Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Naomi Klein has claimed that the reason Americans, British, Australians and Canadians are the world’s leading “climate deniers”, is that we share a “frontier mentality”.
According to Klein;
Klein said the denial of climate science was prevalent in English-speaking countries such as Australia, Canada, the US and the UK because of a “colonial settler mentality”.
“Countries founded on a powerful frontier mentality have this idea of limitless nature than can be endlessly extracted,” she said.
“Climate change is threatening to that because there are limits and you have to respect those limits. Where that frontier narrative is strongest is where denialism is strongest.
“The rest of Europe has a keener sense of boundaries – they’ve lived against the limits of nature for longer.”
For once Naomi has a point. People who reject climate alarmism, in my experience, tend to be people who think for themselves.
What a nasty little turd she is. Unlike the aussies to put up with this kind of crap^.
Note to Naomi: The real reason is we think for ourselves, and are not led around like sheep and lemmings.
She has the Pope’s ear now. He might suggest a stint in a nunnery to toughen her up [in a non Shakespearean way of course working with Gaia in the gardens growing cabbages – in total silence – OMG]
Speaking of the Pope’s ear: https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/pope-francis-call-home-argentinian-guanacos-freezing/
It has been a long time since the UK needed any form of frontier mentality.
Perhaps when the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc visited but I doubt they have much influence over current thought processes.
Oz, the US and Canada have much shorter histories of colonialism, but the UK?
If the use of the UK is for their expansionist efforts you would have to include the Dutch, Spanish, French and Portugese and even Kublai Khan et al if you go back far enough.
I don’t know about that, I’ve done a few pub crawls in Cardiff in my younger years, pretty lawless after 11pm… 🙂
What’s great about Naomi Klein, depending on how you look at it, is how forthright she is about not really caring if AGW is real or not, that it’s useful in order to control people, restrict them and take their stuff in the name of social justice and whatnot.
I suspect she will not be so forthright when advising the Pope.
I can’t speak for the British or Australians but in North America the climate has been cooling for the last 20 years so there is limited or regional warming only. So you would have to be an alarmist and blind to the real weather to claim that significant global warming is happening here . We also have a better internet to get around the government data manipulation here. Europe has escaped the cold North American climate especially the winters .. Criticising the government and its science seems to be frowned up in Europe because of their fractured past and the personal risks one took to challenge the ruling government
I hope you are not including the UK in Europe as a political entity; the UK has a separate history to the mainland and a much more questioning attitude to government.
Well, they DID, anyway. And they might have it again.
Vote UKIP.
Thank God we can think for ourselves! What is Klein proposing we do? Mindlessly accept what the proletariat tells us?
She would have us “…learn to love Big Brother.”
Er, no, it’s not the proletariat, but their would-be Mistress…
It should be obvious to her. Those four countries share intelligence data.
===================
It wasn’t that long ago when catastrophism was thought to be the main driver of geological “change”. It seems the CAGW crowd is simply rediscovering their antediluvian roots. Ah, the comfort of a fixed, immutable dogma in an uncertain world.
Tilt-head forgot New Zealand.
Give her a break, that is likely from spending all that time looking at the leaning tower there abouts.
Yep. it’s five eyes, not four, but why should we waste time trying to enlighten her?
When that happens, we just hitch a ride on our Aussie mate’s coat tails.
So we threw ourselves in the there with the Yanks and the Canucks and the ” Genteel British “.
We like keeping good company.
g
Academic “Ideation” perceives imaginary Hobgoblins.
Climate changes. That is what it does for a living. If it stopped, then we have problems (would probably mean it got lazy on gov’t well-fare program).
I’d reply to this, but I have to go out and clear some more brush and then shore up the half-faced camp before winter gits here.
ElCore: Me too. Have a couple of cords split and stacked with 4 to go to endure a winter’s supply. It snowed in the mountains last week and the last snow was the end of May. That may explain why the population of the U.S. Is ten times the population of the Great White North (Canada).
?dl=0
This is April 1, 2015 and no, it wasn’t an April Fool’s joke. Good thing I like snow:
Actually, I was being facetious.
Why does Naomi List to Starboard in the picture? Can’t anyone take a square on picture anymore? Is this supposed to make her look sexy, a Hag screaming about something no one in their right mind believes matters?
Just another book whore selling a scare. If it wasn’t Climate it would be some third world made up scare. These people can’t face reality. Facing today’s reality and not a far off make up boogy man, takes guts.
How about women’s rights in Muslim Nations? She won’t touch that one, along with all the other liberal loon women of the world, with a ten foot pole. How come??
Leaning left.
