masses, is to give in to the worst kind of defeatism. And I don't think it's true to begin with, even if it's maybe a convenient explanation for the general malaise we find ourselves in on hellworld.
Comm read the book Ultimate Resource 2, the eugenics movement in the 50s/60s was about Limits. That's why their publications were predominantly about Limiting growth (they are still about limiting growth but now not for resource scarcity but co2) or scaremongering about famines
It was later that the Club of Rome settled on:
-The First Global Revolution: A Report By The Council Of The Club of Rome
As I said, I have no doubt malthusians are willing and able to instrumentalize climate change science for their political goals, it is known. But you haven't done anything but vaguely gesturing at that possibility and the club of rome, which apparently did just that - coming to spectacular conclusions about climate change and climate change science in general, which just aren't supported by any of the specifics of your arguments, like at all. Not trying to debate bro here, I'm just genuinely puzzled how you could get to these conclusions from your information, it seems very irrational and borne from wishful thinking more than anything.
I'm currently reading Capital Order by Mattei, but I'll chuck it on the reading list. Maybe I'll get to it, but as I said; not too concerned with resources to begin with, myself.
Removed by mod
:data-laughing: yea, I'm sure buddy, very science that is. Also, not sure who is claiming that a catastrophe is imminent, people are more like, worried about long-term trends in the coming decades, lol. One of the main problems is exactly that, that there is no 'singular point of catastrophe' on the horizon, but that it's a very slow, practically invisible process that very slowly diminishes the (human) habitat, especially around coasts and the equator.
The dude's a retired nuclear physicist, Zharkova is an astrophysicist - do you, per chance, also read some climate change science papers written by actual climate scientists, or no?
To me, it isn't a consolation to know that some thousand years ago there was a geological warming period, or that during the Jurassic period there was more CO2 in the atmosphere for a little bit, or that there's supposedly some unspecified correlation between sun spots and volcanic activity - I have heard all of these, literally every single one, of these talking points in the past from climate change denialists, and it comes as no surprise to me, that the people you apparently laud as authorities are platformed by such revolutionary proletarian institutions like the Epoch Times and Ian Miles Cheong lmao
You realise up until very recently even the concept of "climate science" was a spurious concept. There were just scientists who branched into different spheres of science because you can't study climate science purely on "it's own" without studying how solar flares heat the world and how solar maximum versus solar minimum cycles work.
Well i mean you can trivially specialise like this but then you are no longer a "scientist" in any sense of the word but a weird pidgeon holed idiot only capable of giving your definitive opinions on "the wingspan of the blue spottled West-African pelican"
The socalled "climate deniers" are financed (in the West) by the industrial bourgeoisie that still want to see industrial growth (ie. capitalists still attached to the nation and it's people/culture etc and want to see industrial growth in their country)
The ENTIRE Green Agenda is financed by the FINANCIAL bourgeoisie (ie. cosmopolitan imperialists who's power long ago rose above the nation and is based in transnational organiations/hold multiple passports etc that won't to stop growth at all costs, removed technical development and technique to maintain American monopolies).
So you have a problem with small fry capitalists like I don't know the Koch brothers (and the people they're financing) but the Rockefellers (who created the United Nations) you have institutional trust and are very sure the IPCC (created by the UN) is a very trustworthy org despite the Climate Gate emails where they had to admit they falsified information for the famous hockey stick
https://web.archive.org/web/20100217190215/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
The entire point of communism is developing the productive forces as rapidly as possible to smash the mode of production. Here's the communist manifesto.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
:data-laughing:
Removed by mod