I'm not sure that your comment that this was the 'rise' of fascism is accurate. It was the *expansion* of fascism. The woke left, of which I now sadly include Klein, despite her excellent history, have actually been party to that rise historically with their fundamental support of some kind of autocratic system so long as it isn't like *that bad one right beside me in the same room*. All autocratic systems, I now understand — that was a slow realisation on my part that I discovered in my recent writing — are fascist at their core. The Hunger Games-like costuming we have seen with people like Klein, Wolffe, Chomsky, and Peterson is what provided the so-called distinction. Distraction. It is all about distraction.
Klein has never been correct. Always corrupt. I worked with HIV and AIDS sufferers. It was my first foray into realizing virology was voodoo. A friend’s step daughter was working in Africa with an NGO. Hundreds of billions of dollars were raised to fight this scourge. Claims were tossed out - 30% of Namibia was HIV +. Etc. I knew that someone HIV positive who didn’t lead a very pure and healthy life and who didn’t have access to ‘quality’ medical care had a short shelf life. I casually suggested those numbers were wrong. If 30% of a country had HIV and were poverty stricken then the population should drop by somewhere between 20-25% within two years. I made a list of the countries with the highest HIV ratings and compared them to the African countries with the least HIV cases. I then looked at population growth year to year. There was a slight difference. But no countries were reducing in population. The most AIDS ridden countries were growing at very high, when comparing them to first world countries, rates. Slightly less than their relatively AIDS free neighbors. So, 3.5% growth versus 4% growth. Not a chance the AIDS rates were even close to being what was claimed. I estimated at best 5% of actual AIDS cases than what they claimed. I told my buddy this. He told his step daughter. Two years later he called me and said Francesca, the step daughter, wanted me to know they had quietly downgraded their AIDS estimates to 5% of what they had been claiming. So, who was in charge of all of this? Naomi Klein and her husband (Avi Lewis? One of the socialist Toronto Lewises.) They raised money to treat X amount of people yet needed .05X. Where did the money go? Ask Naomi. It is my contention the money raised to battle AIDS went to political NGOs. All the Soros funding came from there. I cannot prove that, but Naomi is now wealthy, but not a billionaire. She got some, but not all. Some would have been kicked back to pols everywhere. I suspect though it went largely to communist front NGOs. Notice how AIDS in Africa just...poof...vanished one day. One day ‘millions are dying’, the next nada.
As to being 100% wrong, not sure about that. Her arguments in Shock Doctrine are pretty accurate. That area is where my back ground was focused for many years.
I don't have the knowledge about African AIDS and the role of Klein and Lewis being a part of a health-charity scam. Although, I am not surprised because in the last 30+ years aren't most of these BIG kinds of emergency fund-raisers scammed, in some way? The Haiti money, for example. And the New Orleans money, etc. Tsunami, etc.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, to fill in some of those blanks.
I agree Guy. This is illuminating and disturbing. But, as you said, Shock Doctrine was a very important book as was No Logo many years ago. So I'm conflicted about Klein. But that seems to be the case with many public figure writers. Very confusing sometimes. I can't imagine she did this for money. Her books are best sellers, so I can't imagine she's want for money?
Both Shock Doctrine and No-Logo are very important. (I even had a short email exchange with her back when she was touring for No-Logo.)
I have no idea about greed being a motivation for her and Lewis. I think not, because her husband, Avi Lewis who I also respected many years ago, comes from a pretty wealthy Canadian family. However, greed is, imo, more stupefying than sex. So...
However, money and good intentions are a very dangerous marriage and can lead to very poor outcomes if the ego grows unchecked. I don't have any information about this, and so I am just spit balling a common human flaw: paving the road to hell with other people's gold is ... well, trite.
Guy, could you expand more on your thoughts about Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent is one of the most important books of the last 50 years. I do think Chomsky is a great intellectual. Hard to read but always thought provoking. Where do you think he's gone wrong or strayed. Just curious, not being argumentative. Thanks.
And it would be perfectly fine for us to be argumentative, so long as we haven't approached the 'argumen't with a pre-closed mind! IMO. 'Argument' is another word whose great meaning has been destroyed by a woke effort to disempower language.
And Manufacturing Consent is one of the most important books in my library. And pretty close to essential reading for anyone looking at media. (I had a library of 30 or so Chomsky books, and with MC I would include Necessary Illusions and Year 501: The Conquest Continues as equally powerful and important books.)
So what happened between me and Chomsky? With covidiana I began looking at my own state of blindness and reflected on how that represents to some smaller or greater extent, certain levels of societal blindness as a whole. And so I revisited Chomsky because of a comment I remember him saying about the psychological requirements for the MSM XliarsX [strikeout] journalists to stop seeing what is true as a way not to live with constant cognitive dissonance. They are totally blind to their lies! (And how am I blind to my own 'lies' was my question.)
And during that search, memory had me look at the great Canadian documentary 'Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media'. I've likely watched it 3 times or so. However, during this search I found something that *I had been blind to!* And it was an AHA moment of the highest order and that made clear that Chomsky's advocacy that the uninjected be sent to camps and forced to feed themselves was not in fact hypocritical to his 'ideology'!
