From Finite World to Infinite Growth
The Malthusians decided in their hubris and arrogance that because they couldn’t see a solution to a problem they’d defined, that solution did not exist.
Tom Luongo has written a piece called “From Currency Resets to Limiting Infinite Growth“
In it, he writes:
In a recent article on this blog, I did a quick and dirty takedown of the globalist talking point about infinite growth in a finite world. That gaslighting was at the core of the conflict in the big story of the Marvel Cinematic Universe of films, which centered on Thanos coming to bring balance by destroying half of the life in the Universe.
Davos has gaslit two entire generations of westerners in the Malthusian talking point that you can’t have infinite growth in a finite world. All of their economic dogma is predicated on this.
It doesn’t matter that this talking point is predicated on an inane premise, truth is, after all treason, at this point in the economic and cultural cycle. But, to try and explain quickly for the slow-witted. GDP growth is not necessarily real growth. It’s just spending. It says nothing for the quality of the spending or whether, in real terms, the people spending the money are materially better off than they were at a previous point in time.
What isn’t measured by GDP is VALUE. Value is what we crave, the ability to plan further into the future, using our ingenuity to find better mousetraps to build and more efficient, and yes sustainable, ways of deploying scarce capital and time.
When you have a monetary system and regulatory regime designed to thwart that to stop growth then you have the world we live in today. That infinite growth is a subjective, not objective, measure…. not in GDP terms but in the ‘alleviation of human misery’ terms.
Davos absolutely doesn’t want this because a world where everyone gets maximal value for their time is a world without our need for them.
Thanos in the Marvel films makes the same mistake Davos and Huxley made, deciding in their hubris and arrogance that because they couldn’t see a solution to a problem they’d defined, that solution did not exist. This justified their acquisition of power unlimited to re-make the world in their image.
I liked his conclusion in particular:
At that point you will then see what the real growth rate of the world is. Gary North used to say that prior to the early 1800’s the real rate at which wealth compounded was ~1% annually. Then something changed and it doubled to 2% and that scared the bejeesus out of the elites because too many people were getting rich too quickly to need them to look out for their interests.
Now you know why the Club of Rome began in the 1850’s, why central banking was so bitterly fought over here in the US then. It’s why Marx’s insane ideas were adopted by those with generational power. It was to STOP our growth as a species, not keep it from destroying the planet, but their system of unearned privilege.
(Neo-)Marxism is the one disease that liberalism could not defeat
The big question is: why?
For centuries, liberal European polities fended off all manner of political opponents, and if the states themselves did not always survive, liberalism itself demonstrated remarkable stability. It was a great filter that excluded all rivals, until it found one it could not sort out. Marxism and its successor movements proliferated as the one disease that liberalism could not defeat, in much the same way that antibiotic-resistant MRSA emerges from the antiseptic environments of hospitals. It is an opposition politics uniquely suited to liberalism, for it exploits the liberal impulses for equality and freedom in favour of a quite different, and far more terrible, project. In Western countries, the leftists took aim at the traditional institutions and culture of the European middle classes. There, they still struggle to impose not a socialist utopia, but a never-ending industrial and financial serfdom.
The leftist system is not meant to produce political stability or prosperity, and it feels a lot like it’s entering a death spiral. Getting these lunatics out of power, before they crash the entire West with no survivors, is the most urgent problem we face. Here MKH has the right idea: Respectable conservative politicians have failed above all, in neglecting those people who have suffered the most at the hands of globalisation, renewable energy, immigration, lockdowns and all the rest of it. We must defeat the leftist elite, not win them over; and to do this we must deprive them steadily of popular support, beginning among the lower classes and at the periphery, where the greatest gains are to be made, and working inwards. From the hysterical, crazed opposition men like Trump, Orbán and Salvini have inspired, you can measure the power of this approach.
If Corona restrictions return in the fall, populist political upsets will become our only hope.
Liberalism was susceptible to (neo)-Marxism because it lacked Christianity.
Covid Mess
An open letter to a GP and devastating accounts from vaccine widows
James Rogers is a pseudonym of someone who, according to the TCW website, is a “well-travelled, polymathic dilettante who voted for Johnson but feels we’ve ended up with Blair on steroids”.
