Category: Environmentalism & Global Warming
I came upon the work of Frederick Parker-Rhodes in my quest for the ideal computer language, which I have elsewhere on MR discussed in relation to Heidegger’s “as” structure and GW’s ontology project. Recent work in theoretical physics has provided empirical validation to his “wildly eccentric” views—which managed to provide a priori derivations of the dimensionless scaling constants of physics from his ontology detailed in his book “The Theory of Indistinguishables”. To be brief, there is his “combinatorial hierarchy” that derives from FRP’s attempt to find the underlying mathematical structure of what he called “wholesight”.
Below the fold is an excerpt from “Wholesight: The Spirit Quest” by Frederick Parker-Rodes…
Posted by James Bowery on Monday, February 4, 2013 at 01:08 AM in Art & Design, Christianity, Economics & Finance, Environmentalism & Global Warming, Global Elitism, Globalisation, Science & Technology, Social Sciences, The Ontology Project
Dams and the hydroelectric power stations that accompany them are being destroyed under phony environmental concerns.
The process in part achieves rural depopulation and increases the cost of rural habitation so that only the rich can live beyond the cities and suburbs: http://prfamerica.org/1998/LandForDams.html
More: http://morphcity.com/home/107-dam-liars-crooks-and-killers [be cautious with the rest of the website]
The uninhabited land will increasingly end up in the hands of bankers as governments owe them staggering amounts of debt that can’t be paid off as the bankers create debts out of nothing and the only money created by governments comprises of coins.
Cutting off a convenient source of electricity is another useful goal for the bankers as they can more easily disrupt the supply of fossil fuels used for generating electricity in a region, raising the cost of electricity or bringing the inhabitants to a grind if they protest too much against the banking system.
Follow the suggestions of prfamerica.org for property rights activism, and also target the money masters: http://www.majorityrights.com/money#implementation
The following promotional film, made by British director Richard Curtis for the global warming activist group 10:10, has caused quite a furore. It takes 1min 10sec to see why:
10:10 has withdrawn the film from circulation and striven mightily but unsuccessfully to prevent sceptics uploading it again to YouTube. They also apologised for “missing the mark” with it. The sceptics, of course, are delighted, having been handed a perfect propaganda piece. Certainly, the film says everything about the vicious and hysterical destructiveness of the eco-left and nothing about climate scepticism. But what interests me - exerts a fascination, really - is where this destructiveness comes from. For we must assume that the kind of people who involve themselves in such extremism are the same kind that populate anti-racism, and the same kind of people who have availed themselves historically of opportunities for violence against dissent. They were the servants of the late Inquisition and the witchburners in Puritan dress. Violent zealotry is always with us.
The question is, are violent zealots born or made? And if they are born, why?
This post is a very ad hoc affair written, really, to raise a subject - one that is under-served here - for discussion.
The reason I don’t spend a lot of time writing about the environment is because I’m not 100% sold on the notion that membership of a healthy and self-conscious organic society necessarily implies care for the land. It never did, down all the years when the crises of our people and of our environment were nightmares of the imagination, and nothing more.
Of course, nobody has ever argued that pollution is good. But 99.9% of us - our forefathers included - have been very keen indeed on material progress and deliverance from want. In the words of John Gummer when he was John Major’s Environment Secretary, “We are rich because we pollute.”
It would, I suppose, be logical for environmentally negative tendencies to increase with hyper-individualism. But received wisdom states that care for the environment strongly corresponds with times of economic growth, and capitalism, with all its individualist dynamics, is the great deliverer of growth.
So this picture is perhaps more mixed than it might at first glance appear to the romantic nationalist. I think one has to be careful to avoid undue romanticism in thinking it through. Irrespective of politics, everyone can agree that dirty old factories and power stations belching greenhouse gasses into the air and pumping filth into our rivers are undesirable.
That said, there is such a thing as a uniquely nationalist discussion on the environment. It should chiefly consider issues of population size and carrying capacity ... and immigrant repatriation, I imagine. Incidentally, in his definition of exceeded carrying capacity Frank Salter includes the lost values of privacy, access to open space, and sustenance. Maximising our genetic interests may, for a time, mean a focus on maximising proximate environmental interests rather than ultimate reproductive interests.
Another area for nationalist discussion should be sociobiological in character. Which peoples can genuinely contribute to tackling global pollution? Europeans are the most intellectually gifted and, therefore, creative of all great peoples, and these qualities are what are really needed. We are also the most altruistic of peoples, and the most individualistic - meaning we do not live as in thrall as non-Westerners do to, in this context, regressive thought patterns such as tradition, social conformity, fatalism, and spirituality.
Alright, I’ll leave it there. Comment is, as they say elsewhere without actually meaning it, free.
In the book The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, it was clear that one fabricated environmental disaster after another was irrelevant to the quality of life. One great concern was lower sperm counts—then couples will just have to have more sex for their intended results! Now the rage is organic foods, when the non-organic foods are far less toxic than the toxic filled plants that hunter-gatherers consumed. Plants try to protect themselves by using toxins, but the agricultural breeding programs made food products less toxic. (I have not seen any research where organic foods are anything but a fad.)
