You can easily get yourself into a situation where there is
no good outcome. In fact, we are doing that right now on every front you can
possibly imagine. But why, why has the West become so ideologically addled? Why
does it pursue unworkable policies to its own detriment? Why does it repeatedly
continue to spend itself into ruin just to justify policies which have been
statistically proven never to attain the stated desired outcomes? The war in
the Ukraine has gone from bad to worse with no clear victory in sight since the
conflict itself can only result in an unthinkable outcome. The Ukraine will
once again be laid waste by Russia. A ruin which reminiscent of Holodomor. The
Ukraine will have sacrificed an entire generation of its young men as cannon
fodder to wage an unwinnable conflict. There is no sign of Putin capitulating,
and why would he since he holds all the cards? Due to Europe’s ridiculous and
unworkable green energy policies, policies which have little to do with using cleaner
energy, the West has made a deal with the devil. Europe’s pursuit of net-zero carbon
emissions, which I argue is a scientifically impossible, it has made itself
completely dependent on Putin’s gas and oil. As Jordan Peterson recently
pointed out in an interview with Pierce Morgan, all Putin needs to do is turn
off the taps to freeze Europe back into the dark ages. This may well prove to
be the bleakest winter for Europeans since WWII. But why has Europe adhered to
dogmatic policies which are no cleaner or greener than the technology and
energy sources which were already at its disposal, Canada foremost on that list
of clean and green sources for gas and oil? The West is making itself into a
victim of its own ideological possession! So let us examine the source of that
possession.
The first thing I wish to draw your attention to is that
there is no such thing as an irreligious person. The reason for that is just as
Nietzsche stated in “The Parable of the Madman”: “God is dead. God remains
dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console
ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has
yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off
us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement,
what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed
too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?
There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for
the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history
hitherto."
It has been further related that on that same day the
madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened,
he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if
they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?" That is the long and short
of it. There is no such thing as an irreligious man since man will simply
become his own god by creating sacred festivals of atonement. Man will do what
man sees to be fit.
Sacred games and rituals:
“Like a dildo ring toss games for tiny tots. Now there’s a
sacred festival that only the wicked heart of man could possibly devise. From https://thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-dildo-ring-toss-pin-the-clit-on-the-vulva-and-family-friendly-drag-show-featured-at-ottawas-pride-fest
EXCLUSIVE: Dildo ring toss, 'pin the clit on the vulva,'
and 'family friendly' drag show featured at Ottawa's Pride fest. Among the
street festival's vendors, promotional displays, and events that lined several
blocks were a dildo ring toss hosted by Durex, and "Pin the Clit on the
Vulva" at the Planned Parenthood tent. Children were freely wandering the
area.” There you have man’s version of a sacred festival. Pride was once considered
to a be one of the seven deadly sins as well as the reason for Satan being cast
out of heaven, while MAN has turned it into a virtue in defence of perversion.
The High Priests of Progressive Globalism:
By Andrew Gavin Marshall
Global Research, June 16, 2011
“To say we were striving for a one-world government is
exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t
go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering
millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world
would be a good thing.[1] – Denis Healey, 30-year member of the Steering
Committee of the Bilderberg Group
The ‘Foundations’ of the Bilderberg Group
The Bilderberg Group, formed in 1954, was founded in the
Netherlands as a secretive meeting held once a year, drawing roughly 130 of the
political-financial-military-academic-media elites from North America and
Western Europe as “an informal network of influential people who could consult
each other privately and confidentially.”[2] Regular participants include the
CEOs or Chairman of some of the largest corporations in the world, oil
companies such as Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, and Total SA, as well
as various European monarchs, international bankers such as David Rockefeller,
major politicians, presidents, prime ministers, and central bankers of the
world.[3] The Bilderberg Group acts as a “secretive global think-tank,” with an
original intent to “to link governments and economies in Europe and North
America amid the Cold War.”[4]
In the early 1950s, top European elites worked with
selected American elites to form the Bilderberg Group in an effort to bring
together the most influential people from both sides of the Atlantic to advance
the cause of ‘Atlanticism’ and ‘globalism.’ The list of attendees were the
