Well, what’s left?

Anyone with a little bit of time can easily dissect most of the anthropocentric global warming hysteria, whether it be their shaky grasp of elementary physical principles, their unsettling demagogy, their ludicrous postulates ( if thus and so happens five or ten times faster than we’ve ever observed it to do, then we’ve got a real problem… so do something!!! yeah whatever…. )

But here’s a real underlying symptom, and it’s bound to show up in other places, even if this crap blows over, and it has to do with what real democracy is, and real science, and the difference, and the relationship between those two, accounting for those differences.

The way democracy is supposed to work, and by this I mean representative democracy, which is what most of us are supposed to have, is that the populace elects leaders who are of the highest possible intellectual, moral, and philosophical development. Nobody really wants ‘one man, one vote’ in the litteral sense, where we get the lowest common denominator or public opinion. No. We want leaders who will put forth a higher standard of understanding and character, which we can rally behind. We vote on who we think will best represent what is best in us.

So even in politics, this is not mob rule, and consensus is to be feared, not embraced. Even so, if the idea of consensus or popular opinion prevails, that’s still not a complete disaster.

For something like true ‘popular’ democracy to work, it presupposes an informed population. It’s almost tautilogical that to make correctly informed decisions, one has to be correctly informed. The more people you expect to include in the body of correct information, the harder it gets. This is the main reason why ‘true’ litteral democracy doesn’t work, and why nobody in their right mind actually wants it. It’s hard enough to keep the relatively small number of elected representatives in the loop, let alone the whole population.

But it seems like some segment of the scientific community wants to not only run science this way, but to then extend that brand of science into the political domain. They figure if you can marshall enough popular opinion in the scientific community that you must be right, and that politcal authority should then follow in the footsteps of this.

But as we’ve seen, even politics is not supposed to work that way, and certainly not science.

Science is not a democracy, in any sense, at all, whatsoever. It makes no difference if 20, 200, 2000, 20 000 scientists agree on something. None. The only thing that makes any difference is who has done the experiment, and who is adequate to interpret the results. If only 3 of those 20 000 are able to do the experiment, and have the background to interpret the results, then the opinions of the other 19 997, are not only worthless, but they shouldn’t even be solicited. It can only lead to confusion. SCIENCE IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. If you don’t have the grounding, YOU DON’T GET TO VOTE.

So, when the global warming movement tries to trot out some poorly conceived models and dubious conclusions, and proclaims that they have a ‘consensus’ behind them, no matter how large this supposed consensus is, you can rightly tell them to piss off. Ask them how many of those people are actually qualified to check the math.

And really, they know it’s shaky science. They must know, because rather than pursue the normal channels of peer review, they’ve elected to ‘take it to the streets’.
It seems that in lieu of real proof, that they will settle for stampeding public opinion.

Even democracy doesn’t work like that, or at least, it’s not supposed to. You’ll critcise the demogoguery of the war on terror and then happily indulge in the same tactics when it comes to global warming. It smacks of fascism, where the great leaders mobilise their street fighting rabble to help them seize power, on the basis of what? Pure bullshit.

If we start to run the world on the basis of consensus, we can only exepct the lowest common denominator. At best.

At worst, it’s really the lowest common denominator of what the rabble rousing demagogues can warm over for public consumption. That sort of shit is no good for politics, or science, or society in general. Do we really want mob rule? Do we really want science by shouting match? Do we really want to finish off any semblance of representative democracy in this world? Are we so eager to surrender any hope of rising above the ape theatre of misinformed
chanting idiots?

Does anyone seriously think that a factual scientific and political debate is going to be resolved in the right way, by taking it out in to the street? Has that ever happened before? If you actually think this, you need your fucking head examined.

Rather, maybe you should focus your efforts on making sure the system works the way it’s supposed to. When you do, you will find, suprise, suprise, that the people who see to it the system doesn’t work properly, are some of the same ones who now want to take advantage of it.

This is how fascism works, you fucktards; destroy the credibility of the system and then use that as a pretext for assuming unprecidented powers. Do I really need to tell anyone this? Are our memories this short? I realise most people have the attention spans of fruitflies, but the current pitifull state of our governance didn’t just happen, and now you want to ‘fix’ it, by appealing to the public, and building ‘consensus’? You should have fucking fixed it a long time ago! The solution is not some hysterical media animal show.

You really think that this sort of thing is going to result in a clean peacefull green utopia? It will like hell. Once you open that door to the chanting throng, once you’ve aroused that wave of fervour, you’ll have the reign of terror, not planet goretex, and it’ll be followed by much much worse. Some estimates of what would happen under a ‘green populist’ world government, have population crashing by upwards of one half, and that’s assuming that the ‘green vanguard’ can actually steer what they’re trying to unleash, which is debateable.

I would suggest you take a look at what the majority opinion of the public is on a number of issues besides global warming, before you get too invested in ‘saving the earth’ this way. You may find you’re doing just the opposite.

17 thoughts on “Some Convenient Bullshit: Zero Democracy

  1. So what is the grand plan?

    If consent is being manufactured through mass manipulation, then…consent for what?

