Film Review: ‘Planet Of Humans’ Misplaces The Blame On Population Growth

| Educate!

Above photo: Films for Action.

This is a very effective but flawed film, which already has been seen on YouTube by 2.5 million when I saw it on April 26. To sum up my review, it combines a very welcome biting critique of “green” capital-driven renewable energy creation and big capital funding/influence on the agendas of major U.S. environmental groups with a reactionary message calling human population growth the driver of an unsustainable planet.

The film’s conclusion is that there is a “human presence far beyond sustainability”. It argues that scientists all agree, at least the ones interviewed, that overpopulation is at the root of our environmental crisis. Well, I am a scientist among many others who strongly disagrees with this conclusion, rather that the “cancerous form of capitalism” identified in this film is the root cause.

This cancerous form is militarized fossil capital driving perpetual wars for the control of oil. Yes, overpopulation is real, especially for the number of billionaires on our planet, even one is one too many. There are certainly cities, especially in the global South, that are overpopulated, but this is the result of the capitalist political economy and the exploitative relations between the global North and South.

Population growth stabilizes when poverty is sharply reduced and women are empowered in society, e.g., Kerala India is a prime example. So the biggest problem I have with the film is its promotion of a neo-Malthusian explanation for our environmental crisis. The producer of the film is Ozzie Zehner, a big promoter of the overpopulation explanation as the root cause of the environmental crisis. Google him and overpopulation and see for yourself.

Too bad Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore didn’t read Ian Angus and Simon Butler’s powerful critique of the overpopulation message in their book Too Many People? before they completed this film instead of promoting this user-friendly explanation on behalf of the capitalist ruling class, an explanation that puts a smokescreen over the political economy of capitalism thereby protecting their power and regime of extreme inequality on our planet.

The film very effectively exposes the false solutions of natural gas and biofuels/biomass energy, including burning wood on a massive scale, ethanol from sugarcane (Brazil), and how mainstream environmental groups like 350.org and the Sierra Club facilitated them in collaboration with big so-called green capital. We discuss this false solution in chapter 6 of our book, The Earth is Not for Sale.

Nevertheless, 350.org  has played a major role in generating a mass movement for terminating fossil fuels, especially among youth who believe the messaging, even with the foundation funding being rather opaque. So to claim as the film does, that the environmental movement has been taken over by capitalism ignores the real radical potential to move in a consistent anti-capitalist direction, in particular in advancing a Green New Deal increasingly guided by an ecosocialist agenda.

I have long critiqued Bill McKibben for not confronting militarism and imperialism. Militarized fossil capital would love to get control of the world’s biggest oil reserves (Venezuela) and the 4th biggest (Iran). That is the main reason for the U.S. imperialist regime change agenda which we must organize against, and convince the global climate justice movement to join this struggle.

So I don’t agree with Tom Athanasiou that this film is “crap.” But Athanasiou does make some good points such as the film’s  “rap against renewables is embarrassingly wrong. Not all of it, but most of it. Moreover, it is fantastically dated. He seems to not even know that the net-energy analysis of renewable energy systems is a thing.” Too bad Mark Jacobson wasn’t interviewed.

Nevertheless, the film’s strong point is that we cannot trust big “green” capital to deliver a wind/solar revolution minimizing ecological destruction. But not in the film is the imperative that ecosocialist class struggle must challenge “green” capital’s agenda at every step.  We must fight for maximum decentralized community control, along with the nationalization of the energy industry with bottom-up accountability and social management of wind/solar creation world-wide.  Further, the intermittency barrier to 100% renewable transition cited in the film is exaggerated given new technologies of storage and the complementarity of wind and solar at a large enough scale.

And Tom Athanasiou is right to conclude, “The film is long on criticism but offers no solution other than a vague non-capitalist pastoral alternative along with a bleak, harrowing final scene.”

In conclusion, both radical changes in the physical and political economy are needed. Here is a more concrete non-capitalist solution: ecosocialism with three critical measures: demilitarization of the global economy, i.e., dissolving the military industrial (fossil fuel nuclear state terror and surveillance) complex, substituting agroecologies for non-sustainable industrial/GMO/biofuel agriculture and the creation of a 100% wind/solar energy infrastructure to make possible the elimination of energy poverty of most of humanity and to have the energy capacity for climate mitigation and adaptation.

For more on this see my article, “100% Renewables: Wishful Thinking Or an Imperative?” and our book The Earth is Not For Sale: A Path Out of Fossil Capitalism to the Other World That is Still Possible (see updates including the challenge of extractive mining).

  • 0040

    Without the overpopulation the cancer that is capitalism or its younger sibling socialism aka moral capitalism would not be possible.This authors political beliefs overshadow his intellects ability to see reality . A perfect example of cognitive dissonance , the woke progressive freaks have now fully embraced. Better living, for them, through authoritarianism. An outcome Malthus Ricardo and Erlich predicted and documented before the age on infotainment arrived.

  • SteelPirate

    The more these conscious illusions of the ruling class are shown to be false and the less they satisfy common sense, the more dogmatically they are asserted and the more deceitful, moralizing and spiritual becomes the language of established society.

    –Karl Marx

    Overpopulation is a reactionary and anti-humanist meme. One that serves the capitalist ruling class as this writer states. Malthus and Ehrlich were reactionary misanthropes who were debunked, discredited, and proven to be wrong in objective material reality. Those are the facts. Your opinions are not facts no matter how many times you and the overpopulation reactionaries repeat them. There is no “population bomb” or threat of it. Doom porn and dystopian narratives provide the exact opposite of what you claim. They serve nobody but the ruling class. “We’re all gonna die anyway so everybody just sit back, leave the system in place, and make the best of it” is the intent.

  • Mensch59

    The overpopulation argument vs the anti capitalism argument really centers on consumption — or rather overconsumption.
    It’s too many prosperous (over) consumers consuming too much too fast in order to support the exponential growth of GDP. There’s a 1:1:1 correlation with energy usage and GDP and greenhouse gas emissions. Industrial agriculture, i.e. the capability of feeding 7.8 billion of us, projected to be 10 billion of us by 2050, depends on fossil fuels. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1191d69e99d9dce987d1335fe3bd7b08ffd250bba0049160b5376c0dadf9b57.png

  • 0040

    Humans are biochemical , micro voltage electrically powered devices which all use a similar amount of energy and raw materials regardless of their action/efforts or who controls those actions /efforts. The argument you offer here is based on a false cart before the horse premise that human actions/endeavors are all politically/economically motivated which is of course the elite classes accountants and banksters recurring “wetdream “.

  • Mensch59

    Humans are biochemical , micro voltage electrically powered devices which all use a similar amount of energy and raw materials regardless of their action/efforts or who controls those actions /efforts.

    Totally wrong. The consumption of a billionaire isn’t equal to the consumption of a serf. You obviously have no clue as to what consumption even IS. Without the common ground as to what consumption even IS, there’s no context for rational discussion.
    Your comments are more welcome on The Digger.
    Hang out there.

  • 0040

    A billionaire is an economic construct used to support a whole lot of BS . You should have stayed with the Wall Street Journal , much more up your alley.

  • Jeff

    What a totally lame review by someone clearly clueless about the natural world and everything that lives there. The Planet of the Humans is probably the best and most important documentary I’ve ever seen, and human overpopulation is the biggest problem on the planet (though individual overconsumption has to stop too and is almost as big of a problem).

    David Schwartzman claims that he’s a scientist, but doesn’t mention what his field is. This is the same BS that global warming/climate change deniers pull. Schwartzman’s field is clearly not natural history, wildlife biology, or ecology, or even marine biology, the only fields that would qualify him to claim expertise on this issue. Here are some of the major incorrect assertions and misleading statemens in this lame review:

    Population growth stabilizes when poverty is sharply reduced and women are empowered in society, e.g., Kerala India is a prime example.

    Nothing like starting in the middle of the problem when humans have already been overpopulatedfor thousands of years. But this is the kind of flawed thinking you get when you think and act like humans are the only ones living here.

    Natural population growth of any species, including humans, stabilizes when the food availability limit is reached. Humans managed to very harmfully circumvent that natural limit by using agriculture, which led directly to human overpopulation. By the time you’re talking about “poverty,” you’re already living unnaturally and have been overpopulating for a long time. Hunter-gatherers don’t experience poverty. Schwartzman is correct about Kerala India, the best example of lowering birth rates by non-coercive means. However, China’s somewhat coercive one-child-family policy did a much better job of reducing the birthrate.

    Finally, anyone who invokes Malthus in arguing against the fact of gross human overpopulation is way off base. As conservationists speaking for the rest of the planet, Malthus is totally irrelevant. Our concerns are not whether humans can continue destroying the Earth in order to feed their teeming masses or anything like what Malthus was concerned with. Our concerns are for all life on the planet, of which humans are only one of tens of millions of species. Malthus never gave a thought to that, his concerns were completely anthropocentric nd probably very selfish.

    The facts are that humans, their agriculture, and their infrastructure occupy more than half of the terrestrial land on Earth, that most of the remainder of dry land not taken over by humans is uninhabitable by all but the most primordial species, that species extinctions track human population growth almost exactly since 1800, and that human overpopulation is the biggest cause of the current extinction crisis. It’s understandable that humans don’t want to see the reality of their gross overpopulation because people want to think well of their own species, but lashing out against people who point out the truth and condemning a great film like this is inexcusable.

    This human-worshiping anti-environmental crap comes from both the right and the left, so this has nothing to do with left v.right or with social or economic issues. It’s about whether you stand with the Earth and all that lives here, or you support humans continuing to live very unnaturally and harmfully while pretending to care by advocating for a relatively meaningless change of technologies. Only great reductions in human population and individual consumption have any chance of fixing the great harms that humans have done and are still doing to the planet. Changing technologies to slightly less harmful ones might buy a little time, but that’s all it would do. You can’t have your cake and eat it too, so there’s no magical technological solution to these problems. Humans need to grow the ef up and acknowledge that.

  • Jeff

    You know nothing about the natural world, yet you insist on blathering about how overpopulation doesn’t exist. You are a perfect example of a dogmatic ideologue who suffers from cognitive dissonance and couldn’t see the reality of overpopulation if your life depended on it. Overpopulation has nothing to do with left/right issues, but you’re so hung up on that you can’t see reality.

  • SteelPirate

    I have an idea for you. Hook up with Zerzan and Ehrlich and a few dozen disciples and bust the Unabomber out of the joint. When you’re done with that…strip yourselves of all possessions including clothes and trek out on foot to the wild. When you get there… immediately get started on your spears and arrowheads in preparation for your daily needs and oneness with nature. Live happily ever after in that little group in your new society. And please do not procreate or return to civilization, as a show of solidarity with your cause.

  • Mensch59

    Too bad that Mother Earth hasn’t yet shaken Agriculture off as a dog would a bad case of fleas.
    Maybe your preaching for anti-civilization and anarcho-primitivism will gain some converts.

  • John Chadwick

    Capitalism relies on and thrives upon continued, unsustainable growth, i.e. Demand. The more people that require products-and-services, the more capitalism can survive. Also, the greater number of people that compete for jobs, the better capitalism can exploit workers…

  • Mensch59

    Also capitalism relies on false demand, i.e. creating the illusion of demand via advertising propaganda.
    The initial cause of unsustainable growth is the over-extraction of natural resources and the over-exploitation of one socioeconomic class of humans by another group. Think colonialism. Capitalism also relies on overproduction in order to provide the prosperous with cheap consumer goods and services.

    We might deepen our understanding of the historical relationships among capitalism, world ecology and neoliberalism by considering the significant extent to which neoliberal aims are a reflection of longstanding tensions between capitalism and ecology. One reason to not see environmental issues as “a diversion from the ‘real’ class struggle” is the viciousness of the top-down capitalist class war. This struggle lies at the heart of the contemporary neoliberal-capitalist project and is rooted in what we might call capitalism’s eternal nature problem. In his seminal study “Capitalism in the Web of Life: Ecology and the Accumulation of Capital,” environmental historian and political economist Jason Moore shows that capitalism has always depended on its capacity to discover, chart, conquer and appropriate new “resource frontiers” for its “long waves” of accumulation and expansion. Moore specifies a big-four nexus of interrelated “Cheap Natures”: cheap food, cheap labor (human power), cheap energy and cheap raw materials. These four natures always have been essential to capital’s ability to manufacture commodities and exploit great masses of wage earners at a sustainable rate of profit, unburdened by excessive capitalization (Marx’s famous organic composition of capital). “For every Amsterdam,” Moore writes, “there is a Vistula basin [cheap grain/food]. For every Manchester, a Mississippi Delta [cheap cotton/raw material] … twentieth century Fordism was unthinkable without the North American and Middle Eastern oil frontiers [cheap energy].”

    “How to Stop Capitalism’s Deadly War With Nature”, Paul Street, 14 September 2016, Truthdig

  • Nylene13

    Good Article.

    My Grandfather used to say “If only smart people who care about people and the world are the ones who stop having children, then only the stupid bad people will have children”.

    Of Course the world is overpopulated with humans. Of course it is a serious problem.

    But an entire generation of American young adults not having children is not the answer.

  • drumbeat

    I think you misinterpreted growth to be people not GDP/consumption.

  • What this graph shows is that most of humanity suffers from energy poverty which drives lower life expectancy than the highest we have in the world. Further, energy consumption in the U.S. and other wasteful countries of the global North must decrease, but in the global South energy consumption must increase to eliminate deadly energy poverty, of course in a full global transition to wind/solar power.

  • Pure biological reductionism. It is much easier to say this than struggle against capitalism.

  • Oh, I forgot to say that I am a biogeochemist, climate scientist, which you could have found out by going to our book website I provided in my review.

  • Finally, I assume you would welcome nuclear war and climate catastrophe,
    (“Gaia’s Revenge”) to deliver the “great reductions in human population and individual consumption” you want? Or do you have another way perhaps?

  • fjwhite

    About David Schwartzman — A request to Popular Resistance editors: please provide a brief bio of authors, preferably at the top of the article, so that readers don’t have to poke around looking for this info. Author bio information helps readers to assess the writer’s expertise as it relates to the subject matter of the article.

    For this article, I used Schwartzman’s reference to his other publications to search for and find the following bio sketch —

    David W. Schwartzman, Professor Emeritus, Howard University (Washington DC, USA), holds a PhD in Geochemistry from Brown University, USA. In 1999 (updated in paperback in 2002), he published Life, Temperature and the Earth (Columbia University) and has several recent papers in Capitalism Nature Socialism (CNS). David serves on the advisory boards of Capitalism Nature Socialism and the Institute for Policy Research & Development, and the editorial board of Science & Society. He is an active member of the DC Statehood Green Party/Green Party of the United States as well as several other community organizations, especially since his retirement from Howard University in 2012.

  • Mensch59

    It’s a delusion that wind/solar power can sustain the per capita energy requirements of poor consumers to achieve the lifestyles of modest bourgeois consumers. (So-called) “Green” capitalism is a deadly delusion. See the book Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism by Ozzie Zehner for a meticulous takedown of “green” energy and “green” capitalism.

    Before the onset of the pandemic more than fifty percent of all Americans were living paycheck to paycheck with little or no savings. In other words more than half of us were already living below or near the poverty line – half! Most at that marginal level were working long hours and multiple jobs just to pay monthly expenses, stay slightly above water and do their part to keep the economy growing. You could certainly make the argument the economy wasn’t really working for them; rather they were working their hearts out to feed the status quo economy.

    See the “Resilience” article “Normal Was Killing Us” by Cylvia Hayes, originally published by 3E Strategies (April 29, 2020) if interested. Still, these half of Americans were major (over)consumers contrasted with the half of of humanity living on $2/day or less suffering from energy poverty.

    Taking for granted that there is a 1:1:1 correlation with energy usage and GDP and greenhouse gas emissions AND taking for granted that building a wind/solar power infrastructure will still require the interim investment in the fossil fuel economy AND taking for granted that humanity doesn’t have an alternative economic model to the model requiring exponential economic growth, I’m pretty sure that what’s required in de-growth. De-grown means abandoning/abolishing/eliminating the model of one socio-economic class exploiting other socio-economic classes, the over-extraction of natural resources (i.e. less mining, less logging, less deforestation in order to establish a monoculture of for-profit crops), overproduction, overconsumption, a grotesquely unjust distribution system, waste (“Global food waste is a far-reaching problem with tremendous financial, ethical and environmental costs”), and the pollution which is causing the disruption and perturbation of long-term biogeochemical cycles.

  • Mensch59

    Excellent comment!

  • jho blho

    So let’s assume that you are right. If the elite have their way, something like–umm, maybe a virus that spares young people and those with decent medical care and culls the population of the weak and the poor–is in the works, especially when AI and machines can produce practically everything a trillionaire could want. Yeah, this will be a garden planet again one day when the .01% off us all.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Thank you, Mensch.

  • I suggest you read the sources I provided before you comment. E.g,, I never said that poor folk should get the same energy consumption level as modest bourgeois ones or “enjoy” their lifestyles, by going 100% wind/solar globally. Roughly the equivalent of 3 kilowatt/person is sufficient for the highest life expectancy now, see our graph posted at solarUtopia.org. And everyone will live better with clean air, water, electrified public transport etc. And yes to degrowth with respect to what you mention! But the provision of nutritious food, healthcare, education and the clean energy needed to make this possible is growth the world needs, a Global Green New Deal, increasingly guided by an ecosocialist vision, vision, not simply relying on “green” capital to deliver it.

  • Jeff

    I wasn’t going to respond to this small-minded self-centered garbage, but this type of anti-environmental comment gets made a lot so I’m responding. This response is for the general public, not for SteelPirate who’s anthropocentric beyond hope.

    Humans started doing great harm to the Earthabout 10,000 years ago when they started using agriculture, which directly caused the first wave of massive human overpopulation (eventually about 100 times the number of humans on Earth than existed before agriculture). We didn’t get into this mess overnight, and we’re not getting out of it overnight either. It would take many generations to reduce human population to levels where humans could live in proper ecological balance with their ecosystems, and it would take thousands of years to get back to living as hunter-gatherers even if all humans on Earth started moving in that direction today. We could eliminate industrial society in 150-200 years if we started now, but that would require lowering human population to one billion globally (still far too high to achieve ecological balance, but it would be a good start).

    So I’m not advocating or even suggesting that people immediately move from living totally unnaturally to living naturally on the land. That’s not only physically impossible, virtually no one would be willing to do it even if it were possible. What I do advocate is that people make serious efforts to simplify their lives and reduce human population: no more than one child per family, organize your life so you don’t have to drive and get rid of your car, get rid of your cell phone, don’t buy things you don’t need (which is mainly food, and don’t consume unnatural food that’s environmentally harmful like processed food and farmed meat), etc. The changes needed will have to be incremental, unfortunately for the Earth and everything that lives here, but over time humans could start living in balance with everything else on Earth and start focusing on empathy, wisdom, and expanding our consciousness instead of ego, intellect, and obsession with harmfully manipulating the physical world.

  • Jeff

    They were talking about both. Humans need to greatly reduce both their individual consumption and their population. If they only reduce one of them, they’ll continue doing great harm to the Earth.

  • rjochs

    Elephant in the
    Room

    Climate changing
    energy G

    supply and demand D

    is analyzed carefully C G

    to help us
    understand: D

    Nukes, and fossil
    fuels, G

    solar, wind and
    hydro, C

    energy conservation, D

    but one thing’s a
    “no-go”: D G

    CHO:

    Population boom G

    is the elephant in
    the room D

    More energy we’ll
    consume D

    with a population
    boom. C G

    16 million people

    impact upon the
    bay.

    Pollution, if cut
    in half,

    just might save
    the day.

    But if our numbers
    double,

    that would be for
    naught.

    We’d still be in
    trouble

    ‘cause we’re not
    taught, that

    CHO:

    Population boom G

    is the elephant in
    the room D

    There’s no room in
    the room D

    with an elephant
    in the room. C G

    Seven billion
    souls

    exist upon the
    earth

    consuming lots of
    everything

    from their day of
    birth.

    Now everyone wants
    a car,

    air conditioner
    too,

    poisoning air and
    water

    till we get a clue,
    that

    My performance:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DoQkhxd4CM

    CHO:

    Population boom G

    is the elephant in
    the room D

    More energy we’ll
    consume D

    with a population boom. C G

    Half the people
    walking ‘round

    are here by
    mistake.

    Unintended births,

    a crowd they do make.

    Contraception,
    tying tubes,

    abortion should be
    free.

    To save the planet
    earth,

    It behooves us to
    see, that

    CHO:

    Population boom G

    is the elephant in
    the room D

    There’s no room in
    the room D

    with an elephant
    in the room. C G

    When we learn
    biology

    about the petri dish

    where cultures grow
    til they die

    regardless of our wish.

    Like climate
    change and nuclear bombs

    an existential plight,

    the earth is but a
    petri dish*

    where everything’s
    finite.

    CHO:

    Population boom G

    is the elephant in
    the room D

    More energy we’ll
    consume D

    with a population
    boom. C G

    Population boom
    G

    is the elephant in
    the room D

    There’ll be gloom
    and doom D D

    With an elephant
    in the room. D C G

    C G D G

    by Richard J. Ochs

    The
    big Petrie Dish:

    Earthrise from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

  • Jeff

    Really? Then what is the answer to reducing human population if it’s not reducing birthrates? Do you think that there will be some magical solution, just like the fools who think that supposedly “green” energy (no such thing) will be a solution to environmental problems?

    Your grandfather’s comment is quite common among people who won’t admit that there are far too many people on the planet or, in your case, don’t want to actually do anything about it. The Earth needs everyone to limit their family to one child, not “only smart people who care about people and the world,” but those people need to limit their families to one child also.

  • Mensch59

    Considering that, according to the EIA in 2017, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential home customer was 10,399 kilowatt hours (kWh), an average of 867 kWh per month. That means the average household electricity consumption kWh per day is 28.9 kWh (867 kWh / 30 days).
    You’re saying that this can be cut approx 89.6% to an average of household electricity consumption kWh per day of 3 kWh.
    How? Especially, how do you expect American energy usage to drop approx 90% when developing countries actually want the lifestyles of economically developed countries?

    Also, how much fossil fuel energy is going to be required to transition to a wind/solar powered economy? We’re talking about the construction and maintenance of billions of square feet of solar panels (plus the mining of the raw materials for these panels) and wind turbines numbering in the millions (plus the raw materials). We still don’t have a solar powered plant which manufactures solar power panels, much less solar powered mining for the raw materials.

    It seems to me that — even if the logistics are not only possible (i.e. not impossible) but also imperative — such a transition to eliminate energy poverty and achieve energy egalitarianism would require some sort of a global dictatorship to achieve this transition. That’s another reason why I quite enjoyed the “Planet Of The Humans” doc. It exposed the “religious”-type thinking of the Greens, i.e. the salvific power of green, clean energy.

    But then, I’m a super pessimist and totally agnostic with regards to the myth of humans being progressive and a complete non-believer in enlightened utopian projects. Part of this pessimism etc comes from my reading of John N. Gray’s 2013 book The Silence of Animals: On Progress and Other Modern Myths.
    “The book consists of three parts. The first deals mainly with the supposed myth of human progress, the second with the disposition of humans to mythologize themselves and the world through fictions; the third proposes an alternative of pure contemplation that just lets the world be. That is the meaning of the title: we are invited to become more like other animals, freed of the perpetual need for commentary, understanding and transcendence.”

    My outlook also comes from reading Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007) “a critique of utopian thinking in the modern world”.
    I appreciate the optimism and the hope of progressives. I simply don’t share that optimism, hope.

    “The great enemy of grief is hope. Hope is the four-letter word for people who are unwilling to know things for what they are. Our time requires us to be hope-free. To burn through the false choice of being hopeful and hopeless. They are two sides of the same con job. Grief is required to proceed.” ― Stephen Jenkinson

    “George Orwell once talked about his ability to face unpleasant facts, and that’s always inspired me. I want to look at the things that are happening in the world that we may not want to think about and try to really understand them.” ― Roy Scranton

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    So you’re no longer all hot on the wisdom of Extinction Rebellion? My, every time one turns around you’ve pulled a 180. But then, you have always needed to pretend to be passionate about something to cover up the fact that you have no real convictions about anything.

  • Jeff

    And I invite you to STFU also. Everyone arguing with me here, including the author of this horrible “review” (more like a lame hit piece against the Earth), is an anthropocentric leftist who cares more about humans and money than about the Earth and the life on it and knows nothing about this issue. Notice that no one here disputed any of the facts that I presented about how overpopulation is harming the Earth and everything that lives here, because they’re indisputable.

    Overpopulation and overconsumption are the twin physical roots of all environmental problems, and if you just lowered human consumption you would not solve the problem of far too many humans on Earth causing mass extinctions by destroying the natural habitats and wilderness that the other species on this planet need. Here’s a fact that none of you know and/or are willing to confront: Most land occupied by humans is occupied by agriculture. So while gluttonous consumption by the rich is harmful and totally inexcusable and should be eliminated, it’s nowhere near the main cause of human overconsumption. In your fantasy scenario where only individual consumption is reduced without reducing human population, humans would still be squeezing out everything else on Earth. Not to mention that even if humans only consumed food and water but didn’t reduce their population, humans as a whole would still be greatly overconsuming.

    To screwdrivers (leftists), everything looks like a nail (capitalism). I agree that capitalism is evil and must be eliminated in order to have any chance of fixing the environmental and ecological problems that humans are causing, but capitalism is nothing but a symptom of a symptom of a symptom, and getting rid of it would be a mere baby step in the right direction.

  • Jeff

    It’s not about which people are reduced in population, nor is it about killing anyone (two other common anti-environmental arguments with absolutely no merit). Every person of every type, with only rare exceptions like the few remaining hunter-gatherers, needs to reduce their population by limiting their family to one child. This has nothing to do with rich v. poor or the 0.1%, though the latter do run human societies, unfortunately.

  • Jeff

    Reductionism has nothing to do with this and that’s a gross misuse of that term. I have a much more holistic view of life than you do, because my view is not limited to human concerns like yours is. It’s much easier to myopically obsess on human concerns than to be concerned about the Earth and everything on it equally. While I agree with the left on most issue, I’m definitely not a leftist because your priorities are all wrong, putting humans first instead of Earth First!

    I advocate for all life on Earth, and humans are only one of tens of millions of species, though they’re unfortunately by far the most powerful one and are using that power to immorally wreck the planet.

  • Jeff

    That should have been listed under your byline, as other websites do. I did a brief search for you online, but you’re not the only one with that name, another result of gross human overpopulation, though a meaningless one.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Well friend, what say we take that first “baby step” then? ‘Cause without it, you’re merely shi**ing in the wind – without your face mask.

  • Mensch59

    You’re welcome to present quotes of where I posted any “wisdom” of XR which you rejected or any ideas of the “wisdom” XR might possess (in your opinion) which I reject.
    As for my convictions (or lack thereof), it would be extremely stupid of me to disquss them with a dried-up old hag or a dried-up old warlock.

  • Jeff

    Wow, a totally anti-environmental argument from a Green Party member. Shows how far the Green Party has fallen since its inception in Germany in the 1970s when it was truly green and peace & the environment were the two priority issues. The Green Party should be called the Red Party now.

    If you want to have an actual discussion instead of childish name-calling, then don’t make illegitimate BS comments like that. I never advocated humans killing other humans. I advocate major reduction in human population by birth control and a major reduction in individual human consumption.

  • Jeff

    I have no kids, I got rid of my car over 20 years ago, and I buy almost nothing but food (I replace clothing when it’s torn and can’t be fixed). That’s my point; I expect people to make individual efforts in addition to advocating for major political and societal change. Just like large reductions in population and consumption, both are needed and only working on one won’t achieve any substantial result.

  • chetdude

    BUT…

    Replacing capitalist greed, inequality and exploitation with a sharing society…

    Power down! Higher Quality of Life practicing Conservation and Regenerative Ag to take the place ever increasing “standard of living” (GDP) promoted by fossil-fueled consumption and pollution.

    AND Birth Control as a Sacrament (SMALLER families – not eliminating children) and empowering Women to USE IT (control religions)…

    We need ALL of that or Game Over!

  • chetdude

    And if there was a Global Sharing Society instead of the capitalist zero-sum game, the folks having the most children in order to survive, won’t have to…

  • chetdude

    Fossil-fueled capitalism ENABLED over-population…

    Chicken meet egg…

  • chetdude

    Chicken meet Egg.

    YOU’RE BOTH CORRECT! However, unlike the author of this piece, Michael Moore and the producer and director of “Plant of Humans” are aware that the solution to the fossil-fueled capitalist consumption and pollution machine goes well beyond powering that same growth machine on “renewable power” (probably impossible) and that we MUST address the Over-Population piece CREATED by that machine. Without burning (and eating) fossil-fuels over the last 200 years, the human population would NEVER have reached the current level.

    How to fix this?

    Replacing capitalist greed, inequality and exploitation with a sharing society…

    Power down! Higher Quality of Life practicing Conservation and Regenerative Ag to take the place ever increasing “standard of living” (GDP) promoted by fossil-fueled consumption and pollution.

    AND Birth Control as a Sacrament (SMALLER families – not eliminating children) and empowering Women to USE IT (control religions)…

  • chetdude

    Search “Michael Moore, filmmakers respond to criticism of new bombshell environmental film – YouTube”

    Krystal Ball and Saager Enjeti’s interview with Moore and the producer and director of the film.

    Allow them to speak in their own words, ‘K?

  • chetdude

    Typical nonsense from you deniers…

    We’re not talking about throwing off our clothes and finding a cave to live in — that’s YOUR straw man…

  • chetdude

    Beautiful, Jeff. You’ve captured the intent of the film makers quite well…

  • chetdude

    Ah, proof that even “Marxists” can promote species suicide…

  • chetdude

    Why do you INSIST that this is “either/or”.

    Fossil-fueled capitalism ENABLED over-population, over-exploitation and over-pollution.

    The solution is to address the systemic disease (domination hierarchies now employing global, fossil-fueled capitalism to enforce domination) and ALL THREE of the existentially threatening by-products I mentioned.

    Mr. Moore and the film-makers are quite aware of these truths and that it’s suicidal to think that we can continue to “grow” (population and the “economy”) if we just power the over-consumption, over-exploitation and over-pollution machine with “renewable energy”.

  • chetdude

    No, we’d welcome a global resource sharing society and Birth Control as a Sacrament to gently lower the population to a sustainable level (within about 3-4 generations).

    Rather than relying on Mother Nature’s Revenge including nuclear war and climate catastrophe … the process we’ve been witnessing for at least 2 decades now…

    The super-virus that is giving Nature a little bit of relief right now is arguably part of Gaia’s Revenge as well…

  • chetdude

    I just watched a VERY painful interview with the histrionic ringleader of the “opposition” Josh Fox on Rising…

    Please, Mr. Fox, this is a MICHAEL MOORE FILM and therefore uses VERY one-sided polemic techniques to bust people out of consensus trances.

    That was fine when the ox being gored was the NRA, General Motors, the remedial sick care industry, gwBush, snotty Yuppies on a CT beach or Donald Trump but apparently suggesting that “alternative energy” is NOT a complete solution that will allow us to continue growing the population with a massive consumption/pollution machine using “clean energy” was a step too far, eh?

    Mr. Fox spent the interview parsing an individual leaf on one of the limbs on one of the trees in the forest (in other words, Moore’s basic M.O. of exaggerating to make a point/prod people into having the conversation) and said NOTHING about the fact that the entire forest is burning.

  • chetdude

    What makes you think that Covid-19 isn’t part of Mother Earth’s blowback?

    And we’re NOT preaching anti-civilization or anarcho-primativism…those are strawmen tossed around by techno-fantasists to avoid some inconvenient truths…

    But you seem to “Get it” in another post: “It’s a delusion that wind/solar power can sustain the per capita energy requirements of poor consumers to achieve the lifestyles of modest bourgeois consumers. (So-called) “Green” capitalism is a deadly delusion.”

  • chetdude

    And where are the gigatons of resources and giga-gigawatts of energy and the transportation required to gather those resources and build the “alternative” infrastructure to provide 3 kilowatts per person for the “projected” 10 billion humans by 2040 supposed to come from?

    And how is the Earth supposed to recover from the pollution generated during all of that manufacturing?

    Chicken meet egg — we need all of the following: Conservation, replace the capitalist consumption machine with a sharing economy AND humanely lower population to a sustainable level.

  • Colonel Shuffle

    And now, for something completely different …
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nW8ViUPnWFc

  • We humans have the responsibility not only for our species but all of biodiversity. I will repeat one more time, I advocate radical changes in both the physical and political economies to make a reality of improving the quality of life for all humans on the planet while preserving biodiversity in the time we have left. This means the termination of fossil capitalism as chetdude apply says.