Progressives are cowards. They will rail and scream at the democratic nations. But, the Islamist fight back rather than tolerate the squalling. They want what they call “justice” (really totalitarian rule) but they want it on the cheap. Their philosophy is not worth really fighting for to obtain if their adversaries fight back. Then they run to the republics and democracies they hate for protection of their precious.
Careful now, you are slighting an important photographer.
BUT ! if you do tune out his(er) camera tilt, you find that Naomi still does have a head tilt, relative to her shoulders.
And it tilts to the right; no doubt from trying to block any conservative thought from reaching her ears.
Don’t tilt it too far Naomi, or everything will fall out, since there is little in the middle to stop it.
When you google Ms. Klein and look at images all you get is head shots of her. She is a blooming Facebook freak. Ooooooo Look at meeeee! Phony
Actually the worlds leading climate deniers ate countries likw China, Japan, and India. They aren’t denying anything. They have their own scientists which are just as good or better than ours. It’s typical for progressive elites to think they can talk about billions of people as if they know how they think or feel with no evidence of that but their own feelings and ego. Why do these people always feel the need to create victims and oppressors and self appointing themselves the savior without asking the supposed victims beforehand? I don’t understand these type of people. I only know they are horribly misled and completely phony.
My thoughts exactly. China was an empire long before the Brits began expanding. India was already densely populated when Europeans arrived. Perhaps Klein can explain how a “frontier mentality” made these folks climate heretics. Note that native Mandarin and Hindi speakers far outnumber native English speakers (English is actually fourth after Mandarin, Hindi, and Spanish):
http://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm
Her blatant stupidity regarding her own thesis does not reflect well on the warmist camp as a whole. They would do well to excommunicate her.
The UK has a colony settler mentality? I think she made that one up to explain her idea. And she missed Norwegians and New Zealanders.
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/07/country-most-climate-deniers/
Enjoy the link you male, conservative voters who are unconcerned about environmental issues 😉
17%!!! Bulldust – there are more than that. But a win is a win and we love our sport and any other contest so what can I say but
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi !!
Punching above out weight agqin!!
Thankyou folks, thankyou, thankyou.
You know we teally do like to make a contribution to making the world a better place which is why we took part in a number of wars against the forces of darkness and this is just one of the current set.
We would like to thank our founding fathers for our frontier mentality of pragmatism and connection to the earth blah blah blah…..
According to wiki:”Social progressives believe that some historical mores are wrong or dogmatic and that present knowledge gained from science and philosophy has disproved many traditional beliefs.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dangerous-ideas/201002/psychology-progressive-purposes
Social progressives believe they are smarter than you are, your stupidity is harming people, and things must be done their way.
There used to be negative articles on progressivism from the psychological community. Published by people like John Hopkins press:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2710328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
It is pretty clear that if 40% of psychologists were conservative instead of 1:260 more or less the progressive/liberal movement would get excoriated regularly.
http://againstpolitics.com/2011/10/20/the-psychology-of-liberalism/
About 35% of liberal/progressives will do whatever it takes to frustrate the career aspirations of conservatives.
This is how psychology, law, news, much of academia, much of science, and government bureaucracy got hijacked.
Without this hijacking progressivism/liberalism with its relative lack of honesty, ethics, morals and a requirement for deception to advance its agenda would not get good press.
Engineering and business – areas where reality checks your work are relatively immune to being overrun by progressives – which is why progressives use the institutions they have hijacked to make these groups dance to their tune.
The claim of “frontier mentality” and the claimant aren’t accurate or honest but the voices in her field that should be castigating her were silenced quite a while ago.
It is what it is. Social progressism/liberalism is the sort of intolerant inflexible dishonest attitude we wouldn’t tolerate in a 3 year old and shouldn’t tolerate in adults.
It may be that your business doesn’t accept the conclusion of 99.9% of peer-reviewed science papers (jamespowell.org) or 97 % of actively publishing climate researchers (climate.nasa.gov) , but my Fortune 200 corporate employer does, as do most corporations including the large integrated oil companies such as Chevron and Exxon. Furthermore, a growing number of Republican leaders want to see action as well: republicen.org.
This Conservative Republican believes that Rejection of the conclusions of science is an attitude that belongs in the Dark Ages.
“This Conservative Republican believes that Rejection of the conclusions of science is an attitude that belongs in the Dark Ages.”
So you accept that AGW is nothing but a scam then?
What exactly does you company state in terms of this mythical 99%%? If they have a statement it must be public so where is it? I work for a Fortune 50 company and we don’t have one.
@chilemike. Re-read my post. I never said my company stated anything about 99.9% I said they accepted the conclusions of science. I provided a link to the study that showed 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers concluded or supported AGW.