Here is what he said:
[Chomsky:] I think we should — at the most general level we should be seeking out forms of authority and domination and challenging their legitimacy. *Sometimes they are legitimate. That is, let’s say, they are needed for survival.* So, for example, like I wouldn’t suggest that during the 2nd world war, the forms of authority — we had a totalitarian society, basically. And *I thought there was some justification for that under the wartime conditions. There are other forms, such as the relation between parents and children, for example, [that] involve forms of coercion. Which are sometimes justifiable. But any such form of coercion and control requires justification. Most of them are completely unjustifiable.* At various stages of human civilisation it’s been possible to challenge some of them, but not others. Others are too deep seated. (From Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
And so, he has a fundamental belief in authoritarian structures, so long as they are, like now with a 'fake' pandemic, justified. Jimmy Dore did a great short talk about that as it applied to Bill Maher, who likewise said something similar. And Klein as well, who in criticising the right hasn't noticed that she is a proponent of an equally authoritarian structure, just a 'good' one. And also advocated death-by-injection as the 'proper' authoritarian response. Wolff is similar: she advocates the 'good' authoritarian structure, the one that actually psychologically allowed and even promoted the very mess we are now in.
I hope that addresses well your question. If you are curious about my entire argument, you can read it here:
"Blinded by Our Truth (Pt 1): Delusion Knows No Bounds and Is Always the Other Person’s Problem"
Thanks. A lot to digest there while I'm eating and digesting my omelette this AM. I will read your posts and check out the Chomsky Doc. I love argument when done sans Ego.
I subscribed. I already pay for 6 Substacks so I chose the free option for now Guy. If you're interested in some light reading, check out my Substack on our travels in our RV. Link is next to my name.
In 2007 our local rag, the Victoria Times-Colonist, locally called the ‘Times Communist’ showed climate scientists in hip waders up to their thighs in ocean water. They wore grim expressions. They ran this on the front page. Along with a map of Victoria and how it would look with a 20’ sea level rise. Which was 100% certain to happen by 2012! We had reached the ‘tipping point’ and crossed it. The Earth as we knew it was over. My brother in law raised the issue with me as I have a waterfront home. He asked if I were worried. I laughed and carefully dissected the nonsense for him. My logic was correct. He is a smart prog. Terrified to say anything wrong that would offend the hive. He asked me why would I want to align myself with the likes of George Bush and Sarah Palin. I replied ‘in order to make good decisions I have to align myself with what is real and true. I am not aligning myself with anyone. And I don’t care if my opinions are only held by me and the Three Stooges, Curly Moe and Larry. If they are true that is what is important.’ I asked him why would he align himself with nonsense when I just refuted it so well. He said ‘if I made one or two anti AGW statements at my University’ his career would end. He couldn’t even say ‘it is complicated. I have heard compelling arguments on both sides’. If he said that, he was gone. Tenure or not. This was in 2007. The idea there is no censorship of opposing climate theory is completely wrong.
Thanks for yet more anecdotal evidence to add to what I've heard already.
The lies keep getting churned out and people take it all on board because of the fear factor, like your brother-in-law for his own reasons, and they can't even process information that refutes what they believe.
Just this morning I read on whatsupwiththat.com how they're saying sugar, rice, and tomatoes are in crisis when the UN's own branch looking after these things with meticulous charts cites each crop has had their best 10 years in these last 10 years.
The paper I googled said that tomato crops in California and Italy specifically may decline by 6% by 2050, so not by much and not for a while and so the past tens years are not relevant. Indeed the increasing hot weather is great for growing tomatoes in the UK. Shortages are due to the increased prices in transport and fertilisers which are due to the general increase in energy prices, and therefore profits from the proxy war.
The past ten years are completely relevant because this is current reality. What may happen in 27 years is like an oasis——it may or may not be a reality. And given the track record of the last 63 years of predictions, it's most likely not going to happen.
My wife liked to joke that the only two women in the world that she was jealous of were Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein. Not that either of them would give me a second look. However, that's changed as you correctly point out. It's really sad AND frustrating to see two of the people I've respected most in journalism straying to the dark side. It baffles me. How could someone who wrote The Shock Doctrine and No Logo NOT see what's right in front of her? How can someone (Amy) who's covered corruption and institutional control of the masses for 40 years be so blind to the truth? Her show is even called "Democracy Now!" What an irony. I've met and spoke with both of them at talks they've given here in Boulder over the years. I looked to them for the truth and spot on analysis. But no more. Jo, can you expand more on Malone? I followed him during the Covid farce, but I've strayed away as I'm more and more concerned about some of his views. Although I love his advocacy for regenerative farming (he and his wife own and work their own farm), I think his Libertarianism sometimes strays into fanaticism against any government oversight. Where are the safe sane harbors anymore? I do like Chris Hedges and Glen Greenwald and of course Russell Brand. Sometimes it helps to laugh a little through the fog of insanity. I never thought I'd look at Woke culture in a negative way. But the religiosity of the trans movement is very disturbing. Have you seen Martina Navratilova's comments about trans men in women's sports? I hope it gets some attention.