  • Have you read any of the source material I shared? Obviously you can dig up stuff on the web, like the data you shared. The 3 kilowatt/person estimate is for the total primary energy consumption of the U.S. divided by its population. We have a big opportunity to implement energy conservation in buildings, transport (switching to public instead of fossil-fueled power cars/trucks/buses) as well as other sectors. The Jacobson lab (Stanford) has published a lot of detailed technical studies that show this is possible, by going wind/solar/water power generating electricity. Check out the news about R&D for photovoltaics at https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51799503.
    Thin film photovoltaics reaching 30% efficiency without using rare elements will help a lot to delegitimize the military industrial complex and its addiction to fossil fuel, especially petroleum, thereby strengthening the movement for global demilitarization. Yes, many people in the global South want to have the lifestyles of the affluent in the global North and this is indeed a challenge that the global climate/energy justice movement must confront. You ask “how much fossil fuel energy is going to be required to transition to a wind/solar powered economy?” Excellent question! The following is from https://climateandcapitalism.com/2020/03/07/ecosocialist-case-for-co2-removal/, comments: Citing Lenton et al. (2018) Nature 575: 592-595, “The world’s remaining emissions budget for a 50:50 chance of staying within 1.5 °C of warming is only about 500 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2”. This budget is equivalent to 1200 billion barrels of oil. Obviously, even a rapid termination of coal and natural gas use will subtract from how much oil can be used to replace itself and all fossil fuels by creating a global wind/solar power infrastructure, but even with current EROEI ratios of wind/solar there is still a window of opportunity left to reach this goal. With a robust protection regime driven by global class struggle, this path forward can be much less ecologically destructive than the alternative; climate catastrophe. EROEI = energy return over energy invested to create and maintain renewable technology over its lifetime.
    How long could this transition take? Potentially a few decades, but this will require ferocious struggle to overcome the main obstacle, militarized fossil capital and its political instruments that are now leading us to climate hell. Yes I am a utopian, as Che Guevara said “Be realistic, demand the impossible”! Not a global dictatorship, rather it will require the power of a global Subject, led by transnational working class and its allies, in particular indigenous peope around the world.

  • I simply quoted your own words, took them literally. Birth control yes, voluntary, and I provided the example of Kerala India (read the great work of Amartya Sen). And yes, you are partly correct, the GP of the U.S. is close to being red/green, i.e., ecosocialist, see its Green New Deal, and Howie Hawkins’ well-thought out version.

  • Mensch59

    Many people — regardless of both left- vs right-wing and authoritarian / fascist vs libertarian / anarchist orientations — are totally convinced that COVID-19 is a scam or planned and is no more dangerous than the seasonal flu. Maybe true belief in conspiracies — true vs false — knows no ideological bounds.
    Therefore, these people are totally unconvinced that this pandemic could possibly be part of Mother Earth’s blowback.

    I don’t have a problem with some aspects of anti-civilization or anarcho-primativism. We’re instinctively drawn to dignified and empathetic and compassionate persons. Therefore, we’re instinctively dignified and empathetic and compassionate. Our animal instincts are to behaviorally demonstrate dignity and empathy and compassion to our kin and our group. But our socialization into a really sick culture –sometimes called “domestication” or “civilization” — causes us to act very differently from our benign (animal) instincts. Maybe that makes me a (primitive) animist. What this has to do with the anima and animus, as described in Carl Jung’s school of analytical psychology and as part of his theory of the collective unconscious, is beyond my pay grade.

    I’m definitely NOT a true believer in overpopulation, though. This comment from @profloraincarnegie:disqus is more my speed:

    Another way to approach the [“overpopulation“] problem would be, rather than prevent the birth of extremely wealthy people, prevent the creation of extremely wealthy people. In other words, prevent the accumulation of massive wealth. You could do that by, for instance, taxing the shit out of wealthy people.

    If you approached the problem that way, under the banner of reducing global income inequality, you would find many allies. Income inequality is a top-line concern of people and organizations all over the world, even some conservatives these days.

    Reducing high-end consumption could have an enormous short-term impact on carbon emissions, as climate scientist Kevin Anderson is always saying. Shifting wealth within populations — reducing the number of very wealthy and the number in poverty — can have as much carbon impact as reducing overall population.

    So maybe, at the next environmental event, you could ask the income inequality question rather than the population question. One way to prevent the creation of new high-consumers would be to persuade the wealthy to have fewer babies…

    See (if interested) the article on Vox by David Roberts “I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why. Since you asked (many times).”

  • I have already responded to part of your questions. Of course we cannot achieve these goals without a much stronger protection regime for humans and ecosystems, nor without global demilitarization. This is not a green capital-driven scenario, BAU. For the challenge of extractive mining, material requirements, go to: http://www.theearthisnotforsale.org/Critique_Capitalocene.pdf. Please email me for further questions, critiques at dschwartzman@gmail.com. Be well, stay well, David

  • Nice words, but the challenge is more collective class struggle than changing your individual lifestyle. Privileged folk especially in the global North could go live in the woods with their laptop like Derrick Jensen, while billions, especially in the global South will not have this opportunity, rather face a climate hell much worse than the horrors we now witness, unless we act in solidarity and defeat militarized fossil capital. This is not a message coming from the film.

  • Thanks, and here is my email, in case anyone wants to continue this conversation: dschwartzman@gmail.com. I am delighted that my review has stirred up the hornet’s nest!

  • We can certainly reduce the rate of growth of population, but not its absolute numbers, by learning from the experience of e.g., Kerala, as noted in my review. Absolute number reduction can come from nuclear war, climate catastrophe, even a much worse pandemic than we now witness, but I hope this is not your objective. And by all means, individual consumption levels of the affluent Americans must be reduced to sustainable levels, which would be perfectly compatible with a higher quality of life. But again most of humanity needs to consume more essentials to achieve the same quality of life, namely nutritious food, healthcare, education, clean energy supplies.

  • Mensch59

    We have a big opportunity to implement energy conservation in buildings, transport (switching to public instead of fossil-fueled power cars/trucks/buses) as well as other sectors.

    This is a misuse of the royal “we”, taking for granted that there are competing interests and grotesquely unequal power relations involved in this goal of energy conservation.

    Thin film photovoltaics reaching 30% efficiency without using rare elements will help a lot to delegitimize the military industrial complex and its addiction to fossil fuel, especially petroleum, thereby strengthening the movement for global demilitarization.

    Who has the power to delegitimize the military industrial complex? Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans. If there’s an actual social movement for global demilitarization — as opposed to a lot of rhetoric from an extremely small vocal minority — I must have missed it. I’m not into hopium. I’m into what is, not what if.

    With a robust protection regime driven by global class struggle, this path forward can be much less ecologically destructive than the alternative; climate catastrophe. EROEI = energy return over energy invested to create and maintain renewable technology over its lifetime.

    As much as I’d like to believe in this “robust protection regime driven by global class struggle” — aka have faith, trust, confidence in the fossil fuel economy being overthrown in favor of a conservation & solar/wind powered economy — I’m pessimistic. If I magically converted from my pessimism to your optimism, that would do nothing — in terms of changing the world — to disempower “militarized fossil capital and its political instruments that are now leading us to climate hell.” If we’re going to make this transition, we’re actually needing to change (1) natural resources as private property (2) the forces of production (3) the relations of production (i.e. #’s 2 & 3 being the base/substructure of the political economy) AND (4) social hierarchical power structures (i.e. laws, media, political parties, science having an executive role instead of merely an advisory role, the educational system). We’ll need to abolish the system which creates super-predatory consumers (i.e. billionaires) reducing the number of very wealthy and the number in poverty.

    Anyway, it’s as unlikely that you’ll stop being a utopian as it is that an atheistic evolutionary biologist would convert to born again evangelical fundie Christianity.

  • SteelPirate

    Strawman ? You’re soliciting in the wrong pew, so let us review…

    “We don’t substantially agree, because my most fundamental goal is for humans to return to living as hunter-gatherers and greatly lower their population to pre-agricultural levels, as we agree about 10 million globally . And my priority is all life, not human life. Earth First!”

    “With its extreme overconsumption and and overpopulation, the human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth. It doesn’t have to be this way, humans could instead be a shining light on our planet. But choices made long ago, like using agriculture instead of remaining hunter-gatherers.”

    “Societies have to learn to stop living beyond their means so they don’t have to attack others to take their resources. If that means eventually returning to living as hunter-gatherers, so be it.”

    “As to agriculture in general, as I said it’s all harmful. The only proper way to live on the planet is as hunter-gatherers.”

    “From the point of view of anything else on Earth, humans have been overpopulating for 10,000 years. It’s just gotten much worse since the invention of artificial fertilizer, which provides even more food, and secondarily some medical science that allows some children to live who would have died of childhood diseases.”

    “I wouldn’t lift a finger for the human race until and unless it stops acting like a cancerous tumor on the Earth.”

    “Humans should focus on expanding our consciousness, not artificially and harmfully manipulating the physical world, like using agriculture does.”

    “The only proper way to live on the planet is as hunter-gatherers.”

    “Humans continue to get worse, hopefully their extinction is near.”

    — from your buddy Jeff

    Wanna try again chet ?

  • Mensch59

    … unless we act in solidarity and defeat militarized fossil capital.

    Great sentiment. Yes, it’s what must be done. How? Who has the power to defeat capital?

    This is not a message coming from the film.

    The bottom line message from the film, in my opinion, is that capital has co-opted the environmental movement and its leaders.

  • Who has the power? The transnational working class and its allies, i.e., most of humanity, has the potential power. Only mass organizing can make this happen. Are you up to it?

  • I like your last paragraph! You did flesh out many of the challenges,
    but if you prefer to be dystopian rather than utopian, be my guest. Watch Netflix, take the drug of your choice etc.

  • Mensch59

    RE “promoting suicide”: bollocks.
    “Marxists” promote dialectical and historical and material reality (i.e. what IS) instead of the hopium of what if (i.e. “a sharing economy AND humanely lowering population to a sustainable level”).
    That being said, it’s great that you can fantasize/imagine a better world.
    “I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” ~ Albert Einstein

  • Mensch59

    Both Jeff and chet imagine themselves to be great friends of the Mother Earth. It’s kinda sorta a religion.
    From the grand old man:

    The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

    Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

  • SteelPirate

    The consistent pattern of analyses from the well off reactionaries is that whatever the social problem, the mass of people or human nature are to be blamed. Denouncing civilization and humanity serves the privileged parasites over the exploited. The objective material reality of capitalist exploitation and private ownership of the means of life is completely ignored for what amounts to sophistry in service to reactionary individualism, lifestyle anarchist fantasies, and new age spiritualism. A perpetual tearjerk of disaffected elitist and well off salon activists trying to throw off the guilt of their complicity and privilege and project it on the exploited masses. And these overpopulation reactionaries are “multiplying like rabbits.” Very ironic considering the subject matter.

  • Jeff

    Sure, everyone could share equally in overpopulating and destroying the Earth. Thanks for your “thumbs ups” and we basically agree, but whether humans share things or let the most aggressive a-holes take everything (i.e., capitalism) or whether we share (socialism) is largely irrelevant to this issue, which leftists don’t get.

  • Jeff

    No, use of agriculture caused overpopulation. Food availability is the main natural limiting factor in population, and what caused overpopulation was agriculture. Before agriculture there were 10 million people on the entire planet. Before industrial society, there were a billion, which was an increase of 100 times.

  • SteelPirate

    Well man…I disagree with the old man on that 🙂 Historical materialism is a way to see the reality of our stay on this rock. Organized religion is certainly a scam but I don’t give a s##t what anyone believes in after we leave this rock. The system needs to be changed. The historical material reality of private ownership of the means of life and its results on this rock is reality. It’s measurable and provable in poverty,degradation, and destruction. Beyond that… leave the f##king people alone as they are. Anyone who has passed through this joint – including the old man – trying to think they have the final answers of the Universe and beyond is pissing on your head and telling you it’s raining. It’s not knowable in any way. The nature of the Universe is violent on an unimaginable scale beyond human comprehension.

    The planet will survive until it doesn’t. To claim “human guilt” for evolving as part of the Universe is the height of absurdity and egoism. We are not that important – a speck of sand on an infinite beach – but we do owe it to ourselves to try and survive as a species until we don’t. Why would we not try to eliminate a system of destruction that causes great human misery that is speeding up our eventual demise. When the sun lights its last fire the planet is no more and there will be no environment to harm. That is a reality we know. It is our responsibility to lift the human condition on our way through and not to demonize human civilization on our way through.

  • Jeff

    By assuming that I advocate “nuclear war and climate catastrophe” you took my words totally out of context and totally changed & perverted what I said. I mean, great sophistry and propaganda, but not at all honest. I never advocated anything like that, I don’t know that I could even kill an animal other than a fish if I needed to do so in order to survive. Twisting what I said to suit your agenda and ideology isn’t legitimate, and is just more anti-environmental BS. Look, you either stand with the Earth and all that lives here, aka life, or you stand with humans in opposition to that.

    So those who voluntarily want to continue to overbreed and continue to destroy the Earth with their extreme overpopulation are allowed to do so? Sorry, but the Earth and the other species here don’t give a damn about human freedoms, which is just selfish childish BS. “Voluntary” should not be the standard here or anywhere else. People are only entitled to freedoms for which they’ve shown the necessary responsibilities. Humans have been completely irresponsible regarding breeding, so they’re not entitled to any freedoms in that area.

  • Jeff

    Yes, but what you advocate is merely a small step in the right direction. The problems on Earth, as opposed to human-only problems, go way beyond the harms caused by capitalism and fossil fuels. While those things are causing massive harms to our planet, human-caused harms go way beyond those caused by fossil fuels and capitalism.

  • Jeff

    Oh gimme a break! Even poor people in Africa have cell phones. Stop this “oh the poor ___” crap and acknowledge reality, and stop giving everyone but the rich a free pass. Poor people are just as capable of being evil as rich people. Derrick Jensen is a hero and his ideologies are some of the best advocated for. Anyone who attacks him is on the wrong side and is not green, despite your political party affiliation.

  • SteelPirate

    Extinction of species was a common feature of natural history on this rock long before human civilization. Nature is not some peaceful and harmonious state of existence forever remaining in a pristine state that your idiotic mind imagines. It is and has always been brutal and violent. It exists in a constant state of catastrophes and disruptions that radically reshape it continuously. Your arrogance is astounding.

  • Jeff

    Thanks chetdude. None of the detractors here are real environmentalists, including the author of this BS review who’s in the “Green” Party. I was a campaigner for Earth First!, a paid employee of Greenpeace, and helped sponsor a speech by Paul Watson at U.C.Berkeley & had beer & pizza with him afterward. I’ve forgotten more about these issues than all these detractors here put together know. But intellectual knowledge isn’t the problem here, it’s the immoral human attitude toward everything that’s not human.

  • Jeff

    There is no evidence that any more than 10 million people globally is in ecological balance. Everything that humans have done since agriculture is unnatural, and even before industrial society there were 100 times more people than could live in balance with their ecosystems.

    A major problem in these discussions is that you don’t respond to any of the facts that I listed; instead, you just state your ideologies and opinions, which are all totally irrelevant to reality. If you can’t dispute my listed facts, which are indisputable, then you have nothing meaningful to say and might as well admit that I’m right.

  • gardensheila

    No, it focuses on how we are destroying the environment for the sake of mad consumption.

  • Mensch59

    Nature is not some peaceful and harmonious state of existence forever remaining in a pristine state… It is and has always been brutal and violent. It exists in a constant state of catastrophes and disruptions that radically reshape it continuously.

    If I may play devil’s advocate, I assume that Jeff is grieving because this current state of catastrophic and disruptive change is because of the Anthropocene.
    Check out John Bellamy Foster’s “Marxism in the Anthropocene: Dialectical Rifts on the Left” in the journal International Critical Thought: Vol 6, No.3

    Natural scientists have pointed to the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch, with the precise dating not yet decided, but often traced to the Great Acceleration of the human impact on the environment since 1945. Thus understood, the Anthropocene largely coincides with the rise of the modern environmental movement and corresponds to the age of planetary crisis. This paper looks at the evolution of Marxian and left contributions to environmental thought during this period. Although Marx’s ecological materialism is now widely recognized, with the rediscovery of his theory of metabolic rift, the debate has recently shifted to ecological dialectics, including dualism, monism, totality, and mediation, generating a conflict between ecological Marxism and radical ecological monism. It is argued here that only an ecological Marxism, rooted in a materialist dialectic of nature and society (emphasis in original), is able to engage effectively with the Great Climacteric that increasingly governs our times.

    See also “Eco-Marxism and the critical theory of nature: two perspectives on ecology and dialectics” by Carl Cassegård in the journal Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory: Volume 18, 2017 – Issue 3

    John Bellamy Foster points out in numerous publications, we need Marx to make sense of our current ecological predicament in the Anthropocene, the age in which humankind affects the earth in the manner of a geological force. The article focuses on the relation between eco-Marxism and the critical theory of nature, two currents both focusing on how to understand nature from a broadly Marxian perspective. I assess the criticism eco-Marxists like Burkett and Foster have directed at Alfred Schmidt and the early Frankfurt School and argue that the friction between the two currents to a large extent stems from different conceptions of dialectics and materialism. Next I turn to, and criticize, Foster’s attempt to use an Epicurean-inspired model of dialectics to ensure unity of method in the study of nature and society. Finally, turning to the critical theory of nature as exemplified by Theodor Adorno, I argue that the critical theory of nature offers theoretical tools for grasping the relation between nature and capitalism that are far more useful for grasping the present ecological crisis than Foster and Burkett appear to think. The contributions offered by critical theory include its dialectical approach to the categories of nature and society, a thoroughgoing anti-idealism based on the notion of the ‘preponderance of the object’, the use of constellations to accommodate natural science and a heightened sensitivity to the entwinement of ideological and utopian aspects in the notion of nature.

    The ecological crisis is anthropogenic. That’s as factual as (1) this present historical material reality of private ownership of the means of life (2) this present system of destruction that causes great human misery & that is speeding up our eventual demise.

    In my opinion, this isn’t about assigning guilt or establishing shame or demonizing human civilization. It’s about accepting responsibility and being accountable.

  • Mensch59

    The nature of the universe is sublime.

    To clarify the concept of the feeling of the sublime, Arthur Schopenhauer listed examples of its transition from the beautiful to the most sublime. This can be found in the first volume of his The World as Will and Representation, § 39.

    For him, the feeling of the beautiful is in seeing an object that invites the observer to transcend individuality, and simply observe the idea underlying the object. The feeling of the sublime, however, is when the object does not invite such contemplation but instead is an overpowering or vast malignant object of great magnitude, one that could destroy the observer.

    · Feeling of Beauty – Light is reflected off a flower. (Pleasure from a mere perception of an object that cannot hurt observer).
    · Weakest Feeling of Sublime – Light reflected off stones. (Pleasure from beholding objects that pose no threat, objects devoid of life).
    · Weaker Feeling of Sublime – Endless desert with no movement. (Pleasure from seeing objects that could not sustain the life of the observer).
    · Sublime – Turbulent Nature. (Pleasure from perceiving objects that threaten to hurt or destroy observer).
    · Full Feeling of Sublime – Overpowering turbulent Nature. (Pleasure from beholding very violent, destructive objects).
    · Fullest Feeling of Sublime – Immensity of Universe’s extent or duration. (Pleasure from knowledge of observer’s nothingness and oneness with Nature).

    This “Fullest Feeling of Sublime” invokes the silence of mystery, i.e. what you call “on an unimaginable scale beyond human comprehension”. If a religious feeling of the sublime is more one’s thing (because religion attempts [but always fails] to put words to the mystery), Rudolf Otto compared the sublime with his newly coined concept of the numinous. The numinous comprises terror, Tremendum, but also a strange fascination, Fascinans. See the article “Rudolf Otto’s Concept of the ‘Numinous’.”

    Rudolf Otto was one of the most influential thinkers about religion in the first half of the twentieth century. He is best known for his analysis of the experience that, in his view, underlies all religion. He calls this experience “numinous,” and says it has three components. These are often designated with a Latin phrase: mysterium tremendum et fascinans. As mysterium, the numinous is “wholly other”– entirely different from anything we experience in ordinary life. It evokes a reaction of silence. But the numinous is also a mysterium tremendum. It provokes terror because it presents itself as overwhelming power. Finally, the numinous presents itself as fascinans, as merciful and gracious.

    Outline of Otto’s concept of the numinous (based on The Idea of the Holy. Trans. John W. Harvey. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923; 2nd ed., 1950 [Das Heilige, 1917]):

    Mysterium tremendum et fascinans” (fearful and fascinating mystery):

    · “Mysterium“: Wholly Other, experienced with blank wonder, stupor
    · “tremendum“:
    · awefulness, terror, demonic dread, awe, absolute unapproachability,
    “wrath” of God
    · overpoweringness, majesty, might, sense of one’s own nothingness in
    contrast to its power
    · creature-feeling, sense of objective presence, dependence
    · energy, urgency, will, vitality
    · “fascinans“: potent charm, attractiveness in spite of fear, terror, etc.

    There’s also the direct experience of both the sublime and the numinous via revelation. Therefore, the acceptance of “The nature of the Universe is violent on an unimaginable scale beyond human comprehension” is essentially & ultimately religious.

  • Mensch59

    A pessimistic dystopian isn’t required to withdraw or resign. There’s meaning in struggle, even if the struggle is in vain.
    Perhaps a great many pessimistic dystopians find mindless entertainment and excess psychedelics unfulfilling.

  • Mensch59

    Yes. There’s potential power vs actual power.
    It’s quite obvious to me that presently (in the here & now) the transnational working class and its allies are disorganized, powerless, resigned, aggressively coerced/dominated by the rentier & capitalist classes, consenting to be propagandized & manipulated. That’s the bad news. What’s the good news? How do the transnational working class and its allies get out of this predicament? [You can answer me here or email me at slabaughgary@gmail.com since you graciously provided your own email address and credentials.]

    Only mass organizing can make this happen. Are you up to it?

    Sure. The Green Party is already actually a bit better organized here in British Columbia.

  • Mensch59

    There is no evidence that any more than 10 million people globally is in ecological balance.

    That’s a fact-free statement. A negative claim still requires evidence. Otherwise it’s pseudoscience.

    Everything that humans have done since agriculture is unnatural, and even before industrial society there were 100 times more people than could live in balance with their ecosystems.

    More fact-free statements. As if you’re some grand poohbah of authority as to what’s “unnatural” or “balanced”. At least you’re proficient in using weasel words.

    If you can’t dispute my listed facts, which are indisputable, then you have nothing meaningful to say and might as well admit that I’m right.

    Such hubris. The “facts” are with you and are “indisputable”, Oh Mighty One, while everyone who disagrees with you is an opinionated ideologue. Your type of arrogance is in full display all over social media. It would be funny if it wasn’t so full of pathos.

  • Jeff

    I’m certainly advocating against agriculture and its resulting civilization; worst things to happen to the Earth and everything that lives here. It’s not about humans, it’s about life on Earth. If humans can’t live in balance like every other species, they don’t deserve to be here. And civilization is by definition Koyaanisqatsi (read some Derrick Jensen).

  • Mensch59

    If I was still contributing to The Digger, I’d put this up for discussion — especially since there’s not much of a disqussion group at Vanessa Beeley’s WordPress site https:// thewallwillfall. org/about/ (remove the spaces here to access the following).
    “Gaslighting the Coronavirus” by Dimitry Orlov posted by vanessa beeley / 2 hours ago

  • Jeff

    What are you, five years old? “He did it too, mommy!” Really?

    Humans are causing extinctions at approximately 1,000 times the natural rate. Furthermore, no other species causes extinctions. So your point is just more BS, making lame excuses for hideous human behavior. There is nothing worse than destroying ecosystems or habitats, or causing extinctions. And I mean nothing, even Hitler, who murdered 1/4 of my family.

    You also show a total lack of one of the very basic precepts of life, which is that it is impermanent both by design and by necessity. Of course species become extinct naturally, it couldn’t be any other way. Even stars die eventually, nothing lives forever. So what? That doesn’t mean that it’s OK for you and humans to kill things other than to eat them.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Wow, thank you! This is a very interesting article. I haven’t seen much of Orlov lately but he’s always been an excellent read. I will source it from his own blog, however, mentioning Beeley’s blog as a good one also (I prefer sourcing to the author’s blog if s/he has one).

  • A reasonable projection for 2050 if catastrophic climate change can be prevented is roughly 9 billion human population, which would be stabilized because of a much better quality of life for all on our planet, and ecological balance would be much better than now because of a full shift to wind/solar and agroecologies supplying food, and of course a world without war! This is the Other World that is Still Possible, if sufficient global class struggle can bring it into being sooner than later. I agree with Mensch59’s comments below. If you actually support a world with 10 million people, then only global catastrophe can bring it about, and if you support that then continuing our conversation is pointless.

  • jfwf

    Jeff, I can certify that Dr David W Schwartzman is a Biogeochemist and life long human rights and civil rights activist who has spent his life creating a better world for vulnerable people. His latest book is The Earth is Not for Sale with his son. His first book is “Life, Temperature and the Earth’. He taught at Howard University for 39 years and went to Brown University a long time ago. No need for insults, just be nice and civilized please, have a nice day.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Thank you for the recommendation. I’d like to post it at The Digger, as I think Orlov’s analysis of Russia and China’s motivations are quite interesting and Orlov has always been a valuable voice in international matters, and this is a fine essay. The problem is that I don’t see that Beeley got permission to post it on her blog, and I’d rather source to an author’s blog directly if s/he has one – but you need to put at least a bit of money down to read the article on Club Orlov. So I’m not sure about the legalities and am trying to get an answer on that.

  • Nylene13

    I think the US has already reached population birth control, has it not? Regarding number of babies being born.

  • Nylene13

    Birth one-adopt one, sounds good to me.

    Regarding human population-the problem is large 3rd world countries. Which yes, something needs to be done. Mainly ending poverty.

    We are not overpopulated in the U.S. -regarding number of babies being born now. Most of our population today is boomers, born after WW2.

  • Nylene13

    You don’t know what you are talking about. You need to do a lot more reading about how poor people in poor countries live.

  • And you Jeff are now the decider who can breed? And who is going to enforce this policy of coercive birth control, the capitalist state? If humans are such a cancer on the planet, why are you still here, bothering to give your comments on this page, I presume using that horrible product of human industrial civilization, the computer? By the way, I just talked to the rock formation in the park nearby and it told me it supports human freedoms, how about that? And the robin in my backyard said the same thing! Your rants have become sillier and more childish as you go on. I am not intending to insult you, rather describing your behavior and arguments which can validly described as eco-primitive a la your hero Derrick Jensen.

  • Your remarks here simply show that you ignore real measures of quality of life, especially life expectancy, with most of the global South living below the highest level shared by a few countries in the global North. But of course according to your reasoning the poor deserve what they get, shorter and more miserable lives, all a result of overbreeding. Again your biological reductionism. Derrick Jensen’s eco-primitivism is a prescription for suicide of most of the world’s people, which would reduce the population down to levels that you so advocate. This eco=primitivism is really equivalent to eco-fascism.

  • Yes, there are more David Schwartzman’s than me, kudos to more people who will terminate fossil capitalism ! And fewer Derrick Jensens and eco-fascists!

  • Mensch59

    I guess copyright laws still ought to be respected.
    As for my lack of passionate convictions, I found this while researching antecedents to the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias and the cognitive bias of illusory superiority: Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) wrote in Human, All Too Human (aphorism 483), “The Enemies of Truth. — Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”

    Maybe having a lack of passionate convictions makes me less of an enemy of truth.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You and your little gang might take those words to heart when you spread this crap about Digger being right-wing and even fascist when what we’re actually trying to do is open up conversations beyond echo chamber opinions which people hold as convictions rather than trying to see the truth.

  • Mensch59

    It seems, though, that you value passionate convictions more than myself — such as passionate convictions about me and my little (illusory?) gang.
    Maybe lighten up about how horribly verbally abused by said “gang” you’ve been and what a victim you are and how Hayes absolutely never goes on the initial attack and then feigns victimhood when counterattacked.
    I don’t have passionate convictions about (1) you (2) The Digger (3) what you call “you and your little gang” (4) echo chambers (5) verbal abuse (6) you being a victim (7) political arguments which devolve into personal attacks & counterattacks. I have opinions which are open to assessment and reassessment.
    I hope that’s A-OK with you, Professor.

  • Jeff

    I’m not so presumptuous as to claim to know that we have to get back to 10 million people globally; that was just the global human population when people started using agriculture. It’s certainly possible that humans could figure out how to have a few more people than that and still live in proper balance with the natural world. But again, you don’t dispute any of my facts, you just state your wishes, which are some fantasy world where humans grossly overpopulate and do whatever they want, but those things don’t harm the natural world. That fantastical and delusional thinking and attitude was exactly the target of this great film, but people like you just don’t get it because you’re anthropocentric and because maintaining your lifestyle is more important to you than the natural world.

    You also continue to spew the propagandist lie that I’m advocating for 10 million people on Earth right now or in the near future. I said explicitly that 10 million people globally is a very long-term goal. It’s also a lie to say that “only global catastrophe” could lower human population the ecologically necessary amount. China’s one-child-family policy has lowered its birthrate to about 1.6. While still not low enough, it’s well below replacement level, and if maintained long enough, would reduce human population to 10 million eventually. And a global one-child-family policy, maintained long enough, would obviously reduce human population to 10 million eventually. What you mean to say is that you don’t want to reduce human population, and that’s the problem here.

    roughly 9 billion human population, which would be stabilized because of a much better quality of life for all on our planet, and ecological balance would be much better than now because of a full shift to wind/solar and agroecologies supplying food …

    “[Q]uality of life for all’? The problem is that you mean “all humans,” not all life. Tell the trees and the bears and the insects how great their quality of life will be with another 1.2 billion people on Earth. And even quality of life for humans decreases with each new human added to a grossly overpopulated world.

  • Mensch59

    There’s data which becomes information which becomes knowledge which becomes wisdom/”Sophia” and truth.
    Then there’s personal sniping, i.e. the action of verbally attacking someone in a sly or petty way, which doesn’t even contribute to data. Mostly, sniping contributes to stupidity & foolishness in the specific contexts of “Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience” and the proverb
    “Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
    Or you will also be like him.
    Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
    That he not be wise in his own eyes.”

    I’d like to put all of this foolishness and stupidity behind us, realizing (1) I never want to post on The Digger (2) I don’t give a rat’s ass about being banned from that blogspot site by an imperious mod who (extremely opinionatedly) decides which people to single out for her “three strikes” rules of engagement (3) any bridge to you and I being friends after burying the hatchet has been blown to smithereens.

    What’s the meaning of the phrase ‘Blown to smithereens’?
    Disintegrated into small fragments by a sudden impact or explosion.

    What’s the origin of the phrase ‘Blown to smithereens’?
    ‘Smithereens’ is an Irish word. It derives from, or is possibly the source of, the modern Irish ‘smidirín’, which means ‘small fragments’. There is a town near Baltimore, close to the south-west coast of Ireland, called Skibbereen. The name means ‘little boat harbour’ and it is tempting to imagine sailing ships arriving there from the wild Atlantic by being ‘blown to Skibbereen’. The more recent ‘Troubles’ also bring up images of property/people being dynamited and ‘blown to Skibbereen’ from all over Ireland. There’s no record of any such phrase however, and the similarity between ‘Skibbereen’ and ‘smithereens’ seems to be no more than co-incidence.

    Another enticing notion as to the source of ‘smithereens’ is that it refers to the shards of metal formed when iron is forged and hammered in a smithy. Again, there’s nothing but wishful thinking to support that idea. The actual origin is more prosaic.

    https:// http://www.phrases. org. uk/meanings/blown-to-smithereens.html (spaces included to avoid this going into “Pending”)

  • Jeff

    No, human overpopulation is the biggest and most important issue everywhere including the U.S., not just third world countries. For example, there were millions of wolves in the U.S. when the colonizers got here; you can’t have anywhere near that number with 300+ million people here. Forests covered almost all of the eastern U.S. before he colonizers killed all the trees, and again restoration of those forests is not even close to possible with the current population in the east. Western U.S. areas are mostly arid and semi-arid, and therefore only support small numbers of each species naturally, but the colonizers circumvented those limitations by destroying rivers (in addition to other methods) in order to have massive numbers of people in places like Phoenix and Las Vegas, which each could probably support a hundred or so hunter-gatherers who move around. Everyplace on Earth is grossly overpopulated with humans of all types.

    You also confuse population growth with overpopulation. The current birthrate for the U.S. (or anywhere else) is a totally different fact than the total population and whether that population exceeds the natural limits of the ecosystems in the U.S. Even if the U.S. birthrate were down to one — it’s now around two — the U.S. would still be overpopulated. Just because a higher than two-per-family birthrate causes overpopulation doesn’t mean that the birthrate and total population are the same thing.

    As to poor people having kids so that some of them survive to adulthood: 1) that’s simply false. If it were true, the population in poor countries would not increase; and 2) if your lifestyle requires you to overpopulate or otherwise harm the Earth or anything that lives here, you need to find another lifestyle. I’ve heard the BS farmer argument ad nauseam, but it has no merit, If you need more people to work the land, then live collectively. Overpopulating the Earth is killing everything on Earth and has to be reversed, regardless of what lifestyle changes are needed to do so.

  • Jeff

    From Wikipedia: “biogeochemistry is the study of the of the cycles of chemical elements, such as carbon and nitrogen, and their interactions with and incorporation into living things transported through earth scale biological systems in space through time.”

    So that does not qualify Mr. Schwartzman as an expert on population issues as they relate to the natural world or even to just humans, or on any ecological or wildlife biology issues. I understand that the vast majority of the left doesn’t know or care much about the natural world, so a leftist site like this isn’t going to get an actual expert in the relevant area of study to comment on these issues. But it would be nice to at least identify who Mr. Schwartzman is instead of falsely using him as an expert in this area when he’s not.

  • Jeff

    Au contraire, I know exactly what I’m talking about. I’ve been studying human population history and overpopulation since the 1980s, and it’s my biggest environmental focus because it’s the biggest cause of environmental and ecological harms on the planet. Our difference here is that you focus on people, where my concern is everything but people. Earth First! means exactly what it says, and I’m an Earth First!er at heart for life, not a human-firster like most people.

  • jfwf

    Jeff, thanks for taking the time to reply, I won’t respond any more to you. Your posts are ridiculous and childish. What has been your contribution to humanity? DR Schartzman, not Mr. Have a good day, I think you need to re-read your own posts and think deeply about what you wish to achieve in life instead of criticizing those obviously more qualified. Best wishes.