Rogers has written an open letter to his GP, published on 18th May 2022. He writes:
You may recall saying to me, ‘These drug companies would not run the risk of being sued for supplying dodgy drug products.’ I replied that the drug companies had been given immunity from civil action and criminal prosecution. You seemed not to know this. In this regard, I am writing to describe what has happened in the interim.
[. . .]
It is important to note that as C-19 jabs were authorised in an emergency situation, the ‘trial’ is still in progress, and the effects the jabs have on people must be fully recorded. So, this matter has two spheres to consider: firstly, the trials that were run in 2020 that persuaded the FDA (and our own MHRA, CHM and JCVI) to approve the jabs; and secondly, the trials run in 2021 – and ongoing – that are necessary to allow those drug authorisations to remain valid.
After some 150,000 pages of Pfizer’s documents, some very fishy and worrying facts have emerged – here is one assessment. It turns out that ‘these drug companies’ did indeed ‘run the risk of supplying dodgy drug products’.
What happens now? Doubtless, the likes of Dame June Raine, Sir Chris Whitty, Sir Patrick Vallance, Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, Wei Shen Lim and many others anxiously scan the internet for news of what the FDA papers reveal. I mean ‘the internet’ specifically, because none of this is being reported on television or in newspapers.
Read the rest here.
The same “non-reporting” by the legacy media can be observed in the many cases of vaccine-induced deaths and severe injuries AND the fact that, in the case of deaths, NONE of the bereaved family members have yet received any of the promised compensation. And when a marginalised outlet such as GB News does report this, some of the viewers heap the bereaved with scorn and ridicule. What a sick world we live in.
I wonder what the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin “taking the vaccine is a moral issue” Welby has to say about this development, if he’s even aware of if, which I doubt.
The BBC’s climate fake news
Time and again it has put the narrative ahead of the facts
Article by Fraser Myers on spiked-online.com.
Excerpts:
The BBC is very worried about ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ – especially when it comes to climate change, a cause close to Auntie’s heart. So much so that in 2020, it hired its first-ever specialist ‘disinformation’ reporter, who last year fronted an eight-part series for the World Service all about ‘climate disinformation’. The main theme of the show was that fake news about the climate could lead us to ‘catastrophe’.
Perhaps the BBC’s misinformation specialists should have been looking closer to home. Recently, the corporation’s very own climate editor, Justin Rowlatt, was found by the Beeb’s own editorial-complaints unit (ECU) to have made two ‘misleading’ statements in a Panorama documentary about climate change and extreme weather, broadcast last year.
The vast global reduction in natural-disaster deaths – tragically misreported by the BBC – tells an alternative, humanistic story. This is the story of human progress – of global economic development, industrialisation and innovation. This has allowed humanity to liberate itself from the vagaries and cruelties of nature. It is the simple reason why worsening weather does not translate into greater death and destruction. And it is this very progress and liberation that climate alarmists threaten to undo.
There is no climate emergency
Consider Signing the World Climate Declaration
From the “Climate Intelligence” website:
>>>>>
A global network of 900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment.
Epilogue
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change.
From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Group”. The CLINTEL Group will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts
World Climate Declaration plus all signatories in pdf
<<<<<<<
Dialogue With a Curious Injectee
Article by Margaret Anna Alice
A good overview over the information status on everything covid.
Moral Hazard
As seen by economist Thomas Sowell
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”
Following the Science is Impossible and Stupid
Institutional science follows politics; it will always endorse central regime policies
An article by “eugyppius”, who concludes:
Science isn’t some objective reasonable force outside of politics. Scientists spend most of their careers chasing government grant funding, and fighting for appointments and promotions in government-funded university systems. Science follows politics, and nobody knows this as much as the disingenuous politicians who claim that their policies are subordinate to scientific findings.
From Darwin to Hitler
The revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality
Writes Charles Burris:
In his book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (2004), Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics (a movement wanting to control human reproduction to improve the human species), but also on euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination. This was especially important in Germany, since Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles.
Here is Weikart’s talk on the subject.