JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]
- 0 Posts
- 26 Comments
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
·2 years agoHowever, that isn’t what climate change science is actually all about, though it may feature heavily in that Limits to Growth book.
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 Common Enemy of Humanity Is Man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
-The First Global Revolution: A Report By The Council Of The Club of Rome
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
but the pieces are still quite loose indeed.
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.
Whatever the ‘modern climate movement’ is exactly,
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
but to claim that all climate science is fundamentally nothing but a plot to
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
Do you truly believe that? Do you truly believe infinite growth on a finite planet is sustainable?
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
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?
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.
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
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
·2 years agoThis is purely a product of US neocolonialism of Japan.
TBH you have to hand it to US imperialists. I can never decide which is their best foreign policy.
The Plaza Accords where they got the Japanese to turn up and sign a document saying "actually my currency is much stronger than the markets say it is" which prices them out of the global market, destroys their exports (and therefore industry) and sees their economy tank for 3 decades straight to the point they produce the hikikomori phenomena
https://kendawg.medium.com/how-the-plaza-accord-helped-the-us-destroy-the-japanese-economy-b4b24c20a9af
Or presenting the (Rockefeller funded) Limits to Growth as "real science" to a Chinese mathmatician who then goes back to China, bamboozles Deng Xiao Ping and Deng introduces the One Child policy which will cut the legs out of China's rise just as they enter their 2nd golden era
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/missile-science-population-science-the-origins-of-chinas-onechild-policy/65D2C3C2BFFBB0334CB0A04D35BC4146
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog/chinas-one-child-policy-was-inspired-by-western-greens/
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
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
Further, “chronic depression” is listed in the “economic deterrents/incentives” column, leading me to believe they are talking about, well, economic depression.
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
There’s no conceivable link to climate science whatsoever in here.
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
Population growth of foreign nations provides more geopolitical power and possible opposition to US interests
The United States relies on countries being underdeveloped in order to easily obtain natural resources
High birth rates result with more younger individuals who oppose established governments
American businesses are vulnerable to interference by foreign governments that are required to provide for growing populations
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)
Under imperialism people turn increasingly into beasts
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
·2 years agoYou think the Tatars saw it that way? Are there any documented testimonies from any of them?
I honestly don't really care about how they saw it. When such a significant amount actively fought the Soviets alongside nazis. A decision was made in the exigencies of 1944 and I'd probably vote for that decision in that time
Ah so now they did it for their own good because they’re dum dums and would have split themselves into irrelevance otherwise
I was only entertaining the possibility of allowing return post 1965. It's not even something I'd agree with
. Fuck off, I’m done with this discussion.
Sure if discussing hotbutton and squeamish issues affects you this much. But be sure every Socialist nation will have to make these kinds of controversial decisions during the period of Imperialism and capitalist encirclement.
You said this was a "mistake" of Stalin. I just don't agree
Yeah because 50 years passed genius, there was not much to come back to.
Chagos Islanders were deported in the 1960s and 70s by the British and Americans and they still regularly demand their land back.
That nation was completely obliterated. Most having killed themselves or "died of sadness" (ie. just became despondent after being dumped in other countries) and still protesting and trying to get their land back.
If 50 years later the Tatars as a majority dont want to move back this is only a testament to the delicate handling of the National question of the Tatar nation by Soviet leadership (both Stalin and post-stalin)
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
I suspect this is a stretch but don’t have a deep enough knowledge of Lysenko’s claims nor epigenetics to really know.
I actually read into it further last night and was mistaken. I had heard of Lysenkos resurgence and assumed he was right but it turns out he was just partly right and mostly wrong so ignore that.
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
I am completely serious when I say Americans are as propaganised as they think northern Koreans are
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
Bullshit. Why didn’t they deport all or
I dispute even the word deportation tbh. It was an evacuation in my view.
This twist of language is typical of all contentious issues outside the Anglo-Euro sphere. Like when they call Tinanamen Square a massacre instead of a violent liberal colour revolution of ShitLibs murdering unarmed Chinese soldiers. Or when people call the "Molotov-Ribbentrop" pact an alliance.
most of Ukrainians then after the war?
The evacuation occured under conditions of a World War. Why would Soviets deport Ukrainians after the war when the Communists had hegemony amongst the Ukrainian Nation and the Banderites were literally called "German-Ukrainian Nationalists" in popular culture
I’m saying it’s wasn’t a good rationale for keeping Tatars from their lands.