  • kevinzeese

    Thank you Jeff. I know David and we have interviewed him on our podcast. He is a scientist whose analysis of climate I trust which is one reason we published his review. The personal attacks show the weakness in the arguments of those making such attacks. It is notable that David has stayed away from responding in-kind and has stuck to fact-based arguments.

  • Jeff

    No, let’s put it to a vote. But unlike you anthropocentric people who only recognize humans, I say all life gets to vote. The result of that vote would obviously be zero kids because humans are killing just about everything else on Earth. So in a Bill of Rights kind of way, I say we give humans a break and let them have one.

    Your comments here are childish and baseless, spewing nothing but meaningless name-calling and unsupported opinions. There’s no point in continuing this, you never responded to one fact that I stated here, because there is no response for any of them except that, as the film shows, humans need to greatly lower their population and individual consumption, however long it takes to do so.

    And BTW, Derrick Jensen is a hero and you aren’t qualified to wear his dirty underwear.

  • Jeff

    Another childish name-caller with nothing to say, and calling me childish to boot when I’m the only one here stating facts instead of spewing anthropocentric BS. My posts are just fine, thank you, I don’t need to reread them. And I’ve thought far more deeply about these issues than anyone here, which is why you don’t even approach comprehending what I advocate. I’ll nutshell it for you, but there’s no way to attach my outline here:

    Humans needed to develop their intellect to a much greater extent than other animals in order to survive, because humans were so inferior to other animals physically (much slower and weaker). But humans went overboard in development of their intellect, added massive ego expansion, and then used those two things to very harmfully and unnaturally manipulate the natural world. Humans’ only proper role on this planet is to expand their consciousness (in whatever manner each sees fit, not just sitting around meditating), and humans should refocus on expanding empathy (for the Earth and all that lives here, not just other humans) and wisdom, while greatly reducing runaway intellect and ego. Humans need to leave the natural/physical world alone except to the extent necessary to survive.

    So you either get that or you don’t, I have no control over what you can understand. If you think that’s childish, please explain why.

  • Indeed, I wouldn’t call myself an expert on demographics, but my older son Peter is, did his Masters Thesis on the subject. We collaborated on this 2006 article (which appeared in Green Horizon magazine): http://www.dcmetrosftp.org/newsletters/NL20061201.html#pop
    and we discuss this subject at length in our book, The Earth is Not for Sale. On another comment you say that China’s policy on population control could bring our global population down to your so-called sustainable level of 10 million. When? In the year 3000? Finally, you assume that biodiversity is inevitably reduced by human activity associated with our present population, but this claim is not supported by agroecologically based practices such as coffee production in shaded agroecologies such as in Costa Rica and Cuba; see the research of Dr. Ivette Perfecto.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Don’t you think the people running this site would rather you and yours not turn their threads into “We Hate EH Mickey Mouse Club” episodes should I happen to post here? This happens whenever I attempt to post outside of The Digger. I don’t know how Mr Zeese and Dr Flowers feel about this, but why don’t you and your club/gang members let people see the site and figure it out for themselves, or is that something you’d rather not happen, and figure that by saying the site’s a cesspool of authoritarians/KKK members/Nazis/alt-righters, etc they won’t bother? it seems that the latter is pretty clearly the situation.

    This is the last time I’ll post here to any of your gang/club. Sorry for the intrusion, moderators. Just trying to defend against very clear slander.

  • Mensch59

    My opinion is that none of us about whom you refer to a “gang” actually hate you. I dislike you. The feeling is probably mutual. I have antipathy toward you. Again, the feeling is probably mutual.

    So there you go again with the pity party & the victim-playing act that you’re “hated”.

    Like I already posted to you about my lack of passionate convictions and my present opinions on The Digger, calling it a haven for “a cesspool of authoritarians/KKK members/Nazis/alt-righters, etc” is rhetorical hyperbole. The main reason that the blogspot site on which you moderate has become a cesspit imo IS the imperious moderation evidenced by who you single out for your stupid “three strikes” rules of engagement.

    Sorry for the intrusion, moderators. Just trying to defend against very clear slander.

    What I’m writing about regarding your moderation on that blogspot site ain’t “slander” — more correctly — isn’t libel. It’s arguably a rational observation based on good common sense and knowledge based on direct experience. I’ll take my perceptions over your defense reactions/mechanisms apologizing for your (lack of) moderation skills and your reliance on rhetorical hyperbole.

    I repeat: I’d like to put all of this personal sniping and foolishness and stupidity behind us. This portion of your post — “This is the last time I’ll post here to any of your gang/club” — might concur, but I have no doubt that you’ll post to someone you consider to be part of the “gang/club” elsewhere. You write that you want members of this (illusory) “gang/club” out of your life, but then you initiate an exchange of comments again. Why? To defend your ego.
    “In psychology, a defense mechanism is an unconscious mental process or coping pattern that lessens the anxiety associated with a situation or internal conflict and protects the person from mental discomfort. In the theory of psychoanalysis, the ego, following the reality principle, conforms to the demands of the outside world, but the id (repressed unconscious), following the pleasure principle, pursues immediate gratification of desires and reduction of psychic tension. The superego (conscience or morality) may take either side. Defense mechanisms develop in order to control impulses or feelings that lead to inner conflicts, to reach compromises between conflicting impulses, and to reduce inner tensions. They help to manage or avoid anxiety, aggression, hostility, resentment, and frustration. Defense mechanisms are not pathological in themselves; they can be a means of dealing with unbearable situations.” ~ Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. (2003)

  • Good Gawd…. Hayes shows up here to harass me, takes over the thread with her grievance posts, and then has the freakish audacity to claim that SHE is the one being followed for the purpose of attack?????

    An OFFENSIVE position taken by the pure virgin, perpetual victim – is not “defense”…

    Who the heck gives two fcks whether people post at that site? Maybe some people are into intellectual masturbation and like to spend their time being harassed by sadistic elitist know it alls who bully the commenters and ban ones who fail to follow the party line! What’s not to love?

  • SteelPirate

    There ain’t nothing religious about a supernova though. It’s real and observable in objective material reality 🙂

  • Mensch59

    I don’t know about that. If a nearby star went supernova and its core shrank down to a black hole and the solar system in which we live was sucked toward the event horizon, I have no doubt that billions of us would consider it a religious experience.
    🙂

  • SteelPirate

    Your opinion is wrong in my opinion 🙂 You wanna buy into this s##t below and that of this reactionary stain on the human condition Jeff by all means do so. That is your right. I can assure you that I will not be, and I can safely say that many other leftists will not be either.

    “The Left is in our way and needs to go. The Left has tried to block a sorely-needed deepening of public discourse, to include questioning the real depth of the frightening developments we face. The Left needs to go so that radical, inspiring visions can come forth and be shared.”

    “Ours is an incomparable historical vantage point. We can easily grasp the story of this universal civilization’s malignancy. This understanding may be a signal strength for enabling a paradigm shift, the one that could do away with civilization and free us from the habitual will to dominate.”

    –John Zerzan

    These reactionary troglodytes are the enemy of the left, the enemy of the workers, the enemy of the class struggle, and the enemy of the human race.

  • SteelPirate

    Sorry…I put Deep Ecologists, Anarcho-Primitivists, and Overpopulationists in the same category as Nazis. Ecofascists are a grave danger to the working class and the human race.

  • Ok, I suppose you think you are entitled to to be the ventriloquist, Jeff the ventriloquist, casting a vote for all life on the planet, including microbial life and of course the COVID 19 virus, which is not quite alive. And lets not forget the rocks who cry out from the earth’s crust, especially those torn asunder from mining. Of course the children of the world should have no say according to you, since they are all products of overbreeding, especially of poor people who all have cell phones, shame on them! The more you say, the more your ecofascism is exposed on this website from your shameful computer or is it an iPhone? At least it isn’t Derrick Jensen’s dirty underwear. And don’t worry I wouldn’t even think of wearing Derrick Jensen’s dirty underwear, assuming he wears underwear living so noblly in the woods with his laptop,

  • SteelPirate

    Heh…:)

  • Mensch59

    Meh. It’s simply that I haven’t had the opportunity to spent much time discussing the Anthropocene and the rediscovery of Marx’s theory of metabolic rift with eco-socialists and eco-Marxists.

    I kinda sorta think that this is pretty goddamned important in light of the capitalists co-opting the GlobalGreenNewDeal and the NewDealForNature & People and SuperYear2020 and the (Repressive) Fourth Industrial Revolution. See “Resist the Fourth Industrial Repression!”, posted by Wrong Kind of Green on April 17, 2020 by Paul Cudenec and at https:// winteroak. org. uk /2020/04/17/resist-the-fourth-industrial-repression/ if interested.
    But what do I know. I’m just another average lumpenproletariat loser.

    The First Industrial Repression saw us thrown off the land, forced into crowded towns and cities, used as human fodder for the dark satanic mills of the new steam-powered capitalist world.

    The Second Industrial Repression electrified the rule of The Machine. New generations were born who had never tasted freedom. Their lives and their thinking were increasingly dominated by the rhythms of industrial mass production.

    The Third Industrial Repression heralded the arrival of computers and robots. Human beings were now expected to meekly conform to these automated norms and functions.

    And now we face the onset of the Fourth Industrial Repression (4IR), the most deathly repression of them all…

  • Mensch59

    My guess — because I’m feeling that Hayes has not completely forfeited her entitlement to dignity and her entitlement to be treated charitably with empathy & compassion — is that Hayes showed up to defend her blog (like you might have done if your M&U channel was being trashed on another Disqus channel) and to defend her “three strikes” rules/policy of posting.

    But, as usual, Hayes went completely overboard as is her wont.

  • chetdude

    Sort of…

    Alas, what was gained by a lowered birthrate has been more than made up for by increases in consumption and pollution per capita…

  • good grief – that is a bridge way too far. Her right to human dignity is not forfeited by anything said here – or anywhere else.

    She/he consistently denies others their right to human dignity, empathy and compassion – sucking all the wnergy out of the room with the “i am a pure virgin and everyone Hates me so i am entitled to rhetorically eviscerate anyone deemed unworthy” meme as an excuse to sadistically gaslight and dehumanize others.

    hayes has invested a lot in her echo chamber and can do as she wants with it. People make their own decisions as to what it “is” or its value

    Hayes came here to defend the misogynistic comment “old biddy” because “insert self serving excuse”.

    No quarter, Mensch so i call bullsht

  • chetdude

    I think we’re on the same page…thanks…

  • chetdude

    You mentioned Derek Jensen. I was knocked out most of my consensus trance and had to begin to do some serious grieving about the loss of what was left of my techno-fantasies about 13 years ago when I attended a movie shown by my dear friend and late mentor Dave Ewoldt that featured Jensen.

    His wife and I have been engaged in trying to get his last work published. I think you would find it interesting.

  • chetdude

    I meant that the built in limits of nature would have kicked in and limited the global human population long before we got to two billion if it hadn’t been for fossil-fueled capitalism enabling humans to begin living off the muscle of the planet instead of the “fat of the land”.

    And yes, as you say, domination hierarchies over-exploiting other humans and our only Home Planet was enable by the surpluses created by agriculture…

  • Mensch59

    She/he consistently denies others their right to human dignity, empathy and compassion…

    All the more reason to take the high road, eh?

    RE “an excuse to sadistically gaslight and dehumanize others”: such behavior is inexcusable. Some people lack the awareness and insight/meta-cognition to see their own flaws. The result? Those flaws are magnified.

    Hayes came here to defend the misogynistic comment “old biddy” because “insert self serving excuse”.

    I cannot disagree, although technically that was on the comments section for the “COVID-19 Great Depression: Global Ecosocialism Is The Way Out” article on this Popular Resistance website.
    :-/
    (I used to absolutely hate trivial & technical corrections.)

    No quarter, Mensch so i call bullsht

    Totally warranted. I’m just trying to bow out as gracefully as possible.
    🙂

  • chetdude

    True, theoretically – humans could destroy our only Home with a system of environmental destruction ‘owned’ by the “collective” as easily as they have with one owned by the capitalist class.

    That’s why my complete definition of Socialism is:

    Socialism is Worker and Community (THE PEOPLE’S) OWNERSHIP of the means of production coupled with democratic processes for decision making that allows the people to achieve consensus about where, when and what to produce, how much and how to do it along with how to fairly and equally distribute what’s produced.

    Sustainability must be our goal. By sustainability I mean:

    1. The integration of human social and economic lives into the environment in ways that tend to enhance or maintain rather than degrade or destroy the environment;

    2. A moral imperative to pass on our natural inheritance, not necessarily unchanged, but undiminished in its ability to meet the needs of future generations;

    3. Entails determining and staying within the balance point among population, consumption and waste assimilation so that bioregions, watersheds and ecosystems can maintain their ability to recharge, replenish and regenerate.

  • chetdude

    You are undermining your own article.

    Congrats…

  • chetdude

    I’ll direct your attention to the much more nuanced and complete review that goes much further than a myopic “analysis” of the energy piece that was posted here at Popular Resistance today:

    Movie Review: Planet Of The Humans’ – Transition To Solar And Wind
    By Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute.

  • chetdude

    Try reading my posts again for comprehension this time… Hint; my profile is open as well and I’ve made thousands of posts about the domination hierarchies and their favorite contemporary tool, fossil-fueled capitalism and effective opposition to them.

    This is not about religion – it’s about survival…

  • chetdude

    Ah, but homo sapiens(sic) is the first species on the Planet engaged in rendering it uninhabitable for nearly every other one…

  • So should we welcome the COVID 19 Pandemic or learn from it, how to prevent future pandemics by e.g., curbing deforestation ? Or rather welcome this example of “Gaia’s Revenge” as a case of population control of all those breeding humans, especially the poor ones with their shameful cell phones? Implementing the proven requirements for slowing down population growth, like the case of Kerala, won’t reduce the absolute numbers of people on our planet, rather stabilize them at roughly 8 to 9 billion, but according to Jeff that is far too many to be sustainable, rather we should aim for the pre-industrial number he cites, 10 million, a goal of the ecofascist primitivists.

  • Mensch59

    So, you’re without religion?
    The purpose of your life is to survive?
    If you wish to address questions, fine.
    If you don’t wish to, fine.
    I’m not going to troll your profile to try to figure out the answers.

    We’re simply strangers on social media.
    Perhaps we’re political enemies.
    One of the people of my tribe (@steelpirate:disqus) just wrote to one of the members of your tribe (@disqus_46gfgzGCj6:disqus) “I put Deep Ecologists, Anarcho-Primitivists, and Overpopulationists in the same category as Nazis. Ecofascists are a grave danger to the working class and the human race.”
    If true, I guess our tribes don’t have the same conscientiousness regarding survival & religion.

  • SteelPirate

    I don’t know man. There so much s##t floating around it’s better to just keep hammering on class and the basics of property and capitalism. My opinion only of course. There’s a wide gulf of separation between being a denier and not buying into the extreme alarmist and doom porn. You know as well as I do, that propaganda and less than completely factual polemics that stretch the science, are part of the environmental movement program.

  • Calgacus

    Well, people can disagree. Schwartzman’s critique is better than Heinberg’s, which goes along with the fake environmentalism and false pessimism of the film far too much. Even Schwartzman goes too far to be friendly to this gloomium and doomium – far worse and more prevalent than the usually beneficial hopium.

    Both should mention the realistic and popular socialist solution – the Green New Deal proposals.

  • Nylene13

    True. A Mexican Woman living in a small shack with 5 kids and a garden – VS an American Woman with no kids living alone in a Condo with a computer and a dishwasher and electricity and a car and frequent Plane trips and and and…..

    Who has the greater negative impact on the Environment?

  • Jeff

    Wow, really? OK, go ahead and make the argument that any other species, or even a member of any other species, is willing to become extinct or die for human conveniences, or even for humans at all. Can’t wait to hear this.

  • Nylene13

    I live in rural Nevada. There are NO wolves left here. The issue is not too many people in rural Nevada-the issue is the Cattle ranchers have shot all the wolves to increase their cattle raising profits.

    The population in poor countries increases because not all the children born to poor families die, many of them survive to grow up-but that is the fear, and also that children help with the work.

    That is not the case in first world nations.

    Of course the poor need to find another lifestyle! But that is like saying the Wolves need to find something else to eat than ranchers livestock! Ranchers livestock has taken over the wild lands!

    What we need is a different Economic System.

    Capitalism is the problem.
    What is the question?

  • Mensch59

    I agree that the best strategy is to play to your strengths and stick with what you know.

    I’m more contrarian and skeptical, i.e. inquisitive/curious. You refer to “doom porn” but — the way I see it — probably due to my own cognitive biases — is pessimistic dystopia along the lines of “Brave New World” or “1984”. Some people are simply more utopian, optimistic, hopeful. I’m trying really, really hard to discern between real hope and false hope. And there’s plenty of stuff I don’t want to believe because it’s too doomer-ist, but stuff like this keeps me going “George Orwell once talked about his ability to face unpleasant facts, and that’s always inspired me. I want to look at the things that are happening in the world that we may not want to think about and try to really understand them” (Roy Scranton).

  • Mensch59

    For the solutions-oriented, I suggest this book — https:// www. kirkusreviews. com/book-reviews/christiana-figueres/the-future-we-choose/ — remove the spaces from within the link to cut and paste.

  • Mensch59

    From Richard Heinberg’s review of the documentary:

    What is very much in question, however, is the kind of society renewable energy can support.

    The fact is that we’ve already bet our entire future on electricity and electronics. Communications and information processing and storage have all been digitized. That means that if the grid goes down, we’ve lost civilization altogether. I don’t think we can maintain global grids at current scale without fossil fuels, but I can envision the possibility of a process of triage whereby, as population and resource consumption shrink, the digital world does as well, until it’s small enough to be powered by renewable electricity that can be generated with minimal and acceptable environmental damage.

    Don’t the Earth First-ers advocate for a completely different civilization/society where the twin problems of overconsumption and overpopulation have been solved? The Earth First-ers strongly desire to destroy the maintainability of global grids at current scale utilizing fossil fuels — for the sake of the survival of the presently constituted biosphere — no?

  • I am going to delete the comment. There is nothing to be gained in keeping this up.

    One thing I will say, is provoking a reaction and then being shocked… SHOCKED I tell you, when a reaction results, has worn thin.

  • Sorry it took 5 hours to respond to you. Aside from the fact that viruses are replicating molecules, not cellular life, you are quite right that COVID 19, ebola, smallpox will only go extinct or die for human convenience, not spontaneously on their own. Is that a bad outcome? Or should these replicating molecules have a vote, Jeff the Ventriloquist? Now getting back to the realities of human population size in the 21st Century as humanity is faced with three threats to civilization, nuclear war, climate catastrophe and global pandemics, since this size will not be reduced by any stretch of anyone’s feverish imagination to your so-called sustainable level of 10 million, except as a result of one or more of these threats, rather at best stabilize at 8-9 billion, so why are you wasting time on this website continuing to argue for your ecofascist position? Just consider going into the woods and join your hero Derrick Jensen, if he will have you. And bring some clean underwear.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I’d said I wouldn’t post here anymore on the issue, but I must object. Here you are, once again, outright lying about me, yet prattling on about how I deny others dignity blah blah. You do always expect to be afforded dignity even from those you’re brazenly lying about, which you have done pretty much nonstop for over three years by now. I did not show up here to harass you – not on this thread or any thread on this site. Mensch is partially correct: I showed up to defend the blog (it’s not “mine”) from being trashed by you and the usual gang plus Alice from ridiculous mischaracterization, to explain why people are banned, and to defend the moderation from some whining jerks who think they can insult the moderators and the site freely, and somehow the moderators should suffer this gladly. The moderators on The Digger do not get paid or ask for donations. They are under no obligation to make nice to people who are rude to them and come into the site specifically to trash it. Why should anyone think we should?

    And if Mensch thinks that I went “completely overboard,” he should have a look at the festival of vitriol evident in his and yours and Cab Driver xxx’s comments to see who has gone completely overboard, as is most definitely their wont. Sorry, but you people are really azzwholes.

    Edited for grammar.

  • SteelPirate

    Sorry…it’s impossible to take seriously anyone making comments like this….

    “This Planet was designed to hold no more than 1 1/2 to 2 billion humans.”

    For the life of me… I can’t figure out how you managed to gain access to that blueprint and original design under any set of subjective beliefs.

    Beyond that…I see very little in your commentary that is able to address the matter of power and how you imagine any change to be made without it. Holding up a sign that says you’re distressed with the current state of things is not gonna get it. Being the change you wish to see is not gonna get it. Throwing marshmallows at the capitalist gorilla is not gonna get it.

  • 2020Vision

    🙂

  • Mensch59

    Maybe you & I can make a pact to not be dragged into Hayes’s provocative bullsh¡t again. It’s not only “worn thin”, it’s also run its course.
    As you posted above, “what the hell is the point”?

  • Jeff

    I’m well aware of the grazing problem. When I was a campaigner in Earth First!, grazing was one of my campaigns, and we actually got cattle removed from a state park near where I live. In the U.S. the problem is much bigger and worse in the west. The wolf issue is only one of many major ways that the grazing industry has ruined the west; ranchers have basically turned the western grasslands into deserts. Some good books on the grazing issue are Sacred Cows at the Public Trough by Nancy & Denzel Ferguson and Welfare Ranching by George Wuerthner. Beef is the most harmful food that people eat and should be banned.

    But that said, there are still too many people, even in rural areas like Nevada. Las Vegas and Reno are as overpopulated as anywhere, and compare how many people live in Nevada now with how many lived there before the colonizers got there. And it’s not just the people themselves, it’s their agriculture and infrastructure, including animal agriculture like cattle and the massive amounts of water they suck out of rivers and underground aquifers

    So you’re correct that behavioral changes like eliminating cattle would be a big help to wolves and other wildlife, and to the land itself for that matter, but we still need large reductions in human population. I realize that as someone living in rural Nevada it doesn’t look that way to you because you see massive open space, but you need to really study the history of the land & native wildlife and the Native population in order to know what’s really going on.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    “We live in a world where a c**t has more fans (and sycophants) than a scholar.”

    Somewhat ironic isn’t it, that while with the phoniest of humility you claim the mantle of one, like a bus on the Autobahn your personality is driven by the other?

    Whatever truth Maxwell and others believe they may have found embedded in Covid statistics are mitigated by choosing your shthole to express them.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Thanks for proving my point.

  • SteelPirate

    Right…I have a lot of beliefs and interests too. I just don’t drag em into the political sphere because they have no effect on changing anything. Leftist politics is about power and resources and who controls them and why. Not about personal identities and beliefs. Beliefs conveniently avoid and shift the discussion away from objective material reality and the working class struggle of the whole.

  • Mensch59

    I showed up to defend the blog (it’s not “mine”) from being trashed by you and the usual gang plus Alice with ridiculous mischaracterization, to explain why people are banned, and to defend the moderation from some whining jerks who think they can insult the moderators and the site freely, and somehow the moderators should suffer this gladly.

    This is untrue. Your initial comment to me on this thread — “So you’re no longer all hot on the wisdom of Extinction Rebellion? My, every time one turns around you’ve pulled a 180. But then, you have always needed to pretend to be passionate about something to cover up the fact that you have no real convictions about anything” — had precisely nothing to do with you defending the blogspot site on which you moderate.

    Your post absolutely was “sadistic gaslighting and dehumanizing”, but you lack the insight/the metacognition to see your own flaws, much less admit them, much more less express remorse for them.

    This is my version of “I’d said I wouldn’t post here anymore on the issue [to you], but I must object”.

    It would be nice to bury the hatchet once and for all, instead of writing stuff like “[Mensch59] should have a look at the festival of vitriol evident in his and yours and Cab Driver xxx’s comments to see who has gone completely overboard, as is most definitely their wont. Sorry, but you people are really azzwholes”, azzhole.

  • Mensch59

    Beliefs and ideas are the products of social practices/social behavior, not the reverse. Behaviors/practices are the products of social hierarchical power relations, not the reverse.
    It’s challenging to face head-on the “unpleasant facts” of the powerlessness of the poor, the working poor, the precarious working class juxtaposed with the power of the billionaire class.

    I’d like to live this how to approach objective material reality and the working class struggle of the whole and I invite everyone to share this approach “George Orwell once talked about his ability to face unpleasant facts, and that’s always inspired me. I want to look at the things that are happening in the world that we may not want to think about and try to really understand them” (Roy Scranton).

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    By showing up, I meant not on this thread, but on this site two days ago to defend myself and the site I work on against the gang trashing it, which you all had been doing for days with great gusto, with you being particularly abusive and eager to mischaracterize the site. So yeah, I swiped at you a bit because your constant switching from one position to another shows how hollow you really are, and you’ve given me no reason to think well of you or show you any respect. And as is characteristic of you, you turn around and immediately expect me to bury the hatchet, making a display of being the “better person,” in the very same post in which you accuse me of “sadistic gaslighting and dehumanizing,” no less.

    I’ve done no such thing. Pointing out that your little girlyfriend newestbeginning with her disgusting Perils of Pauline act is a pernicious liar is just the plain truth, as demonstrated here and again and again. In agreeing with and protecting her, you prove yourself to be as odious as she is. You are the sicko freaks who are always playing victim despite the obvious fact that you gang up on a single person. No wonder you supported the mob beating of Andy Ngo. What, do I make you’all feel “unsafe”? The parallels cut deep.

    Now why don’t you’all shut up about me and find something better to do. I’m sure the mods would appreciate it.

  • dreamjoehill

    No Elizabeth, the fault lies with you.

    I see that you have added authoritarianism and hateful hostility to your rightist revisionism.

  • Appreciate the kindness of a stranger weighing in to confirm that he sees what I see as the gaslight can be overpowering.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Rightist revisionism, authoritarianism, hateful hostility? God, if you can read these comments and think I’m being the hostile one, you’ve got problems. Although I’ve long known that. In our last attempt at debate you revealed yourself as one of those liberal types pretending to be a leftist but still stuck in the fantasy that the Ds aren’t every bit as bad as the Rs.So I guess your response is to join in with the gang to call me authoritarian blah blah blah for having some backbone, saying what I think, and not sucking up to groupthink. Typical fake leftist.

  • Collectivist

    Not Hayes again!

  • OMG!!!! You are back!!! Cartwheels here brother!!! Where the hell have you been, man?

    You wouldn’t believe the speculation and worry expressed by friends and (sorta) foes alike!!!

    And yeah, you can go away for a few weeks and know that nothing has changed on the Hayes front. LoL

    Good to see you back!

  • Mensch59

    Meh. This is precisely the reply I’d expect from a dried-up old ex-teacher.

  • chetdude

    Read more of my posts…I’ve covered all of that…

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Perils of Pauline meets Blanche DuBois! Hilarious, Newbie. Thanks for this.

  • Mensch59

    You have been missed!
    Really good to “see” you!!

  • chetdude

    “Earth First-ers” – strawman.

    Yes, there are some who believe that returning to the very light footprint of the hunter-gatherer is that only way to go. Most of us are much more nuanced and yes, advocate for a completely different civilization/society where the twin problems of overconsumption and overpopulation are on the way to being solved.

    Of course, Mother Nature’s backlash to the the current dominant paradigm will result in a best case scenario where a few hunter-gatherer communities may survive… 😉

  • chetdude

    Which “Green New Deal” proposals?

    The fairly well thought out Green Party version that does include some Socialism and Sharing while beginning to dismantle capitalism? (But, alas, seem to have left out overpopulation, over-exploitation and over-pollution somewhat)

    The very interesting process toward carbon neutral by 2030 described in “Grassroots Rising” by Ronnie Cummins?

    The phony, meaningless “resolution” that was passed and then completely ignored in the Democratic(sic) House?

    The strawman erected and then knocked down in the corporate media during the faux-campaigns?

    Which one?

  • chetdude

    Heinberg’s critique reflects our complete reality.

    Schwartzman is looking through the wrong end of the telescope — tunnel vision…

  • Mensch59

    FFS, take up your aversion to the name “Earth First-er” with that member of your tribe Jeff.
    Yeah, yeah, sure, sure — you and your tribe have knowledge of the results of Mother Nature’s backlash. You and Guy McPherson.

  • chetdude

    I’m a Non-Theist…

    The purpose of life is to thrive in a system of mutual support…

    Steelpirate is a perfect example of how a “socialist” can destroy our only Home Planet as effectively as a capitalist by being suicidally anthropocentric.

    Jeff is at the extreme end of the Nature friendly spectrum but of course if the current paradigm is allowed to continue “business as usual” after the brief respite for the Natural World that Covid-19 has provided, the best case from Mother Nature’s backlash to the Planet killers for profits will be a few hunter-gatherer tribes eking out a subsistence “living” in the few remaining viable bio-regions…

  • chetdude

    We could argue about what population is “sustainable” — I’ve heard reasonable sources suggest that it’s at most 2 billion – we can be pretty sure that the delusional predictions of 20 billion or more are nonsense. Some say the population will “naturally” top out at 10 or 11 billion.

    Of course, I look at the fact that even with ever more massive inputs of fossil-fuels we reached Earth Overshoot Day on July 28th last year, 3 days earlier than in 2018 and were on pace to reach it even earlier until Covid. We’re consuming the muscle of our Planet already, what makes anyone think we can do that forever?

  • chetdude

    “ecofascist primitivists”???

    Is that a Fox “news” term?

  • dreamjoehill

    thedigger isn’t even fake left. It’s rightist.

    As the lead moderator of that site, it would appear that you’re a rightist too.

  • Weekend@Bernies

    “So you’re no longer all hot on the wisdom of Extinction Rebellion?”
    I noticed that as well. Major flip flop for him.

  • dreamjoehill

    I like Urie’s work. in fact the article you reference was up on my browser and I was halfway through it.

    That doesn’t make thedigger leftist.

    BTW, I don’t plan on voting for Biden. You really need to let go of your prejudices. They are embittering you.

  • Calgacus

    The various Green New Deal proposals are basically the same. The AOC GND is more economically literate and thus probably more “socialist” than the Green Party GND. Invidious carping about one versus the other is what is phony and meaningless – as well as the characterization of the recent campaign as faux. When by publicizing socialist ideas to millions, gave and gives nightmares to billionaires.
    .
    By this I mean that the AOC GND, with input from some of the world’s best economists, does not base itself on illiterate, neoliberal “OMG how do we pay for it” sound finance. Which is just plain idiotic and represents the degeneration of popular and academic understanding of accounting, public finance and economics for the last 50 years. This budget fetishism has wrecked many socialist governments – for no reason whatsoever. Leon Blum. Francois Mitterrand, Alex Tsipras, Dilma Rousseff, etc, etc.

    Again, sectarianism has been the greatest bane of the Left since the First World War shattered an amazing and beneficial unity. Environmentalism needs to copy it about as much as it needs an oil rig in the head.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    How is it it “rightist”? Don’t you think you should have to give evidence for such statements?

    I’m not “lead moderator.” FaunaAndFlora has equal say. I’m just the person the site “owner” made moderator – without asking me – before removing himself from the conversations. But he and I did agree that the working classes should start realizing that our real enemies are not fellow working class stiffs, whatever their grasp of ideology, but those who pit us against each other.

  • chetdude

    If you want to refute Guy McPherson’s science than present some facts or counter-argument.

    So far, his predictions have been supported by further measurement.

  • chetdude

    OK, I just re-read the AOC/Markey “GND” non-binding resolution…

    It’s a blueprint that attempts to power the existing industrial growth/capitalist system (with a few worker owned co-ops thrown into the mix when “feasible” as the “socialist” component) in 10 years on 100% renewable energy instead of fossil-fuels.

    Read it again…

    There’s a difference between “sectarianism” and Science…I prefer to base my views on the latter…

  • Mensch59

    I really have no use for this type of delusional idealism “a ‘socialist’ can destroy our only Home Planet as effectively as a capitalist by being suicidally anthropocentric.”
    The technosphere is what’s destroying the biosphere — not some delusional collection of anthropocentrics. Sheesh!!

    The technosphere is all about absolute power, total and “absolute control: restrictions on movement, restrictions on behavior, restrictions on what businesses may operate, and constant medical testing.” Also from Dimitry Orlov’s “Gaslighting the Coronavirus”:

    As I wrote in my book Shrinking the Technosphere, “The reason for extending life for as long as possible, no matter how little sense this makes, is to be found in the abstract teleology of total control. The technosphere’s compulsion is to control everything. It is unacceptable to it for old people to decide when to die all on their own. Death cannot be left up to a subjective judgment; it must be the objective outcome of a technical, measurable process.”

    In that book, I defined the technosphere as “…an emergent global intelligence that hates all forms of life, likes physics and chemistry, hates anything that it cannot dominate or control (emphasis mine), is adept at using humans for its own purposes, but is quite ready to kill them when they are no longer needed or when they get in the way, which it can easily do because its most advanced and effective technologies are its killing technologies—conventional, nuclear and chemical weapons; germ warfare; and political technologies that send people into battle.”

    Since the unjustifiably harsh response to the novel coronavirus is a global phenomenon, the imposition of totalitarian control measures can be treated as a manifestation of an emergent global intelligence that transcends the narrow interests of any one country or group of countries but follows an agenda of its own.

    From Shrinking the Technosphere, again: “From the point of view of the technosphere, the biosphere is simply there to provide it with resources and services (emphasis mine). Its view of the biosphere demonstrates the technosphere’s striking mental deficit: it is unable to see limits. Until it runs up against them, it simply can’t see them, and assumes that natural resources are infinite. And when it does run up against them, it invariably treats the problem as a financial problem. For example, when oil prices spiked, it was automatically assumed that the problem had nothing to do with resource depletion but was entirely due to lack of investment in the oil industry. Sure enough, increased investment eventually resulted in increased production and a glutted oil market, but the fact that the increased investment became necessary had everything to do with resource depletion: the resources that could be produced most cheaply were the first to become depleted. What’s more, the effect of increased investment is temporary; like rust, resource depletion never sleeps, and at some point the level of spending needed to maintain production becomes impossibly high.”