usual suspects: top politicians, international businessmen, bankers, leaders of
think tanks and foundations, top academics and university leaders, diplomats,
media moguls, military officials, and Bilderberg also included several heads of
state, monarchs, as well as senior intelligence officials, including top
officials of the CIA, which was the main financier for the first meeting in
1954.[5]
The European founders of the Bilderberg Group included
Joseph Retinger and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Prince Bernhard had,
incidentally, been a member of the Nazi Party until 1934, three years prior to
his marrying the Dutch Queen Juliana, and had also worked for the German
industrial giant, I.G. Farben, the maker of Zyklon B, the gas used in
concentration camps.[6] On the American side, those who were most prominent in
the formation of the Bilderberg Group were David Rockefeller, Dean Rusk (a top official
with the Council on Foreign Relations who was then the head of the Rockefeller
Foundation), Joseph Johnson (another Council leader who was head of the
Carnegie Endowment), and John J. McCloy (a top Council leader who became
Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank in 1953 and was also Chairman of the Board of
the Ford Foundation).[7]
“Own nothing, be happy. You might have heard the phrase. It
started life as a screenshot, culled from the internet by an anonymous
anti-semitic account on the image board 4chan. ‘Own nothing, be happy – The Jew
World Order 2030’, said the post, which went viral among extremists” — Adrian
Monck, WEF, 2022 However, the phrase didn’t “start life as a screenshot” — it
came directly from a video on the WEF’s own website and social media channels. In
fact, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy” actually originates, verbatim,
from the WEF’s “8 Predictions for the World in 2030,” which was published in
2016 and is still on the WEF Agenda blog at the time of this publication.
From https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/19/davos-masters-of-the-universe
The worst thing about Davos? The Masters of the Universe
think they are do-gooders by Hamilton Nolan
Has there ever been a “meeting that should have been an
email” so glaring as Davos? Each year, the world’s masters of politics and
finance ride carbon-spewing jets to the World Economic Forum in a lavish Swiss
resort town bristling with armed guards, where they opine somberly about
solving poverty and climate change. The very act of attendance exposes all the
subsequent dialogue as hypocrisy. The event serves primarily as a rare point of
unity for political right and left wings, both of whom agree that everyone
there should be in jail. If all of these professional decision-makers were
really good at decision-making, they would replace the whole farce with an
annual quick chat. “So then, we’ll carry on with global capitalism for another
year. Agree? Right. Cheerio.”
Davos and similar conclaves can only be understood as
performances. They are the stage upon which the Masters of the Universe act out
the dramatic narrative of their own lives. They are exercises in mutual
self-affirmation: we’re here, and we are important. What good is a powerful
position without a rapt audience to listen to one’s pronouncements? Anyone can
be rich, but only a select few can be influencers.
Malthusian fear mongering and human sacrifice:
From Bad science and bad ethics in Peter Gleick’s Review of
“Apocalypse Never” at Yale Climate Connections published August 3rd
2020 by Michael Shellenberger who is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why
Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us
The ideas of Thomas Malthus (center) were used by British
governments to justify the Irish Famine, 1845-1848 (left) and Bengali Famine,
1943-1945 (right) before becoming the basis for 20th Century environmentalism.
In his review of Apocalypse Never at Yale Climate Connections, scientist Peter
Gleick defends Malthus and the Malthusian tradition.
1.
In his review of my new book, Apocalypse Never, at Yale
Climate Connections, Peter Gleick accuses me of mischaracterizing
environmentalism and misrepresenting climate science. He argues that I
construct strawmen, promote nuclear energy above other energies, and engage in
ad hominem (personal) attacks.
In fact, Gleick mischaracterizes Apocalypse Never, which
accurately reflects the best available science and promotes energy progress,
not nuclear to the exclusion of other sources, without making personal attacks.
Most troubling, Gleick writes, “if Malthusians are wrong,
all they would have done is made the world a better place.” But in Apocalypse
Never I show that, for Malthusians, making the world a “better place” has meant
letting the poor starve, keeping poor nations dependent on wood fuel, and
diverting World Bank funding from dams,
roads, and fertilizer for development to charitable endeavors like solar panels
for rural villagers aimed at making poverty sustainable.
To be sure, there is much that Gleick and I agree upon. “We
know how to provide safe water and sanitation to the billions who still lack
it,” he writes. “We know we must now work to both cut greenhouse gas emissions
to reduce the severity of climate change and at the same time work to adapt to
the impacts we can no longer avoid. We know how to improve agricultural
efficiency to both grow enough food for everyone and to get it to hungry
mouths.”