Regenerative farming using farmed animals as substitutes for megafauna is also a big fat lie. It has not been shown to sequester carbon overall, nor improve biodiversity nor soil integrity or fertility. Plants and water do that. Areas where grazing livestock are removed show increase in carbon storage and nutrients in the soil and increases in diversity and of abundance of birds, fish, mammals and insects. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/
Only the minority rich westerners can afford to have dead animals produced in this green washed rural idyll. Currently agriculture uses half of all habitable land, 77% is animal farming and grazing about half of that. If everyone wanted dead animals produced this way the rest of the rainforest would have to go.
I'm curious Jo. Have you read Wendell Berry? I do look to people who've been farming for generations, successfully for guidance. Not that age and duration conveys wisdom. But I do believe Berry has done his homework. I'm not immersed in the subject so I'm open to other POV's. But I still believe that overall the net benefit to animal protein in our diet is good for us and sustainable for the planet. I know you and I will never agree on this point. That's OK though. Because we do need to eat less meat in general, so Yay vegans!!
yes we need to eat less dead animals and you may well believe that overall the net benefit of animal protein is good and sustainable for the planet but that is absolutely not what the evidence shows.
Jo, I know we differ on this subject and probably won't ever agree but I'd like to ask you one more question. One that I asked many times when I was vegan. What do you say to an Inuit in Alaska who subsists on a great deal of fish? Or in any far northern climates where you can not grow vegetables, fruits and grains for most of the year. Yes, I know there's fermentation and dry/cold storage. But that's asking a lot of people who have very little and just struggle to survive. I read an article about how planes fly food into these remote areas. I'm sure it's a lot of canned and processed foods. Not very healthy IMO. And what about the carbon footprint of all this manufacturing resources and fuel to transport? I'd take wild salmon over canned corn any day.
And people who live in dessert areas in Africa? Yes there are root vegetables and some hearty grains. But they also eat a lot of wild animal meat. And I don't think there are many grocery stores in the bush country. So I'm just asking bc I never got a good answer when I went to vegan gatherings or conferences back in the day when I was one. Thanks for entertaining my queries Jo.
People who live in sub Saharan Africa live almost exclusively on sweet potatoes, not wild animals, and are some of the most healthy people in the world. I think you mean desert not dessert areas (the pudding trolley?). No there are no grocery stores, how patronising and disingenuous!
Inuits eat lots of berries, seaweed and plants and yes fish and blubber. I don't see any vegan activists slapping it out of their hands.
One of the reasons people live in poverty and struggle to grow food is due to wars over their resources as well as climate change and ecosystem destruction, dustbowls, droughts, toxic runoff, ocean dead zones caused in a large part by animal ag. If the feed grain was fed to humans directly instead of through animals it could end world hunger; without the paternalistic attitude of sending processed food to poor Africans. They could feed themselves if the west was playing fair.
Jo, I respect your POV. But YOU are being disingenuous now. You say "sub Saharan Africa" to isolate your argument. There are definitely areas of Africa where they eat meat. Wild boar, goat, sheep etc. You can not deny this fact. Are they wrong to eat meat? Would you tell them not to? That would be patronizing in my book. You state that they "are some of the most healthy people in the world." You can not substantiate this statement. There are so many factors that determine "good health". You glide over the Inuit issue by saying " I don't see any vegan activists slapping it out of their hands." So what IS your response? Should they not eat fish? Is it not a healthy diet for them? The grocery store statement I think is very clear. Arctic people do have grocery stores where they can purchase foodstuffs that aren't local. My point was that if they don't eat local (i.e. fish) then they are forced to eat these processed foods. Lastly, Arctic people and Africans have been eating this way for many generations. Long before the first world wrought its damage to the planet. That's a secondary argument to the main issue I raised. Yes we are destroying our ecosystems. But it still doesn't address my queries. Thanks for the dialogue. And BTW, thanks for the spell check. I'll check after I dictate to Siri next time (-:
*One more thing. I think we first world folks ARE being patronizing to poorer people around the world, telling them what they should eat.
"The right wing promotion of theories of genocide of ‘useless eaters’ and control by Jews using fake climate change has resulted in climate denialism, anti-semitism -- there’s a lot of hatred in MFM for Yuval Harai." Uhmm, yeah, as there should be! Pushing the idea of chipping all humans! "Hate" is exactly the proper sentiment. Reacting to evil like that can be of no other kind. And "Klein...has swallowed wholesale the recommendations of the CDC...and thinks they could have gone further by vaccinating the whole world before rich westerners got their 4th booster. She seems to be blind to the evidence." You're being too kind to this woman as she pushes the propaganda as a paid agent appearing on an MS network. Good lord! But my mistake: always thought Klein was Jewish. Guess not. So yeah, "control by Jews" ain't a thing.
YNH is NOT pushing the idea that human should be chipped. He is warning against it for crying out loud. I'm not into hatred for 'evil' people even if he had been saying this, which he wasn't. It's not helpful.
Is YNH Yuval Harari? If so I have heard him push for that. Clearly. He looks forward to a time when people can be tracked in real time and if their dopamine or serotonin drops their chip will ‘level’ them instantly.