If I remember right, Lomborg did admit that global warming may be a real threat to the environment. The question is what are humans going to do about it? Advanced and backward societies alike burn fossil fuels, the assumed politically correct source of carbon dioxide that causes global warming. Many alarmists are stating now that it is even too late—that there is already so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that if we add little more, global warming would radically alter our environment anyway.
From my perspective, there are two obvious outcomes if global warming does change our climate and especially our ability to grow crops adequate for a world population far in excess of 6 billion people. First, as the crisis sets in, some activists will try to get humans to radically cut back on carbon dioxide emissions. Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” is a well-known human (and animal) behavioral pattern—if grazing lands are open to all cattle farmers, the land will be overgrazed until there is nothing left for the cattle to eat.
The emotional subject of white American resettlement out of the south-west has been featuring here pretty regularly of late. James has posted some related material. But most of the energy for this discussion is on the threads where the chief proponent of resettlement is GT, who you will recall also guest-blogged for us on black serial killers three weeks ago.
Now, the 5th April issue of Nature is carrying a feature that will greatly interest GT. The headline, “Return of the dustbowl”, is alarmist and doesn’t really do credit to the seriousness of the research. But here’s the straight from the shoulder payoff:-
It is not, therefore, at all unreasonable to posit, as GT does, that ethnic competition in the south-west will centre on water - and thus food - availability. Watch for the early signs that others, who may not intend white Americans much good, understand both this and the need to secure the situation for themselves first.
Forced by the suspension of the blog to find some other source of intellectual diversion, and having re-thumbed my entire stock of Chronicles back copies, I hit the TV remote before Sunday lunch and, for my pains, saw (turn away NOW, if you of a squeamish nature) the big, bland face of David Bloody Cameron.
Now, I readily acknowledge that climate change is the only issue bigger than the survival of Western Man, and I don’t seek to belittle it in any way. But it wasn’t Cameron’s fine intentions and general planetary high-mindedness that piqued my interest. It was his repeated refusal to identify holiday air travel as a frivolity that - “if ‘the polluter pays’ is to mean anything” - must shoulder its share of the CO2 burden. He wouldn’t, he informed Sopel, be the one who told the common man that he can’t have his sun ‘n sangria.
In so doing Cameron revealed himself to be too much of a politician ever to be much of an environmentalist. He also demonstrated that his abiding concerns are specifically voter-related rather than UK industry-related (ie flightwise, outbound rather than inbound). In the Opposition’s perfectly understandable struggle to get elected frivolity, it seems, is more important than profits and jobs. That’s probably a correct strategy. These days, the economy is not a strong electoral card for the Conservatives and the generality of employment in UK tourism is, anyway, very poorly paid and far too frequently filled by Poles and Filipinos.
So it’s beer and skittles all across the cloudscape to sunny Espagne, and CO2 be damned. And if the on-line tabloids are a good judge of their own audience, young master Cameron and his pet tarantula are right.
In the December 1st issue of Nature magazine, Harry Bryden and colleagues at Britain’s National Oceanography Centre report that the Atlantic meridional circulation (also known as the thermohaline circulation (THC)—the density driven current that carries warm surface water northward and returns colder deep water southward—has slowed by 30 percent between 1957 and 2004. The significance of this finding is difficult to assess in light of other recent observations.
The Atlantic conveyor is perhaps being itself conveyed the way of all fish flesh and good red herring.
There is a television show about a planeload of people mysteriously stranded on a large island in the Pacific. When I watch it my enjoyment is hampered by a strange thing: I cannot stop wondering what they eat. How do they live? From whence do they eke their 2000 odd kcal apiece in food energy? No doubt an episode or two dealt with fish, or tubers, or something of the kind: but, no doubt as well, not in a believable way. Well, TV works by magic, so it’s OK, but there is a larger point.
Seeing another contributor to this blog has posted on this story, I thought I should put it in context
“The Independent” is a British Leftist newspaper (the only thing it is independent of is the truth) with some pretensions to being a “quality” paper. They must however have been losing market-share lately because they have descended into scare stories that differ from what you read in the tabloids only in their being much longer. Their last ecocatastrophe scare story so outraged the scientist that they were supposedly quoting that he vowed never to speak to them again. See my post of Oct 1st.
The last story must have been good for circulation, however, because they have now come up with another story of the same ilk that leaves no stone unturned in seeking out ecological disasters. Amusingly, one of the authors is an “Andrew Buncombe” (pronounced “bunkum”) so I suppose that is fair warning.
You may remember the prophecies of ecological doom from the 1960s. Guess what?
The following report shows that, in return for GWB saying that global warming is a problem, Blair has endorsed the American approach to it—research only. No-one for many years has done as much as Blair has to draw the USA and the UK closer together. As it was in ancient times, an intervening stretch of water has become more a highroad than a barrier
“Disputes over climate change will not be resolved by renegotiating the Kyoto treaty, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He said the only way to move ahead was to try to achieve a new international consensus that included the US along with China, India and other large emerging economies. He added that it would be right for China and India to be at future G8 summits, although he acknowledged that restructuring talks to accommodate other nations was difficult. ‘What I hope at this summit is that we can set a different direction of travel that gives us the possibility—when Kyoto expires in 2012—(to) get an international consensus that will include America and include also China India and the big emerging countries,’ Blair said.
White Genocide Project
Also see trash folder.
Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.
Endorsement not implied.
Nationalist Political Parties
Whites in Africa