They really are.
A fascinating article by Mark Musser in American Thinker on one of the pioneers of apocalyptic global warming theory. Turns out – whoulda thunk? – that he was a eugenicist and a Nazi.
One of the primary pioneering theorists on apocalyptic global warming is Gunther Schwab (1902-2006), an Austrian Nazi. In 1958, Schwab wrote a fictional novel built off of Goethe’s(1749-1832) Faustian religious play Dance with the Devil. While a few scientists since the late 1800’s had contemplated the possibility of global warming coming from industrial pollution, Schwab used Goethe’s dramatic approach to convert the theory into an apocalyptic crisis. The book outlines many looming environmental emergencies, including anthropogenic global warming. Guenther Schwab’s very popular novel was an apocalyptic game changer. By the early 1970’s, it had been translated into several languages and had sold over a million copies.
At one point in his novel, Schwab opines on the fragile relationship between oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Assuming the planet has only about 100 years remaining, Schwab frets over the continuing rise of carbon dioxide that “will absorb and hold fast the warmth given out by the earth. This will cause the climate to become milder and the Polar ice will begin to thaw. As a result, there will be a rise in the level of the ocean and whole continents will be flooded.”
You’ll note from that “whoulda thunk?” that I am not altogether surprised by the Nazi connections with the green movement and AGW theory. That’s because, during my research for Watermelons, I discovered how intimately they were bound. The Nazi obsession with “Blut und Boden” (“Blood and Soil”) and the quest for Lebensraum did not die with Hitler in his bunker in 1945: in only slightly changed form they continue to permeate green ideology, in everything from the worship of all things “organic” and the rejection of GM, artificial fertilisers, chemicals (and all the other hideous methods by which we keep the Third World from starving) to the fixation held by so many environmentalists from the Prince of Wales to John Holdren that there simply isn’t enough space on the earth to house and feed us all and that something must be done about population. (The only real difference between the Thirties Nazis and their modern eco counterparts is that they were a bit more honest as to exactly HOW they were going to deal with this population “problem”).
One of the many reasons, I’m fully aware, that I inspire such foaming hatred among the Guardianistas, Independent readers, and young Twitterers with their as-yet-undeveloped frontal lobes and their post-Thatcher “uni” era pretend education in non-subjects like “Climate Science” and “Media Studies” is because they seriously object to my use of the word “Eco-Nazis” and “Eco-Fascists” when talking about the Green movement. But the thing is, see, because I read English at Oxford – in an era when they weren’t giving away degrees free with packets of cornflakes – I was taught to write with a certain rigour and to choose my words carefully.
When I bandy about terms like “Eco-Nazi” and “Eco-Fascist”, I am not using them in the manner of the lazy ad homs I see so frequently directed at me by the ignorant, puerile trolls who lurk below this blog. I do it because they are apt. Furthermore, I generally take care – using a method unfamiliar to trolls called “constructing an argument” – to explain precisely why I am using those terms. Here, for example, are my thoughts from only a few weeks ago on Green MP Caroline Lucas.
There is a distinction here: when left-liberals tend to call someone a “Nazi” or a “fascist” or “Far Right” it tends to mean little more than that they disapprove of them and wish to tarnish their reputation without having to explain what exactly it is they object to. (We saw this technique used, for example, on the BBC’s disgraceful documentary about “Far Right” Dutch MP Geert Wilders the other night: if it had been made by Hamas it could not have been more biased). Those of us at the right/libertarian/conservative end of things tend not to use our terms so lazily. If we call someone a Nazi or a Fascist it’s because we recognise in their ideological leanings they same belief in an all-powerful state, in diminished property rights, in corporatism, in heavy regulation and against liberty and free speech which were prevalent in Thirties Germany and Italy. The Greens would have been right at home there. Especially in the SS: on Himmler’s orders, they ate nothing but “organic food”. Mm. Healthy! And so good for nature!
- Nazis: the gift that goes on giving
- Churchill’s conservatives are, ‘like, total Nazis’, says Dr Goebbels
- Greens, like Nazis, see the entire world through the prism of one big idea: theirs
- ‘Der Krieg ist verloren!’ declares confused, angry, trembly-handed Al Gore in bunker conference call
16 thoughts on “Why do I call them Eco Nazis? Because they ARE Eco Nazis”
Comments are closed.
