So one can look upon the internet as a prison and act accordingly with your learned helplessness and apathy. Your excuse to stand idly by , not just following orders but looking the other way.
Alternatively you can use the internet as a tool , A key to room 101 which should eventually lead you to books , libraries and book shops to Fragments.
Ultimately contemplation and reflection will bring us all closer to God and to each other, and real interactions in the reality of God Conciousness
Let the dollar be backed by a commodity index which includes; grains, metals, produce; domestic stock; energy; etc. Here it will not be the golden rule but the productivity value of the countries commodity production.
Doing this will really put a hiccup (to say the least) in the Cabal's plan for final conversion through their hoarding of gold since 1963. (The Cabal won't get killed, they just won't make a killing) It will also be a just economic environment world wide being that each country's currency will now maintain or grow in its value based on that country's own productivity in physical resources not "exclusively" on who owns the gold.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of what is said in the paragraph above. It is the difference between primary failure of the Cabal's last step and significant success accomplished for the people.
A commodity INDEX backed currency and NOT a gold backed currency.
Hello again. First, quick apology: What a week it's been, my planned Sunday of reading the reference material you and others have shared here was interrupted; first by the obvious... the attempted JFK 2.0 event, and secondly by the passing away of a friend of mine, so I've been a little behind the ball this week.
I'm not crash hot on macro economics but I like, and believe I agree with your call to 'Let the dollar be backed by a commodity index which includes; grains, metals, produce; domestic stock; energy; etc'. It makes sense to me and I always did wonder about the sense in attaching a nation's currency to one singular metal - especially one that has relatively few productive uses. I'm brought to mind once more of shiny beautiful things taking precedent over tangible, useful, and life-sustaining things.
Thanks so much for sharing your essays with me, and you may have seen I've subscribed to your Substack. Your research is so thorough it is intimidating! And I'm still working my way through the pieces you sent, but am very much enjoying them. I'll keep at it.
Thanks again for being here and adding valuable insight to the conversation both for me and other readers.
Hello! A quick note to say - thanks for this comment. I've been under the pump at my day job and busy for the past two days writing my latest piece. But I intend to respond properly to you over the weekend.
People with advantages are loathe to believe that they just happen to be people with advantages. They come readily to define themselves as inherently worthy of what they possess; they come to believe themselves 'naturally' elite; and, in fact, to imagine their possessions and their privileges as natural extensions of their own elite selves. (C. Wright Mills)
There are at least three dimensions: the evolution of society (e.g. the growth of philanthropism as a distinct moral form), the evolution of politics (e.g. of "liberal fascism"), and the evolution of law and the jurisprudential "boundaries" that may be drawn for the activities of states -- e.g. Nomos of the Earth, but course this, as much else that Schmitt does, is a critique of Kant and Kelsen. "Universal peace" is a nostrum that can only be fulfilled by the capturing of every dissident country by the most powerful one (and suddenly we discover that even the most powerful country is made up of parts, and one of the parts has just published the Pentagon Papers, while another is called Wikileaks). The idea of "war" as a holding back if the barbarian hordes is about as useful as walking into the boss's office and suggesting a pay increase. "War is the father of all and the king of all", said Heraclitus, and no you don't get your pay increase. (But you may strike up a compromise: she is a nympho after all.) The idea that everyone gets around the table and amicably decides not to have a war opens the door to cane toads with Portuguese ancestry who practice choral singing whenever in reach of a microphone.
Good points. I thought the history of the Rockefeller family was interesting, though I'd liked to have seen it aligned with Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Is the UN the product of American billionaires seeking a more secure wiki-page? More likely, of the general effort of the US to become the moral arbiter of World Peace, well and truly underway in international law by the 1890s. Throughout the 1920s they considered themselves in opposition to the "European World Order" established by Versailles (the poor man's version of Congress of Vienna, but at least the pips squeaked) and created the moral puffery in international law that now bestrides the globe as a variety of Confucianism. Should we be nevertheless worried about American billionaires today? Yes. There's a server in Seattle with all your imported pornography on it. No-one can say that US billionaires will not yet prove themselves a Moral Force For Good.