“The power to hack human beings can of course be used for good purposes like providing much better healthcare." Direct quote. And the guy is a major spokesperson for the WEF. And you don't hate evil people? The left-wing substitute for religion and metaphysics is this kind of political-based nonjudgmentalism. No moral compass, so everybody gets a pass. I'm out.
Have you read Hate Inc by Matt Taibbi, the media creates and feds off division, racism and hate, it plays right into their hands. People are not good or evil and hating them solves nothing.
Like I said I see the rise of Jew-hating fascism. I'm glad you've gone.
Hate Inc. was a mind shifter for me. I was a Maddow devotee until I read it. That and her positions on Covid vaxxes. "If you get the shot, the virus stops with you" she stated with conviction on her show in 2021. If that woman had ANY shred of decency, she would use her huge platform to apologize. But that will never happen. When you're paid 30 million a year, you 'aint gonna bite the hand that feeds you, handsomely! I don't HATE her. I just ignore her now.
Well it can, people swallow ph meters and all sorts. It is interesting to know what goes on inside. But the rest of the quote is all about how dangerous it is.
I watched a clip of his. He was advocating bio monitoring people to watch their serotonin and dopamine levels and being able to biohack them to stabilize their moods, and how amazing that is! Pure mad scientist talk. After watching I thought ‘this guy is insane’.
Yes, this is actually happening and not a theory. Boston has been building for it since about 20 years now. Fourteen cities earmarked in the US and 86 others worldwide. These are key cities, and once they "fall" so will everywhere else, or so they hope.
Fascism is neither left or right. It is government colluding with business to destroy the power of the individual to decide for themselves how they live their life. NGOs and influence peddlers are part of the psyop to destabilize society. It’s all about establishing collective power over our God-given individual rights.
"The Left just want to be loved and to be seen as legitimate so they embrace every nut job idea and populist initiative." Perfect!! This sums up the Left in the US for the last 40+ years. It's what brought us Woke culture. But, IMHO it's failing. One great example is the victory of Younkiin in the Virginia governer's race last year. McCauliffe was the clear favorite in a mostly blue state. But his embrace of wokeism in the public schools was a key factor. Fairfax (where I used to live) and Loudon counties, traditionally very blue went for Younkin. The single biggest reason stated by surveys was the school issue. I hope the "left" will see the error of their ways. But I honestly don't think so.
Hi Marc. I'm putting my focus on RFK Jr. Despite his stance on Israel/Palestine, I believe he's a transformational candidate. I hope he runs third party. The D's will rig the primaries to keep him from getting any traction there. I don't know if he can win as an Independent, but at least he'll shake things up. Then maybe in 2028, after another 4 years of Trump, he'll be in a position to win. As crazy as this sounds, I'm not all that scared of Trump. He's a nutcase, but at least he can complete a thought without drifting into LaLa land like Biden. It's going to get bumpy but I'm going to watch with hope and a little bit of humor, for the shit show that will be the next 13 months til Nov. 2024. I worry more about your country though. It seems that you have more problems than us??
Marc, at 65 myself, Id like to believe I have quite a few good cognitive years left. My 87 year old mother-in-law passed away last week. But our last conversation was as cogent as one with a 40 or 50 year old. I was just listening to a discussion between Richard Dawkins and others last year. I don't agree with him on a lot. But he's quiet compelling, even at 83. So age isn't a factor for me. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair at Yalta. So physical prowess isn't a requirement either IMHO. Sorry, I didn't mean to denigrate GB vs. US. Only that bc we've been the hegemonic power around the globe since WW II, we have a little more runway before the shit hits the fan. And it will! But maybe not for a few more years. At this point, I really don't care if it's Biden or Trump, if those are the only options. If it's Biden, then it'll be another Dem in 2028 and we'll just keep treading water. I'd rather hit bottom sooner with another 4 years of the Orange man and hopefully start swimming back to the surface.....maybe. So I'm supporting RFK regardless. I believe he'll surround himself with a lot of smart YOUNG folks too. And I still hold out hope that he can win. Look, Trump won. Whouda thunk it!!
Thank you G&D.
I'm not sure that your comment that this was the 'rise' of fascism is accurate. It was the *expansion* of fascism. The woke left, of which I now sadly include Klein, despite her excellent history, have actually been party to that rise historically with their fundamental support of some kind of autocratic system so long as it isn't like *that bad one right beside me in the same room*. All autocratic systems, I now understand — that was a slow realisation on my part that I discovered in my recent writing — are fascist at their core. The Hunger Games-like costuming we have seen with people like Klein, Wolffe, Chomsky, and Peterson is what provided the so-called distinction. Distraction. It is all about distraction.