Global warming is real and all you are is a fucking idiot.
Problem is, nobody in the BBC wants to know the facts. They’re too deep in Orwellian doublethink and eco-eugenics for green fascist pension funds to question NASA climate experts’ lies that have $1,000,000,000 annual funding.
If Dr Werner von Braun were alive today, he’d be rejoicing that NASA are sending liars to the BBC to lie to Sir Paul Nurse in the Horizon TV series! What’s next, are NASA going to start solving the “over-population crisis” using Nazi methods????????
“An engineer from the Thiokol Company, a Mr. [Allan] McDonald, wanted to tell us something. He had come to our meeting on his own, uninvited. Mr. McDonald reported that the Thiokol engineers had come to the conclusion that low temperatures had something to do with the seals problem, and they were very, very worried about it. On the night before the launch, during the flight readiness review, they told NASA the shuttle shouldn’t fly if the temperature was below 53 degrees — the previous lowest temperature — and on that morning it was 29.
“Mr. McDonald said NASA was “appalled” by that statement. The man in charge of the meeting, a Mr. Mulloy [Lawrence Mulloy, manager of the NASA booster rocket program], argued that the evidence was “incomplete” — some flights with erosion and blowby had occurred at higher than 53 degrees — so Thiokol should reconsider its opposition to flying.
“Thiokol reversed itself, but McDonald refused to go along, saying, “If something goes wrong with this flight, I wouldn’t want to stand up in front of a board of inquiry and say that I went ahead and told them to go ahead and fly this thing outside what it was qualified to.”
“That was so astonishing that Mr. Rogers had to ask, “Did I understand you correctly, that you said…,” and he repeated the story. And McDonald says, “Yes, sir.”
“The whole commission was shocked, because this was the first time any of us had heard this story: not only was there a failure in the seals, but there may have been a failure in management, too.”
– Professor Richard P. Feynman, “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”, Bantam Books, London, pp. 101-104
“… it struck me that there were several fishinesses associated with the big cheeses at NASA.
“Every time we talked to higher level managers, they kept saying they didn’t know anything about the problems below them. … this kind of situation was new to me: either the guys at the top didn’t know, in which case they should have known, or they did know, in which case they’re lying to us.
“When we learned that Mr. Mulloy [Lawrence Mulloy, manager of the NASA booster rocket program] had put pressure on Thiokol to launch, we heard time after time that the next level up at NASA knew nothing about it. You’d think Mr. Mulloy would have notified a higher-up during this big discussion, saying something like, “There’s a question as to whether we should fly tomorrow morning, and there’s been some objection by the Thiokol engineers, but we’ve decided to fly anyway — what do you think?” But instead, Mulloy said something like, “All the questions have been resolved.” There seemed to be some reason why guys at the lower level didn’t bring problems up to the next level.”
– Richard P. Feynman, “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”, Bantam Books, London, pp. 158-159
Lawrence Mulloy, manager of the NASA booster rocket program, was the culprit. Howard Berkes was the first to discover the way he deceived everyone and caused the disaster:
“NASA’s Lawrence Mulloy reacted to the resistance this way: “My God, Thiokol. When do you want me to launch? Next April?” That turned the tide of the discussion. The Thiokol managers pressed their engineers to reverse themselves. When that failed, the managers simply overruled them, and submitted their own launch recommendation.
“The next morning, two of the engineers told us, they fully expected Challenger to blow up at launch ignition. One of the engineers silently prayed during the countdown. At liftoff, with no explosion, he began to wonder whether he’d been wrong. The relief didn’t last. Seventy-three seconds into the flight, as the spacecraft began an expected roll, the forces on the solid rocket motors began to pull one of them apart. The cold and stiff o-rings at one joint didn’t flex and seal as designed. Searing hot gasses escaped. In an instant, the sky was filled with smoke and debris. The engineers were filled with grief. And as one later told Zwerdling, “…we all knew exactly what happened.”” – http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5175151
The important thing is that the NASA manager Lawrence Mulloy got away with blowing up the space shuttle, despite having been told that it was too cold to launch. Nobody wanted a criminal case. Groupthink continues to this day because there is no accountability and responsibility. These people behave like Nazis because of the lack of any risk of ever being personally imprisoned. Even if Sir Paul Nurse or the BBC ever admit to getting it wrong, so what? If the defendant can’t pay, you lose your legal costs in suing even if you do prove criminal neglect (Sir Paul will say he “made an error” and “is sorry” like Mulloy, then walk away laughing with nothing lost, and lots of green eco-fascists in the Guardian writing what a great big guy he is to admit to being wrong, as if that repays defrauded taxpayers). Nobody will ever be able to claim back the immense sums of money being squandered on carbon credits by suing Sir Paul Nurse, the BBC, or anybody else behind the lies.