Valid points Jim. Of course there are so very many vectors in all of this, and had I tried to cover it all it would have turned into a 1000-page non history book. Inevitably attempting to summarize such a tangle in less than 5000 words is going to open the door to many a salient "But what about this..." rebuttal, as indeed Tom has added below. I'll need to read up on Goldberg. 'World peace' is an interesting term. Firstly there is certainly some merit in this view and, as I passingly acknowledge in this essay, these guys may well be acting in what they believe is good faith and, up and down their ranks, I dare say there are many true believers who genuinely want to 'make the world a better and more peaceful' (albeit more SUSTAINABLE - ahh-hem) place. The problem we run into of course, is when the better men, believing too wholeheartedly in their own infallibility, take it upon themselves to order the lives of the other 8 billion; then we run into problems... every time, be it Alexander, Napoleon, King George, Hitler, Stalin, J.D., Gates or Klaus. It all amounts to the same thing - collectivism, aka Marxism. I also think we need to draw a distinction between the isolationist view in America circa turn of the 19th Century and into WW2 that certainly did considered itself in opposition to the "European World Order", and the internationalist faction which may well have spawned from that initially benevolent world view, but in its inevitable hubris simply became a leviathan much bigger and meaner and nastier than the scruffy old Euros could ever have have been and in doing so simply subsumed Europe, and all its sordid old grudges and quirks into the new order.
JJ, I think you’re very sound on what happens to people in the Protestant Christian world when they find themselves becoming obscenely rich. They tend to seek to reinvent themselves as philanthropists, and in doing so become pharisees. I part company with your suggestion that Covid was a planned putsch of the global elites – I’d want to see a lot more dots joined before I accepted that. I do think that the global elites reacted opportunistically to the arrival of Covid, exploiting it to extend the exercise of what they saw as their benign power. And I don’t doubt that those who have skin in the pharma game joined in cynically, like bachelors at a wife-swapping party.
Your history of climate catastrophism is slightly adrift – in 1972, the talk, by the likes of Paul Erlich et al, was all of global cooling. Warming arrived half a decade later, when observations so clearly disconfirmed the cooling hypothesis that not even climate scientists could ignore them. Furthermore, there was nothing inherently wrong with either the cooling or the warming hypothesis. What went wrong was that their proponents disregarded the extensive accumulation of disconfirmatory evidence, and were allowed to do so by a scientifically naiive population. This was, in its formative stages, a fault in the scientific academy, brought about by the simultaneous arrival of two phenomena:
• Wide availability of, and unjustified belief in the results of, computing power, allowing mediocre scientists to substitute modelled predictions for the traditional hypothesis-experiment-result paradigm which had served science so well since Occam;
• The rise of a publish-or-be-damned reward system which strongly motivates scientists to declare a positive experimental outcome when they ought to be declaring a null result.
Incidentally, it was around this time that the term ‘climatology’ was displaced by ‘climate science’ – an Orwellian sleight-of-hand that allowed any studier of tree frogs to be counted as a ‘climate scientist’, because, well, tree frogs die if they get too cold – or hot – whatever…
The carpet-bagging global elites didn’t really enter the picture until the overconfident predictions of the climate ‘science’ tribe had made their way into policy, whereupon, again opportunistically, they jumped on, and supercharged, the band-wagon.
Hi Tom. Thanks for your articulate and considered comment.
You've planted a seed here for another potential deep dive - on the whole COVID thing. I do sympathise with your view here and for some time I held the same opinion, but then I joined too many dots. As is so often the case though, in doing so, I failed to keep proper notes - when will I ever learn? And so going back and doing all the research again will take a considerable amount of time, and I must admit I'm guilty of sometimes presuming that all on our side of the aisle think as I do on this matter, and that I needn't go to the trouble of providing stacks of evidence. I assure you though it is out there and, in the absence of a sufficiently convincing trail of breadcrumbs from me at this point, I would just invite you to consider the remarkable timing of the Event 201 simulation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that and whether you are willing to shrug it off as a 'coincidence'?
On the climate topic, yes I was aware of the 'global cooling' strand but left it out of my essay in the interest of brevity, given that the 'warming' hypothesis emerged quite rapidly as the dominant discourse and indeed has persisted up until today. I accept your offered correction up to a point, and must admit I need to dig a bit deeper on this, but it nevertheless remains true that the Rockefellers' Special Project did spawn the global warming narrative, notably under Roger Revelle, and that in 1968 Lyndon Johnson went public with this thesis - just a couple of reference links on this from a quick search, although it is all referenced in Jacob Nordangard's book.