Klein has never been correct. Always corrupt. I worked with HIV and AIDS sufferers. It was my first foray into realizing virology was voodoo. A friend’s step daughter was working in Africa with an NGO. Hundreds of billions of dollars were raised to fight this scourge. Claims were tossed out - 30% of Namibia was HIV +. Etc. I knew that someone HIV positive who didn’t lead a very pure and healthy life and who didn’t have access to ‘quality’ medical care had a short shelf life. I casually suggested those numbers were wrong. If 30% of a country had HIV and were poverty stricken then the population should drop by somewhere between 20-25% within two years. I made a list of the countries with the highest HIV ratings and compared them to the African countries with the least HIV cases. I then looked at population growth year to year. There was a slight difference. But no countries were reducing in population. The most AIDS ridden countries were growing at very high, when comparing them to first world countries, rates. Slightly less than their relatively AIDS free neighbors. So, 3.5% growth versus 4% growth. Not a chance the AIDS rates were even close to being what was claimed. I estimated at best 5% of actual AIDS cases than what they claimed. I told my buddy this. He told his step daughter. Two years later he called me and said Francesca, the step daughter, wanted me to know they had quietly downgraded their AIDS estimates to 5% of what they had been claiming. So, who was in charge of all of this? Naomi Klein and her husband (Avi Lewis? One of the socialist Toronto Lewises.) They raised money to treat X amount of people yet needed .05X. Where did the money go? Ask Naomi. It is my contention the money raised to battle AIDS went to political NGOs. All the Soros funding came from there. I cannot prove that, but Naomi is now wealthy, but not a billionaire. She got some, but not all. Some would have been kicked back to pols everywhere. I suspect though it went largely to communist front NGOs. Notice how AIDS in Africa just...poof...vanished one day. One day ‘millions are dying’, the next nada.
Great observation.
As to being 100% wrong, not sure about that. Her arguments in Shock Doctrine are pretty accurate. That area is where my back ground was focused for many years.
I don't have the knowledge about African AIDS and the role of Klein and Lewis being a part of a health-charity scam. Although, I am not surprised because in the last 30+ years aren't most of these BIG kinds of emergency fund-raisers scammed, in some way? The Haiti money, for example. And the New Orleans money, etc. Tsunami, etc.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, to fill in some of those blanks.
All the best.
I agree Guy. This is illuminating and disturbing. But, as you said, Shock Doctrine was a very important book as was No Logo many years ago. So I'm conflicted about Klein. But that seems to be the case with many public figure writers. Very confusing sometimes. I can't imagine she did this for money. Her books are best sellers, so I can't imagine she's want for money?
I agree, David.
Both Shock Doctrine and No-Logo are very important. (I even had a short email exchange with her back when she was touring for No-Logo.)
I have no idea about greed being a motivation for her and Lewis. I think not, because her husband, Avi Lewis who I also respected many years ago, comes from a pretty wealthy Canadian family. However, greed is, imo, more stupefying than sex. So...
However, money and good intentions are a very dangerous marriage and can lead to very poor outcomes if the ego grows unchecked. I don't have any information about this, and so I am just spit balling a common human flaw: paving the road to hell with other people's gold is ... well, trite.
Same to you.
I shall edit thank you.
Guy, could you expand more on your thoughts about Chomsky. Manufacturing Consent is one of the most important books of the last 50 years. I do think Chomsky is a great intellectual. Hard to read but always thought provoking. Where do you think he's gone wrong or strayed. Just curious, not being argumentative. Thanks.
Great question!
And it would be perfectly fine for us to be argumentative, so long as we haven't approached the 'argumen't with a pre-closed mind! IMO. 'Argument' is another word whose great meaning has been destroyed by a woke effort to disempower language.
And Manufacturing Consent is one of the most important books in my library. And pretty close to essential reading for anyone looking at media. (I had a library of 30 or so Chomsky books, and with MC I would include Necessary Illusions and Year 501: The Conquest Continues as equally powerful and important books.)
So what happened between me and Chomsky? With covidiana I began looking at my own state of blindness and reflected on how that represents to some smaller or greater extent, certain levels of societal blindness as a whole. And so I revisited Chomsky because of a comment I remember him saying about the psychological requirements for the MSM XliarsX [strikeout] journalists to stop seeing what is true as a way not to live with constant cognitive dissonance. They are totally blind to their lies! (And how am I blind to my own 'lies' was my question.)
And during that search, memory had me look at the great Canadian documentary 'Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media'. I've likely watched it 3 times or so. However, during this search I found something that *I had been blind to!* And it was an AHA moment of the highest order and that made clear that Chomsky's advocacy that the uninjected be sent to camps and forced to feed themselves was not in fact hypocritical to his 'ideology'!
Here is what he said:
[Chomsky:] I think we should — at the most general level we should be seeking out forms of authority and domination and challenging their legitimacy. *Sometimes they are legitimate. That is, let’s say, they are needed for survival.* So, for example, like I wouldn’t suggest that during the 2nd world war, the forms of authority — we had a totalitarian society, basically. And *I thought there was some justification for that under the wartime conditions. There are other forms, such as the relation between parents and children, for example, [that] involve forms of coercion. Which are sometimes justifiable. But any such form of coercion and control requires justification. Most of them are completely unjustifiable.* At various stages of human civilisation it’s been possible to challenge some of them, but not others. Others are too deep seated. (From Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media
https://watchdocumentaries.com/manufacturing-consent-noam-chomsky-and-the-media/
~ -2:29:50, my emphasis.)