I think it was.
it’s something you made up to make it seem like it wasn’t an actual atrocity.
An atrocity is definitely when you evacuate a population to even more fertile land and instead of shooting the nazi collaborators they just got deported and kept their lives and the Tatar nation allowed to grow because of that mercy.
If they'd deported or shot just the collaborators it would've destroyed the Tatar nation by removing most of the family aged men (18-40)
And when they're offered the lands back the majority don't even want to go.
This is a contentious issue, I get it but a joke to call it an atrocity
Why is it so hard to admit that nationalism might have played a part in it.
The Soviet decision allowed the Tatar nation to continue existing and growing. They've could've done what the Anglo nations do to their oppressed nations and funnelled them onto Reserves where they spend all day drinking alcohol or huffing gas, the suicide rate goes through the roof and the birth rate plummets in a deliberate attempt to exterminate those nations.
Or they could've shot the Nazi collaborators (completely justified) and wiped out the Tatar nation within a 1 or 2 generatiosn
The Soviet decision (under geopolitical and national security concerns) seems to be a sincere attempt to keep the Tatar nation intact.
First by being pretty generous enough not to shoot nazi collaborators and second not splitting up the Tatar nation again with a right of return say in 1965 which may have split the Tatars in half. (say half decide to go and half to stay out of a population of 218k)
Again, when they were offered full right of return the majority stayed where they were.
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
they could have moved them back at many points after the war.
And I'd have disagreed with allowing them back at any point tbh and the eventual Ukraine-Russia war is proof the West never would stop utilising the most reactionary elements to force war on Russia
The claim that it was because of fear of new war is flimsy
Yes because Ukraine was never considered the "soft belly" underneath Russia and the West never supported Nazis in Ukraine which may explode into world war 3 as we currently speak.
Either there was a threat of world war 3 or their wasn't and I provided you a book with numerous Anglo politicians/military thinking 1956 Hungary would turn into ww3 with the Cuban missile crisis 6 years later
in 1951 to the leadership of the OUN in Ukraine, he argued that the Western countries were preparing themselves for a war against the Soviet Union and needed two more years to produce enough weapons to begin one.[1711]
In 1958 Bandera still claimed that “The Third World War would shake up the whole structure of world powers even more than the last two wars.”[1713]
Stepan Bandera The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist, p300
backed by nothing other than your guesswork.
Yes. The Gehlen Organisation ran by a literal Nazi supported by the CIA wasn't tasked with gathering up all the far right (read Nazis) during the Cold War. Anglos weren't parachuting Nazis into Ukraine as late as 1954
Anglo intelligence definitely wouldn't have approached former nazi collaborators amongst the Tatar nation
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
This led to some fucked up shit like the forced deportation of the Tatars, or at least was responsible for them not being allowed to come back.
Here's Grover Furrs view and tbh I stick by it
-Collaboration among Tatars was massive
-By 1944 20,000 had joined the Nazis to fight the Soviets out of a population of 218,000 (take out women, old people and under 18s and this is massive portion of the 18-65 population)
-Trying to isolate the guilty would've been to split the Tatar nation
-Deportation kept this nation intact keeping their culture/language/peoples alive
-If they'd actually just shot the collaborators this would probably have destroyed the tatar nation by removing most of the men
-Their population grew by mid 1950s
-when they were able to return most of them didn't want to as they were well established
Grover Furr, Krushchev Lied, p107,108 https://archive.org/details/pdfy-nmIGAXUrq0OJ87zK
This is the great "mistakes" of Stalin
This led to some fucked up shit like the forced deportation of the Tatars, or at least was responsible for them not being allowed to come back.
Uyghur genocide hours. 🥱
Also you still never really responded to being dunked on for lysenkoism.
Tbh I need to read more on Lysenko and you've motivated me to do so
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
You’re really fucking reaching here, is any of this reasoning actually documented anywhere in the Soviet archives or official party correspondence or are you just pulling theories out your ass?
Why would the Soviets do it? If we take your bourgeois view of history to it's logical conclusion then there was no fear of Crimea Tatar collaboration despite them setting up their own Waffen SS groups with the Nazis
https://www.axishistory.com/list-all-categories/121-germany-waffen-ss/germany-waffen-ss-regiments/1378-tataren-gebirgsjaeger-regiment-der-ss
Ah, right, so it was collective leadership under Stalin and then it was an overnight sudden switch to revisionist incompetence.