    Here I wish to correct myself: the technosphere can indeed see physical limits. In 2019, it appears to have come to the common realization that the fracking bonanza in the US has pretty much run its course and that no further expansion in the use of oil, and therefore no further economic expansion, would be possible. But a globalized regime cannot be maintained without constant expansion. The only solution was for the technosphere to fracture into zones, some of which can then be de-funded and deprived of access to oil. In order to realize this plan, the entire planet had to be placed under lock-down, and the only way to do that is to scare everyone with a supposedly deadly virus.

    One last excerpt from my book: “…[I]t becomes necessary for the technosphere to periodically apply some discipline, in order to keep the dream of infinite technological progress in the service of humanity from starting to look a bit threadbare. The way this is done is by presenting any alternative to endless progress as an unmitigated disaster: it’s either total control or the apocalypse. There are many different varieties of the apocalypse, featuring various combinations of asteroids, zombies, deadly viruses, space aliens, shark-bearing waterspouts over Los Angeles… the list is endless.”

    The technosphere looked at the list and picked “deadly viruses.” And there you have it.

    It may be difficult for you to take on board the concept of an emergent global intelligence that transcends the confines of every nation, continent and civilization. You may not see it, but once you do you are unlikely to be able to un-see it because it is just too glaringly obvious.

    How much power does a suicidal anthropocentric have compared to someone who claims to be on the side of Nature, Mother Earth? Infinitesimally little compared to the technosphere.

  • chetdude

    “economically literate” = don’t touch the dominant paradigm…

  • Mensch59

    I guess you’re willfully ignorant of McPherson’s failed predictions.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I never said you were planning to vote for Biden. I do think that Biden is arguably to the right of Trump.

    The point of The Digger is exactly that it is not a leftist echo chamber. If people want one of those, there are plenty around. If they want to/are capable of debating with those who might challenge their ideas, or want to challenge others’ ideas, it might be a place for them to do so. We don’t expect to be anything more than that.But it’s quite a tricky business to make this sort of thing work without the site turning into pure chaos and vitriol, and moderation has been necessary. Call it authoritarian blah blah blah all you want. You haven’t tried dealing with it.

  • Calgacus

    It’s a blueprint that attempts to power the existing industrial growth/capitalist system (with a few worker owned co-ops thrown into the mix as the “socialist” component) in 10 years on 100% renewable energy instead of fossil-fuels.

    That’s a gross mischaracterization. As I said, it is if anything MORE socialist than the good eco-socialist Green Party GND. And surely, even this characterization is better than what we have now? Problem is that most modern socialists couldn’t tell what is socialist or revolutionary from what is not – if Socialism bit them on one ass cheek and Revolution bit them on the other.

    What is striking – and is a marker of how bad the usual critiques are is- where are the quotes? where are the footnotes? There are 2 things that the “critics” do – (1) say that X is not in the GND, but should be. (2) say that Y is in the GND and shouldn’t be. When you look at the actual texts – you see X IS there and Y is NOT. Huh!? What can one do confronted by this? Critics often use the phrase “point out” – which signals “here comes a Big Lie”.

    Even respectable, careful, honorable people like Noam Chomsky or Peter Dorman have perpetrated this sort of grade F-in-Freshman-English-Composition “critique”.

  • Calgacus

    No. The currently dominant paradigm is right-wing “sound finance”, neoclassical economics. Ruling the roost from about 1970 to now. Leftist, Keynesian, Institutional, Socialist, Marxist economics was ascendant from about 1920 to 1970.

    The dominant paradigm is economically illiterate, violates accounting and arithmetic. One has to study it intensively to realize how unbelievably bad and idiotic it is. I’m a left-winger and a mathematician. But the current dominant paradigm offends me even more as a mathematician devoted to logical and intelligible argument than it offends me as a bleeding-heart lefty.

    The point I made was that the AOC GND is more economically literate than the GP GND, which is slightly tinged with the currently dominant right wing garbage paradigm. Many “critiques” have it quite backwards.

  • Starfire
  • Mensch59

    This is more appropriate for the blogspot site on which Hayes moderates.

  • Starfire

    I know right? As I was saying to you this morning, the writer of the OP, and the mods don’t need this nonsense here. Too bad you can’t comment on The Digger:( But good on you for suggesting Dmitry Orlov piece.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Lol. Your hiatus had folks scouring the Kentucky obits for dead Panther playwrights, C.

  • And since your hero is Derrick Jensen, here is what he said about human overpopulation (from wikipedia): “Jensen concedes that it is a social and environmental problem but only at a “tertiary” level, and that overconsumption—along with civilization and its ruthless, expansionist cultural mindset—is the primary problem faced by the world.” (for the source go to the wikipedia article for footnote 13). But you have consistently argued on this site that overpopulation is the primary driver of the environmental crisis, human breeding is a cancer on the planet etc. (SteelPirate compiled a nice list of your anti-human quotes). Of course I don’t agree with Jensen’s primitivism, which is almost as bad as your ecofascist hatred of humanity, a great service to capitalist ruling classes.

  • nnn

  • Nylene13

    I am well aware of the book Welfare Ranching and the author. The BLM and the Cattle Ranchers have wiped out the Wolves in Nevada and now they are after the Wild Horses. They round them up and castrate and sterilize a few and turn them back out into the wild so people think we still have wild horses around.

    But soon they will all be gone too, if things don’t change .

    As far as too many people go, there are a lot of older people, but not many babies being born here in the U.S.

    So the next few generations should have a decrease in population, but I don’t know if the Environment is going to survive much longer regardless.

    I am not arguing with you that we should lower our population, but it is not the number of people that is the MAIN problem, it is the way people live.

    A women living in a shack in Mexico with 5 kids and a vegetable garden, does not have the impact on the environment of one single woman living in the U.S with no kids, but in a high rise condo in the city with a swimming pool and a car, and unlimited water and power and a diet of meat and alcohol.

  • Mensch59

    Right. Hayes and myself — and now you — are being nonsensical and bothering the moderators & David Schwartzman. Good to know.
    Yeah. Dmitry Orlov rocks.

  • You sadly just dont understand human kindness, empathy or gratitude – Hayes. I have seen you try. And then you always revert back to your -go to – creating chaos and as much misery as you can.

    You revel in toxic bullying. The rest of us dont “get” your sadism, but it is what it is.

    What a pity.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Now tell him all the things you wished you had. And while you’re at it, tell me too…

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    What a poor dear you are.

  • Hey man, will you please check email if i send another?

  • SteelPirate

    If you sell your labor in order to live you’re working class. It isn’t a mental thing, it isn’t an attitude, it is real life and existence in material reality.

  • Yep i plan to. We can never assume we will have a chance for a do over.

    As for you… you would have to check your email to get that conversarion if you want it. ❤️

  • Mensch59

    If a person must sell his/her labor in order to live, then s/he’s a slave.
    There are wage slaves, debt slaves, chattel. That’s one of these “unpleasant facts” and looking at the things that are happening in the world. By mentioning slavery, it demonstrates that there is no surer way to incur the wrath of many than by pointing out what is glaringly obvious and horrific – but unspeakable.

  • Jeff

    This will be my final response to you on this issue. We have not had a productive discussion, because instead of responding to the facts I stated, you resort to name-calling and blathering on about your ideologies.

    I see that you are into a cult-like worship of people. While I really like Jensen for having the guts to oppose civilization in a very public way knowing that he would get fierce opposition from anthropocentric people like you, I don’t agree with everything he says, nor do I listen to or read most of it. I’ve heard and read him enough to know that his head & heart are in the right place, and that’s good enough. Your claim about what Jensen said about overpopulation, if true, is in direct contradiction to his basic premise on this issue, which was that civilization has to be dismantled because by definition it means overpopulated urban areas that have to war against neighboring communities and steal their resources because the civilized societies are overpopulated and can’t live on their own resources. But once again, instead of addressing the facts that I presented at the beginning of this exchange, you respond with this BS.

    Finally, you really show your true colors by using the corporate propaganda term “ecofascist.” This lie was coined by corporations in order to convince Congress to pass anti-environmental legislation against radical environmental actions like those of the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front. Without opining on wheter the actions of those groups were strategic or harmful to the cause for lack of that, the ideologies of those groups was right on, and the evil corporate behaviors they were fighting need to be stopped. The only real ecofascists are the Earth-destroying corporations that these groups were opposing, their lackeys in government, and any humans that support these harms.

    That’s all I have to say to you because you refuse or are unable to discuss the issues of overpopulation. What you and the vast majority of industrial humans don’t realize is that there are other beings living here in addition to humans, that humans have been acting like a cancerous tumor on the planet by growing their population endlessly, and in destroying not only habitats but entire ecosystems, and by causing massive extinctions — actually, even one human-caused extinction is too many — and that everything else on Earth has just as much right to be here and be able to thrive and evolve as humans. When your attitude is that humans are all that matters or even that humans matter more than anything else, the result is attitudes like yours. Unfortunately for the Earth and everything that lives here, yours is the majority attitude in humans, and things won’t change for the better in any substantial way until that bad attitude is completely reversed.

  • SteelPirate

    Goddamn man. Good to hear you’re still kicking. You had a lot of people wondering what the hell happened. You’ve rarely been gone more than a few days for ages. Now lets fight about something to get you back up to speed. lol

  • Not at all, Hayes. Not what I was talking about – others see what you can’t. That you don’t understand these things speaks volumes about you.

  • Jeff

    I could go along with everything else you wrote, but not the last paragraph. Anyone who has five kids is doing enormous damage to the Earth unless they’re hunter-gatherers. Most of the human footprint is from agriculture, and that vegetable garden is where native plants and animals should be.

  • SteelPirate

    Yep…well said…

    Karl Marx, the illustrious leader of German Communism, justly observed in his magnificent work Das Kapital that if the contract freely entered into by the vendors of money -in the form of wages – and the vendors of their own labor -that is, between the employer and the workers – were concluded not for a definite and limited term only, but for one’s whole life, it would constitute real slavery. Concluded for a term only and reserving to the worker the right to quit his employer, this contract constitutes a sort of voluntary and transitory serfdom. Yes, transitory and voluntary from the juridical point of view, but nowise from the point of view of economic possibility. The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? And if he does quit him, is it in order to lead a free existence, in which he will have no master but himself? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forced him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker’s liberty, so much exalted by the economists, jurists, and bourgeois republicans, is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realization, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory in the economic sense – broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery.

    –Mikhail Bakunin

  • Mensch59

    And then you always revert back to your -go to – creating chaos and as much misery as you can.

    When she started in with calling others sadistic, she was projecting.
    See the 12 Sept 2013 article “Everyday sadists more common than you think” (lede)
    “Research shows some people actually feel emotionally better when they see someone else suffering and will go out of their way to make someone else suffer.”

  • Collectivist

    Lol

  • Yep…. That is observed.

    Also the “emotional cutter” seems incredibly ap.

  • Not funny! Seriously man

  • Southern

    Everything appears to be flawed depending on which particular narrative one decides to adopt.

    Humanity biggest flaw is not being able to stand up against the exceptionalism that’s ruining the planet – that’s worth mentioning since the US defense forces are the single biggest polluter of greenhouse gasses on the entire planet.

    War crimes are being committed on an ongoing basis while the US [and it’s willing cadre of obedient vassal states] wages never ending wars of aggression for oil and global dominance.

    While we are still not able to demand accountability for war crimes – then we’re not very effective at all.

  • Collectivist

    “Whatever truth Maxwell and others believe they may have found embedded in Covid statistics are mitigated by choosing your shthole as a vehicle to express them.”

  • Not funny, man!

  • Starfire

    Good to know that you are among the recovered, after taking your pandemic break.

  • Mensch59

    … others see what you can’t. That you don’t understand these things speaks volumes about you.

    It’s because of her rejection of insight aka meta-cognition and her continued misunderstanding of cognition and her university-level CogPsych classes leading her astray.
    That’s the pity.

  • I never said that humans are all that matter, rather that our goal should be to maximize biodiversity. If you read our book The Earth is Not for Sale you will find that we are strongly opposed to factory farming with all its horrors and oppose any cruel treatment of animals. The more we find out from scientific research the more we recognize that many animal species are sentient, feel pain and should be respected as such. And of course, we support the stabilization of human population as I argued in this review and in our book. But reducing it to10 million is an ecofascist vision that will never happen unless we don’t avoid the three catastrophes I mentioned in a previous post. And likewise arguing that humanity is a cancer on the planet simply expresses your hatred for other humans, but of course you are special because you don’t have a car and wear second hand clothes. There is a good discussion on wikipedia of ecofascism with its roots in “green” Nazi discourse which fits your ideology like a glove.

  • Nylene13

    Pre- contact Native American Indians had gardens. And Huge fields of corn.

    And the correct term is gatherer-hunters.

    The hunting was dramatic, but it was primarily the gatherers who fed the tribes.

  • SteelPirate

    Heh…I take that back. I didn’t want to fight so soon after your reappearance. I’m gonna have to withhold comment on this for now so as not to enrage your fighting spirit. We will though 🙂 Damn good to see you back and you’re ok though man.

  • Jeff

    That’s highly inaccurate and basically not true. The vast majority of Natives and Native groups in what is now the U.S. were hunter-gatherers, especially in the west. The Hopis and their corn were an exception, not the rule.

  • NightriderXP1

    That sounds similar to a mental health break. I hope you were able to do stuff you enjoy that you haven’t done in ages and may not be able to do again for a while. We need vacations from our normal routine from time to time. I’m happy to see you back…

  • Nylene13

    So what?

  • Jeff

    So Natives here didn’t take up massive amounts of land with gardens or other agriculture.

  • Nylene13

    I am not sure what you are saying.

    Native Americans primarily gathered wild foods.

  • Jeff

    What I’m saying is that having five kids is extremely ecologically destructive unless you’re living as a hunter-gatherer or are literally starving (i.e., not consuming food).

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    MY sadism? Once again, I came to this site because I noticed that you and your toxic little gang were once again trashing me and the site, and I do believe I have a right to defend myself and a site I’ve spent much time working on. The response is the usual mob pile on of assault by you and the gang. You, as usual, lie – saying I came on the site to “harass” you, poor little victimized thing. I observe, correctly, that you are a pernicious liar. Somehow that makes ME a sadist? You are one sick person. This posturing that you’re the wellspring of kindness and empathy in the midst of lying out your azz to get sympathy, which is routine for you, is nauseating, and those who fall for it are really dumb, and most of them every bit as toxic as you are. Birds of a feather.

  • Collectivist

    Thank you.
    Glad to see your comments again, too, NR.

    I took a mental health break😎.

  • TUSAgain

    Honestly, so glad to see you here, C!! I am on a break myself but still look at disqus and leave an upvote here and there…….So, I was looking for you in whatever margins there are here in disqus but found nothing:/

    Seeing you made my day! Doing the happy dance (well, I’m not much of a dancer but you never minded that)….:)

  • Nylene13

    Well I would say a Mexican woman with 5 kids living in a small home in rural Mexico is pretty much living as a gatherer.

    Have you ever been to rural Mexico? You should go. In some places homes are small shacks, put together with found pieces of old lumber and tin (gathered) and living on river edges for water.

    The kids go to local dumps and other places to find what they can. And they gather firewood. Under such circumstances, having 5 kids can be extremely helpful.

    It it ideal? Of course not. But taking away 3 of her kids is not going to be beneficial either.

    Or are you suggesting they should all die and ‘decrease the excess population’?

  • A_Siegel

    While I have some agreement, I think that laying out the flim’s falsehoods and dated assaults on renewables makes sense. I do think, as well, that there is a measure of ‘realpolitik’ in environmental movement engagement (by some individuals and groups) that doesn’t have nuanced discussion (as if Gibbs/Moore do nuance) it deserves. For example, finance isn’t ‘the solution’ but ignoring/not engaging/not seeking to change (or even shift) finance & business (practices) toward better practices dooms us. While we can’t “trust big green capital” nor can we ignore/not engage it. Sometimes Reagan is worth quoting as this might be a “trust but verify” environment where that verification needs to be serious with teeth.

    In any event, see (yours added to) the dozens of informed critiques annotated/linked in Moore’s Boorish Planet of The Humans: An Annotated Collection

  • Robert

    Good planning!
    And welcome back!
    &+1 on the vid!

  • Thanks!

  • The elephant, better the mastodon or dinosaur in the room is militarized fossil capital, not the alleged population boom you are pointing to. I know you are confronting the real enemy, but why boost something that is so user-friendly to our capitalist ruling classes?

  • Thanks for this contribution!

  • Kudos to you! In spite of your pessimism you support struggle. “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”

  • A_Siegel

    1. You’re welcome …
    2. perhaps, if you wish, makes sense to add into your post to make clear that you and Tom aren’t only critiques out there. Honestly, it is interesting to see / consider the Venn diagram of informed criticism — what is focused on, what is seen as valuable, etc …
    3. Up for sending me Earth is Not for Sale for a potential review? (You have my email … 🙂 )

  • Mensch59

    “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.”
    Precisely!!

  • NightriderXP1

    Some people enjoy their mental health breaks so much that they never come back. I’m glad to see you back. We’ve still got a lot of work to do…

  • chetdude

    Ah, thanks…

  • Collectivist

    And we still have a lot to discuss and information to share.

  • chetdude

    Like what?

  • High birth rates don’t ensure population growth.
    You’d need those babies to survive long enough, and be healthy enough, to have babies of their own.
    If a population becomes reasonably confident that thrie kids can grow to adulthood, and they don’t need them as free labor, birth rates naturally decline.

  • I like the way the movie Se7en put it, “Ernest Hemingway once wrote, “The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.” I agree with the second part.”

  • SteelPirate

    The Digger deserves to be trashed. It’s a reactionary right-wing cesspool overrun with anarcho-capitalist sources, articles, and “research.” It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic. That you’re such an utter gaslighting fool to think anyone on the left would take it serious is a testament to your reactionary stupidity.

    Your latest from “Gary D. Barnett” is utter garbage that has already been debunked all over the net as disinformation trash. Beyond that… Barnett is a right-wing anarcho-capitalist reactionary and an opportunist punk of the worst kind.

    You’re a joke along with the half dozen sycophants who think they’re fooling anybody paying attention. That you reactionary tools even attempt to pass your right-wing libertarian garbage off as “the left”, while attacking the the actual left at every turn is hilarious.

  • SteelPirate

    The only thing that surpasses the contradictions surrounding this thing is the reactionary opportunism from the owners, the media, and the political hacks from nearly every angle.

  • Mensch59

    In many ways, McPherson is a photo-negative of the self-proclaimed “climate skeptics” who reject the conclusions of climate science. He may be advocating the opposite conclusion, but he argues his case in the same way. The skeptics often quote snippets of science that, on full examination, don’t actually support their claims, and this is McPherson’s modus operandi. The skeptics dismiss science they don’t like by saying that climate researchers lie to keep the grant money coming; McPherson dismisses inconvenient science by claiming that scientists are downplaying risks because they’re too cowardly to speak the truth and flout our corporate overlords. Both malign the IPCC as “political” and therefore not objective. And both will cite nearly any claim that supports their views, regardless of source— putting evidence-free opinions on par with scientific research. (In one example I can’t help but highlight, McPherson cites a survivalist blog warning that Earth’s atmosphere is running out of oxygen.)

    See http:// planet3. org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/ (remove spaces from url) The author of the article — who provided the above quote with which he concurs — is Michael Tobis who holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin – Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences where he developed a 3-D ocean model on a custom computing platform. Just look at the science.

  • Mensch59

    I would replace the word “world” with the word “biosphere”, especially because the technospere is at war with the biosphere.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    More from Barnett:

    “All Politicians Are Non-Essential: Therefore, All Government Is Non-Essential.”

    “What was Haney prepared to release in his new book? What additional information did he know, and was it even more explosive than what he had released in the past? What happened to his computers and stored files? Was he prepared to expose more explosive information, information that may have been tied to 9/11 or other criminal behavior, and not just to prior terrorist attempts? We may never know now unless others come forward. His death could be a warning to those that have known something and said nothing to continue hiding in the shadows. Philip Haney did not hide, and now he is dead.”

    “No one should buy what I believe to be another phony suicide story, especially after so many of those with incriminating information have been murdered in the past, and then said to have committed suicide. How many more must die mysteriously before questions are asked, and real answers are demanded?”

    Holy hell, man. National Enquirer and Sister Lauren eat your hearts out. The Digger is in the house. What escapes me is why many libertarians take such umbrage at being called as much.

  • dreamjoehill

    “he and I did agree that the working classes should start realizing that our real enemies are not fellow working class stiffs, whatever their grasp of ideology, but those who pit us against each other.”

    I agree with that, but you post quite a lot of rightist authors on your site, Trump defenders and the like.

  • dreamjoehill

    “Leftist echo chamber?” I don’t see many of those around at all.

    There are liberal echo chambers, but very few sites that are leftist.

  • SteelPirate

    F##king Austrian Economics disciples. These motherf##kers give Anarchists a bad name.

    About…

    Gary Barnett is a retired financial advisor and estate planner, and managed money for clients in his business for over thirty years. He also owned two other businesses during his life, and had a wild ride at times.

    Gary has been writing about a full range of topics concerning freedom and liberty for many years, and has written for lewrockwell, The Future of Freedom Foundation, and several other publications over that time. He considers it a great passion in life to learn and continue to educate himself, and to promote and spread the ideas of liberty to all who are willing to listen. Freedom does not happen due to politics or constitutions, it can only exist in the minds of individuals.

    Gary has appeared as a guest on several Internet and national radio shows, including Freedom Watch with Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Brian Wilson Show, Antiwar Radio, the Karen Kwiatkowski Radio Show, Liberty News Radio, and Radio Liberty.

    As far as his philosophy is concerned, he is a peaceful anarchist believing in natural law without restriction by the state. While Gary understands the skepticism of most concerning the implementation of this type of individual political structure, it is the only system where liberty can be fully achieved. Peaceful anarchy is based on individual responsibility, self-reliance, voluntary exchange in free markets, non-aggression, and individual freedom; all necessary to achieve peace and harmony. Collectivism, central government, and war are not, and never will be the answer.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    I can hear it already: “‘Leftists’ believe just because someone believes some wacky horsesht about one, two – or two hundred things they deserve to be rejected outright for everything else.” Lol.

  • SteelPirate

    Perfect…:) Funny thing is…the entirety of blue-collar libertarians that I’ve been around do not f##king act like these Digger idiots and their sources. Just want to be left the f##k alone and live and let live. If these f##king clowns actually offered them their intellectual left-right communion they would laugh in these idiots faces.

  • chetdude

    Over the years, the IPCC has been proven by further measurements to be quite consistently over-optimistic…

    What’s your point again?

  • Mensch59

    Which of the Representative Concentration Pathways of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) have been found to be “political” or “over-optimistic”?
    Tell me.

    What’s your point again?

    Read the critique of Guy McPherson’s “science” by Michael Tobis, an actual climatologist, in the link I provided above. Or don’t and pretend that McPherson’s “science” is accurate. I don’t know what you do with your time in order to inform yourself in order to question your preconceived notions & ideas & beliefs. I don’t care if you believe in pseudoscience more than science. It’s your life.

    I used to buy into McPherson’s doom doomer doomism. Then I researched his methods. He’s a sh¡tty source of information.

    “McPherson is not the opposite of a denialist. He is a denialist, albeit of a different stripe. To watch him at work and to watch Tony Watts is to watch birds of a feather. Not evidence-based policy but policy-based evidence. Not part of the solution. Part of the problem (emphasis in original).” ~ Michael Tobis PhD, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences

  • Nylene13

    I have no idea what you guys are talking about, but sounds interesting…

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Keep in mind that I don’t edit what goes up there. Whatever people contribute goes up. Yes, I contribute a lot of the readings – do I choose “Trump defenders”? I can’t think of anything. A lot of the readings I choose are sharply critical, even damning, of Trump, so I don’t know what you mean.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    The terms are lately more and more conflated. See for instance the latest Urie article.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    FO.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    The site is open to writers of various ideologies, whatever people choose to contribute. It is not per se a “leftist site.” Some of the readings are from a leftist POV and some aren’t. I’ve never said otherwise. But to characterize it as an either “right” or “left” site is missing the point.

    Of course you and your bud “cab driver xxx” or whatever he chooses to call himself today are freaking because somebody put up an article by Gary D Barnett. What is the message of that article? Any idea? Any idea what an ad hominem is?

  • Mensch59

    @Atoms_k:disqus recommended the book The Religion of Technology: The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention by David F. Noble
    It was excellent. From a book review:

    The second half of Noble’s account examines the religion of technology in four major projects of contemporary techno-science: nuclear weapons, space exploration, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. Neither of those projects can be understood purely in terms of being useful to the improvement of the human condition, rather they are also “technologies of transcendence,” promising to leave the disdained limitations of the body behind and to open a new, brighter chapter in the history of humanity.

    The chapter on the atomic weapons program is the shortest and the weakest of the second part. A reason for the relatively poor findings might be that, contrary to other technological programs, the development of the atomic bomb was centrally planned and organized under the imperative of World War II, which left little room for other motivations to be become effective. Furthermore, the connection of an atomic war with the end of the world, Armageddon, is not very original as it is such a commonly used image.

    The space program turns out to be a much more fertile field of exploration. Shooting people into space is read as the most literal attempt to leave Earth behind: to enter paradise physically. As the Apollo 11, the first manned capsule, landed on the moon in a spot called the Sea of Tranquillity, Erwin Aldrin–Presbyterian, Sunday-school teacher, and the second man on board (the other was Neil Armstrong)–asked Mission Control for radio silence. He then unpacked a small kit provided by his pastor, took communion, and read from the bible. This procedure was in full accordance with NASA, an organization where many of the leading members were very explicit about their religious convictions. But not only the engineers believed in the transcendental importance of this project. After Apollo 11’s return form the moon, Richard Nixon declared: “This is the greatest week since the beginning of the world, the Creation” (p. 140)

    Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Life both dream of creating something superior to man by endowing a bodiless machine with was is regarded as the divine part of man, his (and to much lesser extend, her) mind. The dream of creating life out of dead material is deeply rooted in mediaeval alchemy. The legendary Rabbi Low of Prague breathed life into a clay figure, the Golem in the 16th century. At least three of the major pioneers of AI, as Noble notes amused, believe themselves to be his direct descendants — John von Neumann, Norbert Wiener and Marvin Minsky. Robotics and AI specialist at Carnegie Mellon, Hans Moravec, dreams that the brain can be downloaded into a computer system. Eternal life is just around the corner. As Moravec muses: “With enough dispersed copies, our permanent death would be unlikely.” (p. 162) Paradise regained.

    The most radical attempt to transcend the limitations of the fallen creation is to become the Creator Himself and to free humans from the deficiencies of their existence after the fall from grace. Physical and, ultimately, moral perfection of life itself is the goal of genetic engineers. Noble examines the Human Genome Project which has received, since 1990, massive government and private funding to map the entire gene sequence of a human being. This is not humble science devoted to bringing incremental advancement of the human condition. In the eyes of its current director, Francis Collins, this is nothing less than “the most important and the most significant project that humankind has ever mounted” (p. 191).

    If technology has been deeply influenced by religious motives, why then is it so ambiguous in fulfilling its promises of a better life? As Noble concludes:

    on a deeper cultural level, these technologies have not met basic human needs because, at the bottom, they have never really been about meeting them. They have been aimed rather at the loftier goal of transcending such mortal concerns altogether. In such an ideological context, inspired more by prophets than by profits, the needs neither of the mortals nor of the earth they inhabit are of any enduring consequence. And it is here that the religion of technology can be rightly considered a menace. (pp. 206-207)

    It’s in this vein that I consider the technosphere a menace also.

  • Mensch59

    But it’s quite a tricky business to make this sort of thing work without the site turning into pure chaos and vitriol, and moderation has been necessary.

    Such self-serving tripe! The alternative perception is that you target those who you desire to censor based on your inability to separate the Elizabeth-the-commenter from Hayes-the-moderator. Same thing goes with your co-moderator. Same thing with all the banning which went on with the terminated Disqus channels.
    You petty tyrants have all sorts of false justifications and rationalizations for censorship. It’s not unlike the censorship that Google/YouTube and Facebook are practicing, just on a much smaller scale.

    When you decide to post “vitriol” off Digger, you show up elsewhere to sow chaos among those who criticize your moderation skills & those who criticize the general low level of commentary — hence calling it a “cesspit” or “cesspool” — on that blogspot site.

    It didn’t take long for you to drive away @V4Vendeta:disqus, did it?

  • Mensch59

    The terms [“liberal” and “leftist”] are lately more and more conflated.

    Yeah. By illiberal fools who push the bullsh¡t that there are no left-wing/right-wing political differences anymore — only authoritarians vs libertarians. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b09e2e7441085e030fffc672cdea3b4084a1bd4b50df5fba84e58c392f7bf15a.gif

  • sabelmouse

    how i hate this!

  • Cab Driver xxx

    “‘Leftist echo chamber?’ I don’t see many of those around at all.”

    Very true, Joe. None in fact.

    An online search yields:

    -The problem of living inside echo chambers
    -The Myth of the Liberal “Echo Chamber” on Campus
    – How a Leftist Echo Chamber Became the New Norm on Campus
    etc, etc…

    Hayes gives pejorative lip service to the term while the conflation of left and liberal is all hers. In other words, she’s a liar.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    V4V can speak for himself. When I was doing no banning people were complaining that azzes like you were allowed to spew their vitriol. There’s no pleasing everyone. The site isn’t to everyone’s taste or liking. If you don’t like the moderation on a site, don’t post there, but nobody’s been banned for their political ideas. People only get banned when they engage in a pattern of targeted harassment. That’s why you were. Your behavior on this site exemplifies why you were banned.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You think Rob Urie is an illiberal fool? OK, whatever.

  • SteelPirate

    Right…I don’t agree with Atomsk on that and neither did Marx. Marxism is not about going back into regression. It’s about building the new in the shell of the old and harnessing the material forces as they are and moving them forward. Not going backwards. Super abundance and high-stage communism has nothing to do with going back to the past, “living simply”, or stagnation.

  • SteelPirate

    Hilarious. I can assure you neither me or the cabbie is freaking out, but rather laughing like hell with utter disdain at the abject reactionary and fact free conspiracy addled nonsense you and your site provide.

    Your projection is also laughable. You, your site, and your sycophants are nothing if not one large mass of ad hominem against leftists and leftist sources. Yes… it was an attack on the writer and I revel in it with great pride. Unlike you and your sycophants… I do not try to hide that at all. Who is doing the talking and for what reason matters. The difference is your ad hominem attacks on leftists are to avoid the objective and historical material reality and facts being presented. On the other hand…ad hominem attacks on you and your sources are not only attacking right-wing morons for what they are, but also exposing the abject lies,fact free commentary, and the motives and opportunism of pitiful right-wing reactionaries promoting the continuation of capitalism and private ownership of the means of life at all costs.

  • Mensch59

    If Rob Urie rejects the political-economic compass (as per the example of the provided graphic), then he is illiberal (i.e. not broad or open in views or opinions) and foolish.
    The synonyms illiberal according to the Merriam-Webster thesaurus: insular, Lilliputian, little, narrow, narrow-minded, parochial, petty, picayune, provincial, sectarian, small, small-minded

  • Mensch59

    People only get banned when they engage in a pattern of targeted harassment or like uncivil behavior.

    If that was true instead of hypocritical self-serving sheep sh¡t, then you and your co-moderator would have banned yourselves.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You pretend to be exposing “abject lies” and “fact free commentaries” etc, but I don’t see where. Just saying so doesn’t make it so. I’ve made “ad hominem attacks on leftists”? You mean I should be nice to people who are abusive to me just because they claim to have leftist ideas?

    See, ad hominem just means “to the person.” An ad hominem fallacy is fallacious because it seeks to invalidate an idea, statement or argument by attacking the person making it. Let me give you an example. You are a highly abusive person who has engaged in impersonating posters and keeping multiple accounts for the purpose of spite flagging people’s posts – you’ve admitted this. That does not, however, discredit any ideas or arguments you make. If I were saying left arguments are crap because you make them, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. I don’t do that; in fact, I share most of them. You’re the one who decided to make me your enemy, and when I asked you why about a year ago, you couldn’t even give an answer. I just say you’re a scumbag, which you are.

  • Mensch59

    Right, but the history of social development isn’t (of necessity) about achieving a utopia or unending progress toward super-abundance and high-stage communism. That’s faith-based wishful thinking. We deal with physical/material, objective, and historical reality — in which what is perceived aka sensed aka observed (Greek φαινόμενα [phainomena]) is more often than not contradicted (opposites in conflict) by that which is thought (Greek νοούμενα [nooumena]). That’s why there’s a distinction between the abstract (i.e. utopia) and the intuitively concrete (i.e. serfdom & slavery for the masses with the billionaire class as the landed aristocracy/nobility).

    There are true believers in some future super-abundant and high-stage communistic utopia. Then there’s the present reality of the (malicious) technosphere — whose progressiveness is a deception — and the everyday realities of (1) the distortion of the political economy of modern capitalism, in which history has regressed back to a neo-feudal system (2) a corrosive bubble economy having replaced industrial capitalism via debt-financed asset price inflation (3) how finance, insurance and real estate (the FIRE sector) has gained control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments. These are glaringly obvious unpleasant facts which invite crucifixion & execration — demonstrating that there is no surer way to incur the wrath of many than by pointing out what is horrific but unspeakable.