“Ever since writing my TV shows in the Eighties I have been talking to students, teachers and the general public and enthusing about the amazing possibilities for science and technology in the future. But over 30 years I have seen a terrible change in science education. Role models such as Dalton, Faraday and Curie are hardly ever mentioned … Kids are introduced to science as something that is life-threatening and deprived of exploration … They are being brainwashed into believing that science and technology is crippling the Earth and our future when exactly the opposite is true. Science education has been turned upside down by worry merchants and it is already costing us dearly in a widespread lack of understanding – it is ignorance that breeds fear … If we scrapped completely the foolhardy and scientifically unsound chase to reduce carbon, while still aiming for greater efficiency in energy usage, we would have all the money needed to bring the Third World out of poverty, save millions of lives year on year, and create a fairer and far more balanced world …”
– Johnny Ball, “It’s Not the End of the World”, Daily Express, 21 December 2009, p. 13.
There are people like you, on both sides of this debate whot are personalising the issues, and inciting much hated and anger. I had to send a letter of apology to Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Foundation, some months ago, on behalf of Guardian readers, when he was viciously attacked in print by a Guardian journalist. He wrote me a pleasant reply thanking me and went on to say that he was shocked by the journalist’s words and he wished all of us could debate the issues of climate change, in an open but cordial manner. Surely that is the best way forward? He’s a person I can relate to very well, whilst disagreeing with his stance. The same goes for anyone else; I may disagree with their politics and views, but respect them as fellow human beings.
But there are some very nasty people in this debate such as you Mr Delingpole; you seem to thrive on attacking others, in making it personal. I have lost count of the number of times I have been appalled by your words. For instance, you advise people to look at web sites that present pro AGW viewpoints, for, in your words, ‘we need to know who our enemy is.’ Another time you posted a list of people who accepted AGW with then comment, ‘really there are not enough bullets.’
Then another time you published the name and address of a person whom you referred to as an ‘eco boot boy!’ When the person only crime had been to write to his MP, asking his views on climate change:
“Delingpole’s bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man’s telephone number and email address, a photo of his house (”Note all the recycling going on in his front garden”), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of “stalking” and “bullying”.
DelingpoleGate: Monbiot slams anti-science columnist for leading “Telegraph into vicious climate over email”
From The Guardian January 29, 2010
Why do you do this? You will of course use the defence that you have never incited others to acts of criminality, but you know full well that this argument carries no weight; there are many people out there who are easily led and will resort to criminal acts if they are given enough encouragement.
By your content personal attacks on those you disagree with, you are displaying a lack of maturity, a flawed personality and a worrying nature.
Are you going to end this vicious crusade here and now Mr Delinpole? Will you come out in print and say you will no longer personalise the issues around climate change? Please I implore you and all others on this debate both from the right and the left that includes green activists too, the sort who are making Johnny Balls life a hell. We must begin to talk to each other and try to sort this out in civilised ways, before someone e gets killed.
And don’t say that you will only stop when the other side stop
I am also going to write to people on the left too, who use similar language to you.
To people who follow this man, look as I say I have no issue with any of you, unless you resort to personal attacks on those you disagree with. Cannot we work out things on our own and not take notice of those like the Delinpole’s of both sides, who seem to have personal agendas to incite hatreds.
This is a sincere please before someone gets seriously hurt. Already scientists of both persuasions have received death threats.