What we differ on is how to get there. In Apocalypse Never
I show why poor people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America will enjoy higher
standards of living, and protect the natural environment, by doing the exact
same thing Americans and Europeans have done, which is to industrialize,
urbanize, build flood control systems, modernize agriculture, and move up the
energy ladder, from wood and dung to hydroelectric dams and fossil fuels to
nuclear.
I further argue that, if we continue to develop in these
ways, deaths from natural disasters will continue to decline, food surpluses
will continue to rise, and global carbon emissions will likely peak and decline
soon, preventing temperatures from rising more than three degrees centigrade
over pre-industrial levels.
Gleick disagrees and defends the Malthusian notion that
future food surpluses are highly uncertain due to climate change, and argues
that I ignore such risks. To get to the bottom of the disagreement, we need to
review the best available science, as well as the history of Malthusian
ideology.
2.
In Apocalypse Never I explicitly acknowledge climate
change’s potentially negative impacts on food production and point out that the
UN Food and Agriculture Organization and every other major scientific body
conclude that fertilizer, irrigation, flood control, roads, tractors, and other
technologies needed to increase yields massively outweigh rising temperatures
around the world, including in poor and developing nations in the tropics.
Gleick, for his part, offers no reason to expect declining
food production, much less famine. Food surpluses have been rising gradually
for millennia and especially in the 220 years since Thomas Malthus wrote his
famous tract, claiming that humans were doomed to periodic starvation.
Gleick similarly accuses me of denying any relationship
between climate change and extreme weather events, and ignoring how fire
seasons have grown longer. But on page two I write, “Today, California’s fire
season stretches two to three months longer than it was fifty years ago.” As for extreme weather, I wrote, about one of
the world’s leading experts, “[Roger]
Pielke stresses that climate change may be contributing to some extreme weather
events. ‘For instance,’ he notes, ‘some recent research is suggestive that
regional warming in the western United States can be associated with increasing
forest fires.’”
My point is, again, that human development and disaster
preparedness massively outweigh whatever increase there’s been in hurricane
wind speed, the length of forest fire season, or modestly more precipitation.
“What most determines how vulnerable various nations are to flooding,” I note,
“depends centrally on whether they have modern water and flood control systems,
like my home city of Berkeley, California, or not, like the Congo.”
Gleick falsely accuses me of cherry-picking a quote from a
2019 New York Times story on Amazon fires. “If you look at the actual article
he cites,” writes Gleick, “the journalist makes clear the “influence” of
climate change just two sentences later.” But, as noted above, I have never
suggested there wasn’t an influence, just that it is outweighed by other
factors.
Gleick confuses the reader about the relationship between
disasters and extreme weather events. A hurricane whose wind speed has been
made more intense by climate change but doesn’t hurt anyone or destroy
property, is not a disaster, according to IPCC, dictionaries, and common sense.
And yet Gleick conflates the two concepts, leading readers to believe that we
have become more vulnerable. “In fact,” he writes, “a large and growing body of
literature already shows strong links between climate change and extreme
events…” But I never deny those links and indeed address them specifically in
Apocalypse Never.
3.
Gleick writes, “Shellenberger no doubt believes in, and
supports, the goal of a better future. So do environmental scientists,
activists, and any decent human.” The question is what we mean by “better
future.” For Malthus and Malthusian scientists, a better future is one where
there are fewer people. “The land in Ireland is infinitely more peopled than in
England,” Malthus famously wrote, “and to give full effect to the natural
resources of the country, a great part of the population should be swept from
the soil.”
Conservationists and environmentalists defend Malthus by
claiming that he wrote his famous book when it was still too early to know that
the industrial revolution would radically increase food production. Malthus
came of age in what historians call the “advanced organic economy,” which, due
to its reliance on renewables, namely wood fuel and waterwheels, “condemned the
majority of the population to poverty” for inherently physical reasons, notes
Malthus biographer Robert Mayhew.
But the bleakness of Britain’s renewable-powered economy
hadn’t prevented contemporary thinkers from imagining the end of hunger and
universal prosperity. Indeed, there was evidence of success all around them.
Had it not been for the continuous improvements to agriculture yields during
Malthus’s lifetime, along with an expansion of farming from 11 to 14.6 million
acres between 1700 and 1850, hunger in the British countryside would have been
far worse.
Does any of this matter? Did Malthus’ ideas have any impact
on the real world?