I think it's entirely possible that there were competing strands of 'scientific' thought occurring at this early stage and this may be a case of you being more familiar with one of them and I , the other. It's possible we're both right on this particular point.
Moreover I completely agree with the points you raise as follows:
• Wide availability of, and unjustified belief in the results of, computing power, allowing mediocre scientists to substitute modelled predictions for the traditional hypothesis-experiment-result paradigm which had served science so well since Occam;
• The rise of a publish-or-be-damned reward system which strongly motivates scientists to declare a positive experimental outcome when they ought to be declaring a null result.
And also the linguistic sleight of 'climate science'... How often have we seen this trick pulled in recent times... Not least during 2020 and 2021 when the definitions of words such as 'vaccine' and 'herd immunity' were abruptly changed overnight...
Hi JJ - I’d certainly be interested in seeing more dots joined in the ‘Covid was deliberately concocted and released by a cabal of elite globalist conspirators’ theory, and will keep my mind open to the possibility that it may be true.
When assessing conspiracy theories, I tend to ask myself the following questions:
• What outcome did the putative conspirators seek?
• Was the putative conspiracy the means of procuring that outcome which
• Was simplest/easiest to implement, and therefore most likely to succeed?
• Was the least risky, on account of either
o betrayal by one or more of the conspirators, or
o personal risk to the conspirators? (one reason I think Putin’s use of nukes is unlikely, though not out of the question, is that he’s located downwind of his likely targets)
In other words, ‘if that’s what you wanted to achieve, is that how you’d go about it?’ In the case of Covid, I have great difficulty imagining a cabal of uber-globalists deciding that the best way to extend their already extensive power was to concoct and release a virus who properties they could not possibly have defined with sufficient precision to rule out the possibility that it would kill the conspirators themselves. While I yield to no-one in the scepticism with which I greeted Covid in 2020, even I was worried for a few weeks that it might have had a CFR similar to the Bubonic Plagues. Where I think we might be closer together is that
• it very quickly became clear that even the earliest iterations of Covid were little more lethal than several instances of influenza which have occurred in my lifetime without either decimating the population or ruining our society.
• A large stratum of society which does not itself belong to the uber-global elites, but is aspirationally committed to its values (which includes almost the entirety of the MSM and which I shall refer to as the smuggocracy) fell deeply in love with the drama of Covid. In a way that could not possibly have happened before the era of the smart phone, a large segment of society’s better-off embraced ‘lockdown’ (I use the term as a synecdoche for the entire Covid policy response) with a relish that betrayed its ulterior motives. Masking, social-distancing and ultimately injecting themselves with experimental potions were performed ritually, without regard to, and often in defiance of scientific evidence.
I would be quite easily persuaded that the ‘Davos cabal’, quite possibly primed intellectually by the Event 201 that you linked to, spotted these phenomena, and plotted assiduously to enforce a conspiracy of silence to preserve the reputation of Covid 19 as an unusually lethal disease, thereby extending their grip on the commanding heights of the 21st century economy.
My point is that, to whatever extent the uber-elites were bent on oppressing the masses, they were executing the easiest act of tyranny in human history. These were masses who were crying out to be oppressed. I attempted to fathom this phenomenon in a blog post 3 years ago CAN EVOLUTIONARY MISMATCH THEORY EXPLAIN COVID MADNESS?
So yes, I’d like to see more dots joined, but for the moment I’m sticking to my ‘opportunism’ theory.
Cooling/Warming
While I understand your reasons for doing so, I think the cooling/warming thing should not be glossed over, because to me it illustrates the disregard for scientific rigour which characterises the entire ‘climate’ cult.