And so, he has a fundamental belief in authoritarian structures, so long as they are, like now with a 'fake' pandemic, justified. Jimmy Dore did a great short talk about that as it applied to Bill Maher, who likewise said something similar. And Klein as well, who in criticising the right hasn't noticed that she is a proponent of an equally authoritarian structure, just a 'good' one. And also advocated death-by-injection as the 'proper' authoritarian response. Wolff is similar: she advocates the 'good' authoritarian structure, the one that actually psychologically allowed and even promoted the very mess we are now in.
I hope that addresses well your question. If you are curious about my entire argument, you can read it here:
"Blinded by Our Truth (Pt 1): Delusion Knows No Bounds and Is Always the Other Person’s Problem"
https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/blinded-by-our-truth-pt-1
and
"Blinded by Our Truth (Pt 2): There is Truth All Around Me, and Amidst it All There Lies the Lies I’m Asked to Drink"
https://gduperreault.substack.com/p/blinded-by-our-truth-pt-2
Argument without the ego's need to be 'right', or coming from a place of feeling 'wrong', is a path towards better seeing. IMO.
All the best, Las Salinas, Oaxaca Mexico.
Thanks. A lot to digest there while I'm eating and digesting my omelette this AM. I will read your posts and check out the Chomsky Doc. I love argument when done sans Ego.
Ah, nothing like a healthy argument with an omelette! All the best.
I subscribed. I already pay for 6 Substacks so I chose the free option for now Guy. If you're interested in some light reading, check out my Substack on our travels in our RV. Link is next to my name.
Will do! And thank you.
There is unbelievable climate censorship. You don't get published unless you support the narrative of imminent climate disaster.
At one point about 17,000 signed some declaration, recently another was put out with only 1,600 signing on.
And it's the same people, the government and the media, who supported corona lies who are supporting climate lies.
In 2007 our local rag, the Victoria Times-Colonist, locally called the ‘Times Communist’ showed climate scientists in hip waders up to their thighs in ocean water. They wore grim expressions. They ran this on the front page. Along with a map of Victoria and how it would look with a 20’ sea level rise. Which was 100% certain to happen by 2012! We had reached the ‘tipping point’ and crossed it. The Earth as we knew it was over. My brother in law raised the issue with me as I have a waterfront home. He asked if I were worried. I laughed and carefully dissected the nonsense for him. My logic was correct. He is a smart prog. Terrified to say anything wrong that would offend the hive. He asked me why would I want to align myself with the likes of George Bush and Sarah Palin. I replied ‘in order to make good decisions I have to align myself with what is real and true. I am not aligning myself with anyone. And I don’t care if my opinions are only held by me and the Three Stooges, Curly Moe and Larry. If they are true that is what is important.’ I asked him why would he align himself with nonsense when I just refuted it so well. He said ‘if I made one or two anti AGW statements at my University’ his career would end. He couldn’t even say ‘it is complicated. I have heard compelling arguments on both sides’. If he said that, he was gone. Tenure or not. This was in 2007. The idea there is no censorship of opposing climate theory is completely wrong.
Thanks for yet more anecdotal evidence to add to what I've heard already.
The lies keep getting churned out and people take it all on board because of the fear factor, like your brother-in-law for his own reasons, and they can't even process information that refutes what they believe.
Just this morning I read on whatsupwiththat.com how they're saying sugar, rice, and tomatoes are in crisis when the UN's own branch looking after these things with meticulous charts cites each crop has had their best 10 years in these last 10 years.
The paper I googled said that tomato crops in California and Italy specifically may decline by 6% by 2050, so not by much and not for a while and so the past tens years are not relevant. Indeed the increasing hot weather is great for growing tomatoes in the UK. Shortages are due to the increased prices in transport and fertilisers which are due to the general increase in energy prices, and therefore profits from the proxy war.
The past ten years are completely relevant because this is current reality. What may happen in 27 years is like an oasis——it may or may not be a reality. And given the track record of the last 63 years of predictions, it's most likely not going to happen.
My wife liked to joke that the only two women in the world that she was jealous of were Amy Goodman and Naomi Klein. Not that either of them would give me a second look. However, that's changed as you correctly point out. It's really sad AND frustrating to see two of the people I've respected most in journalism straying to the dark side. It baffles me. How could someone who wrote The Shock Doctrine and No Logo NOT see what's right in front of her? How can someone (Amy) who's covered corruption and institutional control of the masses for 40 years be so blind to the truth? Her show is even called "Democracy Now!" What an irony. I've met and spoke with both of them at talks they've given here in Boulder over the years. I looked to them for the truth and spot on analysis. But no more. Jo, can you expand more on Malone? I followed him during the Covid farce, but I've strayed away as I'm more and more concerned about some of his views. Although I love his advocacy for regenerative farming (he and his wife own and work their own farm), I think his Libertarianism sometimes strays into fanaticism against any government oversight. Where are the safe sane harbors anymore? I do like Chris Hedges and Glen Greenwald and of course Russell Brand. Sometimes it helps to laugh a little through the fog of insanity. I never thought I'd look at Woke culture in a negative way. But the religiosity of the trans movement is very disturbing. Have you seen Martina Navratilova's comments about trans men in women's sports? I hope it gets some attention.