    Consent for de-industrialization? Do you think the grand plan is some type of World Government of Green Neo-fedualism?

    That’s what I’ve suspected for some time. I think there is a such thing as progress and that these positive feedback loops form into upward spirals of progress. I am going on some ideas of Robert Anton Wilson.

    So anyway, these upwards spirals of progress threaten people who want to maintain stasis. They get “future shock” and so forth. This happens to people at all levels, but I think the power elite are threatened most.

    I have been trying to connect the power elite with greens for a while. I am starting to put a lot of things together, but making the case will take a lot more than the usual off the cuff stream of consciousness blogging I engage in.

    Plus, I need to come up with a superior view I think to contrast this trend toward de-indusrialization.

    But anyway, you are onto somthing.

  2. I dunno, the more i look at this stuff, the less i think there’s any real ‘conspiracy’ to it. it’s more like a cancer. just a hostile growth exploiting a weakness in the system.

    no one person knows what the hell they’re doing. I’m sure al gore or felix rohatyn are heroes in their own minds, when it turns out they’re just cancer cells.

  3. I don’t buy that.

    Rivers exist. The water just kind of flows along, regardless of any human interference.

    So the existence of a river is not evidence of any kind of human endeavor. But a hydro-electric dam is. See the analogy?

    Sure memes can just kind of replicate of their own accord using human minds as hosts. Its a little too pat to say this always the case. Or that this is all that ever happens. Memes can be shaped and controlled just like rivers and they can be put to work.
    Especially when there is a power elite with a near monopoly on the media. Some memes can be supressed, others can be encouraged to flourish. Its like creating locks and damns and levies in a river.

  4. I really find it hard to beleive that I am the first person ever to concieve of a way to manipulate people through manipulating memes. Maybe I am a genius and will soon take over the world.

  5. If you have money and massive media conglomeration, the task is not hard. Feed some ideas, starve others.

    Woo editors of large publications to join your in crowd, get them on board, get them to feed ideas you like starve, the ones you don’t like.

    Have secret meetings of scientists poloticians bankers, ceos etc. To get together to solve world problems. Come up with plans.

    These seed s they come up with are planted and they sprout in peoples fertile minds. Then you get people spreading your ideas for free. All most bloggers to is regurgitate stuff they read. Same with most writers, journalists. There aren’t that many original thinkers out there.

  6. Its not a huge secret that elites want to cull the world population by half or more. So they aren’t going to say “Hey, everybody. We are rich bankers, and industrialists and so forth, we want to cull about half you all.”

    No. They find other people saying the same thing and give them money and promote their ideas. Like Ted Turner comes up with the “Tommorrow Fellowship” and gives Daniel Quinn a half a million dollars for his book, and promotes it for him. Then the fellowship ends, having served its purpose. Years go by, and next thing you know you get some woodchuck primitivist blogger promoting infanticide as a viable means of population control.

  7. well, in principle, I can’t say I disagree with anything you’re saying, so much.

    I guess I just think that it’s largely a subconscious or implicit thing. i doubt anyone is rubbing thier hands together over all the people they’re killing with these ideological policies.

    I imagine it’s very much like the primtivists who don’t seem to understand or discuss that their platform requires wiping out 9/10ths of the human race for it to actually work, let alone how we get from here to there. they just sort of lay the groundwork, and when it just so happens 9/10 of the human race dies, they’re mysteriously equipped to deal with this ‘terrible’ event.

  8. Well, I think primitivists really are woodchucks. They definately aren’t the brains of the operation. I mean anthropology is a great subject, camping is great, learning edible plants is great, nature is great…etc. etc.

    There doesn’t need to be large numbers of successful feral hunter gatherers living out in the woods. That’s not the point. Its meme gardening. Meme is a catchy phrase nowadays but memes are mostly destructive. Viruses. So its a little garden of poisonous idealogy being tended by elites that will need it later. Might need it later.

    Most “primitivists” just read things and feel bitter and miserable about the world. As soon as people try to live primatively, they find how bad it sucks. Only a handful that are really into it like it. Its like anything else thats a really extreme lifestyle.
    What primitivists are is just a new species of anarchist. There is a precedent of anarchists being manipulated and used by elites.

    here is the connection as clear as I can make it: The power elite are not futurists. They are dinosaurs. I think that is the archetype Icke is tapping into. They are worried about becoming extinct. They are the capstone predators of an archaic system. A barbaric backwards system. They have no problem with going backwards technologically because technology can have really socializing effects.

    There are so many things that can improve large scale quality of life. Its just that they aren’t adopted because they are difficult to monopolize. Like spirulina production is one, hemp is another.

    Plus the real elites don’t care if industry gets destroyed. It is destructive, but the thing is bankers contol all corporations. They can build new ones.

    I think the intended effect of Green anarchy/primitivism, is simply for people to lose faith in any effort to do anything to make the world better. Its mind poison. Radicals in the 60’s were more educated in how democracy works, green anarchists are totally apathetic politically.