And yes, ‘warming’ did make a brief appearance at the end of the 60s. I know this because in 1969 I was 18, and finishing my schooling with a rather poor UK ‘A’ level in Physics. After our exams were over, our physics teacher, who in retrospect deserves recognition for extraordinary foresight, had a couple of weeks to fill. He did so by giving us an introduction to electronic computing, and an introduction to ‘greenhouse’ theory – subjects he drew together by demonstrating a rudimentary numerical computer model. Even on a blackboard, he was able to demonstrate the principle of ‘sensitivity to initial conditions’, and to show the unlikelihood that anyone would ever be able successfully to model future climate outcomes. He correctly predicted that Moore’s Law would tempt scientists to try, and that we would be urged to believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions would dangerously warm the planet. He urged us to remain sceptical – I have.
With that background, it was with incredulity that I witnessed, first, the abrupt embrace of the ‘cooling/new ice age’ scare, and its equally abrupt displacement by warming, without any acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty by the scaremongering grifters professing to be climate ‘experts’.
All the best, and I'll be interested in your Covid 'deep dive'!
Hello again Tom. Apologies for taking so long to respond. My planned attention to Substack matters last Sunday was interrupted both by the assassination attempt on Trump and the passing away of a friend, so I'm once again playing catch up this week.
I read and enjoyed your blog CAN EVOLUTIONARY MISMATCH THEORY EXPLAIN COVID MADNESS? I agree with your thesis and, whatever the intentionality behind the whole fiasco (and whether or not the virus itself even existed or was simply a nasty strain of the flu - bearing in mind that influenza, here in Australia at least, completely vanished during 2020 and 2021 - is another topic you and I may end up debating) it is very clear to me that the population of the West was perfectly primed for the measures that were put in place and, as you correctly point out, even embraced them with great vim. The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis makes sense to me. I do believe there were multiple other factors in play, not least decades of establishment propaganda and the phenomenon I've often discussed whereby in the absence of any meaningful spiritual life, most have come to worship 'The Science' as a deity.
It remains incumbent on me now to join some more of the dots, and your points of conjecture with regard to assessment of conspiracy theories are valid. There is, as you point out significant crossover in our thinking on this matter and our main point of disagreement appears only to be whether or not the whole thing was orchestrated. As I have not convincingly argued this point yet in long form I'll do the gentlemanly thing and concede that you may be right (although my instincts and scattered research to date tell me otherwise) and we can park this conversation until I am able to provide some more compelling dot-joining. I think what matters is that we can agree, at the very least, the situation was used as a means of attempting an authoritarian power grab by global elites. For those on our side of the fight I believe this remains the uniting principle that we must keep front of mind, as well as the utter criminality of the 'vaccine' situation.
I am willing to defer to your historical knowledge on the warming/cooling thing. And it may well be I glossed over a significant aspect of history here in my haste to complete what amounted to a 5000 word research project, and in covering a century of history in such a relatively short piece of prose, I'm not surprised I over-simplified. My feeling is that the warming/cooling aspect is less important than the fact that the Rockefeller Special Project specifically identified meteorology as one of their two 'trigger' mechanisms for bringing about a new global consciousness. Warming or cooling, I'm sure they would have been perfectly happy with either as both (were they true) would pose similarly dire existential threats to humanity. I suspect they toyed around with both ideas for some time before finally settling on the warming hypothesis.
Thanks again for your comments Tom, as I mentioned in my note the other week - I'm here as much to learn from you all as I am to share my own limited insights, and it keeps me honest.
Tom, a quick note to say - thanks for this comment. I've been under the pump at my day job and busy for the past two days writing my latest piece. But I intend to respond properly to you over the weekend.
The Manifesto of the Trilateral World Fascist Party.
Michael L Chadwick documented archive, Tragedy and Hope updated.
https://grubstreetinexile.substack.com/p/the-manifesto-of-the-trilateral-world
Whats the antedote, or the prescription?
So one can look upon the internet as a prison and act accordingly with your learned helplessness and apathy. Your excuse to stand idly by , not just following orders but looking the other way.
Alternatively you can use the internet as a tool , A key to room 101 which should eventually lead you to books , libraries and book shops to Fragments.
Ultimately contemplation and reflection will bring us all closer to God and to each other, and real interactions in the reality of God Conciousness
https://grubstreetinexile.substack.com/p/three-donkeys-as-witnesses
The Rock Thrown in the Pond
Walter Burien
https://grubstreetinexile.substack.com/p/the-rock-thrown-in-the-pond
Let the dollar be backed by a commodity index which includes; grains, metals, produce; domestic stock; energy; etc. Here it will not be the golden rule but the productivity value of the countries commodity production.