You mistake what I'm saying. In my view it was correct to not allow them back until at least 1956. Cuban missile crisis was 1962 so can't really believe they should've gone back then either.
If the only Soviet Leader that thought it was a good idea to let them back was Gorby in 1989 I'd probably argue it wasn't a good idea then either.
You’re just doing blind apologetics under the guise of being super very informed by randomly quoting marginally related stuff.
you might want to look at a map of Ukraine to understand what i'm saying. The Anglo-American empire was parachuting Ukrainian nazis into Ukraine as late 1954. Crimea was right next to Ukraine (and did become part of Ukraine under Krushchev). You think Western intelligence wouldn't see out the same people who formed SS groups amongst the Crimean Tatars?
I'm just saying I assume the Soviet leadership (both Stalin and post Stalin) and Soviet intelligence knew more than you or I do
Maybe consider that you’re too far gone if you support shit like ethnic cleansing a
Categorically reject they were ethnically cleansed. They were moved like a lot of people during world war 2 in Soviet Union and they were given better lands. The question was weather they should've been moved back at any point between 1956-1989 and were it not for the threat of imperialism they would've been
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
If WW3 were to break out what would it matter where the Tatars were at the time? WW3 clearly wouldn’t have been fought against nazis.
No it would've been fought by the Anglo-American empire that rehabiliated Nazis and put them as heads of NATO, EU and even put Reinhard Gehlen in charge of the Gehlen Organisation who was a former werhmacht Major General and head of Nazi Intelligence.
World War 3 would've been fought by the Anglo-American empire using Nazi's and Nazi collaborators
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehlen_Organization
The CIA and MI6 were parachuting Banderites (OUN/UPA holocaust collaborators) into Ukraine as late as 1954
Between 1949 and 1954, a total of seventy-five ZCh OUN and ZP UHVR agents were parachuted into Ukraine. With Czech wartime pilots at the controls, the planes evaded Soviet radar screens by flying at 200 feet (61 meters) across the Soviet border and climbing at the last moment to 500 feet (152 meters), the minimum height for a safe parachute drop. In May 1952, one group was sent by submarine. In 1953 two groups used hot-air balloons that lifted from British and West German ships close to the Polish coast. Other groups tried to reach Ukraine on foot. Ukrainian MI6 and CIA agents did not realize that very few of their missions could meet with success, because of infiltration by Soviet intelligence.
Stepan Bandera The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist
Training them
The American and British intelligence services were already taking an interest in Nazis and Nazi collaborators, before the end of the war. They were also interested in people and organizations, such as the German Military Intelligence on the Eastern Front (Fremde Heere Ost, FHO), and the various Eastern European far-right movements, including the OUN, who could provide them with information about the Soviet Union or who possessed other valuable knowledge. With the help of the CIA, Reinhard Gehlen, former head of the FHO, established the Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst, BND), the intelligence service of West Germany. American intelligence protected Gehlen and his advisers.[1578]
And
Bandera had met with officials of the British Secret Intelligence Service (known as MI6), in the British zone at the end of the war. MI6 regarded Bandera as potentially useful for Cold War purposes, and therefore decided to help him.[1583] The American Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) in Munich also protected Bandera from Soviet intelligence, although it was more interested in cooperation with the UHVR, which began to compete with the ZCh OUN after the war. The CIC concluded that Bandera’s extradition would “imply to the Ukrainians that we as an organization are unable to protect them, i.e., we have no authority.
..
Also they could have moved them back after Stalin’s death
You asked about Stalin and I'm telling you the justification for not moving them back until 1953 (Stalin's death) and 1956 (when Ww2 was still expected to break out)
did Khruschev’s revisionism infect literally the entire Soviet Union instantly after gaining power?
It should tell you something that nothing was done until Gorbachevs pererstroika. That nothing formal was done until 1989. Ie. when they pulled down the red flag and let the country explode into nationalist-ethnic violence throughout the entire eastern bloc. Where Soviet brothers shoot at each other decades later in Georgia/Armenia/Azerbaijan/Ukraine etc
- JosefStainlessSteel [none/use name]to
Uh huh, so why didn’t they bring them back after the war?
After ww2, World War 3 was expected to break out at any moment. Soviet and Americans were shooting each others planes down in the Korean war (1950)
A lot of Americans and British were hoping to turn the Hungarian Colour Revolution of 1956 into a world war documented here
Stalin died in 1953.
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.