You have chosen to pick on one phrase “there aren’t enough bullets” – which I used entirely metaphorically, and one unfortunate incident – the orchestrated campaign (not by one individual, but countrywide) to bully local conservative candidates into having the “correct” climate policy – which got out of hand when I inadvertently revealed the address of one man. I subsequently apologised for this and regretted deeply what happened which is why I personally pulled that particular post (and got into trouble for it with my bosses). No one was harmed.
I disagree that there is something wrong per se with using fiery language: if fraud is being committed against the taxpaying citizens of the world – and it is – then we are entitled to be angry about it. I abhor the kind of violence you accuse me of promoting. (In your cowardly way: refusing of course to tell me your real name or who the hell you are). I do not encourage violence. What I do wish to stoke up – and rightly so – is public rage at the taxes, regulations and constraints on our liberty which are being imposed in the name of “saving the planet.” (Which, as I tirelessly explain, they will in no wise do). You have admitted you take the opposite (ie Warmist) view so I don’t expect for a second you will understand this. Nor will you remotely understand the difference between the intimidation and bullying, career-stymying and official lies that “sceptics” face on a daily basis from people on your side of the debate. We are lied to, overtaxed, shat upon in any number of ways by believers in your AGW religion. I do not believe this is a time for meek acceptance and “oh the truth must lie somewhere in the middle ground.” It doesn’t.
And let me tell you furthermore that the dangerous threats and simmering violence lie almost exclusively on your side, not mine. After all, if you believe man is a cancer on the earth, that humans are a disease, that all our achievements are merely an insult to Mother Gaia – and I’m afraid this view is very prevalent in the environmental movement – then you’re hardly going to have much intellectual difficulty about rubbing out someone’s life.
Some of us have faith in humanity. That’s why we oppose the lies of the green movement – at considerable personal cost.
But in the future, such will be their liability to a prison cell (or worse) for the crimes against us of grand larceny, fraud, treason – you name it they done it – that they will, being the sort of desperate criminals they really are – try and resort to drastic measures to save their skins – there will be more fascism than liberalism.
If the good folks are going to win in this situation they need fire in their belly, and they need to call it like it is. Of course, the bad guys don’t like to be called Nazis cos it’s a bit too much like being caught in a sin – like having the fight recognised. I suppose they’d rather win by annexation and politics, and by smearing the Churchills who see the inevitable coming, but who also have faith in the eventual triumph of the truth.
Bert, if I may add a few word? The Nazi analogy is wrong, but not because the Nazis were worse with their eugenics – see my post http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2010/03/lifeboat-analogy-to-civil-defence.html which makes the point that pacifists are actually worse than Nazis because they encouraged the thugs by cutting out all debate.
They censored out Churchill, they pelted his son with stink bombs at the 1933 Oxford Union debate after Hitler became chancellor, and they voted for peace at any price.
Why? Well, it’s secret. Sir Martin Gilbert is official Churchill historian with full easy access to all of the Churchill papers archives, and he is a student of A. J. P. Taylor, who claimed Hitler was just a normal human being who was corrupted by power. Gilbert doesn’t write much about Churchill’s massive failures in the 1930s.
Churchill failed to get his warnings about the Nazis through to the right people with sufficient force in time to avert WWII.
The real reason is that Churchill was polite about the Nazis, and was forced to be polite about them. The British football team politely gave the Nazi salute in the Berlin Olympic stadium in 1938.
Politeness butters no parsnips when the other side are eugenics nutters.
“The great masses of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” – Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1925.
I would point out that Stalin murdered as many as 40 million, plus the Katryn Forest Massacre by the USSR in Poland which the USSR invaded jointly with the Nazis. So numerically, communism was even worse. Then you have Nobel exploiting the Crimean War by selling explosives secretly to both sides to line his pockets, which is now well documented by edited off Wikipedia.
As the example of Anne Frank (typhus, Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, March 1945) showed, starvation and deprivation lead to genocide without gas chambers.
“… in spite of the tremendous scale of the violations it still took the Germans five years, from January 1933 when Hitler came in to around January 1938, before they had an army capable of standing up against the French and the British. At any time during that five-year period if the British and the French had had the will, they probably could have stopped the German rearmament program…. it is an important defect of ‘arms control’ agreements that the punishment or correction of even outright violation is not done automatically … but takes an act of will … one of the most important aspects of the interwar period [was] the enormous and almost uncontrollable impulse toward disarmament … As late as 1934, after Hitler had been in power for almost a year and a half, [British Prime Minister] Ramsey McDonald still continued to urge the French that they should disarm themselves by reducing their army by 50 per cent, and their air force by 75 per cent.