Doing this will really put a hiccup (to say the least) in the Cabal's plan for final conversion through their hoarding of gold since 1963. (The Cabal won't get killed, they just won't make a killing) It will also be a just economic environment world wide being that each country's currency will now maintain or grow in its value based on that country's own productivity in physical resources not "exclusively" on who owns the gold.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of what is said in the paragraph above. It is the difference between primary failure of the Cabal's last step and significant success accomplished for the people.
A commodity INDEX backed currency and NOT a gold backed currency.
Hello again. First, quick apology: What a week it's been, my planned Sunday of reading the reference material you and others have shared here was interrupted; first by the obvious... the attempted JFK 2.0 event, and secondly by the passing away of a friend of mine, so I've been a little behind the ball this week.
I'm not crash hot on macro economics but I like, and believe I agree with your call to 'Let the dollar be backed by a commodity index which includes; grains, metals, produce; domestic stock; energy; etc'. It makes sense to me and I always did wonder about the sense in attaching a nation's currency to one singular metal - especially one that has relatively few productive uses. I'm brought to mind once more of shiny beautiful things taking precedent over tangible, useful, and life-sustaining things.
Thanks so much for sharing your essays with me, and you may have seen I've subscribed to your Substack. Your research is so thorough it is intimidating! And I'm still working my way through the pieces you sent, but am very much enjoying them. I'll keep at it.
Thanks again for being here and adding valuable insight to the conversation both for me and other readers.
Thanks JJ., have a great weekend.
Best wishes,
Rog
Hello! A quick note to say - thanks for this comment. I've been under the pump at my day job and busy for the past two days writing my latest piece. But I intend to respond properly to you over the weekend.
One of the best summaries…
Thank you for writing it!
Thank you for reading :)
Rockefeller Internationalism
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_G_1a.htm#Contents
The Rockefellers
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_rockefeller.htm#inicio
How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World
https://corbettreport.com/bigoil/
Hi William, thanks so much for sharing these links. The rabbit hole deepens...
People with advantages are loathe to believe that they just happen to be people with advantages. They come readily to define themselves as inherently worthy of what they possess; they come to believe themselves 'naturally' elite; and, in fact, to imagine their possessions and their privileges as natural extensions of their own elite selves. (C. Wright Mills)
Perfectly put. Thanks for the quotation my friend.
There are at least three dimensions: the evolution of society (e.g. the growth of philanthropism as a distinct moral form), the evolution of politics (e.g. of "liberal fascism"), and the evolution of law and the jurisprudential "boundaries" that may be drawn for the activities of states -- e.g. Nomos of the Earth, but course this, as much else that Schmitt does, is a critique of Kant and Kelsen. "Universal peace" is a nostrum that can only be fulfilled by the capturing of every dissident country by the most powerful one (and suddenly we discover that even the most powerful country is made up of parts, and one of the parts has just published the Pentagon Papers, while another is called Wikileaks). The idea of "war" as a holding back if the barbarian hordes is about as useful as walking into the boss's office and suggesting a pay increase. "War is the father of all and the king of all", said Heraclitus, and no you don't get your pay increase. (But you may strike up a compromise: she is a nympho after all.) The idea that everyone gets around the table and amicably decides not to have a war opens the door to cane toads with Portuguese ancestry who practice choral singing whenever in reach of a microphone.
Loved this.
I’m giving the arseholes the middle finger
Latest rap track https://thumbnailgreen.substack.com/p/on-a-watch-list?r=nv8me&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
Awesome mate, thanks for stopping by. I left a comment on your new song.
Good points. I thought the history of the Rockefeller family was interesting, though I'd liked to have seen it aligned with Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. Is the UN the product of American billionaires seeking a more secure wiki-page? More likely, of the general effort of the US to become the moral arbiter of World Peace, well and truly underway in international law by the 1890s. Throughout the 1920s they considered themselves in opposition to the "European World Order" established by Versailles (the poor man's version of Congress of Vienna, but at least the pips squeaked) and created the moral puffery in international law that now bestrides the globe as a variety of Confucianism. Should we be nevertheless worried about American billionaires today? Yes. There's a server in Seattle with all your imported pornography on it. No-one can say that US billionaires will not yet prove themselves a Moral Force For Good.