Yes I am a big fan of Martina and her amazing support for sportswomen.
There is a link with some info about Malone and the products he sells on the back of the covid lie. I'll get back to you.
Interesting what you say about Goodman and Klein. It is truly baffling
Jo
Regenerative farming using farmed animals as substitutes for megafauna is also a big fat lie. It has not been shown to sequester carbon overall, nor improve biodiversity nor soil integrity or fertility. Plants and water do that. Areas where grazing livestock are removed show increase in carbon storage and nutrients in the soil and increases in diversity and of abundance of birds, fish, mammals and insects. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/
Only the minority rich westerners can afford to have dead animals produced in this green washed rural idyll. Currently agriculture uses half of all habitable land, 77% is animal farming and grazing about half of that. If everyone wanted dead animals produced this way the rest of the rainforest would have to go.
Conservation farming of plants produces an abundance of food and maintains biodiversity on only one sixth of the land. So 83% of land currently used for agriculture could be returned at actual rewilding for wild horses, wolves....https://medium.com/@plantbaseddata/the-failed-attempt-to-greenwash-beef-7dfca9d74333
Jo
I'm curious Jo. Have you read Wendell Berry? I do look to people who've been farming for generations, successfully for guidance. Not that age and duration conveys wisdom. But I do believe Berry has done his homework. I'm not immersed in the subject so I'm open to other POV's. But I still believe that overall the net benefit to animal protein in our diet is good for us and sustainable for the planet. I know you and I will never agree on this point. That's OK though. Because we do need to eat less meat in general, so Yay vegans!!
yes we need to eat less dead animals and you may well believe that overall the net benefit of animal protein is good and sustainable for the planet but that is absolutely not what the evidence shows.
🙏🏽
Jo, I know we differ on this subject and probably won't ever agree but I'd like to ask you one more question. One that I asked many times when I was vegan. What do you say to an Inuit in Alaska who subsists on a great deal of fish? Or in any far northern climates where you can not grow vegetables, fruits and grains for most of the year. Yes, I know there's fermentation and dry/cold storage. But that's asking a lot of people who have very little and just struggle to survive. I read an article about how planes fly food into these remote areas. I'm sure it's a lot of canned and processed foods. Not very healthy IMO. And what about the carbon footprint of all this manufacturing resources and fuel to transport? I'd take wild salmon over canned corn any day.
And people who live in dessert areas in Africa? Yes there are root vegetables and some hearty grains. But they also eat a lot of wild animal meat. And I don't think there are many grocery stores in the bush country. So I'm just asking bc I never got a good answer when I went to vegan gatherings or conferences back in the day when I was one. Thanks for entertaining my queries Jo.
People who live in sub Saharan Africa live almost exclusively on sweet potatoes, not wild animals, and are some of the most healthy people in the world. I think you mean desert not dessert areas (the pudding trolley?). No there are no grocery stores, how patronising and disingenuous!
Inuits eat lots of berries, seaweed and plants and yes fish and blubber. I don't see any vegan activists slapping it out of their hands.
One of the reasons people live in poverty and struggle to grow food is due to wars over their resources as well as climate change and ecosystem destruction, dustbowls, droughts, toxic runoff, ocean dead zones caused in a large part by animal ag. If the feed grain was fed to humans directly instead of through animals it could end world hunger; without the paternalistic attitude of sending processed food to poor Africans. They could feed themselves if the west was playing fair.
Jo, I respect your POV. But YOU are being disingenuous now. You say "sub Saharan Africa" to isolate your argument. There are definitely areas of Africa where they eat meat. Wild boar, goat, sheep etc. You can not deny this fact. Are they wrong to eat meat? Would you tell them not to? That would be patronizing in my book. You state that they "are some of the most healthy people in the world." You can not substantiate this statement. There are so many factors that determine "good health". You glide over the Inuit issue by saying " I don't see any vegan activists slapping it out of their hands." So what IS your response? Should they not eat fish? Is it not a healthy diet for them? The grocery store statement I think is very clear. Arctic people do have grocery stores where they can purchase foodstuffs that aren't local. My point was that if they don't eat local (i.e. fish) then they are forced to eat these processed foods. Lastly, Arctic people and Africans have been eating this way for many generations. Long before the first world wrought its damage to the planet. That's a secondary argument to the main issue I raised. Yes we are destroying our ecosystems. But it still doesn't address my queries. Thanks for the dialogue. And BTW, thanks for the spell check. I'll check after I dictate to Siri next time (-:
*One more thing. I think we first world folks ARE being patronizing to poorer people around the world, telling them what they should eat.
"The right wing promotion of theories of genocide of ‘useless eaters’ and control by Jews using fake climate change has resulted in climate denialism, anti-semitism -- there’s a lot of hatred in MFM for Yuval Harai." Uhmm, yeah, as there should be! Pushing the idea of chipping all humans! "Hate" is exactly the proper sentiment. Reacting to evil like that can be of no other kind. And "Klein...has swallowed wholesale the recommendations of the CDC...and thinks they could have gone further by vaccinating the whole world before rich westerners got their 4th booster. She seems to be blind to the evidence." You're being too kind to this woman as she pushes the propaganda as a paid agent appearing on an MS network. Good lord! But my mistake: always thought Klein was Jewish. Guess not. So yeah, "control by Jews" ain't a thing.