    That’s not to say that the technosphere and the (industrial & financial) capitalists and the rentier class cannot be defeated somehow someday by those who desire to abolish bourgeois private property and restore power & the means of life to the proletariat. It’s simply that this working class revolution to establish a workers paradise seems as farfetched as “the loftier goal of transcending such mortal concerns altogether.”

    But what do I, your average member of the lumpenproletariat, know. “Look at this glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and of sinners!” Everyone needs a non-depressing vision for the future in order to find one’s sanity.

  • SteelPirate

    The bottom line is this…yes, there is a enormous amount of opportunism going on in how the response of safety against this virus are is being implemented. That said…the near entirety of the reopen everything and get back to work angst is centered on one thing. The owners and their middle class house slaves are in a mass uproar and despair that the normal operation of the capitalist plantation (from which they benefit daily) is being interrupted. The capitalist system is filled with contradictions. Contradictions that you fail to grasp and ignore even when they are presented to you in paint by numbers form.

    The “middle class” is in despair. Well tough shit. I need a haircut, a whopper, and a shoe shine !!! Hey a##holes. Learn how to cut your own hair, make your own f##king burgers if you gotta have em that bad, and shine your own f##king shoes.

  • SteelPirate

    It’s not an abstract or utopian or faith based. The historical trajectory of social relations is real. Capitalism arises out of the shell of feudalism for example. You are making a case for capitalist social relations as the end of history. The productive forces are now there to provide abundance for every person on this rock. That can not be done with the continuation of the productive forces being in the hands of capitalists and private owners. There is no scarcity. It is an artificial construct to keep class divisions intact. If capitalism has shown us nothing else, it has shown us that there is no scarcity.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Once again, just saying crap like I fail to grasp and ignore contradictions in capitalism without giving any specifics is just an empty accusation. You have never, ever given any specifics at all.

    Let me give you an example of being specific. Your argument is this: “The owners and their middle class house slaves are in a mass uproar and despair that the normal operation of the capitalist plantation (from which they benefit daily) is being interrupted.” You give as examples things like people objecting to the lockdown because they can’t get a haircut or other minor inconveniences. That is absurd and incredibly ignorant. How about the person who gives the haircuts? We’re talking about massive unemployment and a very deep depression. Read something outside your little echo chamber once in a while. Really, your stupidity could be remedied but you seem to hold an affection for it.

  • Mensch59

    You are making a case for capitalist social relations as the end of history.

    Not at all. I’m claiming that, since history is both cyclical and linear and since both chronos and kairos measure time, there’s no determinant that the historical trajectory of social relations is progressive. There’s evolution & devolution, progress and regress. The belief that it’s impossible for industrial capitalism to devolve into neo-feudalism isn’t unlike “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice” (Theodore Parker). Parker had faith in the abolition of slavery, but slavery wasn’t abolished. Chattel slavery changed form into wage and debt slavery. Chattel slavery has returned to Libya. One form of chattel slavery (punishment for criminals) was preserved (constitutionally) by the Thirteenth Amendment.

    There is no scarcity.

    Biodiversity is a scarcity. See “The Nine Planetary Boundaries” at Stockholm Resilience Center, Sustainability Science for Biosphere Stewardship.
    Loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and extinctions)
    The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that changes to ecosystems due to human activities were more rapid in the past 50 years than at any time in human history, increasing the risks of abrupt and irreversible changes. The main drivers of change are the demand for food, water, and natural resources, causing severe biodiversity loss and leading to changes in ecosystem services. These drivers are either steady, showing no evidence of declining over time, or are increasing in intensity. The current high rates of ecosystem damage and extinction can be slowed by efforts to protect the integrity of living systems (the biosphere), enhancing habitat, and improving connectivity between ecosystems while maintaining the high agricultural productivity that humanity needs. Further research is underway to improve the availability of reliable data for use as the ‘control variables’ for this boundary.”

    Like it or not, deny it or not: the technosphere is at war with the biosphere. The idea that technology is benign favors those who can utilize the power of technology to fulfill their end purposes — as long as we’re discussing history as teleological. The (ruling) idea that technology is benign serves which class?
    “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.” ― Karl Marx, The German Ideology / Theses on Feuerbach / Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy

  • Mensch59
  • Mensch59

    The difference is your ad hominem attacks on leftists are to avoid the objective and historical material reality and facts being presented.

    As a dualist — i.e. BOTH materialism (i.e. the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications) AND idealism (i.e. a form of metaphysical monism which holds that consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all being) are valid worldviews — your interlocutor (1) is less interested in facts but more interested in ideas (2) is less interested in the concrete but more interested in the abstract & reification (3) is less interested in what’s observable & knowable but more interested in non-intersubjectively-verifiable thought/nooumena/(Greek νοούμενα) & endless ad nauseam rhetoric (4) is less interested in the minor logic of the dialectic & the major logic of critique/critical analysis but more interested in vacuous debate.

    Let’s pretend for argument’s sake that the ex-teacher still is bright. This bright person is still a member of the bourgeois intelligentsiya.
    “The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its faeces” (V.I. Lenin).

    Many members of the intelligentsia toil in slavish support of the technocracy, the technosphere. They are utterly lacking in class consciousness.
    “…[I]t becomes necessary for the technosphere to periodically apply some discipline, in order to keep the dream of infinite technological progress in the service of humanity from starting to look a bit threadbare. The way this is done is by presenting any alternative to endless progress as an unmitigated disaster: it’s either total control or the apocalypse. There are many different varieties of the apocalypse, featuring various combinations of asteroids, zombies, deadly viruses, space aliens, shark-bearing waterspouts over Los Angeles… the list is endless.” ~ Dmitry Orlov, Shrinking the Technosphere

    The sad fact of the matter is that the technosphere is shrinking the biosphere — unless those deniers of this sad fact wish to believe that the loss of biodiversity is somehow natural instead of capitalogenic.

    See what capitalogenic ecocide is doing? “How to Stop Capitalism’s Deadly War With Nature” by Paul Street on Truthdig (14 September 2016). Your interlocutor, the ex-teacher, dismisses Street as a tool for the Democrats. In that respect, she’s less bourgeois intelligentsiya and more idiotic simpleton.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    The political writer Bill Martin, who started writing for Counterpunch and has since moved on to Off-Guardian, coined the term LOL for liberal ostensible leftist, and your club, particularly newestbeginning but also Collectivist and you, are exemplars of this type. Caitlin Johnstone nails such TDS-afflicted LOL liberals, who claim to be Marxists but are nothing but Democrats with leftish pretensions, in her recent article “Five Things That Are Revealed By Democrats’ Rehabilitation Of Bush”:

    The fact that Democrats see Trump’s evils as not only equal to but far in excess of Bush’s reveals as plain as day that, for all their supposed bleeding heart liberal sensibilities, they simply do not place much value on the lives of foreigners. Sure they might enjoy a little masturbatory melodrama over kids in cages when it shows up on their doorstep, but kids getting ripped to shreds by cluster bombs and being born severely disabled from depleted uranium munitions simply does not register for them, because they don’t have to look at it.

    They do not care. Rude tweets and racism are worse than institutionalized mass murder for them, because they have to look at one but not the other.

  • Jeff

    Only people who are opposed to reducing human population accuse us advocates of that reduction of wanting to kill people. I never said anything about anyone dying, I advocate for birth control.

    You obsess on the people themselves while ignoring the agriculture and infrastructure necessary for people to live in this society. It’s not about just her five kids rummaging through garbage, it’s about the agriculture needed to feed them and whatever infrastructure they use (cell phones, roads, etc.). So if that woman had one or two kids instead of five, the Earth would be that much better off.

    You also conflate individual overconsumption with overpopulation. Those are two different issues: the first is about consuming too much and consuming things we should not be, like fossil fuels and trees; the second is about having too many kids, which doesn’t leave room for other species (ecosystems need many wilderness areas of at least 50,000 acres in order to be healthy, for example).

    Of course a typical white person does more harm individually by grossly overconsuming, especially Americans, than a poor person does by consuming a lot less. But even if everyone lowered their consumption to basic necessities like food & water, humans would still be destroying the planet with overpopulation, because far too much land would be used for agriculture and because they would not be able to live off of their local surface water, which is the only way to get water that’s not ecologically harmful. There is no way to fix the overpopulation problem without lowering population. While overpopulated poor people don’t cause as much harm as overpopulated rich people, they’re still causing harm.

  • Mensch59

    Yeah. I subscribe to Caitlin Johnstone’s blog.
    If you took a disliking to her, I have no doubt whatsoever that you’d consider her aTDS-afflicted LOL liberal.
    You’re engaging in your favorite defense reaction (i.e. projection) regarding your accusation that your perceived enemies are TDS-afflicted LOL liberals.
    “We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.”
    For a more full treatment of this quote, see the Quote Investigator article. Source: “Anaïs Nin? Babylonian Talmud? Immanuel Kant? G. T. W. Patrick? H. M. Tomlinson? Steven Covey? Anonymous?”

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    If you took a disliking to her, I have no doubt whatsoever that you’d consider her aTDS-afflicted LOL liberal.

    Who knows what this means. By “her” do you mean Johnstone? No, I clearly do not consider her aTDS-afflicted LOL liberal.

    You’re engaging in your favorite defense reaction (i.e. projection) regarding your accusation that your perceived enemies are TDS-afflicted LOL liberals.

    This is not projection, clearly. For the last three years I’ve been harassed specifically for not being TDS-afflicted, which you well know; and for making Johnstone’s point: when it comes to actual policy, it’s ridiculous to say that Trump is qualitatively or quantitatively worse than Obama or Bush or Clinton. Dear little newestbeginning, meanwhile and as you well know, spent three years writing posts about how her Saint Mueller was gonna git Trump.

  • What a load of absolute lying bullsht rubbish. As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about so make moronic garbage up on the fly. Some creepy things never change, do they?

    o/

  • CB

    I think I have a bead on her. She posted precisely the same thing as this troll within seconds of him posting it:

    disqus.com/by/CheeseEatingSurrenderMonkey/

    I have long suspected both accounts of being Kremlin disinformation… and if not that, certainly common American incel N-zis.

    They really have posted some curious things about Russia, though…

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    If you’re going to deny any of this, Newbie, you’d best pull a Dr Hacksaw/SteelPirate and dump your entire posting history.

  • Mensch59

    Matt Taibbi, who you despise for his critique of 9-11 trutherism, has par excellence articles and e-books and hardcopy books exposing Trump as not being qualitatively or quantitatively worse than Obama or Bush or Clinton. Your exposé of TDS is old news. Any leftist worth his/her salt knows that Trump is a symptom of the systemic problem that each subsequent POTUS will build on the depravities of his/her predecessors.

    I’m somewhat bothered by your glaringly obvious cognitive decline regarding “Who knows what this means”. You quoted Caitlin Johnstone. I replied “I subscribe to Caitlin Johnstone’s blog. If you took a disliking to her…”
    An elementary school child would understand who this “her” is.
    Maybe take a permanent break from replying to me.
    Your posts are becoming increasingly dull-witted.

    Dear little newestbeginning, meanwhile and as you well know, spent three years writing posts about how her Saint Mueller was gonna git Trump.

    Really? I missed that. That Disqus profile is open. Provide some quotes. Or engage in your usual empty rhetoric that claims don’t require evidentiary support. If you want to denigrate yourself by not supporting your claims, go ahead.

  • Mensch59

    The woman is becoming increasingly pathetic.
    Sad.

  • SteelPirate

    Heh… whatever Hayes is or isn’t is dedicated to reactionary sophistry. Beyond that…Orlov is an opportunist a##hole selling doom porn to the faithful. Opportunist a##holes like Orlov and Kunstler are the enemy of the left and serve reactionary right wing narratives, regardless of any lip-service otherwise. No offense brother. Now… pardon me while I get back to some manual labor that entails getting some dirt under the fingernails that a manicure won’t help 🙂 Talk to you later.

  • Robert

    I got banned for asking a q…. then told it was a time out.
    Months ago.
    Still banned.

    Seems they’re more sensitive than britebot, where I can still post…..

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I’m not diving into Newbie’s sh!tpile to find what you obviously know is there. Are you actually going to deny that she wasn’t writing scads of posts about how Mueller was gonna git Trump? That would be about your level of honesty; ie none.

    I don’t despise Matt Taibbi for his critique of 9-11 trutherism. Taibbi, like most leftish journalists, realize that rejecting the official conspiracy theory is a career killer. I do decry the fact that as a group, leftish journalists could have taken a braver route. But hey, if you want to work for The Rolling Stone, you’d better go along to get along, right?

  • Nylene13

    You are missing the point.

    Why do the poor have more children? I already tried to explain that to you.

    The argument that a lower population of humans would allow the few rich to continue their polluting wasteful extravagant lifestyle is a bad one.

    For one thing their wealth is built upon the exploitation of the labor of the poor and exploiting the environment.

    Yes the planet is overpopulated with too many people.

    But the answer is not to blame the poor.

    The answer is to get rid of the rich owned Capitalist Industrialist Military Culture.

    Capitalist is the problem.

    What is the question?

  • Forget it Mensch. Hayes is doing her “emotional cutting” thing again and trying to drag me into her demented mind games. The sadistic obsession with me is beyond creepy.

    There is absolutely nothing good or productive or decent to be gained by engaging, so I am going to leave her to her own devices; maybe you should too.

  • Mensch59

    I’m not convinced — and neither do I believe that revolutionary Marxists ought to be convinced — that exposing the technocracy, the intelligentsia, the technosphere in its aid to establish totalitarian control is opportunistic doom-porn.
    Any and all less-biased & rational observations or perceptions of an unpleasant fact — and then stating that fact — can be dismissed as opportunistic doom-porn. Isn’t it better to face unpleasant facts?

    I’m not going to convince a believer in the idea that technology has created super-abundance that technology has also empowered capitalogenic ecocide and loss of biodiversity.

    As [Dmitry Orlov] wrote in [his] book Shrinking the Technosphere, “The reason for extending life for as long as possible, no matter how little sense this makes, is to be found in the abstract teleology of total control. The technosphere’s compulsion is to control everything. It is unacceptable to it for old people to decide when to die all on their own. Death cannot be left up to a subjective judgment; it must be the objective outcome of a technical, measurable process.”

    In that book, I defined the technosphere as “…an emergent global intelligence that hates all forms of life, likes physics and chemistry, hates anything that it cannot dominate or control, is adept at using humans for its own purposes, but is quite ready to kill them when they are no longer needed or when they get in the way, which it can easily do because its most advanced and effective technologies are its killing technologies—conventional, nuclear and chemical weapons; germ warfare; and political technologies that send people into battle.”

    From the article “What Is the ‘Metabolic Rift’?” posted Apr 02, 2020 by Marx Memorial Library: {begin quote}
    “Metabolic rift” is a term derived from Marx’s description of the fundamental shift in the relationship between our (human) species and the rest of nature which developed along with class society, especially capitalism.

    “Metabolism” for Marx, signified the whole of nature and its interdependent processes, of which humans were necessarily a part.

    In 1844 he declared:

    Humans live from nature, ie: nature is our body, and we must maintain a continuing dialogue with it if we are not to die.

    To say that humanity’s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for humans are part of nature.

    And in his notes for Capital, later assembled by Engels as Volume 3, Marx declared that capitalism had severed that link, to produce “an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of the social metabolism, a metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself.”

    Today, if, alongside our necessary outrage against the environmental devastation caused by capitalism, we indulge in the luxury of a longer-term perspective on human development, we might use the term “ecological” rather than “metabolic.”

    But the term “ecology” (German: “oekologie,” from the Greek: “oikos,” meaning “house” or “home”) wasn’t invented until 1869 (by the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel).

    Marx used the term “stoffwechsel,” itself only in general use from the 1840s, and its translation into English as “metabolism” wasn’t in use until 1878, so Marx and Engels were well ahead of their times, linking their own work on the development of human society to advances at the cutting edge of science.
    {end quote}

    Given that “nature is linked to itself, for humans are part of nature”, how can technology be unlinked from capitalism? Capitalism emerged around 1600C.E. The scientific revolution aka the Copernican revolution refers to historical changes in thought & belief, to changes in social & institutional organization, that unfolded in Europe between roughly 1550-1700; beginning with Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543). From the materialist historical dialectical point of view, it seems parochial to see science & technology as unendingly progressive but capitalism (which was co-eval historically with the scientific revolution) as destructive. Why not see the technosphere as capitalistic and capitalism as reliant on techne?

    Techne means craftsmanship or art. The intent of the word techne is the making or doing as opposed to the understanding. It is the root of ‘technique’, ‘technical’ and various other derivatives. Aristotle viewed techne as an imperfect human representation of nature. Socrates and Plato also used the word, and distinguished craftsmanship (which they viewed in a positive light) from art (which they viewed in a negative light).”
    What was the art, the craftsmanship, the making, the doing of these various European Enlightenment projects?
    “In another of what has become a flood of books reassessing the Enlightenment-liberal legacy just after the moment of its seeming triumph, John Gray argues that Anglo-Saxon conservatism has self-destructed. The Enlightenment, understood here as the rational liberal principles underlying both modern democracy and capitalism, has undermined the possibility of community in all advanced societies. The author sees the free market as an engine of creative destruction that undermines stability, reciprocity, rootedness, and obligation; advocates like Thatcher and Reagan failed to see the harm it would do to their cherished cultural values. It is not obvious, however, just how incompatible modern capitalism and moral community really are, since capitalism is malleable and can often take advantage of, if not reinforce, the social structures around it. Furthermore, Gray does not put forward his own alternative to the Enlightenment project; most of the existing ones are rather unappetizing.”

    Yeah. Both capitalism and technology are malleable and take advantage of, if not reinforce, the social structures around them. Unfortunately, to the detriment of the proletariat and the rest of the biosphere.

  • Mensch59

    Sorry for quoting Hayes’s sick “dragging you in”.

  • Mensch59

    No, I obviously don’t “know” what is there.
    It’s your claim. Shoulder the onus, the burden of proof. Or continue to denigrate yourself. I. Don’t. Care.

    Are you actually going to deny that she wasn’t writing scads of posts about how Mueller was gonna git Trump?

    I don’t recall. I wasn’t obsessed with what was going on with Mueller.

    Matt Taibbi had first-hand experience dealing with the insanity of 9-11 trutherists. Particle weapons from space reducing the towers to dust. Controlled demolition. The Bush/Cheney administration planned & executed the whole operation from start to finish. There weren’t really passenger jet aircraft involved, contradicting the hundreds of eyewitnesses. The “deep state” disappeared all the passengers and crew of the four passenger jet aircraft involved, contradicting the collection of DNA evidence and body parts. Any dab of bullsh¡t will do ya. Talk about a massive gaslighting psyop. 9-11 trutherism fits the bill.

  • Robert

    Of course, if we were unbanned at digger….

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You don’t recall what the Newbie’s position was re the Mueller Report? Your bestest friend, your soulmate, on Disqus and you have no idea, or you don’t care, or something? LOL you lying LOLer.

    Yes, there are all sorts of crazy theories about what happened on 9/11, but one thing’s for certain: the official conspiracy theory, the one you and Taibbi cling to, is among the craziest. See Caitlin Johnstone’s excellent article “Why I Don’t Talk More About 9/11” along with James Corbett’s excellent five-minute video showing exactly how unbelievable the official story is.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    You’re talking about a poor beast that most likely counts her writing machine as her only friend and contact with the outside world, nb. Not one for shaming anyone for their lack of employment or community, but this is her world. She has been slighted, disparaged and belittled. With her attempts at academia and writing having failed and having been cast out and tossed aside from all other social measurements of success she has nothing else. This whole left/right debate is meaningless to her. SP is correct when he says “…blue-collar libertarians…do not f##king act like these Digger idiots and their sources. Just want to be left the f##k alone…” The political real estate she’s chosen for herself online is important simply for the fact that away from her machine – it doesn’t exist.

    We had a patient years ago whose patterns of behavior included taking off all his clothes before attacking the staff. He’d sort of warn you beforehand. You’d see him standing naked at the end of the hallway; just standing there staring into space. But you knew what was coming. And he actually loved the contact. It sucked because restraining the naked patient presents a whole other set of shitty problems and uncertainties. In any case, Liz isn’t all that much different. Like the patient I just described, as sick as it may seem, she loves the contact. I know it may sound sort of course, but I expect this is as close as she gets to lovemaking anymore.

  • Mensch59

    I’m not going to engage with your Disqus dumb-fck-wittery about who posted what about Russiagate and the Mueller report.

    I already posted to you that I subscribe to Caitlin Johnstone’s blog.
    As for James Corbett & The Corbett Report, I’ll take what Johnstone has to say and contrast that with what Media Bias Fact Check & RationalWiki have to say.
    His five-minute video — showing exactly how unbelievable the official story is — is a Gish gallop which would take hours to dissect.
    The earth orbiting the sun replaced the “official story” of a geo-stationary solar system. Now the Copernican model is the “official story”.
    Deciding today which “official stories” ought to be questioned in the expectation of being debunked is more a matter of parochial subjective idealism & deep state tin foil hattery and less than a matter of non-pseudoskeptical inquiry and curiosity.
    Do you know the difference between skepticism and pseudoskepticism?

  • Mensch59

    I am going to leave her to her own devices; maybe you should too.

    Yeah. I’m behaving quite stupidly engaging with her.

  • Collectivist

    Hmmm . . . At best, she’s politically reactionary; promoting reactionary views, masqueraded as anti-plutocracy.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Last I checked, you were unbanned.

  • 😧

    Oh my……

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Yeah sure Newbie. You were all enthusiastic in your gossipy nattering about me until I came in and countered you, and now there’s “nothing good or productive or decent to be gained by engaging,” except of course engaging in fanciful bullcrap about “emotional cutting” or whatever your sadistic, idiotic friends can scare up. Same as always with you sickos.

  • Robert

    Nope, still big red ‘you can’t post cuz u banned’…

    Maybe you best do actual research first.

    And maybe your crew might want to emulate the behavior shown here if your trying to promote effective dialogue.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You think the fools here are employing “effective dialogue”? Mffft, or, you know, whatever. Last I looked you were unbanned. I’ll check again.

  • Nah, there is never anything good or productive or decent in engaging with a sadistic gaslighting right wing liar; obviously jealous and obsessed with me – and who has apparently lost touch with reality.

    Never imagined that emotional cutting was a “thing” … and then you came along.

    o/

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Interesting analysis. I’ve caught you in lie after lie, with evidence. What about you, Newbie? Nothing but empty accusations and backup from your freak little club.

  • SteelPirate

    Yeah…not buying any of that Mensch. You’re dissembling because you fundamentally buy into the doom and pessimism narrative. Trying to use Marx to make that case is a twisting of Marxism. While automation and technology are bad for the working class under capitalism and production for private profit they both contain enormous potential for the exact opposite if removed from that fatal embrace and turned towards the common needs of the whole along with protection of the environment. There is no natural law that says innovation, scientific advancement, and progress goes away because capitalism does. You’re twisting Marx for your own subjective beliefs which include the doom and gloom nonsense. Kunstler, Orlov, Lovelock, Ehrlich and the rest of the doom porn industry are all full of s##t.

    “By maturing the material conditions, and the combination on a social scale of the processes of production, it matures the contradictions and antagonisms of the capitalist form of production, and thereby provides, along with the elements for the formation of a new society, the forces for exploding the old one”

    –Karl Marx

  • Cab Driver xxx

    The thing is though, nb, politics aside, after what, 2-3 yrs of this crap, at this point participating in any of this is probably more about us than it is her. Up close and in person, for most, madness is to be avoided at all costs. Far too much chaos. But at a safe distance – through a glass (or online), like car crashes, it can be fascinating – and I’m embarrassed to say – a little addictive.

  • Mensch59

    I am reasonably certain that Marx knew exactly what he was writing about regarding “metabolic rift”.

    Regarding “doom-porn” & “You’re twisting Marx for your own subjective beliefs which include the doom and gloom nonsense”: I can only repeat myself

    Any and all less-biased & rational observations or perceptions of an unpleasant fact — and then stating that fact — can be dismissed as opportunistic doom-porn. Isn’t it better to face unpleasant facts?

    You’re not going to influence me toward optimistic utopian beliefs/ideas as long as capitalism is dominant. I’m not going to influence you toward pessimistic dystopian perception as long as you hold the vision of a (someday, sometime, international) socialist revolution and a super-abundant high-stage communistic workers paradise. We’re opposites, but that contradiction won’t be resolved today.
    Best that we agree to disagree since there’s really no room for compromise or negotiation.

  • SteelPirate

    Yeah again…not buying any of that. The objective of Marxism is humans mastering and harnessing nature towards advance and progress. Nothing can be solved within the capitalist framework.

  • SteelPirate

    I already made my point on this you lying gaslighting fool. A point that you flagged and got deleted on another site. So I’ll repeat it again.

    This thing is real no matter where the f##k it came from and the conspiracy theory s##t is irrelevant. You got two responses coming from this. The authoritarian one and the libertarian one. Both are in service to the ruling class and the continuation of the capitalist gravy train by any means necessary. On the one hand… you got the lock everything down and weld the doors shut so “we” can get back to business as usual and get the plantation fired up with as little loss of slaves as possible. On the other… you got the get the f##k back to work and carry on now as if nothing is happening because we ain’t endangering the plantation for the loss of some expendable slaves. The leftist response of how the actual we ( the struggling working class present and future) should handle this is missing of course. Nobody asked “we” how to proceed on the matter.

    Rights ?

    ”We are all at a table together, deciding which rules to adopt, free from any vague constraints, half-remembered myths, anonymous patriarchal texts and murky concepts of nature. If I propose something you do not like, tell me why it is not practical, or harms somebody, or is counter to some other useful rule; but don’t tell me it offends the universe.”

    –Jonathan Wallace

    Problem is. “We” don’t have no seat at that table to work out the leftist and working class response because “we” don’t have no power.

    I don’t have much more to say on the matter than that. I will say this though. If one fundamentally buys into this capitalist system (“the Constitution”, “rule of law”, “natural rights”, “wrecked the economy”, “Founding Fathers”, “Ben Franklin” and so forth)…how can it simultaneously take everything you got ? The answer to that is simple. That’s how capitalism works. Better to stop buying into conspiracies and excuses to avoid that fact and face the reality of the capitalist system.

    Most of the research and information being tossed around from the libertarian end of this virus is coming from far right-wing wackos. This Dr. Annie Bukacek for instance is a conspiracy addled fruitcake who was under investigation for billing medicaid for running prayer groups out of her office as treatment. lol That’s just the tip of it with the good doctor Annie. She’s a far right-wing a##hat. And that is true for a lot of the “information and research” being thrown up at the Digger on this thing.

    This is not to say there isn’t a lot of horses##t and nonsense coming from the authoritarian side of this thing. Opportunism abounds on something like this and sifting through all the s##t to get any kind of facts is not at a premium right now. One thing is clear. No matter where the horses##t is flowing from…it is not in service to the working class. It is in service to getting the capitalist plantation back to “normal” in one way or another.

  • Robert

    Seems there’s precious little banning going on. Not to mention moderating for spamming links that seems pretty quick and effective.

    That you may not like some of the opinions doesn’t mean there’s no learning going on.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I don’t mind political opinions I disagree with. I mind abusive behavior. Obviously you don’t understand the difference.

    Aren’t you a teacher? You never answer that question.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I’ve never flagged you. I’m not reading past that bull from an admitted spiteflagger.

  • I think it may be close to 4 years. Time flies, eh?

    I have no other experience with the certifiably nuts so i keep trying to make sense out of it and expecting common decency that never comes.

    You know what it reminds me of that i have some experience with? Family members trying to come to terms with dementia patients. They keep expecting “normal” from people who are less and less capable of processing “normal” and who can become very cruel when they sundown. It is very difficult to realize that it is not personal and just a manifestation of illness.

    So in that arms length it is a curiosity – and if you can separate yourself – yeah… fascinating.

  • SteelPirate

    Hehe…you’re right. Especially when the history and objective material reality of the advance of civilization is on my side.

    We know only a single science, the science of history. History can be contemplated from two sides, it can be divided into the history of nature and the history of mankind. However, the two sides are not to be divided off; as long as men exist the history of nature and the history of men are mutually conditioned.

    –Karl Marx

  • Lies upon lies. I dont think you even realize it.

    Hard for observers to believe , but it is what it is.

    ((Shrug))

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You are unbelievable. What lies, specifically? You haven’t pointed out even one, not in all the years I’ve endured your bull. You are one sick, spoiled little rich b!itch, obviously at least a testament that a one percenter’s wealth, which you have, doesn’t make anyone happy, as you spend all day every day on Disqus. I know, I spend way too much time here too, but at least I have the excuse that I have no money to do much else.

  • Well said.

    All of the “edgy” analysis is in service to business as usual. No outside the box thinking or consideration that now is exactly the time to push systemic change.

  • Robert

    That’s pretty funny. What you seem to be referring to as abusive seems more like a few trying to disabuse you on your many conjectures.

    Including the effort to changet the subject.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Aren’t you a teacher? Can’t you even answer that question? I asked it about a year ago the first time when we were talking about schooling, and you’ve yet to answer it.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You are not on the banned list. I wouldn’t put it past you to lie about it.

  • SteelPirate

    Not surprising you would bow out when confronted and offered proof of your lying gaslighting ways. In any case…are you happy now? You managed to turn another thread into a hundred or so comment testament of your personalized imagined victim hood, when you could have offered up something on the topic of the thread. Derailing is your specialty and it’s probably not an accident.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I came onto this thread after two days of your little club trashing me, so I derailed nothing but your We Hate EH Mickey Mouse festivities, azzwhole.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    I get bogged down in the personal. Always have. Keep half expecting a (deserved) new ass-kicking from SP for it. He’s much better at staying focused on the sht that actually matters than I am.

  • Robert

    That’s pretty funny.

    Including the effort to change the subject.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Who’s been changing the subject for a year now, azz?

  • Robert

    So, then why can’t I do nought more that open a reply window?

    I’m thinking, esp reviewing the claims you generally make, that your 2nd sentence was you looking in a mirror.

    You have to come here and argue because you won’t let the discussion of your articles happen on your website. All your behaviour here is doing is cluttering up discussion of the PopRes articles.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Damn. Robert. Can’t remember you getting in the muck before. Quick, man, get out while you can…lol.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    If the other moderator wants to figure your problem with posting at The Digger out, she may. I’ve checked it out and you are not on the banned list. I’m not your paid service representative, plus you’ve always been a jerk to me anyway. Sorry if that works against you. I guess you’re used to privilege. Forget expecting it from me. I’ve already given you more time than you deserve.

  • Robert

    Unban and let there be open discourse about the articles on digger.

    I completely fail to see what the relevance of your question has to do with the topic at hand.

  • Robert

    I’m just tired of reading the postings that have nothing to do with the PopRes articles. Kevin is doing yeoman service here and doesn’t need the grief of dealing with it.

    Not to mention you, SP, collectivist, et al all bring much more better stuff to the table when not dealing with EH.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Like I said, you are not on the banned list. You have some technical problem that you’ll have to figure out if you want to post on The Digger, but why would you even want to given that you’re hostile to it other than than to trash it and get banned again, so you can call the ban “a badge of honor” or like immature bullcrap? I’m wasting no more time on your stupid problems.

  • Robert

    Wow….

    I’m in the middle of Abbey”s Brave Cowboy , so pardon the western influence as I point out that there’s a nothing being a burr under the saddle….

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Thx for speaking up. And you’re right.
    Starting now I’m going to block her for one month to prove I can.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    You really are one of the biggest azzes on Disqus. And no doubt a teacher too, with tenure, a good idea turned bad by the likes of you.

  • Robert

    Accusations based on no evidebce…
    “..you’re hostile to it other than than to trash it…”

  • Robert

    Gee, who was talking about abusive just a few posts ago…..

    And not sure what tge teacher thing has anything to do with any of this.

    But it’s worth remembering that teachers are why we have trained medical, autotechs, and arguably being able to wait in line.

    And likely, type on a keyboard.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Really, Robert, what bullcrap. You relish the We Hate EH Mickey Mouse Club bull, and don’t pretend otherwise. You’re a card carrying member.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    I love “Brave Cowboy.”
    If you haven’t, you’ll need to have a look at “Lonely Are the Brave” based on the book. Kirk Douglas never better. Screenplay by Dalton Trumbo.

  • Collectivist

    “The productive forces are now there to provide abundance for every person on this rock. That can not be done with the continuation of the productive forces being in the hands of capitalists and private owners. There is no scarcity. It is an artificial construct to keep class divisions intact. If capitalism has shown us nothing else, it has shown us that there is no scarcity.”

  • Collectivist

    “The “middle class” is in despair. Well tough shit. I need a haircut, a whopper, and a shoe shine !!! Hey a##holes. Learn how to cut your own hair, make your own f##king burgers if you gotta have em that bad, and shine your own f##king shoes.”

    Nice.

  • Collectivist

    “. . .obviously jealous and obsessed with me. . .”

    That was crytal clear years ago.

  • SteelPirate

    Heh…never hated you EH. Your reactionary “politics” suck, you’re a no good lying gaslighting foul dog and you have no sense of humor, but I don’t hate you. I actually like you in a twisted sort of way. lol

  • Mensch59

    “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilisation”. — Ralph Waldo Emerson
    I’ll just have to take your word for how advanced Western Civilization is.

    “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe.” — Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)

    “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind.”

    “But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.”

  • SteelPirate

    How many millions were already living in a Depression before the threat of this Depression. There wasn’t a hell of a lot of squawking about that from the I think I’m immune crowd.