“In effect, MacDonald and his supporters urged one of the least aggressive nations in Europe to disarm itself to a level equal with their potential attackers, the Germans. … Probably as much as any other single group I think that these men of good will can be charged with causing World War II. [Emphasis by Herman Kahn.]”
– Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton University Press, 1960, pp. 390-1
Notice that Kahn correctly blames British exaggeration of Nazi bombing effects. I documented on my blog how Terrence H. O’Brien’s 1955 official UK Civil Series history of Civil Defence is really not focussed on WWII but on the lack of preparations before the war due to exaggerations by liars in the scientific civil service who basically took the worst “sitting duck” casualty data from WWI (before WWI duck and cover advice was handed out in July 1917!!!), then exaggerated the rate that the Nazis could build and drop bombs, ignored all civil defence countermeasures against flying glass, house collapse etc (people were saved under the stairs or under strong tables in nearly 99% of complete demolition, unless their house was wooden and burned down by incendiaries), to get one MILLION immediate casualties per month. (This neglects the predicted lingering mustard gas casualties which could continue for months in cold weather.) It makes Hiroshima and Nagasaki look trivial!
No wonder Chamberlain appeased. Anyone who tried to correct the lies was basically in contravention of the Official Secrets Act, and subjected to abuse like the researchers who made Freedom of Information Act requests. The appeasers in the civil service lied to chamberlain about the effects of weapons and war to prevent appeasement. The media wanted to believe the lies, the public wanted to believe, and the military wanted to get more money for more aircraft, ships and tanks without having to go fight Hitler while they still had a hope in hell of winning (Britain was rearming at a slower rate than Germany, so the relative situation was ever deteriorating, contrary to Chamberlain’s mythology).
“Thus, a people may prefer a free government, but if, from indolence, or carelessness, or cowardice, or want of public spirit, they are unequal to the exertions necessary for preserving it; if they will not fight for it when it is directly attacked; if they can be deluded by the artifices used to cheat them out of it; if by momentary discouragement, or temporary panic, or a fit of enthusiasm for an individual, they can be induced to lay their liberties at the feet even of a great man, or trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their institutions; in all these cases they are more or less unfit for liberty…”
– John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government, 1862.
If the enemy of humanity fights dirty, you sadly have to sometimes respond in kind or it is too late to reverse things. Already AGW propaganda has billion dollar NASA “research” funds which seems to consist of sending Dr Goebbels or Dr Von Braun to lie about carbon emissions on the BBC Horizon program, and to lie that weather models are climate models with stupid propaganda.
Fighting dirty is now the only way.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution (1993).
The common enemy of humanity is not humanity but is fanaticism, defined here by the immoral code: “the ends justify the means”. It is this fanaticism that is used to defend exaggerations and lies for political ends. The 1970s CND/Greenpeace/World Peace Council communism ran out of funds when the USSR went bankrupt, so now it’s moved into capitalism in a big way and is taking the funds that in a recession would be given to kids. Anyone who isn’t angered by the lying, is inhuman.
“Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies.”
Calder also wrote: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.” (Source: Tom Harper, “Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’”, The Daily Telegraph, 11 March 2007)
The AGW editor of New Scientist, Jeremy Webb, is an ex-BBC radio engineer (with BBC green pension funds?), whose methods of achieving “consensus” is to say “why take the risk” (exactly what Dr Goebbel’s notorious Diary said of critics of the holocaust, why take the risk of listening to such nutters?) according to Helene: http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000002D081.htm
Part of the problem is something I’m well familiar with in particle physics. In trying to challenge consensus string theory (Edward Witten’s 1995 unification of 10 dimensional supersymmetry and 11 dimensional supergravity but M-theory, where supersymmetry is a brane or surface upon a 10 dimensional supersymmetry “bulk”), critics are fighting an impossible battle. They can’t replicate the enormous accumulation of peer-reviewed unpredictive abject speculations on string theory, they don’t get funding, and they censored out by “peer” reviewer “experts” who journal editors consider to be string theorists. The string theorists are only interested in extensions to their own foundations, so they recommend censorship (a bit like asking Dr Goebbels to “peer”-review a paper criticising Hitler; at best, it’s a waste of time, while at worse it’s the end of a career altogether).