    The grand plan is to enslave the world in a feudal system, not have everyone living like a bushman.

  9. It is subconscious for a lot of people. You are right about that. It was for me when I was into it.

    But its funny how people can control ideas that “pop into your head.” It would seem like controlling how people think, would be a real act of wizardry.

    But all you have to do is control the flow of ideas. Create bottle necks. Media conglomeration makes it really easy. Public school makes it really easy. Controlling academia makes it really easy.

    The Power elite are smarter than most people, and have contempt for most people, but it a matter of vantage point. They see the people they have “made” they see the ideas thay have spread. They see how easy it is to manipulate the masses.

    They really see threats to their existence. They see them more clearly than anyone else. They are shrewd. Its not that they are omnipotent and they haven’t made a mess of things. They aren’t and they have. Its just that there are a lot of negative qualities the masses have that are easy to manipulate.

    Like diabetes. Diabetes can be reversed. But people like to sit on their fat ass and eat junk food. Probably 75% of diabetics would still do that, even if they knew it could be reversed. So why not make money off these suckers by selling them drugs? Fuck ’em.

    That’s how elites come to see the masses and they have a point. So its like yeah, there are things that can be done to make Earth a better place and have a higehr standard of living for everyone, more equality, but its not easy and most people want the easy way. Elites exist because of that. So there is this implicit agreement between stupid people, unbalanced people, and elites.

  10. (Puts on tin foil hat)

    Hmm, hmm. First off we have had rule by elites who are, at least ostensibly, better educated for at least the past two or three centuries (medieval monarchs tended to be illiterates, e.g., “The emperor is above grammar”, one of Charlemange’s statements). That and overall society is more educated, though arguably in the US there has been a decline in the quality of education overall more people know more than previously–you can’t have evolutions without some involution. If that means SAT scores drop while more people finish 8th grade, or that more people know about WWII from watching the History Channel, you can’t immediately decide that is bad. It’s really easy to build up an elite, it’s very difficult to raise the lowest common denominator.

    That and by-and-large “feudalism” could be affected more readily by bankers creating inflationary-crises followed by deflationary-crises, kind of like the neo-colonialist debt programs we use to “globalize” cheap labor in the third world but localize beneftis for the first world. In a way we have that already–crummy loans and contracts and “opening” undeveloped economies to foreign capital. Clamping down on carbon-emissions, of course, slows development–again the “success stories” are India and China and those are little dens of cancer but the bottom line there still has risen.

    All that said, at this point direct democracy is possible (secure internet connections) in most countries where electricity is available. You would simply be substituting the ignorance of the by-definition populist masses (e.g., people in wisconsin may vote republican but they also voted to raise minimum wage to “living wage”) for the corruption and ignorance of the senatorial classes. In a direct environment the effect of the media-political complex would probably be no more or less active.

    Now, this is kind of odd for a couple reasons: 1. the idea that “development” is more important than the “environment” seems more like an industrialist, capitalist viewpoint 2. the elite want more labor capital (‘human resources”), not less, ideally labor is inflexible but readily available. see the US illegal immigrant phenomenon–no bargaining power and fewer rights but willing to work for lower wages. In fact, at this point, more over-educated dillentants than well-heeled aristocrats have shown a disdain for the existence of the masses–bankers are a-okay selling debt.

  11. Ted, I tend to see the situation in much the same way as you. When it really comes down to it, I find it damn scary just how easy it actually is to manipulate the masses.

    People often cite the benefits the modern age (and thus the elites) have brought us. But the truth is we wouldn’t have those things if they didn’t serve the elite. After all, what use is a car? Other than for helping you to get to work quicker, and for using trucks for mass supply lines. The same goes for all forms of modern technology – their primary purpose is to generate wealth for the elites. And also keep people under submission.

    The Internet nearly slipped under the radar – but even that is no slowly coming under control.

    When you control the education, and the flow of knowledge – then indeed memes become extremely powerful!

    I am not entirely certain what the “Global Warming” issue is all about. I certainly think it is being manipulated. But part of me feels it is mis-direction. I remember seeing a while ago; images of Mars and the fact that the ice-caps there have melted. And that the surface temperature of one of our systems moons (Callisto I believe) has increased.

    So what would the population of Earth do if they realized that there were changes occurring right across the entire Solar System – that could potentially drastically alter Earth?

    I suspect it’s been “decided”, that it would be better to have people believe that the changes are caused by human hands – and therefore we have some measure of control over it. This theory stops the questions, heads-off any panic and allows the elites yet another avenue of manipulation

  12. Marcus,

    Here is an article about a study on vitamins that was spun by several media outlets in the exact same way in order to benefit big Pharma


    So yeah, its very easy for elites to manipulate the media.

    I think perhaps with the global warming thing its a case of really big nearly omnipotent Bissiness squezing out industry and becoming more centralized and monopolistic.

    But part of it is I think that world is getting out of hand, the environment is getting damaged, oil is running out and the elites want to use this to turn things to their favor.

    We might end up in a mercantile feudal economy like I was saying. Capitalism might actually go bust.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s