  • Hey man, don’t get all sentimental on me. . You know i get mired in the personal too. But we’ve got bigger fish to fry than old EH with her right wing politics and perpetual freak show. Dont know why she cares so much what little folks like us think of her blog anyway ; the chick gives us way too much power.

    Past time to strip the wench of her power over our time and discussion, don’t you think? 🍻

  • Might as well take it as a compliment. Lol!! 😀

  • Mensch59

    Past time to strip the wench of her power over our time and discussion, don’t you think?

    Did you watch the doc? Have you read reviews? Penny for your thoughts.
    I watched the doc twice & I quite liked the John Steppling review on OffGuardian.
    It got me thinking again about “Uncivilization” and “The Dark Mountain Manifesto” and the re-discovery of Marx’s theory on “metabolic rift”.
    This is a cool article, but I have a bias for ecology because of my undergrad studies.
    “What is the ‘metabolic rift’?” posted Apr 02, 2020 by Marx Memorial Library on Monthly Review online.

  • Collectivist

    Also . . .

    Her comment about being on Disqus so much because she has no money suggests that, if she had money she wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about any of these social and natural contradictions.

    Her ‘anger’, as the ‘cab driver’, discerned, early on, is, apparently driven by jealousy of the rich, not any real commitment to the struggles of working class and poor people.

  • Mensch59

    Does “emotional cutting” have to do like with a perfect foil in literature and how to hone one’s intellect or sharpen one’s wit?
    Or is it like junior high school, as in an attempt to cut someone down to size?
    Or is emotional cutting the act of bringing a person down with a short, nasty twist on words when they are excited or proud of themselves? Also, patronizing someone into submission is another technique in cutting-down.
    Or are you referring to self-harm, self-injury/cutting as in deliberately hurting one’s own mind/emotions as a harmful way to cope with emotional pain, intense anger and frustration?

    Never imagined that emotional cutting was a “thing”…

    Me neither.

  • SteelPirate

    Marx was most interested in applying dialectics to human history–in order to see it in its dynamic movement. Dialectics, he said, was “a scandal and an abomination to bourgeoisdom because it includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of existing things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence.”

    Dialectics, Marx said, was “critical and revolutionary.” The bourgeois social sciences cannot allow this approach to history. For them, human nature must be seen as a static, unchanging thing, in turn determining static, unchanging social relations.

    To the extent that bourgeois social scientists accept change, it is only gradual. History as a process of more than gradual change, where contradictory forces bring about revolutionary leaps from one social state to another, cannot, of course, be admitted. To accept a dialectical approach to history is to admit that capitalism, like previous social forms, came into being, but will also pass away.

    –Paul D’Amato

  • Huh. Didn’t read that about the money thing – don’t read much of her material tbh – too much egocentric mental masturbation, avoidance of discussion of social change and the need for it- and the ever present belittling of commenters… Looks like old St. Jimmy is next on the block. Whodathunkit?

    The response to COVID for example is telling – “get everyone back to work” – “to hell with the needless consequences or deaths!- poor people need to step back into their yoke and start hauling those boulders uphill! Can’t stop the capitalist machine simply because people will die!!”

    How about demanding that the corporations that are paid to take care of the old and infirm actually do what they are paid to do and take care of them? How about we demand that we protect the incarcerated, meat plant, homeless population and agricultural workers? There is no discussion about how society needs to change to protect the vulnerable, no discussion how this is the moment in history that should be seized to take profit out of medical care, how we should push to seize public control of critical industry, and how we, as a society, need to take care of the poor and working class.

  • SteelPirate

    Heh…not really man. I see a mud pit and I just can’t resist jumping in and getting dirty. lol

  • Yes, I watched the video. Awesome methodical work, from what I can see. It shouldn’t be surprising that the ruling class would insert itself in the green movement – hell they have inserted themselves everywhere else.

    From the film “Green is not to save the planet but to save our way of life”… It is a way to distract attention from, and gloss over the actual systemic problems – with a few quick fixes marketed as “fixes” that just happen to profit the same big moneyed interests that always profit from everything.

    Haven’t read reviews (couldn’t find the ones you referenced) but have talked to a couple of people about the film.

  • Jeff

    This is what happens when you’re so much of an ideologue that you can’t see reality. I never argued that we should reduce human population to allow the rich to continue to pollute, nor did I blame the poor for anything. The rich are overpopulated too. I’m talking about human harms to the natural world, and you’re talking about one group of humans versus another. I’m advocating for the non-humans on the planet, not any particular group of humans. And as I’ve said multiple times, an individual rich person causes more harm than an individual poor person, duh. But you’re way off track here, overpopulation is not about rich or poor, it’s about too many people, period.

  • I am referring to a post by Cabby a month ago where he described “emotional cutting”, which I had never heard from before.

    From Cabby a month ago:

    Some people are emotional cutters. They attack others, manipulating them into retaliating. This enables the “emotional cutter” to then feel sorry for themselves when the person they attacked naturally attacks (“cuts”) them back. Suddenly, the tears can flow as they mourn the emotional pain (“verbal cutting”) the attack they provoked causes.

    The verbal cutting they incited isn’t as much about “playing the victim” as it’s about their own emotional pain. Usually, they can’t feel. Usually, they can’t cry. Usually, they have zero self-empathy, zero self-compassion. Creating a scene, manipulating others into being mean to them, is their only “out.” Their only way of grieving a lifetime of pain. It looks like they’re “Playing the Victim” but it’s much more complicated than that.

  • LoL. It’s quicksand and pulls you in. You have no control over it, so don’t worry. 🙂

  • Mensch59

    … contradictory forces bring about revolutionary leaps from one social state to another… [A]dmit that capitalism, like previous social forms, came into being, but will also pass away.

    Absolutely. That’s why I claim that the previous social form of industrial capitalism has already passed away and has been replaced by a neo-feudal social form. This is unacceptable (i.e. non-admissible) to progressives or those who believe that civilization always advances (i.e. evolves in a positive direction toward justice and goodness/righteousness) — either gradually / incrementally or in leaps — due to their unreserved faith / confidence / trust in the engine driving our civilisation: the myth of progress.

    The aggressive coercive behavior of the capitalist & rentier ruling classes, imperialistic warfare, colonialism, various justifications for different forms of slavery/serfdom, neo-feudalism, the bourgeoisie, a constantly expanding market for the products of & for the bourgeoisie, the technocracy, the bubble economy having replaced industrial capitalism via debt-financed asset price inflation, the FIRE sector having gained control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments ALL DEPEND ON the engine driving our civilisation: the myth of progress.

    Let’s just watch and see if the history and objective material reality of the advance of civilization is on your side (i.e. the proletariat & the lumpenproletariat) or is on the side of the need for a constantly expanding market ending with the billionaire class’ desire to own, control and profit from everything that exists in this world.

    It might be “doom-porn”, but I see the only thing stopping the desires of the billionaire class from being the end of history is impersonal natural and historic forces (what some people might call “God”) causing a general collapse, i.e. a complete breakdown of finance. I have no faith / confidence / trust in the proletariat & the lumpenproletariat to overpower the billionaire class, the lords of finance capital. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
    But when the proletariat & the lumpenproletariat take to the streets, I’ll be there with them manning the barricades. As I posted a few days ago, a pessimistic dystopian isn’t required to withdraw or resign. There’s meaning in struggle, even if the struggle is in vain.

  • Mensch59

    I see.

  • SteelPirate

    Hehe..it’s occurred to me that we could give Classy Freddie Blassie the late wrestling character a run for his money. No doubt EH and some of her crew are a bunch of pencil necked geeks 🙂

  • Mensch59

    Try the word search “John Steppling Offguardian Planet of the Humans” if interested.
    Also try “Movie Review: Planet Of The Humans’ – Transition To Solar And Wind. By Richard Heinberg, Post Carbon Institute. May 1, 2020” here on Popular Resistance or on Heinberg’s site.

    The bottom line imo is that the base / the foundation of the political-economic-social system — the relations of production (German: Produktionsverhältnisse)and the forces of production (German: Produktivkräfte) — must be disrupted and perturbed prior to technosphere-causing anthropogenic climate disruptions / perturbations destroying the presently constituted biosphere — including humans.

    I don’t believe that even a critical mass of (revolutionary) humans can do it. It’s beyond our power. I think that the powerful (impersonal, natural, historic) forces which actually brought the human species into existence will disrupt and perturb the relations of production (German: Produktionsverhältnisse)and the forces of production (German: Produktivkräfte). Maybe this new coronavirus and capitalism’s pathetic attempt to respond to it is one of many upcoming disruptions and perturbations.

  • hehe… well the EH crew may be down a man – Jimmy seems to have fallen into disrepute… RIP, Jimmy.

  • SteelPirate

    F##k it…lets vote then 🙂

    Seriously…gotta sleep. Get to this tomorrow man…

  • Mensch59

    He’ll be back imo.
    Either the quicksand has him or he’s addicted.

  • Mensch59

    How about demanding that the corporations that are paid to take care of the old and infirm actually do what they are paid to do and take care of them? How about we demand that we protect the incarcerated, meat plant, homeless population and agricultural workers? There is no discussion about how society needs to change to protect the vulnerable, no discussion how this is the moment in history that should be seized to take profit out of medical care, how we should push to seize public control of critical industry, and how we, as a society, need to take care of the poor and working class.

    Maybe that’s beyond even the potential power of all the underclasses working together in the affected areas of the Empire — assuming that such unity could be forged.
    If it’s true that finance, insurance and real estate (the FIRE sector) have gained control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments, then the effect of that control is even less power to the underclasses compared to when industrial capitalism and governments were more dominant.
    It’s no wonder that so many Marxists want to stick with arguing within the context of the old social form (i.e. industrial capitalism). Why? Because it retains the illusion of the power of the working class to force concessions from capital and the state. What happens when the rentier class gains control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments? The extension of debt slavery over the whole world. But maybe this isn’t global yet. There are still some developed economies which have [NOT] been absorbed into the Amerikan imperialistic blob.

    The Chinese have taken the novel coronavirus outbreak as a chance to train for repelling a biological warfare attack. To argue that this coronavirus is indeed the agent of a biowarfare attack is to argue for something extremely stupid because it just isn’t effective as a biowarfare agent. It’s almost as bad as Novichok, which was touted as being able to wipe out entire armies but only managed to sicken five people and kill just one of them. It doesn’t matter whether this coronavirus leaked out of a dead bat or a biowarfare lab, or both—it just isn’t any good as a weapon. But the Chinese government imposed extreme, unprecedented controls over much of the population and the economy.

    The Russians followed suit, with the difference that while the Chinese saw these extreme measures as temporary, setting up makeshift hospitals, the Russians seized on them as a chance to fundamentally upgrade the entire health care system, setting it up to effectively handle any future biological warfare attacks.

    In doing so, the Chinese and the Russians pursued different goals. The Chinese need to find a way to stop shipping actual physical manufactured goods to the US in exchange for pieces of paper or promises to pay, all of which are about to become worthless, without triggering a dangerous escalation. The need to do so with all necessary haste became obvious in mid-August of 2019, when it turned out that banks were no longer to accept US Treasury debt instruments as collateral for overnight loans. [The Repo market.] These were supposedly the safest investments in the world that made up the world’s largest and most liquid financial market—until it turned out that they weren’t that at all.

    China’s exports to the US comprised around 20% of its total exports, and this number needed to be reduced. With the entire West heading into a major economic recession, China also had to partially reorient its economy away from exports and toward domestic capital investment and consumption. A global panic and an economic reset provoked by the new coronavirus has been useful in furthering the goal of reducing China’s dependence on the US while hiding behind the smokescreen of a plausible force majeur incident.

    Russia’s goals in stoking the coronavirus panic are somewhat different from China’s. Unlike China, whose military standoff with the US has been limited to posturing around maritime routes and control over disputed Spratly Islands, Russia has been forced to deal with a more serious attempt by the Pentagon to rekindle the Cold War.

    There have been NATO troops holding training exercises within artillery range of Russia’s second-largest city, NATO instructors training and arming Ukrainian Nazis who are shelling Russian passport-holders who inhabit the eastern portions of the Ukrainian area, and the Pentagon setting up and operating multiple US biowarfare laboratories in some of the countries that neighbor Russia.

    At this point neither nuclear nor conventional war between Russia and the US is at all likely. The US never developed the capability to win a nuclear conflict with Russia using a preemptive first strike and the US could never even dream of conquering Russia in a land war.

    This leaves biological warfare as the only possible course of action for the Pentagon should it decide to attack Russia, and the Russians appear to have taken this threat quite seriously. In response, the US has demonstrated abject fecklessness in facing of the coronavirus pandemic, even to the point of being forced to accept Russian humanitarian aid—flown in on military transport jets, just to stress the point.

    While China must solve the problem of reorienting its export flows away from the rapidly failing US and liquidating its hoard of dollar-denominated financial paper, Russia has no such problems, since it does very little trade with the US and has liquidated its dollar-denominated reserves. However, in spite of efforts to diversify its trade relationships, it still does a great deal of trade with the rapidly failing EU.

    Thanks to the Western sanctions imposed on it in 2014 over its reunification with Crimea, as well as the ensuing countersanctions, it has implemented a successful policy of import replacement. Now that Western economies are failing, it has to also implement a policy of export-replacement, reorienting resource and production flows toward domestic consumption, further embracing the concept of limited autarky. This is no minor task, and the coronavirus provides a useful smokescreen behind which the economy can be switched to manual mode, so that the government can effectively direct the process of transforming the economy.

    While China and Russia seem able to find constructive uses for the coronavirus pandemic, its functions for the EU and for the US seem entirely destructive for these two political entities.

    In the case of the EU, the pandemic gave the constituent nations a chance to reassert their sovereignty while the central bureaucracy in Brussels was demonstrated to be incapable of any constructive response, belatedly closing EU borders even after most countries have already done so on their own.

    Anti-EU sentiment is rising in Italy and elsewhere, and it is starting to seem more likely that Brexit will have set off a domino effect of EU exits by other countries. This will provide openings for various European countries to shrug off the yoke of “universal European values” and find their own way by formulating saner policies on issues such as migration and negotiate bilateral trade relationships both within and outside Europe.

    In the US the pandemic is being used to prosecute a sort of civil war as the Democrats attempt to use it, and the unfolding economic crash, to unseat Trump and replace him with some other political cadaver. Meanwhile, the leadership of various states are finding less and less common ground with the federal authorities and are grabbing more political power for themselves while making plans to go their separate ways.

    The list of actors who use the coronavirus pandemic for their very different and often contradictory aims can be extended virtually ad infinitum. But what if we try to factor out the common term, to use a mathematical metaphor? What factor appears in every term of the equation and can therefore be moved outside the parentheses? It is the factor of absolute control: restrictions on movement, restrictions on behavior, restrictions on what businesses may operate, and constant medical testing.

    Add restrictions on speech. Try being a professional with a voice and an audience extolling the virtues of the Swedish model of approaching herd immunity compared to the WHO model.

  • Collectivist

    Poor baby.
    Another love labor lost😎

    Btw, I finally saw the rest of your e-mails, and responded.

  • 👍. 😁

  • As long as potential remedies remain outside the conversation, and as long as everyone is willing to accept business as usual, then nothing will change. That is the point. Instead of demanding that the vulnerable be protected, the conversation now surrounds indemnifying those who are extracting profit in the elder (non) “care” business from deaths to patients and workers.

    The failure of leadership in the American response to the virus has been beyond criminal. Some countries have done a better job in addressing it but there is no doubt that the aftermath will have unknowable consequences.

    The job of the left, as always, is to keep agitating.

  • Oh God… I couldn’t stomach that Steppling piece – which is an annoyingly rambling mess that introduces ideas, and then fails to make most points. Among other things that caused me to bristle, he worked hard to link right wing COVID talking points (a la Digger) that had nothing to do with the movie, which was produced before the pandemic – in a purported analysis of the movie.

    So overall, that Steppling piece sucks, imo. 🙂

  • Now THAT is funny!! ^^^^

  • Hey, as one of the participants in these distractions, you are correct, Robert. Thanks for the redirection.

  • larrymotuz

    Yes. It can be the case that some people see any attention acknowledging them is far less to be feared than no attention being paid to them (within limits of course). This is especially so when the person seeking attention suffers from low self-esteem due to neglect or other forms of abuse.

    It’s always sad to see the acting out that low self-esteem can lead to.

  • Nylene13

    We are not over populated with Billionaires!
    They are the 1 percent. Who own Everything.

    That one group has created the problems we have with overpopulation and poverty and endangered species and pollution.

    You might argue that the poor contribute to our problems, but that is because the Rich Owned System has created those problems.

    It is all about the rich and exploitation of the poor.

    Capitalism is the problem.

    What is the question?

    I have already explained to you, that the more children a poor woman has, the more she has help with hauling firewood and water. The more help she has with a small garden growing food.

    You just seem to disregard this.

    You say you are concerned about the non-humans on our planet. Here in Nevada, the cattle ranchers and the BLM have wiped out ALL the Native Nevada Wolves.

    They kill huge amounts of Coyotes and I can’t think of the last time I saw a Mountain Lion in the wild.

    All to raise Beef which is not even a healthy food for humans.

    They may not be Billionaires on paper, but their exclusive access to Public Lands for grazing their beef cows sure amounts to the same thing.

    They are now Hell Bent on wiping out our Wild Horses in the wild, and they are winning.

    Capitalism is what is destroying the Environment.

    Too many people keep wages down and poor people desperate and powerless.

    Just the way the Rich like it.

  • larrymotuz

    Capitalism arises out of the shell of feudalism for example.

    Yes and no. On the ‘no’ side, one can say that the earliest forms capitalism arose within the ‘cities’ of freemen/tradespersons/merchants who negotiated their escape from feudalism –freedoms from long established aristocracies– with ‘Land Lords’ by providing them with loans. ‘Industrial capitalism’ was a later development.

  • Haha – I had not bothered to read the comment to me where the money thing was mentioned. LoL.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Lol. Made Robert my one month pledge. I’ll start there.

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I’m neither jealous nor obsessed with her, You’re a really crappy reader of motivations and character and consequently no doubt a hack writer of trendy woke morality plays.

    You think I’m jealous of Newbie because she’s of the idle rich, but I see her as lonely and unhappy despite her wealth, so no jealousy there. I’ve never been motivated by money.

    I’m not obsessed with Newbie; the only reason I pay her any mind is that every time I turn around she’s spreading lies about me so I do keep an eye on her, particularly now since she does the same with the site I work on. The same goes for you, fool. I note that she always reads my posts and the threads on The Digger quite closely, and generally, every time I post outside The Digger your little club is on me like stink on sht within the hour, so who’s the obsessed one?

  • Mensch59

    Instead of demanding that the vulnerable be protected, the conversation now surrounds indemnifying those who are extracting profit in the elder (non) “care” business from deaths to patients and workers.

    Yep. As @iowapinko:disqus points out, it’s a dirty rotten system. Systemic changes must be made in so many different areas. Without these changes, many more people will needlessly suffer and die — both in the short-term and the long. How are benign systemic changes accomplished? Gradually & incrementally via reform. By leaps & bounds via revolution. Who accomplishes these benign systemic changes?
    “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” — Margaret Mead (Note: The author of this referenced quote by M. Meade, Donald Keys, did not provide any details about the source of the statement in his 1982 book “Earth at Omega: Passage to Planetization”. Margaret Mead had died a few years earlier in 1978.)

    We watched the series “The Trials of Gabriel Fernández” which lowlights systemic failures in preventing deaths of children in America due to torturous child abuse. Systemic failures are everywhere. How come? Because the political economy doesn’t value social well-being, universal social needs, universal social values, ecological equilibrium in the context of healing the “metabolic rift” (Marx). What does this neo-feudal political economy value? The article “Resist the Fourth Industrial Repression!” by Paul Cudenec (April 17, 2020) posted on the WordPress blog “Winter Oak” provides some answers.

    Now the following is my tactic of “keep agitating” as in my invitation to people to step outside of their comfort zones or their internal (self-imposed, reinforced by confirmation bias) echo chamber. Maybe it’s “doom porn” (SteelPirate) or contains “right-wing” talking points or (according to my daughters) is “doomsday, inflammatory, fear-mongering, conspiratorial”.
    I think that it contains unpleasant facts which most people would rather (actively) deny, discount, reject or (passively) dismiss. From the Paul Cudenec article:

    The First Industrial Repression saw us thrown off the land, forced into crowded towns and cities, used as human fodder for the dark satanic mills of the new steam-powered capitalist world.

    The Second Industrial Repression electrified the rule of The Machine. New generations were born who had never tasted freedom. Their lives and their thinking were increasingly dominated by the rhythms of industrial mass production.

    The Third Industrial Repression heralded the arrival of computers and robots. Human beings were now expected to meekly conform to these automated norms and functions.

    And now we face the onset of the Fourth Industrial Repression (4IR), the most deathly repression of them all…

    For a detailed description of “The Fourth Industrial Repression/Revolution” — but maybe from a source you might reject as taking a “right-wing” approach to the dirty rotten system — see “COVID-19 as a Weapon. The Crushing of the Disposable Working Class – by Design” by Cory Morningstar posted on 13 April 2020 if interested.

    Sep 24 2019, António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations:

    “And we must look at the 2030 Agenda not through the prism of the economy of the last decade, but the economy of the next decade, seizing the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and safeguarding against its dangers.”

    Here it is important to note that also on March 11, 2020, the World Economic Forum announced a partnership with the WHO (a UN agency) to form the COVID-19 Action Platform – a task-force comprised of over 200 corporations at launch, which has “soared to 726“, as of March 28, 2020. This is in addition to the World Economic Forum partnership with the United Nations on June 13, 2019. This is the consolidation of global power, happening in real time.

    Back to it’s implications in the context of the doc “Planet Of The Humans” and the question “What does this neo-feudal political economy value?”:

    In addition to the Fourth Industrial Revolution 2020 reset, we have the coming “New Deal For Nature” to be implemented at years end, or perhaps sooner under the pretext of emergency measures. The feigned concern for climate and biodiversity by those that serve them, is, to be blunt, complete bullsh¡t. There is nothing to be found within the Fourth Industrial Revolution dystopia in regard to nature – other than her financialization and objectification. She too will be placed on the blockchain. Here, man’s arrogance is on full display – with plans to cover the Earth’s surface with artificial forests and drone bees, while cordoning off what they have not yet plundered – for their own personal leisure.
    The Fourth Industrial Revolution, the monetization of nature, is being rolled out in lockstep with the deployment of central bank digital currency (CBDC). This is a global transformation of the economic system. Consider nature “valued” at 125 trillion vs. GDP at 85.9 trillion (2018). “Natural Capital” accounting will replace GDP.

    In my mind at least, or maybe it’s my version of an internal (self-imposed, reinforced by confirmation bias) echo chamber, this only reinforces the knowledge that industrial capitalism is the old social form of the economic system and the new social form of the economic system is neo-feudal & technocratic. Instead of evolutionary progress (i.e. industrial capitalism being replaced by a workers paradise via revolutionary socialism), there’s devolutionary regress back to feudalism & the serfs being tested like modern lab rats. Obviously, this social development will be completely rejected by the true believers in the engine driving our (advanced?) civilisation: the myth of progress. These true believers will be doing cartwheels of joy for this global transformation of the economic system being “progress”.

  • I can be your sponsor in the 12 atep program…. but wait – that would mean you would have to check your email! Lol. 🤫

  • Mensch59

    I’m not sure what “right wing COVID talking points” even are.
    Are left-wing COVID talking points something along the lines of “Trust the WHO. Trust that governments know best about how to protect their populations from rhinoviruses and influenza viruses and coronaviruses in order to achieve herd immunity. Trust the vaccines which combat viral infections. Trust that lockdown measures must stay in place until a vaccine becomes available. Trust what the mainstream media and the WHO is telling us about SARS-CoV-2”?
    Maybe this guy, Dr of Medicine Wolfgang Wodarg, is a right-winger for talking about COVID-19 science vs COVID-19 hype on the YouTube/ThemTube video “COVID-19: Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg – science versus hype”. Maybe Vanessa Beeley is a right-winger for posting Dr. Wodarg’s talk on Beeley’s “The Wall Will Fall: where mainstream media fears to tread” WordPress blog. Maybe almost all alternative media blogs which challenge the mainstream media’s support of globalization are right-wing and it’s now left-wing to support globalization as fake collectivism.

    I pretty much accept the political compass model. See this graphic: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f6156a529c2f1ae42b2c1ca628e8278b415bc155a25e85bc758c76f3270a900d.jpg
    The y-axis is pretty self-explanatory. The x-axis is more tricky because it has to do with property and relations of production. The far left believes that private property needs to be abolished. The far right is all about limited liability companies aka corporations owning the earth as private property. The authoritarian far left believes that, once private property has been abolished, all property needs to be owned by the state, i.e. controlled by a hierarchical governing body. The anarchic far left believes in (and struggles for) the pert near impossible, i.e. the abolition of both private property and the state. This is the biblical expression omnia sunt communia</i<, or “all things in common.” I presume that you've heard of Christian communism?

  • Cab Driver xxx

    In the psychiatric factory, the reminder “He/she is/was a group home kid” is as often as not the warning you’ll receive for what awaits you. As for “low self-esteem,” I dunno. Like so much other pop terminology that came of age in the 1970s, its mere usage somewhere along the line became a license for all sorts of sht, Larry. I’ve always been drawn to it both in art and in people. It’s “well-adjusted” opposite never sat right right with me -and it sure as hell never seemed to come with an invitation. But whatever you wanna’ call it, when “low self-esteem” rears its head on you you best hang on to yours.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    “We admitted we were powerless over EH – that our lives had become unmanageable.”

    Sorry, nb. You’re still “in the grips.” Think I need Collectivist.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    “We admitted we were powerless over EH – that our lives had become unmanageable.”

    Sorry, nb. You’re still “in the grips.” Think I need Collectivist

  • My head is spinning with all this, Mensch.

    I would say left wing talking points wrt COVID are along the lines of – we (society as a whole) should be taking the action necessary to protect the most vulnerable from the public health crisis. Scientific consensus should be what guides government action and response to public health crises.

    From what I have read, there is no evidence that “herd immunity” is a “thing”; promotion of false narratives of herd immunity would seem to be in service to the interests of the ruling class; hence right wing.

    About globalism… I share Debs view: “I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world.” Borders are political constructs that are there to serve the interests of the ruling class; so to the extent that “globalism” is led by the poor and working class, it is not the boogeyman promoted by the right.

    The need for hierarchies is promoted by the authoritarian right. The left favors democracy.

    Beyond that… no idea… 🙂

  • I guess I need a sponsor too. Maybe C can take us both on.

  • Hadley Browning

    The argument now is defining what is more important to the population. People who value lives, science and the defense against the virus are being shut out by “It’s the Economy, Stupid!!”

  • Mensch59

    Do you believe that public health crises — like other crises such as war, climate change, famines — are engineered by the ruling class? Is this a right-wing conspiratorial pseudoscientific question?
    Or do you think that public health crises are unintended consequences of capitalism and that the ruling class is a helpful partner in solving these crises for the benefit of all?
    Given that (1) false narratives are in service to the interests of the ruling class; hence right wing and (2) official narratives are in service to the interests of the ruling class; hence right wing: which narratives are more leftwing and more democratic/less hierarchical — public health crises are engineered by the ruling class or the ruling class is a helpful partner in solving public health crises for the benefit of all?

    To help answer, how about a history lesson:

    In the early 1900s, America’s first Billionaire, John D. Rockefeller bought a German pharmaceutical company that would later assist Hitler to implement his eugenics-based vision by manufacturing chemicals and poisons for war.
    Rockefeller wanted to eliminate the competitors of Western medicine, so he submitted a report to Congress declaring that there were too many doctors and medical schools in America, and that all natural healing modalities were unscientific quackery.
    Rockefeller called for the standardization of medical education, whereby only his organization be allowed to grant medical school licenses in the US. And so began the practice of immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic drugs. Once people had become dependent on this new system and the addictive drugs it provided, the system switched to a paid program, creating lifelong customers for the Rockefellers.
    Currently, medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Rockefeller’s secret weapon to success was the strategy known as, “problem-reaction-solution.” Create a problem, escalate fear, then offer a pre-planned solution. Sound familiar?

    I think that there’s a strong possibility (at least) that the masses are being bamboozled & propagandized with this pandemic.

    I think that the video linked to here — https:// thewallwillfall. org/2020/05/06/plandemic-a-film-about-the-global-plan-to-take-control-of-our-lives-liberty-health-freedom/ (remove spaces to copy and paste) — is spot on. If promoting this video gets me labeled a Maxwellian or a right-winger or a conspiracy theorist or engaging in tin-foil hattery or in the @elizabeth_hayes:disqus camp or something similar, I’d rather stand up for what I believe is true and be ridiculed for it than be silent. I sincerely doubt that Judy Anne Mikovits, a virologist & an American health activist & former medical researcher, is a right-wing supporter of the ruling class. Maybe the PTB want her smeared in order to silence her. See https:// www. sciencemag. org/news/2012/06/criminal-charges-dropped-against-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-researcher-judy-mikovits# (remove spaces to copy and paste) if interested in some of her background.
    If the ruling class is targeting whistleblowers, it makes sense to at least give these whistleblowers a fair listen-to.

  • Mensch59

    I think that left-wing proponents for revolutionary democratic ecological socialism ought to start here — https:// thewallwillfall. org/2020/05/06/plandemic-a-film-about-the-global-plan-to-take-control-of-our-lives-liberty-health-freedom/ (remove spaces to copy and paste) if interested — to take on the ruling class’ plan for absolute totalitarian control.

    Beyond this… nothing else is important.

  • Jeff

    When people started using agriculture, there were no rich people and there was no capitalism. Agriculture immediately led to overpopulation by providing an unnatural overabundance of food as in the Petri dish experiment we all did in high school biology (more food = more animals, and humans are no exception), thereby circumventing the natural population control of food availability. You start in the middle when there were already way too many people to live in balance with their ecosystems, and you then identify how the rich are making things even worse. But like Donald Trump, the rich aren’t the problem, they’re merely a symptom of the problem. It was the problem of overpopulation and its resulting civilization that created the rich in the first place.

    There are approximately 36 million millionaires on Earth, which is more people than existed before humans started using agriculture. Billionaires are not the only rich people, they’re just the richest of them. And billionaires not the 1%, they’re a small fraction of that. So rich people are overpopulated too, even if they were the only ones on Earth.

    I didn’t disregard your comment about poor people and their “gardens;” in fact, I responded quite directly that even poor people have to eat, and that agriculture alone occupies and destroys more land than humans themselves and any other human activity. Unless you want poor people to starve, their mere existence is taking up land (just like everyone else), and any more than two per family on average would have been too many, simple as that — now we need one per family because we need to greatly lower human population, not merely stabilize it. The analysis of the effects of overpopulation on the natural world and all that lives there does not include social issues, which only affect humans. We agree that the rich are more harmful than the poor per capita, but you seem blind to the harms that the overpopulated poor are also causing.

    I fully agree with you about the grazing industry, which has done more environmental and ecological damage to the western U.S. than any other industry. Beef is the most harmful food people eat and should be banned for that reason alone. I won’t go into all of the great harms caused by grazing cattle and sheep in the west, I assume you already know all or at least most of them. And I love horses, they’re my favorite animal, so you can guess where I’m at on the wild horse issue and the damn ranchers who want the horses killed. I also really like wolves and mountain lions, another reason t hate ranchers and their damn cattle (not so fond of coyotes, but I’m strongly opposed to people harming or killing them, as I am with any native wildlife except to eat it, and coyotes are not proper food for humans or probably any other animal).

    If you want to fix human overpopulation, you can’t make exceptions for certain groups because they’re poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Ask yourself how the land, air, water, plants, and animals that are native to an ecosystem are affected by so many people living there, including agriculture. And how do these people get water? Because the only way to do so in balance with an ecosystem is to live off the surface water (not groundwater, as the colonizers did when they came here and immediately overpopulated). Every group of people except for hunter-gatherers should substantially reduce their population. If we only reduced or even eliminated the number of rich people on the planet we’d have done virtually nothing to reduce human population. To paraphrase one of my heroes Captain Paul Watson (founder of the Sea Shepherd Society), my concerns are not for humans, they’re for the natural world and everything there. Human concerns are secondary, as humans as a whole are thriving and expanding.

  • Robert

    You’re also positivity participating!

  • Mensch59

    You can do a word search “Scholarly articles on herd immunity”.
    @disqus_KoPeDJLSKe:disqus can hook you up with a “scholarly articles” search engine better than Google.

  • Mensch59

    …to the extent that “globalism” is led by the poor and working class, it is not the boogeyman promoted by the right.

    Wow! I never thought that I’d read a leftist Marxist defending globalism as “the boogeyman promoted by the right”!
    First of all (dealing with material political-economic reality in the here and now) the poor and working class don’t even have a voice in how global neoliberalism (aka the imperialism of finance capital aka “globalism”) is being implemented public policy wise. No. Voice.
    Secondly, the poor and working class have no leadership over the drive toward globalism. Global neoliberalism is what the pro-imperialism, pro-US hegemony, pro-war, #Russiagate, China is the world’s worst human rights violator, effing Democrats are fighting for. You’re not saying (I hope) that the Democratic party is for giving the poor and working class a voice and leadership when authoritarian globalism (magically) turns into democratic communistic/socialistic collectivism.
    Finally, it’s a crazy pipedream that, once globalism is implemented for the benefit of the billionaire class, that power will be voluntarily handed over to the underclasses. It’s crazy stupid imo for the Left to go along with globalism (aka fake collectivism) simply because the right-wing has (correctly?) intuited that it’s a power-grab by the illiberal neoliberal “boogeyman”.
    Globalism is first, foremost and always pro-ruling class. If not, what am I missing? How in the world can absolute totalitarian control (unless you think that this is a myth) be led by the poor and the working class? How can absolute totalitarian control ever be democratic, or of & by & for the proletariat?