Valid points Jim. Of course there are so very many vectors in all of this, and had I tried to cover it all it would have turned into a 1000-page non history book. Inevitably attempting to summarize such a tangle in less than 5000 words is going to open the door to many a salient "But what about this..." rebuttal, as indeed Tom has added below. I'll need to read up on Goldberg. 'World peace' is an interesting term. Firstly there is certainly some merit in this view and, as I passingly acknowledge in this essay, these guys may well be acting in what they believe is good faith and, up and down their ranks, I dare say there are many true believers who genuinely want to 'make the world a better and more peaceful' (albeit more SUSTAINABLE - ahh-hem) place. The problem we run into of course, is when the better men, believing too wholeheartedly in their own infallibility, take it upon themselves to order the lives of the other 8 billion; then we run into problems... every time, be it Alexander, Napoleon, King George, Hitler, Stalin, J.D., Gates or Klaus. It all amounts to the same thing - collectivism, aka Marxism. I also think we need to draw a distinction between the isolationist view in America circa turn of the 19th Century and into WW2 that certainly did considered itself in opposition to the "European World Order", and the internationalist faction which may well have spawned from that initially benevolent world view, but in its inevitable hubris simply became a leviathan much bigger and meaner and nastier than the scruffy old Euros could ever have have been and in doing so simply subsumed Europe, and all its sordid old grudges and quirks into the new order.
JJ, I think you’re very sound on what happens to people in the Protestant Christian world when they find themselves becoming obscenely rich. They tend to seek to reinvent themselves as philanthropists, and in doing so become pharisees. I part company with your suggestion that Covid was a planned putsch of the global elites – I’d want to see a lot more dots joined before I accepted that. I do think that the global elites reacted opportunistically to the arrival of Covid, exploiting it to extend the exercise of what they saw as their benign power. And I don’t doubt that those who have skin in the pharma game joined in cynically, like bachelors at a wife-swapping party.
Your history of climate catastrophism is slightly adrift – in 1972, the talk, by the likes of Paul Erlich et al, was all of global cooling. Warming arrived half a decade later, when observations so clearly disconfirmed the cooling hypothesis that not even climate scientists could ignore them. Furthermore, there was nothing inherently wrong with either the cooling or the warming hypothesis. What went wrong was that their proponents disregarded the extensive accumulation of disconfirmatory evidence, and were allowed to do so by a scientifically naiive population. This was, in its formative stages, a fault in the scientific academy, brought about by the simultaneous arrival of two phenomena:
• Wide availability of, and unjustified belief in the results of, computing power, allowing mediocre scientists to substitute modelled predictions for the traditional hypothesis-experiment-result paradigm which had served science so well since Occam;
• The rise of a publish-or-be-damned reward system which strongly motivates scientists to declare a positive experimental outcome when they ought to be declaring a null result.
Incidentally, it was around this time that the term ‘climatology’ was displaced by ‘climate science’ – an Orwellian sleight-of-hand that allowed any studier of tree frogs to be counted as a ‘climate scientist’, because, well, tree frogs die if they get too cold – or hot – whatever…
The carpet-bagging global elites didn’t really enter the picture until the overconfident predictions of the climate ‘science’ tribe had made their way into policy, whereupon, again opportunistically, they jumped on, and supercharged, the band-wagon.
Hi Tom. Thanks for your articulate and considered comment.
You've planted a seed here for another potential deep dive - on the whole COVID thing. I do sympathise with your view here and for some time I held the same opinion, but then I joined too many dots. As is so often the case though, in doing so, I failed to keep proper notes - when will I ever learn? And so going back and doing all the research again will take a considerable amount of time, and I must admit I'm guilty of sometimes presuming that all on our side of the aisle think as I do on this matter, and that I needn't go to the trouble of providing stacks of evidence. I assure you though it is out there and, in the absence of a sufficiently convincing trail of breadcrumbs from me at this point, I would just invite you to consider the remarkable timing of the Event 201 simulation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that and whether you are willing to shrug it off as a 'coincidence'?