Once the hardened orthodoxy emerges, even the leader (e.g. Hitler, in our analogy) is unable to change it. Churchill writes that the day he was due to meet Hitler, he mentioned to one of his assistants that he was going to ask Hitler to justify racism to him. Hitler cancelled the meeting. Churchill never got to meet Hitler. It’s the same thing with AGW proponents. They are too scared to stand up to hard questioning. They want 100% control of the media when they present their propaganda.
From 1965-71, popular weekly science news magazine New Scientist had a rival in Britain, the monthly Discovery magazine, edited by Robin Clarke who used the magazine to publish a huge amount of exaggerated weapons effects propaganda, such as articles on biological, chemical and nuclear warfare which omitted any reference to the efficiency of the simplest civil defence countermeasures. (See his books “We All Fall Down” 1968 and “Science of War and Peace” 1971, where he simply uses naive extrapolations of conventional warfares casualties to “predict” WWIII results, ignoring the variability of scenarios, weapons employment, weather effects, military decisions, and civil defence countermeasures, altogether! Exactly the error of war exaggerations propaganda in the 1930s!)
Robin Clarke also edited the 1975 book “Notes for the Future: An alternative history of the past decade”, Thames and Hudson, London, 1975. The blurb on the back cover the orange paperback states:
“This anthology brings together much of the best committed writing of the past ten years – a decade which saw concern for the environment become a political issue, severe criticisms made of the type of science and technology practised in the West, a sense of impending disaster propagated by distinguished industralists such as members of the Club of Rome…”
Uh?? “Distinguished industralists of the Club of Rome”? The stance of Robin Clarke’s book is socialist in the extreme, but when convenient they call industralists “distinguished”. However, the Club of Rome is an unelected, self-appointed quango that is undemocratic, promotes the formation of groupthink consensus by suppressing genuine debate, and is therefore a threat to freedom of speech.
What they did first was the purely fascist eugenics scare mongering of claiming that the world’s population is a threat. Thus humanity is a threat to humanity. This is a “big lie”. It’s exactly the excuse that Dr Goebbels’ Diary records for the holocaust.
“It is a struggle for life and death … No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too, the Fuehrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution …”
– Dr J. Goebbels, Diary, 27 March 1942 (Richard J. Evans, “Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial”, 2002).
Compare to the Club of Rome’s 2nd report, “Mankind At The Turning Point” (1974) which recommended that the world’s population be limited to “less than one billion.” It is basically an update of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” (1925), with hatred of Jews replaced by a hatred of humanity itself:
“In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. According to this master plan diversification among cells is determined by the requirements of the various organs; the size and shape of the organs and, therefore, their growth processes are determined by their function, which in turn depends on the needs of the whole organism. Such a ‘master plan’ is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system.”
“Such an approach must start from and preserve the world’s regional diversity. Paths of development, region-specific rather than based on narrow national interests, must be designed to lead to a sustainable balance between the interdependent world-regions and to global harmony – that is, to mankind’s growth as an “organic entity” from its present barely embryonic state. …
“Cooperation by definition connotes interdependence. Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence.
“Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late…
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
Dr Hass there discusses the alleged risk of a new ice age, with the Antarctic ice shelf sliding into the sea, and states in second-to-last paragraph on page 11:
“… Why should we therefore not replace the present arms race among nations with a common fight against a global opponent? If we actually have to expect the next ice age, we will have won first prize with this change of attitude. Even if the Antarctic ice cap does not show any tendency toward sliding into the ocean, it still will have caused us to utilize huge invested means, presently completely unproductive, for the expansion or the improvement of our common living space. …”
I think this November 1968 statement is pretty important, the argument is that the nuclear arms race should be replaced by a fear that unites humanity towards a common goal. I know that this influenced the Club of Rome 1974 report, because Hass’s 1968 article is discussed on pages 212 of Robin Clarke’s 1971 “Science of War and Peace” (Jonathan Cape, London), which states:
“… We may be on the verge of another ice age. … Even if the threat of the next ice age is not imminent, Dr Hass suggests, we will lose little and gain much by fighting this common enemy. …”
So the original germ of the idea of uniting the people against a “common enemy” (the entire basis of Dr Goebbels propaganda) was first explicitly applied to environmental scare mongering by Dr Hass in 1968. Then it was re-directed against “overpopulation” by the Club of Rome in 1974, and finally against humanity itself. When the ice age failed to appear, global warming took its place…
James is censoring out lying Nazi groupthink anti-humans, just as Janis recommends in his 1972 book about the continuing perversion of democratic debates by dictatorial fascist-type fanaticism ,”Victims of Groupthink” (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston). See also pp. 197-204:
The groupthink syndrome: Review of the major symptoms
In order to test generalization about the conditions that increase the chances of groupthink, we must operationalize the concept of groupthink by describing the symptoms to which it refers. Eight main symptoms run through the case studies of historic fiascoes. Each symptom can be identified by a variety of indicators, derived from historical records, observer’s accounts of conversations, and participants’ memoirs. The eight symptoms of groupthink are:
1. an illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks;
2. collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions;
3. an unquestioned belief in the group’s inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions;
4. stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes;
5. direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group’s stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members;
6. self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member’s inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments;
7. a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgments conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent);
8. the emergence of self-appointed mindguards – members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
When a policy-making group displays most or all of these symptoms, the members perform their collective tasks ineffectively and are likely to fail to attain their collective objectives. Although concurrence-seeking may contribute to maintaining morale after a defeat and to muddling through a crisis when prospects for a successful outcome look bleak, these positive effects are generally outweighed by the poor quality of the group’s decision-making. My assumption is that the more frequently a group displays the symptoms, the worse will be the quality of its decisions. Even when some symptoms are absent, the others may be so pronounced that we can predict all the unfortunate consequences of groupthink.[…]
Psychological functions of the eight symptoms
Concurrence-seeking and the various symptoms of groupthink to which it gives rise can be best understood as a mutual effort among the members of a group to maintain self-esteem, especially when they share responsibility for making vital decisions that pose threats of social disapproval and self-disapproval. The eight symptoms of groupthink form a coherent pattern if viewed in the context of this explanatory hypothesis. The symptoms may function in somewhat different ways to produce the same result.
A shared illusion of invulnerability and shared rationalizations can counteract unnerving feelings of personal inadequacy and pessimism about finding an adequate solution during a crisis. Even during noncrisis periods, whenever the members foresee great gains from taking a socially disapproved or unethical course of action, they seek some way of disregarding the threat of being found out and welcome the optimistic views of the members who argue for the attractive but risky course of action. (4) At such times, as well as during distressing crises, if the threat of failure is salient, the members are likely to convey to each other the attitude that “we needn’t worry, everything will go our way.” By pooling their intellectual resources to develop rationalizations, the members build up each other’s confidence and feel reassured about unfamiliar risks, which, if taken seriously, would be dealt with by applying standard operating procedures to obtain additional information and to carry out careful planning.
The member’s firm belief in the inherent morality of their group and their use of undifferentiated negative stereotypes of opponents enable them to minimize decision conflicts between ethical values and expediency, especially when they are inclined to resort to violence. The shared belief that “we are a wise and good group” inclines them to use group concurrence as a major criterion to judge the morality as well as the efficacy of any policy under discussion. “Since our group’s objectives are good,” the members feel, “any means we decide to use must be good.” This shared assumption helps the members avoid feelings of shame or guilt about decisions that may violate their personal code of ethical behavior. Negative stereotypes of the enemy enhance their sense of moral righteousness as well as their pride in the lofty mission of the in-group.
(4) Campbell, D. T., “Stereotypes and the perception of group differences.” American psychologist, 1967, 22, 817-829.
· · · · · ·
Irving L. Janis (1918-1990) obtained a Ph.D. in Social Psychology from Columbia University. He was a faculty member in the Psychology Department at Yale from 1947 to 1985, and was appointed Adjunct Professor of Psychology Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley in 1986.