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    Of course, dearie, it always comes down to you accusing anything, just anything you disagree with /don’t want to deal with as the effect of “white supremacy.” I’m really sick of hearing your self-serving, non-thinking bullshit, and your nattering gossip.

  • Robert

    It’s also a good way to shift any action way down the road; notice the ‘it’s the pop’ tropists aren’t advocating any program implementation….

  • Mensch59

    … while others shared conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and his involvement with the Covid-19 vaccine.

    Is Bill Gates one of the good guys today? Was John D. Rockefeller one of the good guys of yesteryear?
    RE “the overt disregard which will impact the population most vulnerable to the virus — black people”: if you’re concerned about black people being sacrificed for (vaccine) profit-making, then you’d do well to watch the vid on this blog. See https:// thewallwillfall. org/2020/05/06/plandemic-a-film-about-the-global-plan-to-take-control-of-our-lives-liberty-health-freedom/ (remove the spaces to copy and paste) if interested.

    In the early 1900s, America’s first Billionaire, John D. Rockefeller bought a German pharmaceutical company that would later assist Hitler to implement his eugenics-based vision by manufacturing chemicals and poisons for war.

    Rockefeller wanted to eliminate the competitors of Western medicine, so he submitted a report to Congress declaring that there were too many doctors and medical schools in America, and that all natural healing modalities were unscientific quackery.

    Rockefeller called for the standardization of medical education, whereby only his organization be allowed to grant medical school licenses in the US. And so began the practice of immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic drugs. Once people had become dependent on this new system and the addictive drugs it provided, the system switched to a paid program, creating lifelong customers for the Rockefellers.

    Currently, medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Rockefeller’s secret weapon to success was the strategy known as, “problem-reaction-solution.” Create a problem, escalate fear, then offer a pre-planned solution. Sound familiar?

  • Mensch59

    Gotta be careful w the scholarly, esp right now when non-peer reviewed is getting added because of time issues AND because a human failing is to glom onto the bits we like.

    Then there’s awareness of confirmation bias and how to counter it.
    “George Orwell once talked about his ability to face unpleasant facts, and that’s always inspired me. I want to look at the things that are happening in the world that we may not want to think about and try to really understand them” (Roy Scranton).

    Would you reject the totality of this talk by Judy Anne Mikovits, a virologist and former medical researcher, because it wasn’t peer reviewed? Wikipedia says that she’s an anti-vaccination activist. She contradicts Wikipedia in this talk.
    https:// youtu. be/RiQ7yeHV0Zs (remove spaces in order to cut and paste)

    Obviously, COVID-19, following United Nations/WHO & CDC protocols and the orders to establish quasi-totalitarian control — i.e. restrictions on speech (as in what videos Google removes from YouTube), restrictions on movement, restrictions on behavior, restrictions on what businesses may operate, and constant medical testing — is a helluva lot more political than based on peer reviewed science.

    What is the average citizen supposed to do when they listen to primary care physicians making videos calling bullsh¡t on the political pronouncements made by Dr Anthony Fauci? It seems like skepticism is thrown out the window in favor of an illiberal follow-the-leader mindset. As I asked a mutual acquaintance, are left-wing COVID talking points something along the lines of “Trust the WHO. Trust that governments know best about how to protect their populations from rhinoviruses and influenza viruses and coronaviruses in order to achieve herd immunity. Trust the vaccines which we are assured combat viral infections. Trust that lockdown measures must stay in place until a vaccine becomes available. Trust what the mainstream media and the WHO is telling us about SARS-CoV-2”?

  • Nylene13

    MY concern is for the Environment AND the poor people. To blame a poor rural 3rd country woman for having children which help her survive -is insane.

    Just what to you expect her to do?
    Go to College???

    Just make sure she takes Birth Control Pills until she starves to death?
    Just what are you saying here?
    Of course we are overpopulated with humans.

    But I do not see that as big an issue as- Fukushima. Do you realize Fukushima’s pollution has now reached all corners of the Pacific Ocean? And it’s radioactive pollution is INCREASING! And Nuke Scientists have no idea why.

    I think you have just found an easy way to not have to accept any personal responsibility for the deadly situation our Environment is in.

    Blame poor women and their children instead.

    I bet Nuke Scientists don’t have many kids.

    What lovely guys…..

  • Collectivist

    Hmmm . .
    I’m presently taking a short break from watching, about half of, Michael Moore’s* film, Planet of the Humans.
    Very thought-provoking piece.

    My thoughts and feelings, so far, have changed back and forth with each segment and at this moment I have yet to come to a definitive assessment of its central propositions and meanings.
    Somehow, in the midst of this natural-precipitated, hardly, slow-moving socio-political global meltdown, this documentary seems to be right-on-time . . .and on the money about the ongoing capitalist ATTEMPT to divert the entire environmental movement.

    More technical ‘fixes’, designed, not so much to mitigate climate disruption, but, once again, to maximimize capital accumulation.
    An old story in a brand new, ‘green’ package.

    Nothing really new.

    Tbh, however, the film’s promotion of population control, as one of the solutions, and the historic odor of racism and genetics it generates is disconcerting. Of course, the burning questions here are, understandably, always: What populations? Why? Who determines this?

    Nevertheless, the unprecedented recent resurgence of the, at least, 50 year organized global movement to preserve the biosphere, and now, to prevent ecocide, led by some of our brightest YOUNG advocates, makes this film a MUST-SEE and CRITICALLY-EXAMINE project for ALL of us.

    Let’s see . . .😐

    * Actually, the credits say that this is a Jeff Gibbs film. “Michael Moore Presents” – in Trumpian fashion(?) – is ‘branding.’

  • Collectivist

    “. . .the extent that “globalism” is led by the poor and working class, it is not the boogeyman promoted by the right.”

    This is correct, imo, Mensch.
    Moreover, a global anti-imperialist (anti-capitalist) struggle must exist.
    And it does.

    “WORKERS OF THE WORLD – UNITE”. . .The working class has no nation” KM

  • Collectivist

    Actually, ‘sweetie’😉, contrary to any of the conspiracy theories and delusions on the political’right’, its really boils down to this. (Of course, you’re way to far gone – full of misplaced aggression*, toxic nationalism and denial – to get any of this:)

    *Prayer changes things😉

    The COVID-19 pandemic has taught us that we are a connected global community. Diseases, greenhouse gases, and capital are not restricted by borders. What we do in one place, impacts another. To stop the pandemic, we must control the infection everywhere or there will always be a repository perpetuating it and putting any of us at risk. International cooperation and solidarity are required to make the transition we need.

    The same is true with the climate crisis and the globalized neoliberal economy. They are connected to each other and to our health. It is the globalized neoliberal financial system that has driven the race to the bottom. Capital moves freely about the world in search of the cheapest labor and resources. Many governments, especially those in the global south, compete with each other to loosen regulations that protect workers and the environment to attract capital to their countries. Corporate trade agreements make transnational corporate profits more important than protecting the planet. Humans have created multiple environmental crises from polluting the Earth, as Robert J. Burrowes writes, turning it into a junk planet.

    Capitalism knows no limits when it comes to profits. People are being displaced from their land as corporations gobble it up for mining, energy production or industrial agriculture. This forces people deeper into wild habitats where they come in contact with wildlife and also pushes wildlife into human communities. It increases the chances of transmission of disease.

    As Keishia Taylor explains, “…human activity disrupts ecosystems and damages biodiversity, shaking loose viruses, which then need a new host.” As the barriers between humans and wildlife break down, the greater the risk for zoonoses, diseases that are transmitted from animals to humans. COVID-19 “is the sixth major epidemic in the last 26 years that originated in bats, mediated by a range of farmed, domesticated or hunted animals.” Factory farming is a great culprit driving these epidemics. Large numbers of animals live in crowded and unnatural environments, which weaken their immune systems and make disease transmission more likely.

    Biodiversity is key to healthy ecosystems, writes Eric Roston in TIME. He adds, “Almost half of the new diseases that jumped from animals to humans… after 1940 can be traced to changes in land use, agriculture, or wildlife hunting. …There may be 10,000 mammalian viruses potentially dangerous to people.” The climate crisis is another threat to biodiversity as described above, for which governments are not responding.

    “Capitalism drives the exploitation of people and resources for profit without regard for the consequences. The burning of cheap, dirty fossil fuels for transportation required to connect disparate parts of the global supply chain as well as the oil and gas industry’s history of pushing dirty forms of transit drives greenhouse gas emissions along with large polluting industries and factory farms. Destruction of the land, including our forests, has lowered the capacity for natural carbon sequestration. This has led to the high levels of carbon in the atmosphere that cause climate chaos; record high temperatures are heating the oceans and storms, fires and droughts are causing more damage. . .”

    https://popularresistance.org/the-decade-of-transformation-being-in-balance-with-nature/

  • Robert

    May I suggest that hinging an argument about the medical science consensus view of how to lessen the social impacts of covid on a person w no real credentials on the topic is not dissimilar to using single scientist w little or no demonstrated expertise in climate change research making claims about galactic rays, cloudes, volcanoes, as the cause of the measured rise in GMST?

    Roy is not wrong, but I’m not seeing where confirmation bias has anything to do w whether Mikovits’ pronouncements are valid. Or in ascribing a position that medical opinion on covid is left wing.

  • Mensch59

    How is globalism NOT the global transformation of the economic system from the industrial capitalist social model to the neo-feudal social model? Maybe there’s only a very small percentage of average Joes and Jills who perceive/sense/observe/notice this happening in real time.
    How is globalism NOT the consolidation of global power (happening in real time) in the heads and hands of the billionaire class?
    How is globalism EVER going to be led by the poor and working class?
    I always thought that communism was about community and would be implemented locally in manageable groups. I guess I cannot imagine global communism.
    I guess I lack the vision of globalism being led by the poor and working class. It seems too contradictory for words, i.e. absurd.

    Maybe “globalism” is one of those ideological (weasel?) words which can mean anything to anyone depending on his/her political-social-economic orientation.

  • Mensch59

    RE the “slow-moving socio-political global meltdown”: that’s contradicted by The Great Acceleration and the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
    See http:// www. igbp. net/globalchange/ greatacceleration.4.1b8ae20512db692f2a680001630.html (remove spaces to cut and paste) if interested.
    See also http:// www. wrongkindofgreen. org/2020/04/17/resist-the-fourth-industrial-repression/ (remove spaces to cut and paste) and http:// www. wrongkindofgreen. org/2020/04/13/covid-19-as-a-weapon-the-crushing-of-the-disposable-working-class-by-design/ (remove spaces to cut and paste) if interested.
    If the Left wants to try to reclaim the word “globalism” as short for international collectivist socialism/communism, then that’s fine with me.
    “Globalism” will always mean the Machiavellian machinations of how the ruling class utilizes crises — both natural and anthro- & capitalogenic — to consolidate power. Or at least until private property is abolished. Whichever comes first.

    I think that “the film’s promotion of population control” is being overstated in order to smear the overall message and in order to divide those who understand that the environmental movement has been hijacked & that climate change activists have been co-opted.

    What are the underclasses looking at? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0d5daa52c9984527fed851e2e7b0bf157e5d25a8ad550ccf3a4d38d01ada78d.jpg

    The First Industrial Repression saw us thrown off the land, forced into crowded towns and cities, used as human fodder for the dark satanic mills of the new steam-powered capitalist world.

    The Second Industrial Repression electrified the rule of The Machine. New generations were born who had never tasted freedom. Their lives and their thinking were increasingly dominated by the rhythms of industrial mass production.

    The Third Industrial Repression heralded the arrival of computers and robots. Human beings were now expected to meekly conform to these automated norms and functions.

    And now we face the onset of the Fourth Industrial Repression (4IR), the most deathly repression of them all…

  • Collectivist

    RE the “slow-moving socio-political global meltdown”

    You forgot the adverb ‘hardly’ right before the compound hyphenated verb ‘slow-moving’😎. . .

    I still haven’t gotten back to the film. Got distracted.

  • Mensch59

    I hope your not suggesting that (or smearing) Judy Anne Mikovits is/as “a person w no real credentials on the topic”.
    Are you listening to doctors (skeptically, inquiringly, curiously) who are challenging the official COVID-19 narrative or are you claiming (without evidence?) that the official COVID-19 narrative already has achieved scientific consensus to support said narrative?

    Supporting (without evidence or with incomplete evidence) the official narrative is follow-the-leader type confirmation bias (i.e. submission to an appeal to authority) and has everything to do with whether or not Mikovits’ challenge to the official narrative ought to be routinely dismissed as invalid.
    Additionally, Judy Anne Mikovits is not some lone voice crying in the (medical) wilderness. Try “COVID-19: Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg – science versus hype” and/or “BAKERSFIELD, Calif., (KBAK/KBFX) — Doctors Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi of Accelerated Urgent Care are calling for the county to reopen” and/or “Epidemiologist Dr. Knut Wittkowski: ‘There is no fundamental difference between the flu and COVID’” and/or “Who controls the British Government response to Covid–19?” and/or “Stanford Study Proves Covid-19 Was Overhyped. “Death Rate Is Likely Under 0.2%” and/or “Gaslighting the Coronavirus – Dimitry Orlov”.

    Do you really want to equate these people with climate science denial?

    From my final reference: “The list of actors who use the coronavirus pandemic for their very different and often contradictory aims can be extended virtually ad infinitum. But what if we try to factor out the common term, to use a mathematical metaphor? What factor appears in every term of the equation and can therefore be moved outside the parentheses? It is the factor of absolute control: restrictions on movement, restrictions on behavior, restrictions on what businesses may operate, and constant medical testing.”
    Is the ruling class simply some abstract notion or does the ruling class have a physical-material-social agenda which might include something like totalitarian control? Maybe those anti-capitalist critics of the ruling class who concern ourselves with the ruling class not merely being content with inverted totalitarianism are a bunch of kookie conspiracy theorists, eh?

  • Mensch59

    True, but my point is that the global economy is transforming, not melting down.
    This is how it’s transforming. (1) Industrial capitalism transforming into neo-feudalism (2) “The Fourth Industrial Revolution, the monetization of nature, is being rolled out in lockstep with the deployment of central bank digital currency (CBDC). This is a global transformation of the economic system. Consider nature “valued” at 125 trillion vs. GDP at 85.9 trillion (2018). “Natural Capital” accounting will replace GDP” (COVID-19 AS A WEAPON. THE CRUSHING OF THE DISPOSABLE WORKING CLASS – BY DESIGN, Wrong Kind of Green, 13 April 2020).

    You can bet your sweet bippy that hundreds of thousands of environmental & climate change activists will be bamboozled into thinking that #2, the monetization of nature, is philanthropy from the billionaire class — i.e. the landed aristocracy/nobility of this neo-feudal economic social form/order.

    Bill Gates is about as trustworthy as John D. Rockefeller.

    In the early 1900s, America’s first Billionaire, John D. Rockefeller bought a German pharmaceutical company that would later assist Hitler to implement his eugenics-based vision by manufacturing chemicals and poisons for war.

    Rockefeller wanted to eliminate the competitors of Western medicine, so he submitted a report to Congress declaring that there were too many doctors and medical schools in America, and that all natural healing modalities were unscientific quackery.

    Rockefeller called for the standardization of medical education, whereby only his organization be allowed to grant medical school licenses in the US. And so began the practice of immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic drugs. Once people had become dependent on this new system and the addictive drugs it provided, the system switched to a paid program, creating lifelong customers for the Rockefellers.

    Currently, medical error is the third leading cause of death in the US. Rockefeller’s secret weapon to success was the strategy known as, “problem-reaction-solution.” Create a problem, escalate fear, then offer a pre-planned solution. Sound familiar?

    “Millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as from steel magnate Andrew Carnegie and the railroad fortune of the Harrimans, funded racial ‘science’ eugenics programmes in the US and Nazi Germany.” ~ North Carolina’s reparation for the dark past of American eugenics” by Edwin Black, The Guardian.
    Too bad they didn’t look into the millions of preventable AIDS deaths in Africa when they did a story on present day eugenics.

  • Mensch59

    I’ve never heard a leftist or a Marxist or a socialist or an anarchist or an anarcho-syndicalist or a communist even attempt to utilize the term “globalism” non-pejoratively — and I’ve been on social media hanging around with lefties for years.
    I guess I should pay better attention.
    🙂

  • Elizabeth Hayes

    I do “get” all that you’ve quoted from Flowers and Zeese – nothing that I’m ignorant of and nothing that I’ve ever disagreed with in the least – although you pretend otherwise (that is, lie about it) so you can claim moral and intellectual superiority while rationalizing your own lowdown gossiping. That is quite sleazy and absolutely characteristic of you.

  • Robert

    I have, generally, great respect for your thinking, but to put Mikovits as a reliable source flies in the face of the evidence. It’s not just the anti-vax, there’s a whole panolopy of issues with the integrity of her research, non-edpertise, errors in profession behavior and judgement. The wiki article is pretty clear, but if you need more all one needs do is review the sources used, then follow some of the leads from those.

    I don’t know if you have access to Pro Quest or Esco – they’re widely available through public libraries and offer pretty comprehensive selections of neespapers, magazines, journals from a wide range of subjects. Vetted, reliable sources. What it look’s like is you are accepting anything written anywhere as equal weight in evidence. That goes for the statements of the AUC which the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine called “reckless and untested musings” as well as your other sources.

    Please, we’ve got the documentation that a pandemic was highly likely, we had plans in place since the Bush admin, there’s no conspiracy, there’s no evidence the people you are citing are reliable, credible, have the necessary expertise.

    In fact, what we’ve got right now is literally every got that did not follow the warnings are suffering more, incurring more medical costs, increasing economic disasters.

    And your final quote and para is just a lightly reworded version of NWO/AgEdA20ne claptrap.

    Sorry, but please, at the very least, run what you’re reading through the CRAAP test, there’s thousands of schools using it. Easy to find.

  • Robert

    This is the best thing I’ve read today on disqus, thanks!

  • larrymotuz

    As an idea, group homes sounded good to me as a foster kid. But the implementation of the idea –one that called for well-trained social workers and psychiatric counselors in its idea phase failed spectacularly. People with no training whatever were hired off the street and paid peanuts to manage these ‘homes’. Some of the ‘manager surrogate parents’ were little more than kids themselves — 21 years old or thereabouts. Nowadays, private industry runs group homes for-profit. It’s a growing for-profit industry. Of course, paying peanuts, these group homes have a very high turnover of those they hire, most of whom have little experience in life or practical training to draw upon.

    I too would take it as a warning for what awaits you: for what awaits you are many children who have been neglected and have never received any of the love, affection, care and concern children do deserve to thrive.

  • Jeff

    It’s not about blame, it’s about fixing overpopulation. There is no reason that a person limiting their family to one child would starve to death. If they need more people to help with food and water they can live communally. But in the end, if your lifestyle requires you to overpopulate, you need to change your lifestyle.

    As to nukes, they wouldn’t even exist without human overpopulation. That’s one thing that people don’t get about this issue: overpopulation is a fundamental problem that causes and/or exacerbates every other environmental problem except for individual overconsumption. If you don’t fix overpopulation, you fix nothing. If you fix it, you fix a lot.

    Blame goes back to the human psyche many thousands of years ago, when humans decided to obsess on their ego & intellect, and on harmfully and unnaturally manipulating the natural world. They could have instead chosen to focus on empathy, wisdom, and expanding their consciousness. If you want to blame anything, blame that decision.

  • Collectivist

    I believe you.

  • Collectivist

    “True, but my point is that the global economy is transforming, not melting down.”

    Actually, my statement was a little to.o generalized and of course not dialectical enough.

    The ‘meltdown’ is probably only in some countries, right now.

    True, there is the real possibility for transformation. . .only if the global left organizes GLOBALLY.

  • Collectivist

    Irrefutable

  • Collectivist

    “All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe.” — Communist Manifesto (Chapter 1)”

    One of my favorite passages.

  • Mensch59

    There are better reasons to give Mikovits a fair but skeptical hearing (as a whistleblower) than there are reasons to reject her as a source — based on your first two paragraphs.
    What are (some of) these “better reasons”? I’ll answer that.
    First of all, there are the pronouncements of scientific agencies/bureaucracies and then there’s bringing class analysis (aka class consciousness, i.e. the major logic of critique based on which interests of what socioeconomic class are being furthered) to those pronouncements.
    Secondly, there is the issue of the anti-revolutionary role the intelligentsia — which arguably has no class status at all but is merely a social stratum — plays in maintaining the status quo. Epistemology as a whole is hardly revolutionary. See the article and follow the embedded link “according to a new study”. The article is “Science Really Does Advance One Funeral At A Time, Study Suggests” by Dalmeet Singh Chawla, 12 Sept 2019 at Chemistry World. “‘A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.’ This principle was famously laid out by German theoretical physicist Max Planck in 1950 and it turns out that he was right, according to a new study.” Do you wish to challenge this study? [Question #1]
    Thirdly, there are no “new scientific truths” or “scientific consensuses” emerging yet that (1) wealth inequality is socially malevolent (2) the capitalist & rentier classes (who are making debt slaves of the underclasses) must be disempowered / overthrown (3) the pollution from “the great acceleration” which is wrecking ecosystems is capitalogenic. If there are these “scientific consensuses” or “new scientific truths” coming out in top quality peer-reviewed scientific journals (considering you being a tireless advocate for science and good scientific writing on social media utilizing the CRAAP test), then you ought to find maybe three or four research studies on my 1-3 above from Pro Quest or Esco falsifying my claim. Even then three or four studies does not a consensus make.
    Fourthly and arguably, we’re dealing with an area of the corruption of science — unless you’re willing to go on record and declare that (1) eugenics and (2) the practice of immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic drugs are more scientific than pseudoscientific. You ought to put the CRAAP test to work on the corruption of medical science too.

    Now, I realize that I’m being blunt. But I’m not going to back off for the sake of taking you at your word. You write “In fact, what we’ve got right now is literally every got (sic) that did not follow the warnings are suffering more, incurring more medical costs, increasing economic disasters.” [Regarding the “sic”, I presume that you meant govt or government.] Is this claim true? I’ll answer one point. I claim it’s false. “The following graph was produced by UK Column and demonstrates the lack of correlation between lockdown and “saving lives”: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fcbcc39f2c54ba2acd0e81dcbe6fda610782123668e8ff83147a13fc55310576.jpg Do you wish to challenge the validity of this graph by claiming that “lockdown” is (1) saving lives (2) not causing collateral damage for the health of society, e.g. children being isolated is not harmful to their mental health and their immune system? [Question #2] Beyond this, I have no idea as to what you’re referring to regarding “incurring more medical costs”. Does this have to do with Medicare paying out more for a COVID-19 diagnosis than a non-COVID-19 diagnosis for similar viral respiratory infections? I also have no idea as to what you’re referring to regarding “increasing economic disasters”. Maybe the thinking has to do with returning to exponential growth of GDP & energy usage & carbon emissions as economically non-disastrous ASAP. {shrug}

    there’s no conspiracy

    Exposing the agenda of the ruling class is often dismissed as “there’s no conspiracy”. Another way of defending the ruling class is to assert (without evidence) that they have no agenda or to assert (without evidence) that all exposés of their agendas are conspiracy theories. This is another reason why the intelligentsia was criticized by Lenin as “the lackeys of capital”. You, Robert, are presenting yourself here as an apologist for the ruling class it seems to me, but using your confidence in science and the CRAAP test as a smokescreen for your apologetics. Besides, a conspiracy generally involves secrecy. What’s being exposed isn’t secret. It’s a matter of believing vs disbelieving false political propaganda. Do you think that the CRAAP test or peer-reviewed research published in top quality scientific journals have reached a consensus on the social truth of how to discern false propaganda from propagating social truths? [Question #3]

    there’s no evidence the people you are citing are reliable, credible, have the necessary expertise.

    The credibility and reliability and “necessary expertise” for what, Robert? [Question #4] I’m talking about a non-secret agenda disseminated by a propagandist official narrative. You ought to shoulder the onus (the burden of proof) that Judy Anne Mikovits, Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Vanessa Beeley, Cory Morningstar, Tony Cartalucci, Paul Cudenec, Dr Dan Erickson, Dr. Artin Massihi, Dr. Knut Wittkowski, Dmitry Orlov, myself, others calling for a skeptical response to a (propagandist?) official narrative — using the CRAAP test and/or peer-reviewed research published in top quality scientific journals — lack the reliability, the credibility, the “necessary expertise” to (1) question propaganda (2) discern propagandist official narrative from social truth (3) expose the agenda of the ruling class. You’re just going to take “reckless and untested musings” at face value based on a rhetorical appeal to authority?!?! [Question #5] That’s pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism imo. A skeptic doubts, but inquires/questions utilizing curiosity. Einstein imo was the consummate skeptic. “The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” “I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious.”

    Unfortunately, as is my wont, this is turning overly long. But I’d like you to actually deeply and contemplatively consider the pseudoscientific agendas of the ruling class in my above mentioned areas, i.e. (1) eugenics and (2) the practice of immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic drugs.
    “Millions of dollars from the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as from steel magnate Andrew Carnegie and the railroad fortune of the Harrimans, funded racial ‘science’ eugenics programmes in the US and Nazi Germany.” ~ North Carolina’s Reparation for the Dark Past of American Eugenics” by Edwin Black, The Guardian. Did the intelligentsia, the scientific community object to this? Did the scientists involved withhold their labor? Are you aware of Amerikkkan white nationalism inspiring the Hitlerite version of racist fascism? [Question #’s 6-8] Maybe you ought to apply the CRAAP test to these questions and how unethical scientists can be in the pursuit of their own interests.

    RE the corruption of medical science: the following is history. Do you wish for me or for yourself (You’re the expert, though. You must have posted about the CRAAP test close to a hundred times. You ought to do it, in order to demonstrate the necessary expertise.) to apply the CRAAP test to the historical record? [Question #9] Or perhaps you wish to defend the common decency of the person widely considered the wealthiest American of all time, and the richest person in modern history. That would also be in keeping with defending the ruling class. That would additionally be in keeping with the belief that philanthropy is NOT a smokescreen to obscure the evils of the ruling class.

    In the early 1900s, America’s first billionaire, John D. Rockefeller bought a German pharmaceutical company that would later assist Hitler to implement his eugenics-based vision by manufacturing chemicals and poisons for war.
    Rockefeller wanted to eliminate the competitors of Western medicine, so he submitted a report to Congress declaring that there were too many doctors and medical schools in America, and that all natural healing modalities were unscientific quackery.
    Rockefeller called for the standardization of medical education, whereby only his organization be allowed to grant medical school licenses in the US. And so began the practice of immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic drugs. Once people had become dependent on this new system and the addictive drugs it provided, the system switched to a paid program, creating lifelong customers for the Rockefellers.

    Do you challenge this historical account? Do you expect me to provide sources for this history? Do you side with John D. Rockefeller’s “standardization of medical education” & the emergence of BigPharma & those who hold patents for vaccines & other drugs/medicines serving as government officials making public health policy regarding (1) all natural healing modalities are unscientific quackery (2) the practice of manufacturing & distributing & marketing (via drug reps in doctors’ offices) & prescribing & having a for-profit customer base for immune suppressive, synthetic and toxic (and often addictive) drugs? Could the CRAAP test or top quality research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals provide evidence or fallacy-free logical argumentation that (1) getting rid of for-profit BigPharma and (2) re-asserting the efficacy of natural healing modalities are more in harmony with universal social needs & universal social values and healing the “metabolic rift” (Karl Marx) contrasted with the current (John D. Rockefeller engineered) medical establishment? [Questions #’s 10-13] BTW, “metabolic rift” is “a term derived from Marx’s description of the fundamental shift in the relationship between our (human) species and the rest of nature which developed along with class society”. It was developed in Volume 3 of Capital after Marx’s death when Engels was editing Marx’s manuscripts. With the development of the ecological sciences, Marx’s “metabolic rift” science was rediscovered. Is there a CRAAP test or top quality research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals providing evidence or fallacy-free logical argumentation for this “metabolic rift”? [Question #14] Maybe Pro Quest or Esco could help out.

    Now, by my count, in this post I posed five “you ought to” challenges and I asked you fourteen questions. That’s significant. But, after all, the topic is a major one. You basically accused me of giving myself over to pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Counteractively, I’ve basically accused you of NOT utilizing class consciousness/class analysis as you attempt to critique. I’m basically accusing you of NOT utilizing the major logic of critique to judge what Judy Anne Mikovits is communicating. I’m basically accusing you of not understanding how the ruling class is using a pandemic to further the interests of the ruling class in order to further consolidate & concentrate their wealth and power. Ultimately, I’m accusing you of being a lackey for capital. These are heavy duty claims we’re grappling with. It’s not like either one of us has the “necessary expertise” to expose the current agenda of the ruling class in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. I’m ultimately relying on the articles “Resist the Fourth Industrial Repression!” by Paul Cudenec and “COVID-19 as a Weapon. The Crushing of the Disposable Working Class – by Design” by Cory Morningstar to bring me up to speed regarding the big picture of “The largest economic transformation in the history of mankind”. I cannot wait to study the epidemiology of the pandemic or the effects of this “largest transformation” years or decades — historically and scientifically — into the future. This is happening now. The CRAAP test and waiting for scientific consensus have limited efficacy for understanding a paradigm shift happening in the here and now.
    Obviously, you’re under no obligation to meet my challenges or to answer my questions or to defend yourself from my accusations.
    I don’t really look to you as my teacher or someone who’s more knowledgeable or intelligent than myself. I am curious, though, as to how you’ll reply.

  • Nylene13

    You are blaming overpopulation, instead of blaming the Rich who benefit from overpopulation. They want a large low wage and easily replaceable population of workers.

    I do not see people who have no children spending their lives helping humanity. They mainly have nice cars, live in condo’s, hang out with their childless friends, and buy a lot of unnecessary things to entertain themselves with and dedicate most of their time to making money.

    Having children changes your priorities.

    I would have more respect for Zero Population people if they would adopt some kids. I can’t think of ever meeting one of them who has.

  • Collectivist

    *Also, one of the biggest revelations in the film, for me, is that MOST of this ‘green’ energy is still fuelled by and/or dependent on the usage of fossil fuels.

    Wtf?!

  • Mensch59

    Transformation can go either way.
    The transformation I’m referring to is the monetization of nature. It’s not leftist. It’s not communistic or socialistic or anarchic. It’s totally authoritarian and totally about furthering the consolidation & concentration of wealth & power in the heads & hands of the capitalist & rentier classes. It’s all about the aggressive coercion of finance being able to dominate both industrial capitalism and to disempower the state’s ability to regulate finance. It’s a huge power grab. It’s all about the extension of private property over the whole of the biosphere. It’s global. There’s no voice of the poor and of the working class in this social form of globalism. To go along with this is evidence that the underclasses are either all suffering from a mass psychosis or are suicidal or love their chains or have no revolutionary spirit whatsoever. Maybe all four.

    The Fourth Industrial Revolution, the monetization of nature, is being rolled out in lockstep with the deployment of central bank digital currency (CBDC). This is a global transformation of the economic system. Consider nature “valued” at 125 trillion vs. GDP at 85.9 trillion (2018). “Natural Capital” accounting will replace GDP.

    You cannot possibly see this as benign!

    I’m surprised that you didn’t reply to the practice of eugenics and the ruling class withholding AIDS treatment for Africans. Too bad there hasn’t been a follow-up exposé looking into the millions of preventable AIDS deaths in Africa when the author of the article on reparations over eugenics in Amerikkka did a story on how the Rockefeller Foundation, Andrew Carnegie and the railroad fortune of the Harrimans funded past eugenics programs. Eugenics isn’t dead. It’s a big part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. You can bet your sweet bippy that it will target the “overpopulated” areas of Africa.

  • Collectivist

    Excellent points, Robert.
    I hope my friend – driven perhaps by a justifiable fear of fascism and* in the final analysis, an unproductive cynicism – is not. . .:

    https://youtu.be/RFSWW4O6QNM

  • Mensch59

    the extent that “globalism” is led by the poor and working class

    A pleasant notion. Better for the heart than the unpleasant fact of what globalism actually is. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0d5daa52c9984527fed851e2e7b0bf157e5d25a8ad550ccf3a4d38d01ada78d.jpg
    That “transformation” is the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
    As I posted to Collectivist:
    The transformation I’m referring to is the monetization of nature. It’s not leftist. It’s not communistic or socialistic or anarchic. It’s totally authoritarian and totally about furthering the consolidation & concentration of wealth & power in the heads & hands of the capitalist & rentier classes. It’s all about the aggressive coercion of finance being able to dominate both industrial capitalism and to disempower the state’s ability to regulate finance. It’s a huge power grab. It’s all about the extension of private property over the whole of the biosphere. It’s global. There’s no voice of the poor and of the working class in this social form of globalism. To go along with this is evidence that the underclasses are either all suffering from a mass psychosis or are suicidal or love their chains or have no revolutionary spirit whatsoever. Maybe all four.

  • You are trying to argue a point that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. The monetization of nature is exactly the opposite of what I was speaking about and I do not advocate the things you seem to think I advocate (extension of private property over the whole world, no voice for the poor/working class, etc).

    Here is what I said:

    About globalism… I share Debs view: “I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world.” Borders are political constructs that are there to serve the interests of the ruling class; so to the extent that “globalism” is led by the poor and working class, it is not the boogeyman promoted by the right.

    The need for hierarchies is promoted by the authoritarian right. The left favors democracy.