On the climate topic, yes I was aware of the 'global cooling' strand but left it out of my essay in the interest of brevity, given that the 'warming' hypothesis emerged quite rapidly as the dominant discourse and indeed has persisted up until today. I accept your offered correction up to a point, and must admit I need to dig a bit deeper on this, but it nevertheless remains true that the Rockefellers' Special Project did spawn the global warming narrative, notably under Roger Revelle, and that in 1968 Lyndon Johnson went public with this thesis - just a couple of reference links on this from a quick search, although it is all referenced in Jacob Nordangard's book.
https://skepticalscience.com/LBJ-climate-1965.html
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/13042016/climate-change-global-warming-oil-industry-radar-1960s-exxon-api-co2-fossil-fuels/
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/07/in-1968-utility-companies-learned-about-climate-change-and-did-nothing/
https://e360.yale.edu/features/climate-lawsuits-oil-industry-research
I think it's entirely possible that there were competing strands of 'scientific' thought occurring at this early stage and this may be a case of you being more familiar with one of them and I , the other. It's possible we're both right on this particular point.
Moreover I completely agree with the points you raise as follows:
• Wide availability of, and unjustified belief in the results of, computing power, allowing mediocre scientists to substitute modelled predictions for the traditional hypothesis-experiment-result paradigm which had served science so well since Occam;
• The rise of a publish-or-be-damned reward system which strongly motivates scientists to declare a positive experimental outcome when they ought to be declaring a null result.
And also the linguistic sleight of 'climate science'... How often have we seen this trick pulled in recent times... Not least during 2020 and 2021 when the definitions of words such as 'vaccine' and 'herd immunity' were abruptly changed overnight...
Hi JJ - I’d certainly be interested in seeing more dots joined in the ‘Covid was deliberately concocted and released by a cabal of elite globalist conspirators’ theory, and will keep my mind open to the possibility that it may be true.
When assessing conspiracy theories, I tend to ask myself the following questions:
• What outcome did the putative conspirators seek?
• Was the putative conspiracy the means of procuring that outcome which
• Was simplest/easiest to implement, and therefore most likely to succeed?
• Was the least risky, on account of either
o betrayal by one or more of the conspirators, or
o personal risk to the conspirators? (one reason I think Putin’s use of nukes is unlikely, though not out of the question, is that he’s located downwind of his likely targets)
In other words, ‘if that’s what you wanted to achieve, is that how you’d go about it?’ In the case of Covid, I have great difficulty imagining a cabal of uber-globalists deciding that the best way to extend their already extensive power was to concoct and release a virus who properties they could not possibly have defined with sufficient precision to rule out the possibility that it would kill the conspirators themselves. While I yield to no-one in the scepticism with which I greeted Covid in 2020, even I was worried for a few weeks that it might have had a CFR similar to the Bubonic Plagues. Where I think we might be closer together is that
• it very quickly became clear that even the earliest iterations of Covid were little more lethal than several instances of influenza which have occurred in my lifetime without either decimating the population or ruining our society.
• A large stratum of society which does not itself belong to the uber-global elites, but is aspirationally committed to its values (which includes almost the entirety of the MSM and which I shall refer to as the smuggocracy) fell deeply in love with the drama of Covid. In a way that could not possibly have happened before the era of the smart phone, a large segment of society’s better-off embraced ‘lockdown’ (I use the term as a synecdoche for the entire Covid policy response) with a relish that betrayed its ulterior motives. Masking, social-distancing and ultimately injecting themselves with experimental potions were performed ritually, without regard to, and often in defiance of scientific evidence.
I would be quite easily persuaded that the ‘Davos cabal’, quite possibly primed intellectually by the Event 201 that you linked to, spotted these phenomena, and plotted assiduously to enforce a conspiracy of silence to preserve the reputation of Covid 19 as an unusually lethal disease, thereby extending their grip on the commanding heights of the 21st century economy.
My point is that, to whatever extent the uber-elites were bent on oppressing the masses, they were executing the easiest act of tyranny in human history. These were masses who were crying out to be oppressed. I attempted to fathom this phenomenon in a blog post 3 years ago CAN EVOLUTIONARY MISMATCH THEORY EXPLAIN COVID MADNESS?