They did. British elites used Malthus’ ideas to justify
letting one million people starve to death during the Great Irish Famine. To
this day, when people think of the Great Famine, they tend to focus on the
fungus that killed potatoes and overlook the fact that, between 1845 and 1849,
Ireland exported food, including beef, to England. Irish families had to sell
their pigs in order to pay the rent, even as their children were starving.
Malthus taught the British to blame the Irish. “The
cheapness of this nourishing root [potatoes],” Malthus wrote, “joined to the
ignorance and barbarism of the [Irish] people, have encouraged marriage to such
a degree that the population has pushed much beyond the industry and present
resources of the country.”
Thirty years later, the British governor-general of India
argued that the Indian population “has a tendency to increase more rapidly than
the food it raises from the soil.” Later he claimed the “limits of increase of
production and of the population have been reached.”
Then, between 1942 and 1943, as India produced food and
manufactured goods for the British war effort, local food shortages emerged.
Food imports could have alleviated the crisis, but Prime Minister Winston
Churchill refused to allow it. Why? “Much of the answer must lie in the
Malthusian mentality of Churchill and his key advisors,” concludes Mayhew.
“Indians are breeding like rabbits and being paid a million
a day by us for doing nothing about the war,” Churchill claimed, falsely.
Partly as a result of his decisions, three million people died in the Bengali
famine of 1942 to 1943, which was three times the death toll of the Great Irish
Famine.
After World War II, American conservationists adopted the
thinly-veiled Malthusian idea that making the world a better place involved
letting poor people in poor nations starve to death. Top academic institutions
helped make Malthusian ideas mainstream.
In 1972, an NGO called the Club of Rome published “The
Limits to Growth,” a report concluding that the planet was on the brink of
ecological collapse, which The New York Times covered on its front page. “The
most probable result,” the report declared, “will be a rather sudden and
uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.” The
collapse of civilization was “a grim inevitability if society continues its
present dedication to growth and ‘progress.’”
There you have it, a posthuman world controlled by
Besserwissers who know so much about saving the planet that they are willing to
offer human life as a sacrifice to their false idol of Mother Gaia. Mother earth
has replaced Father God. And now you also know why unrestrained abortion right
up to birth is considered to be a legitimate form of contraception. The
globalists consider humanity as a blight on the planet. A despoiler. Something
which if not totally exterminated then culled like cattle to be offered as sacrifices
on the altar of globalism.
Witch doctors: hysterectomies, chemical
castration and the dick saw!
There’s one basic reason for gender affirming care that
does the diametric opposite of affirming a person’s gender, the witch doctors are
in my opinion breaking their oath of do no harm by carrying out the agenda of Malthusian
post humanists who do not want humanity to be able to breed. And since they
know that most adults are going to be unwilling to have their genitals removed due
to their sexual preferences, these medical butchers know full well that they
must attack the next generation. Their goal is to sterilize and leave their victims
unable to enjoy an orgasm. It is my concerted opinion that anyone who engages
in this kind of activity is by definition a paedophile. Since it is impossible
for me to find words sufficient to describe such perverted atrocities let me
finish by saying this, Nazis engaged in such experiments yet at least they had
the honestly to admit it wasn’t for the goods of the person undergoing chemical
castration and surgeries which removed sexual organs. This makes Nazis morally
superior to those who both facilitate and encourage such irreversible alterations
to the sexuality of children who are not old enough to make such choices for
themselves.
Conclusion:
The ongoing and escalating unwinnable war in the Ukraine, climate
catastrophizing, globalist Besserwissers’ who demand that we surrender our
autonomy to their benevolence, the prevailing Malthusian detestation of human
flourishing, and leaders who are openly hostile to biological sexuality are accompanied
by billions upon billions of dollars being spent in policies that cannot succeed,
are based upon fantasies and delusional ideation. These facts are demonstrative
proof that we are in the grip of a post-Christian religion that makes the
paganism of our ancestors appear reasoned and moral by comparison. Which is why
I stated that there is no such thing as an irreligious person, but there
certainly are idolators who worship and the godless altar of transhumanism. Christ
became fully human so that he could reunite us with the Divine, this religion is
robbing us of the very nature of what it means to be human to turn mankind into
a perverse and twisted antithesis of what the Scriptures state, that man was
created in the image of God!
No comments:
Post a Comment