  • Robert

    I’ll do some work and get back to you, but I will point out much of your “five “you ought to” challenges and I asked you fourteen questions” are beyond the scope of what I was responding about and that I still think your thinking would be better served by reviewing your sources.

    And yes, lock down is causing /exacerbating problems. But we literally have no defence medically beyond it. No better off really than 1918.

  • Mensch59

    So, what is the rightwing appeal [to the doc “Planet Of The Humans”]?
    Population reduction?
    Probably.

    They [the right-wingers] want more fossil fueled business as usual.

    It seems to me that conservatives excoriate liberals for liberal advocacy for the overpopulation argument.
    There also seems to be plenty of liberals of ostentatious leftism (i.e. pro-statists as opposed to the anarchist left) who want to repair the damaged economy in order to get back to business as usual ASAP — but with PPE and continued social distancing and total faith in governments regarding restrictions on dissent, restrictions on infecting others or getting infected with a virus arguably as deadly as seasonal flu, restrictions on disseminating information about how this coronavirus was hyped in order to transform the global economy, restrictions in disseminating information about how “Natural Capital” accounting will replace GDP, censoring speech which is considered “spreading conspiracy theories”, restrictions on movement, restrictions on behavior, restrictions on what businesses may operate, and constant medical testing.
    Liberals seem to favor these restrictions. The ruling class sure does. Do conservatives? Do leftists?
    I could be wrong, but I’ve never noticed overpopulationism being a conservative talking point.
    What’s “right-wing”? Isn’t it tacit support for the agendas of the ruling (capitalist & rentier) classes? Isn’t it fascist?
    Well, fascism can be considered BOTH revolutionary AND anti-conservative? But it’s a form of capitalism and friendly to the ruling class. So fascism is right-wing, but not conservative.

    Obviously, it’s tricky to figure out the specific agendas of the ruling classes as the landlords and the imperialists and the financiers and the capitalists and the central banks are transforming the global economy in order to further their interests. But to suggest that conservatives are right-wing supporters of these agendas — not that that’s what you’re saying — is untrue.

  • Mensch59

    LOL.
    Yeah, I figured that once I started questioning the official narratives and began asserting (1) climate activists are useful idiots for the Fourth Industrial Revolution and (2) the coronavirus pandemic is being used to roll forth the Fourth Industrial Revolution it was only a matter of time that I’d be seen as going over to the dark side.

  • Mensch59

    I’m trying to state what globalism actually IS — in terms of a ruling class agenda — not what globalism could be IF it was led by the poor and working classes.
    Let’s deal with what IS instead of what IF.
    What IS globalism if it it is not the boogeyman promoted by the ruling class, i.e. the right?
    International cooperation with trade? That’s laissez faire neoliberalism. Capitalist. Getting rid of borders? Diseases, greenhouse gases, and capital are not restricted by borders. The free flow of people — because we’re all part of one planetary society — without passports is a pleasant notion, a what IF.

  • Collectivist

    Oh?
    So, what ‘official’ narrative am I promoting, Mensch?

  • Mensch… What I said is simply what I meant.

    The imaginary construct that borders are, serves the interests of the ruling class.

    The ruling class agenda is the same as it always was; to secure more power and resources for itself. Within that paradigm, there are competing interests of the ruling class which are in perpetual struggle within its own class, in order to grab more power and resources for individual members.

  • Capitalists who control everything always exploit everything to their own ends. This reality doesn’t negate the reality of the pandemic nor climate change.

  • Mensch59

    Yeah. I knew it was beyond the scope of a Disqus reply.
    Sometimes political necessity overrides scientific and historical research — i.e. the capability to thoroughly review one’s sources of information — months, years, decades after a transformation.
    From all indications I see, society and the political-economy are rapidly transforming due to the un-sustainability of the present system. How this transformation will play out — both in the short-term and the long — is beyond the scope of history and science and human knowledge. Those alive at the infancy of the Copernican revolution could not have foreseen endstage capitalism powered by science and technology. Different worlds. What we’re experiencing now — in terms of transformation — will only be able to be thoroughly understood by future generations — assuming humans survive this transformation. Some of us see what’s happening. Most of us don’t. That’s the burden of prophets, seers/see-ers, revelators. Maybe I’m cursed/blessed to be attuned to revelation. Maybe revelation is as mythical as the messiah or panentheism. I don’t know and I don’t care. It’s beyond the scope of scientific epistemology.

    And yes, lock down is causing /exacerbating problems. But we literally have no defence medically beyond it. No better off really than 1918.

    Color me skeptical that COVID-19 is comparable to the (misnamed) “Spanish” flu of 1916-1920 in terms of case mortality rate. I’d love to compare and contrast the deadliness of coronaviruses with influenza viruses with rhinoviruses with other respiratory viral infections leading to pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sudden acute respiratory syndrome. Right now, I think there’s way too much hype and fear-mongering. The masses will resign to restrictions on our lives, our civil liberties, our health, our struggle against wealth inequality in order to relieve their/our (manufactured) fear. Just look at 9-11. Torture was re-instituted under the euphemism “enhanced interrogation techniques”. The Patriot Act — an already prepared document — was pushed through Congress. The response to every crisis — be it a terrorist attack or another country challenging the Empire’s ability to conduct warfare at will or climate-change-causing-destruction-of-ecosystems or pandemics or famines or the threat of economic collapse — will always be in the service of every sort of totalitarian purpose. To me, that’s really all COVID-19 is (compared to the seasonal flu): in the service of totalitarian control.

  • Collectivist

    “I’m trying to state what globalism actually IS — in terms of a ruling class agenda — not what globalism could be IF it was led by the poor and working classes.”

    O.k.

    But here’s the problem with that:

    – dialectically, global capitalism could have only emerged by creating a global workforce. Like capital itself it depends, for its existence, on labor.

    – capital rules. They represent the dominant aspect of the contradiction between labor and capital, now on a global scale.

    The other problem is that the global working class, unlike capital, is not unified. Nationalism, xenophobia, racism, misinformation, etc., undermines this unity.

  • Collectivist

    “I share Debs view: “I have no country to fight for; my country is the earth, and I am a citizen of the world.” Borders are political constructs that are there to serve the interests of the ruling class. . .”

  • Collectivist

    That would be WAAAY above my paygrade🤗

  • LoL!!! I think we are all beyond hope! Haha!!

  • Jeff

    1. You’re obsessed with blame instead of identifying and fixing the problem. If you disagree with the facts that I stated showing how overpopulation started well before there were any rich people and how overpopulation caused rich people, please explain. Otherwise you’re just being so blinded by your ideologies and/or feelings that you can’t see reality, what some now call cognitive dissonance.

    2. There is more than one reason that people don’t have kids. Like everyone else in modern society, most of these people don’t care that much if at all about the natural environment and choose not to have kids for personal reasons. Like you said, some of them behave like yuppies, though my friends who don’t have kids don’t fit that description with the exception of one very casual friend from high school. And again, overpopulation and individual overconsumption are both fundamental issues; if we don’t fix both, we don’t solve environmental and ecological problems. So while people who don’t have kids have done the Earth and everything on it a great favor by choosing not to breed, if they overconsume they’re harming the Earth in that way.

    3. There is absolutely no reason that anyone should have to adopt kids. Some people just don’t like kids, and on an overpopulated planet that’s just fine. Your statement amounts to forcing your desires on others. The ecological and biological facts that humans are grossly overpopulated are not dependent on feelings toward children or how people’s priorities change when they have kids (I think everyone knows that they do, it’s rather obvious). If having kids or much better a kid will cause you to live in a way that’s environmentally harmful, then don’t have kids; on an overpopulated planet no one is doing anyone else any favors by having them.

    4. Our differences stem from the fact that you focus on humans and the problems of some of them (poor people) and I focus on the natural world and everything that lives there, with human concerns being secondary. So there’s no point in continuing this endlessly, because we have different concerns. I’m well aware of your position and feelings on this and fully understand them, because they’re the same as most people’s (in that they’re anthropocentric, not because you focus on the poor) and I get inundated with them every day. But because people like me who prioritize the Earth and everything that lives here over humans are a small minority, the rest of you don’t understand us. So let’s just leave it at that. We agree on many issues, let’s partner up on those, starting with getting cattle off public land in the west, an original Earth First! position and campaign from about 1980.

  • Mensch59

    I think that the goal (in terms of not putting the cart before the house) is to eliminate poverty, not to have the poor in charge of a global workforce.

    Arguably, capital no longer rules, finance does. This requires an understanding of the differences between (1)(a) the rentier class and (b) the industrial capitalist class (2)(c) M (initial investment capital) – C (means of production) – C’ (labor power, priced at less than its total value-creation as a condition of its hire) – M’ (initial investment augmented by profit fed by surplus labor [surplus value] beyond the price of labor power) and (d) M-M’ (capital reverting to its pure money form).
    From Paul Street’s 14 September 2016 Truthdig article “How To Stop Capitalism’s Deadly War With Nature”:

    When enough of the four core cheap inputs are in place, capitalist accumulation proceeds on the “normal” path captured in the first volume of Karl Marx’s “Capital”: M (initial investment capital) – C (means of production) – C’ (labor power, priced at less than its total value-creation as a condition of its hire) – M’ (initial investment augmented by profit fed by surplus labor [surplus value] beyond the price of labor power). This “productive circuit” permits capital to continue reinvesting back into the manufacture and sale of commodities big and small. Inevitably, however, “frontiers of appropriation” contract relative to capital’s need for higher levels of “unpaid work” from humans and nature. The new commodity frontiers are always one-off affairs. Capital’s ability to counter the tendency for its rate of profit to decline by tapping new commodity frontiers hits spatial, biophysical, technical, geological and/or political and social-historical limits (including limits imposed by the inability of the investor class to refrain from “capitalizing nature”*). Surplus capital accumulates, devoid of outlets for profitable (re)investment in material expansion. This induces capitalists to reallocate capital from production to more purely parasitic finance (emphasis mine). Capital reverts to its pure money form and accumulates more directly as indicated in Marx’s formula M-M’.

    The transformation of the global economy is because:
    · imperialist rent, flowing from underdeveloped countries (the global South) to developed economies. This is happening on a global scale now.
    · the political economy of modern capitalism became distorted, pushing the labour-capital contradiction to the background and bringing other issues to the foreground. This is as if instead of progress, history has regressed back to a neo-feudal system.
    · a corrosive bubble economy has replaced industrial capitalism via debt-financed asset price inflation. This intended to increase balance-sheet net worth, benefiting a select few while spreading risk among the general population. This “risk” now includes not only debt slavery but depopulation perhaps leading to human extinction.
    · finance, insurance and real estate (the FIRE sector) has gained control of the global economy at the expense of industrial capitalism and governments.
    (All of this is from the research of Michael Hudson, a Marxist economist and historian, whose “interpretation of Karl Marx is different from most other Marxists. Whilst other Marxists emphasise the contradiction of wage labour and capital as the core issue of today’s capitalist world, Hudson rejects that idea and believes parasitic forms of finance have warped the political economy of modern capitalism.”)

    Arguably, this has now affected the whole globe (hence my refusal to see anything even potentially good about “globalism”), even though the developed economies of Russia and China haven’t been absorbed into the Amerikan imperial blob. How has this transformation from industrial capitalism to neo-feudalism geopolitically affected Russia and China differently from both the EU and the USA, taking into account imperialistic rent and taking into account the Great Recession of 2008 followed swiftly by the COVID-19 Great Recession which could rival the Great Depression?
    For a full treatment of this, because I’m tired of quoting others’ work, see “Gaslighting the Coronavirus – Dimitry Orlov” on Vanessa Beeley’s blog The Wall Will Fall if interested.

    * “Capitalizing nature” and its limits is exactly what the Fourth Industrial Revolution is all about as per my previous posts on that subject matter.

  • Mensch59

    The reality of the pandemic and climate change isn’t in dispute.
    It’s the ruling class’ utilization of crises which is being discussed imo.
    The response to every crisis — be it a terrorist attack or another country challenging the Empire’s ability to conduct warfare at will or climate-change-causing-destruction-of-ecosystems or pandemics or famines or the threat of economic collapse — will always be in the service of every sort of totalitarian purpose. To me, that’s really all COVID-19 is (compared to the seasonal flu) and climate change is (compared to the GreenNewDeal, the GlobalGreenNewDeal, the NewDealForNature&People): how they will be used in the service of totalitarian control.

  • Mensch59

    So then advocating for no borders (i.e.removing an imaginary construct) would NOT serve the interests of the ruling class precisely how?

    … there are competing interests of the ruling class which are in perpetual struggle within its own class, in order to grab more power and resources for individual members.

    Hmmm. The billionaires, the Party of Davos is engaged with infighting. I haven’t noticed.
    🙂

  • Mensch59

    Don’t know yet.
    Maybe none.
    Maybe (depending on how you discern right-wingers from leftists and how you understand the ruling class’ strategy to divide and conquer), the idea that right-wingers promote the overpopulation idea and right-wingers want to protect the global economy from COVID-19 de-growth is an “official narrative”.
    At this point, you probably know a helluva lot more about average citizens who advocate for the ruling class better than myself. I see us all as serfs and I don’t know anyone who is advocating for what the ruling class has up its sleeves.

  • Collectivist

    Marxist economic theory, always relevant. Glad you’re studying it, 😎among other important things.

    “Arguably, capital no longer rules, finance does.”

    I see no argument. Capital, defined as something used, created or ‘owned’ to make (?) money and, can be an animate or inanimate ‘object’ – has morphed into more money capital.

    Actually, it has been used, in a few places, as capital for centuries. The only difference now – and it’s a big one – this particular, ‘legal’ fiction, now allows a few big bankers, and their biggest clients, to, evidently, monopolize the monopolizers. Control nation states.

    (As Lenin wrote, in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, because the banks have access the accounts of EVERONE (virtually forced, transactionally, to bank money esp., the capitalist enterprises, they have been able to attain the control.

    Though I’m no economist- merely a radical/ex-worker ‘scribe’😎 – that makes sense to me.

    “This is happening on a global scale now.:
    · imperialist rent, flowing from underdeveloped countries (the global South) to developed economies.”

    Great point. Irrefutable.

    “Whilst other Marxists emphasise the contradiction of wage labour and capital as the core issue of today’s capitalist world, Hudson rejects that idea and believes parasitic forms of finance have warped the political economy of modern capitalism.”)

    A critical point, worthy of much more examination. Way over my pay grade😉.

    “hence my refusal to see anything even potentially good about “globalism”

    Hmmm. . .Capitalism, in a multidimensional spatial materialist sense, has been the best of times, and the worst of times*.
    Perhaps, the best thing about it, imo, is that it’s, literally, digging its own grave.

    “I think that the goal (in terms of not putting the cart before the house) is to eliminate poverty, not to have the poor in charge of a global workforce.”

    ??? Explain this further please . . .

    *“Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, other developments take place on an ever-increasing scale, such as the growth of the co-operative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the planned exploitation of the soil, the transformation of the means of labour into forms in which they can only be used in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as the means of production of combined, socialise labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and, with this, the growth of the international character of the capitalist regime.” (Capital, Volume One, Chapter 25, p929, Penguin Classics edition)”

  • Collectivist

    O.k. . .

    Now, about the late Goldberg, and this idea of ‘liberal’ fascism.’

    Imo, there is a good case to be made that liberalism has always had a fascist potential. I base that on the fact that, like most -not all – liberals, including the classic ones, sanctify the ownership of private property.
    In a nutshell, the Obama administration’s policies, taken together, was a textbook case.

    However, liberal fascism, as invoked and delineated by Goldberg, and his followers – who ‘live’ on talk radio – is a clever way of deflecting from, conservative-spawned fascism; historically, the most toxic and deadly expression of STATE-enforced fascism since the beginning of the 20th century.

    Even worst, Goldberg* would have us believe that the fascism Trumpinc represents is significantly better than what FDR or Obama represented.

    BS.

    * Golderg may have kicked the bucket before Trump became POTUS.

  • If the reality of the pandemic isn’t in dispute, why do you keep comparing COVID with the seasonal flu?

  • Mensch59

    A skeptic always asks questions. “The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” ~ Albert Einstein
    These are some of my questions — but not necessarily directed to you.
    Why not compare respiratory viral infections in terms of the rate of infection and the case fatality rate?
    Why not ask about the number of deaths in the USA from seasonal flu last season compared to the number of deaths in the USA from both seasonal flu and COVID-19 this season?
    Why not question if COVID-19 deaths are being hyped — in terms of people dying with the presence of the SARS-nCoV-2 vs people dying from the virus?
    Why not question the accuracy of the test for the presence of SARS-nCoV-2?

    Tanzania has suspended the head of its national health laboratory in charge of coronavirus testing, a day after President John Magufuli questioned the accuracy of the tests.
    Magufuli, who has consistently downplayed the effect of the virus, said on Sunday he had secretly had animals, fruits and vehicle oil tested at the laboratory. A papaya, a quail and a goat had been found to be positive, according to the president.

    Source: al jazerra
    Why not be skeptical of the story we’re being told about how important it is to shelter in place (i.e. “Enough is enough. Go home and stay home” [Justin Trudeau, 23 March 2020]) until Big Brother says the coast is clear?

  • Nylene13

    Because I love kids does not mean that I don’t love the Earth and the Animals too.

    That is what you don’t understand.

    Environmentalist’s are the very people who SHOULD have children!

    I think the best thing to do for the Environment is for everyone to stop eating meat. No one is talking about how many of these C virus outbreaks are in Slaughterhouses.

    And that is where it started in China too. (maybe a lab in China, but it is interesting that the Meat Slaughter Market was just down the road….)

    And someone needs to figure out how to shut off Fukushima.

  • Mensch59

    To a certain extent, I think it’s impossible to not engage in us-versus-them moral tribalism.
    From the leftists: we’re against (fill in the blank), but right-wingers are for it. We’re for (fill in the blank), but the right-wingers are against it.
    From the right-wingers: we’re against (fill in the blank), but leftists are for it. We’re for (fill in the blank), but the leftists are against it.
    The leftists are convinced that right-wingers are more fascist.
    The right-wingers are convinced that the leftists are more fascist.
    Sound familiar?
    The way I figure it, (1) fascism is fascism. Liberal fascism vs conservative fascism is the same type of lesser evil thinking as Democrat vs Republican — a choice between two pieces of feces. (2) The only true fascists and the only genuine right-wingers are those who completely support all of the agendas of the ruling class as those agendas become known.
    The bottom line is that the fascist ruling class (them) wants to make (chattel, wage, debt) slaves/serfs of all us who aren’t them.
    I haven’t come across any conservative or liberal who wants to be a slave or a serf. Unfortunately, many of these liberals and conservatives don’t bring class awareness to the whole ruler-slave dichotomy.
    Leftists at least — via class awareness / consciousness / analysis — accept this dichotomy and accept our slave status. It sucks to be a slave/serf, but it’s better to face unpleasant facts than be unconscious to this fact. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b56697675a83e3601ff559380dc38e11605d112d49967c6bc1f0b2373a3c42bc.png
    “George Orwell once talked about his ability to face unpleasant facts, and that’s always inspired me. I want to look at the things that are happening in the world that we may not want to think about and try to really understand them” (Roy Scranton).

  • Nylene13

    You are missing the point. No one here is saying that Human Overpopulation is not a serious problem.

    But the ENVIRONMENT must become our Priority.

    Getting Americans to stop having children will not change anything. Already young Americans are having fewer kids.

    Clearly you don’t have any!

    What we really need are fewer Republicans and Conservative Democrats. And NO Billionaires!

    “I started my first business with a small loan from my father, of one million dollars”.
    Donald Trump

  • Jeff

    Loving kids doesn’t mean necessarily having them. And if you love two things that are in conflict, you have to choose which one to prioritize. I once told an old friend that overpopulation is the biggest problem on the planet. His response was, “I don’t agree; I love my grandkids.” This is typical of the irrational thinking of people who refuse to recognize that human overpopulation is one of the two fundamental environmental problems. The only way to fix that problem is by people limiting their families to one child, no exceptions. Otherwise the problem continues and humans continue destroying the Earth.

    As to Fukushima, nuclear weapons and nuclear power are absolute nightmares. Like oil and coal, uranium should never been taken out of the ground. Nuclear waste will be radioactive until the sun burns out, and it’s more radioactive than the fuel for nuclear power plants. Now we have Fukushima emitting massive amounts of radioactivity into the ocean every day, and of course the immoral propaganda machine known as the media doesn’t even report it, which amounts to censorship. As if Chernobyl wasn’t bad enough, Fukushima is like a horror movie with an unhappy ending.

  • Jeff

    Schwartzman’s main complaint about the movie is that some of the people in it said that we have to lower our numbers. He hasn’t agreed in any of his many responses here that human overpopulation is a problem, let alone the major one that it is.

  • Mensch59

    “Explain this further please”: Christian communists regard biblical texts in Acts 2 and 4 as evidence that the first Christians lived in a communist society.
    Acts 2:44-45, “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.”
    Acts 4:32-35, “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. … There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.”
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Moses 7:18: “And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”
    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 4 Nephi 1b, 3: “And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost… And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.”
    The Sealed Book of Mormon, Acts of 3 Nephites 9-12 description: “The last book contained in The Sealed Book of Mormon is called The Acts of the Three Nephites… Among other instructions, it includes a step-by-step account of exactly how the law of the Gospel was implemented by them which required that there be no poor among them. They were successful for two centuries!”

    Obviously, it could be myth. But if it’s true….

  • Robert

    Jack has just gotten himself into jail w the file in each boot. I can see Trumbo liking the assignment! Thanks!

    John Williams Butcher’s Crossing is another good example of taking Western genre far beyond an action adventure story. Also has the Moby Dick bit of ‘you’re gonna learn a whole lot about markets and buffalo hunting’ .

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Who said the IWW is dead?
    https://youtu.be/bXCOofgXjmY

  • Robert

    “Also, the rightwing ’embrace’ of the film is disingenuous.”
    More because there’s a famous ‘leftwinger’ involved; I think the think is based on their own authoritarianism being projected as a critique ….

    Beyond that they probably are gloating over some perceived ‘see, subsidy bad, esp since there’s no problem. Now, hold my beer, I’m going to Georgia for a tattoo’…..

  • CB

    It was shot ten years ago! That reeks of shady business.

    It’s like Moore shot it and sat on it just in case he ever wanted to cash out. What a fraud!

    I do still like the conflicts of interest they dug up, though. It reminds me of the Wikileaks debacle! I’m still happy they leaked the dirt on the US military… but I noticed from the very beginning there was a Russia shaped hole right smack in the middle of it.

    I want all the evidence out on the table, not just the evidence that makes one side look bad.

  • Nylene13

    “Loving kids doesn’t mean necessarily having them”.
    Yes it does.

    It does not necessarily mean you need to create a child yourself, but it means that you know and are involved in the lives of children that you love.

    Everyone limiting their families to one child will not solve anything. Children will still starve to death in 3rd world outcries, or die of diseases that are easily curable in 1st world countries like ours.

    Forcing poor people to have only one child will decrease the population, but you may as just be honest about what you are doing and drop a bomb on them.

    Fukushima has the potential to destroy all life on Earth-starting with the Entire Pacific Ocean.

    Now THERE is an issue to REALLY worry about.

  • SteelPirate

    Not bad man…

    Let a sordid crowd of kept men and women imbued with sordid ideals oppose this new redeeming movement of labor—it is bound to succeed in spite of all opposition, whether it be that which show its hideous form in the uniform of the hired and armed Hessians with rifle in hand, or it intrigues and conjures under the cloak of Law, Authority, Order, Religion, et al., or even under the greasy smile and brass face of the “labor leader.” This is the movement of the common workers and will triumph. It has received its baptism of fire in a dozen hard-fought battles from one end of this broad land to the other. It knows no retreat, this intrepid army, heretofore fighting against great odds, that at all times tested the capacity and devotion of its members, has been ignored and made small of.

    –Joe Ettor

  • SteelPirate

    Not to worry…there’s always a steady supply of disaffected middle class reactionaries and Zero Hedge day trader scabs in docker pants and polo shirts ready to fill the void.

  • larrymotuz

    This link brings back memories from long ago. I tend to agree with Marx here.

    As for myself, I’m dealing with two health conditions which have let me largely unable to think much or write much this week. I’m hoping that I can drug myself into getting enough sleep as I fight off a nasty cough (not a coronavirus dry cough). Thanks for asking.

  • SteelPirate

    Yeah well…we’ve been down this road how many times before ? Michael Hudson is neither a Marxist or an anti-capitalist of any kind and he’s full of s##t. His entire shtick is dedicated to one thing. “Going back to capitalism and private ownership of the means of life that works.” The continuation of wage-slavery, the continuation of class distinctions, reactionary nostalgia for the middle class, and the continuation of production and distribution for private profit in a “more equitable form.”

    And…I’ll also repeat this below again for what amounts to the thousandth time. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and now moving on to decade after decade of promotion of this kind of onerous and reactionary sophist garbage from the likes of Hudson and his entire ilk of bourgeois “radicals.” Tiresome my friend.

    —–

    You know you are a reactionary tool of the ruling class when you insist on attaching an adjective to the word “Capitalism”, as in “Rentier Capitalism”, “Crony Capitalism”, “Financial Capitalism”, “Disaster Capitalism”, “Shock Capitalism”, “Unregulated Capitalism”, Private-Equity Capitalism, or that old standby, “Greedy Capitalism”. It is Capitalism, pure and simple, and there can be no confusion. What we see is what it is.

    Perhaps there was slightly more justification for this jive two decades ago. Today, there is no possibility of a debate. The End of Ideology has itself ended. Instead of bringing “stability” to the world, capitalism has brought depression and fragmentation. Instead of bringing democracy and prosperity to the world, it has wrecked local societies where they hung on by a fingernail. No extended criticism is needed because criticism itself – social, political, and economic – has become a criticism of capitalism.

    It has been this way for a long time. In the 19th century, capitalism was that which ripped small holders from the land, chained children to machinery, and pushed entire populations, on threat of extinction,across the surface of the earth. In the first part of the 20th century, Capitalism was synonymous with War and Fascism. Imperialism? Colonialism? Famine? Genocide? All the faces of Capitalism.

    They told you that Capitalism changed? They lied.

    If you hang your hat on reforming Capitalism, believe that your “freedoms” depend on the continuation of Capitalism, or think that Capitalism is “still preferable to everything else”, all it means is that you’ve been lucky and your turn hasn’t come yet to be destroyed.

  • SteelPirate

    All good. Just giving you a little nudge 🙂 Take care of your health and jump back in when you’re ready and raring to go. With the fear factor of the virus pumped up to the max any symptoms get you a little on edge. Was zonked out for about two weeks with something about a month or two ago (no fever but everything else) but I’m better and still kicking 🙂 Thanks for the invite to those Dissident Politics threads by the way. Didn’t come over but maybe next time to light some fires 🙂

  • larrymotuz

    Good! You’ll like the next ‘episode’ once it’s done!

  • SteelPirate

    And astute too !!! I see brother Mensch has gone off the contrarian deep end again and throwing everything but the kitchen sink at you and NB. The lad just can’t help himself in trying to reach a consensus with and mitigate unadulterated conspiracy addled right-wing bulls##t. A shiver ran down the spine of the original Devil’s Advocate 🙂

    There’s not a single faction of the Marxist and Socialist left that I can find buying into the conspiracy addled narrative surrounding this virus. It’s completely devoid of any kind of class analysis and understanding of the contradictions baked into capitalism when a crisis like this rears its head. The open it all up and get the f##k back to work now narrative is a reactionary right-wing astroturf operation backed by the most reactionary forces of private capital. That some left-libertarian and individualist anarchist confusoids are buying into it, and some reactionary authoritarian liberals have gone off the deep end cowering in fear and loathing, doesn’t make that fact any less so. This economy was in capitalist crisis long before this virus came along and stripped it down to its most naked form.

  • Mensch59

    [Michael Hudson’s] entire shtick is dedicated to one thing. “Going back to capitalism and private ownership of the means of life that works.”

    Bullsh¡t. If you cannot find class analysis and working class struggle from reading Hudson it’s because (1) you don’t read him (2) you don’t read him to understand what he’s communicating (3) you understand only to find fault.
    The guy critiques capitalism, doesn’t advocate for it.

  • Mensch59

    They told you that Capitalism changed? They lied.

    Analyze history. Feudalism changed. Mercantilism changed. The easiest form of capitalism — which emerged in the 17th century changed. Industry-dominated capital has changed to finance-dominated capital.
    I don’t care if you reject the historical trend toward the capitalization / monetization of nature and capitalism morphing into neo-feudalism.
    You see things your way and I see them mine.
    I have no persuasive influence over how you interpret and evaluate present-day social phenomena.

  • Hey larry, sorry you are under the weather man. Heal quickly brother and come back fighting strong. Hugs to you

  • Bet they are the type dancing around in new shoes too, eh? 🙂

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Funny stuff Mensch. Only perhaps 1/1000th the way out of that deep hole you’ve dug for yourself through the years, but rather than continuing your slow ascent towards a semblance of stability, you’ve now decided (as much as you arbitrarily decide anything) to go ahead and dig(ger) some more. With an advisor-mate like Starfire steering your pretzel logic it’s hardly a surprise…

  • Cab Driver xxx

    I have a great love of westerns, Mensch. You ever see Lonesome Dove? Anyway, there’s a great scene where on their cattle drive to Montana, Call and Gus are waylaid on the trail of some murderers. Little do they know until catching up with them, that one of the murderers is their old friend and fellow Texas Ranger, Jake Spoon. After catching up to them and just before Gus hangs him, Jake tells him “I was just trying to get across the territory, Gus.” Trying his best to explain this to young Newt, Gus says of Jake, “Any wind could blow him.” Now I realize none of this makes a lick of sense to you – but you sort of remind me of Jake Spoon.

  • Mensch59

    You and SP make an okay tag team.
    Neither of you are going to change my mind about the quality of Michael Hudson’s analysis of the political-economy being superior to either of yours.
    You might as well stop trying.

  • Mensch59

    You’re really proficient with the non-constructive personal criticism, not so much as with critique.
    Dialectic or dialectics (also known as the dialectical method) is fundamentally “a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned arguments. Dialectic is alternatively known as minor logic, as opposed to major logic or critique.”
    I prefer logic to your brand of commentary.

  • Cab Driver xxx

    “I prefer logic to your brand of commentary.”

    No. What you actually prefer is a language that allows you license to drift endlessly into 900 types of horsedoo. “Dialectics” is all well and good for those arguing in good faith – but for you Mensch, rather than a highway for transportation it becomes a dead-end destination.

  • SteelPirate

    Not a chance. These reactionaries have no class, in more ways than one 🙂

  • 😀

  • SteelPirate

    An analogy is fitting in light of this discussion. Your commentary is built on a foundation of nonsense. No matter how many different forms that nonsense might take, it is still built on a foundation of nonsense. Therefore, it is all nonsense. Similarly, no matter what different forms capitalism might take, the foundations remain the same. Therefore, it’s all capitalism.

    Rent, interest, finance etc… are part of the capitalist machine as a whole. Trying to make a case as Hudson does that there exists a separation between “good capital” and “bad capital” and “productive capital” and ‘unproductive capital” is the work of a reactionary tool with a reactionary agenda. That is not at all surprising from a Wall Street refugee like Hudson. They are a dime a dozen, and they’re all reactionary opportunists selling snake oil to the faithful, to avoid the rather unpleasant reality that capitalism can’t be tamed or reformed to work for the whole.

  • SteelPirate

    Oh really ? Let us review some of Hudson’s greatest hits…

    You have a war of finance not only against consumers and employees, but against industry – and most of all, against government, which is the only power able to restrain finance and tax it.

    Hudson obviously has no clue how the many tentacles of capitalist state function in unison as a machine of destruction.

    Meanwhile, economic democracy is being turned into a financial oligarchy. This is going to be the main problem for the next century.

    That Hudson believes that capitalism and private ownership of the means of production and distribution did or can ever operate as an “economic democracy” is beyond delusional and reactionary.

    There is a case of cognitive dissonance when it comes to structural financial and fiscal reform. Most people are not aware that a workable alternative exists, one that was viewed for a century as being the free market alternative – a market free of unearned income and “empty” pricing.

    There you have it in crystal clarity. Free market capitalism that works “if only.”

    Our recommendations are those of centuries of classical liberal economics, from the French Physiocrats through Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill to America’s Progressive Era reformers.

    Ah yes…classical liberal economics. “Anti-capitalism” at its finest I’m sure 🙂

    The dysfunctional tax and financial system runs counter to the idea of free markets held for centuries by the classical liberals.

    More “anti-capitalist” ideas brought to you by the “classical liberals.”

    Our aim is to limit bank credit to the financing of new means of tangible industrial capital formations, not merely to bolster the price of unproductive, extractive privileges and property claims.

    Nothing more needs to be said. Hudson is not a Marxist or an anti-capitalist of any kind. With that…I think I’ll go read his old man who was an old school Trot. At least he’ll have the foundations correct.

  • Collectivist

    , “Any wind could blow him.”

    Apparently.

    I haven’t felt this ‘disappointed’ . . .since my 1st wife and I broke up😉

  • Cab Driver xxx

    Lol. Yeah, well, unlike most ex-wives (not named Elizabeth Taylor) – winds continue to change course…

  • SteelPirate

    Heh…

    I’ve been run down
    I’ve been lied to
    I don’t know why,
    I let that mean woman make me a fool
    She took all my money
    Wrecked my new car
    Now she’s with one of my good time buddies
    They’re drinkin’ in some cross town bar

  • larrymotuz

    Thank you!

  • whammie

    More off script comments… do you ever respond to the article content? without vicious hate mongering comments or how’s your cat?? guess not.