So yes, I’d like to see more dots joined, but for the moment I’m sticking to my ‘opportunism’ theory.
Cooling/Warming
While I understand your reasons for doing so, I think the cooling/warming thing should not be glossed over, because to me it illustrates the disregard for scientific rigour which characterises the entire ‘climate’ cult.
And yes, ‘warming’ did make a brief appearance at the end of the 60s. I know this because in 1969 I was 18, and finishing my schooling with a rather poor UK ‘A’ level in Physics. After our exams were over, our physics teacher, who in retrospect deserves recognition for extraordinary foresight, had a couple of weeks to fill. He did so by giving us an introduction to electronic computing, and an introduction to ‘greenhouse’ theory – subjects he drew together by demonstrating a rudimentary numerical computer model. Even on a blackboard, he was able to demonstrate the principle of ‘sensitivity to initial conditions’, and to show the unlikelihood that anyone would ever be able successfully to model future climate outcomes. He correctly predicted that Moore’s Law would tempt scientists to try, and that we would be urged to believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions would dangerously warm the planet. He urged us to remain sceptical – I have.
With that background, it was with incredulity that I witnessed, first, the abrupt embrace of the ‘cooling/new ice age’ scare, and its equally abrupt displacement by warming, without any acknowledgement of scientific uncertainty by the scaremongering grifters professing to be climate ‘experts’.
All the best, and I'll be interested in your Covid 'deep dive'!
Sorry, the link to my blog post got stripped - here it is:
https://harrumpf.com/2021/09/12/can-evolutionary-mismatch-theory-explain-covid-madness/
Hello again Tom. Apologies for taking so long to respond. My planned attention to Substack matters last Sunday was interrupted both by the assassination attempt on Trump and the passing away of a friend, so I'm once again playing catch up this week.
I read and enjoyed your blog CAN EVOLUTIONARY MISMATCH THEORY EXPLAIN COVID MADNESS? I agree with your thesis and, whatever the intentionality behind the whole fiasco (and whether or not the virus itself even existed or was simply a nasty strain of the flu - bearing in mind that influenza, here in Australia at least, completely vanished during 2020 and 2021 - is another topic you and I may end up debating) it is very clear to me that the population of the West was perfectly primed for the measures that were put in place and, as you correctly point out, even embraced them with great vim. The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis makes sense to me. I do believe there were multiple other factors in play, not least decades of establishment propaganda and the phenomenon I've often discussed whereby in the absence of any meaningful spiritual life, most have come to worship 'The Science' as a deity.
It remains incumbent on me now to join some more of the dots, and your points of conjecture with regard to assessment of conspiracy theories are valid. There is, as you point out significant crossover in our thinking on this matter and our main point of disagreement appears only to be whether or not the whole thing was orchestrated. As I have not convincingly argued this point yet in long form I'll do the gentlemanly thing and concede that you may be right (although my instincts and scattered research to date tell me otherwise) and we can park this conversation until I am able to provide some more compelling dot-joining. I think what matters is that we can agree, at the very least, the situation was used as a means of attempting an authoritarian power grab by global elites. For those on our side of the fight I believe this remains the uniting principle that we must keep front of mind, as well as the utter criminality of the 'vaccine' situation.
I am willing to defer to your historical knowledge on the warming/cooling thing. And it may well be I glossed over a significant aspect of history here in my haste to complete what amounted to a 5000 word research project, and in covering a century of history in such a relatively short piece of prose, I'm not surprised I over-simplified. My feeling is that the warming/cooling aspect is less important than the fact that the Rockefeller Special Project specifically identified meteorology as one of their two 'trigger' mechanisms for bringing about a new global consciousness. Warming or cooling, I'm sure they would have been perfectly happy with either as both (were they true) would pose similarly dire existential threats to humanity. I suspect they toyed around with both ideas for some time before finally settling on the warming hypothesis.
Thanks again for your comments Tom, as I mentioned in my note the other week - I'm here as much to learn from you all as I am to share my own limited insights, and it keeps me honest.
Speak soon
JJ
Tom, a quick note to say - thanks for this comment. I've been under the pump at my day job and busy for the past two days writing my latest piece. But I intend to respond properly to you over the weekend.