YNH is NOT pushing the idea that human should be chipped. He is warning against it for crying out loud. I'm not into hatred for 'evil' people even if he had been saying this, which he wasn't. It's not helpful.
Is YNH Yuval Harari? If so I have heard him push for that. Clearly. He looks forward to a time when people can be tracked in real time and if their dopamine or serotonin drops their chip will ‘level’ them instantly.
“The power to hack human beings can of course be used for good purposes like providing much better healthcare." Direct quote. And the guy is a major spokesperson for the WEF. And you don't hate evil people? The left-wing substitute for religion and metaphysics is this kind of political-based nonjudgmentalism. No moral compass, so everybody gets a pass. I'm out.
Have you read Hate Inc by Matt Taibbi, the media creates and feds off division, racism and hate, it plays right into their hands. People are not good or evil and hating them solves nothing.
Like I said I see the rise of Jew-hating fascism. I'm glad you've gone.
Hate Inc. was a mind shifter for me. I was a Maddow devotee until I read it. That and her positions on Covid vaxxes. "If you get the shot, the virus stops with you" she stated with conviction on her show in 2021. If that woman had ANY shred of decency, she would use her huge platform to apologize. But that will never happen. When you're paid 30 million a year, you 'aint gonna bite the hand that feeds you, handsomely! I don't HATE her. I just ignore her now.
Well it can, people swallow ph meters and all sorts. It is interesting to know what goes on inside. But the rest of the quote is all about how dangerous it is.
Where does it says he speaks for the WEF?
Adios
Are you talking about Yuval? He speaks for the WEF. We must be speaking about two different people.
I mean this guy who promoted his book AT the WEF, not speaking FOR them, where he WARNS the elites and everyone about AI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG6WnMb9Fho&t=3s
I watched a clip of his. He was advocating bio monitoring people to watch their serotonin and dopamine levels and being able to biohack them to stabilize their moods, and how amazing that is! Pure mad scientist talk. After watching I thought ‘this guy is insane’.
Palestine for everyone
coming to a Smart City near you 100%
Yes, this is actually happening and not a theory. Boston has been building for it since about 20 years now. Fourteen cities earmarked in the US and 86 others worldwide. These are key cities, and once they "fall" so will everywhere else, or so they hope.
Fascism is neither left or right. It is government colluding with business to destroy the power of the individual to decide for themselves how they live their life. NGOs and influence peddlers are part of the psyop to destabilize society. It’s all about establishing collective power over our God-given individual rights.
no fascism is definitely a right wing phenomenon. Don't give me a false equivalence between Hitler and Stalin.
"The Left just want to be loved and to be seen as legitimate so they embrace every nut job idea and populist initiative." Perfect!! This sums up the Left in the US for the last 40+ years. It's what brought us Woke culture. But, IMHO it's failing. One great example is the victory of Younkiin in the Virginia governer's race last year. McCauliffe was the clear favorite in a mostly blue state. But his embrace of wokeism in the public schools was a key factor. Fairfax (where I used to live) and Loudon counties, traditionally very blue went for Younkin. The single biggest reason stated by surveys was the school issue. I hope the "left" will see the error of their ways. But I honestly don't think so.
Hi Marc. I'm putting my focus on RFK Jr. Despite his stance on Israel/Palestine, I believe he's a transformational candidate. I hope he runs third party. The D's will rig the primaries to keep him from getting any traction there. I don't know if he can win as an Independent, but at least he'll shake things up. Then maybe in 2028, after another 4 years of Trump, he'll be in a position to win. As crazy as this sounds, I'm not all that scared of Trump. He's a nutcase, but at least he can complete a thought without drifting into LaLa land like Biden. It's going to get bumpy but I'm going to watch with hope and a little bit of humor, for the shit show that will be the next 13 months til Nov. 2024. I worry more about your country though. It seems that you have more problems than us??
Marc, at 65 myself, Id like to believe I have quite a few good cognitive years left. My 87 year old mother-in-law passed away last week. But our last conversation was as cogent as one with a 40 or 50 year old. I was just listening to a discussion between Richard Dawkins and others last year. I don't agree with him on a lot. But he's quiet compelling, even at 83. So age isn't a factor for me. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair at Yalta. So physical prowess isn't a requirement either IMHO. Sorry, I didn't mean to denigrate GB vs. US. Only that bc we've been the hegemonic power around the globe since WW II, we have a little more runway before the shit hits the fan. And it will! But maybe not for a few more years. At this point, I really don't care if it's Biden or Trump, if those are the only options. If it's Biden, then it'll be another Dem in 2028 and we'll just keep treading water. I'd rather hit bottom sooner with another 4 years of the Orange man and hopefully start swimming back to the surface.....maybe. So I'm supporting RFK regardless. I believe he'll surround himself with a lot of smart YOUNG folks too. And I still hold out hope that he can win. Look, Trump won. Whouda thunk it!!