What do your executives think the science concludes?
The conclusions of whose science? ‘Actively publishing’ simply means ‘actively funded’.
https://youtu.be/w4hbKF5-qUE
warrenlb says:
I provided a link to the study that showed 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers concluded or supported AGW.
Misdirection, as usual.
Not many readers here dispute that AGW exists. But that is such a nebulous statement that it is meaningless except as alarmist propaganda.
AGW has never been measured; global warming as a result of human CO2 emissions is far too minuscule to measure. AGW has has never been quantified, out of total warming from all sources including the natural recovery of the planet from the LIA.
I’ll trump warrenlb’s “99.9%” (a phony number anyway) with this: 100.0% of scientists have failed to produce even one testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the degree of AGW, out of all global warming. Thus, AGW is a measurement-free conjecture; an opinion, nothing more.
warrenlb August 18, 2015 at 9:05 am
@chilemike. Re-read my post. I never said my company stated anything about 99.9% I said they accepted the conclusions of science. I provided a link to the study that showed 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers concluded or supported AGW.
What do your executives think the science concludes?
Well, that could be your problem – you are polling your executives rather than asking smart people.
The engineering staff is probably pretty skeptical about global warming.
Anthropogenic forcing is about 1 W/m2 other things and 1 W/m2 GHG. We know the GHG is 1 W/m2 ’cause we measured it. This means all other claimed “AGW” is due to a non-GHG causes and reducing CO2 will have no impact. A quick computation assuming the 3% urban area is asphalt instead of grass (about a 50 w/m2 difference since asphalt has no latent heat loss) gives around 1.6 W/m2 of UHI. So the non-GHG human influences are obviously in the 1 W/m2 or better ball park.
The projected growth in fossil fuel emissions is just crazy and demonstrates complete ignorance of reality and basic economics.
At the end of the day we have
1 W/m2 CGAGW (0.23 °C) CGAGW (computer generated anthropomorphic global warming – also known as “virtual” warming).
1 W/m2 natural influences, mostly solar.
1 W/m2 Non-GHG AGW
1 W/m2 AGW.
It is what it is. 3 W/m2 = 4 W/m2 – 1 W/m2. 0.7 to 0.8°C. As much as government staffs enjoy waterboarding data to make it confess, virtual warming isn’t real. It might be up to 0.5°C warmer in 2100. On the other hand it might not be warmer at all.
Next time ask your technical staff instead of random people from meetings or people whom you bump into in the corridor.
@PA
Sorry old chap, but I was VP of Engineering, not in the executive suite, and my organization understood AGW and carried out programs to reduce GHG emissions. No Engineer, or executive, with an ounce of brains believed that Denier cr**p.
As usual warrenlb has not said anything worthwhile in his last post. He still cannot produce a single measuremewnt quantifying AGW. Not one of his alarmist pals’ predictions has ever happened. And Planet Earth is busy debunking everything he’s been trying to sell us.
He looks like someone trying to convince skeptics that Scientology is the same as science.
And ‘conservative Republican’?? IANAR, but that sounds like Satan quoting Scripture.
Warren – your comment looks like an appeal to authority to me. I can disprove your hypothesis with one example. I was VP of a major consulting engineering company and I don’t buy CAGW and never did. My degree was in pollution and water resources. Most “executives” in my company don’t buy CAGW either but that doesn’t mean we don’t do consulting for people that do. I’ve been retired for 13 years so the culture of my old company may have changed, but if you read here much (and you do), you will know very well that a lot of applied science folks are skeptical as many of us were trained to be … along with training in geology, weather and climate. “It only takes one ..,”
Executives as a general rule care more about PR than they do about facts.
Well, gee, I’m sorry conservative republicans have lost the ability to deal with facts in a clear and rational way and are now making decisions by consensus.
A consensus is an animal with thousands of arms and legs but no brain.
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
1. Only study to measure forcing 22 PPM, 0.2 W/m2. The change since 1900 is 105 PPM. If we divide 0.2 W/m2 by 22 and multiple by 105 we get 0.955 W/m2 or 0.26°C of CO2 forcing since 1900. Since it is logarithmic the change is actually 1.05 W/m2 and 0.28°C but still small potatoes. The claimed forcing of around 3 W/m2 and 0.86°C is fictional.
What global warmers just can’t seem to wrap their heads around is empirical measurement trumps models absolutely. Reality trumps virtual reality every time.
2. 1977 fossil fuel emissions were 5.02 and the CO2 increase exceeded 2 PPM for the first time. Average was a 1.7 PPM/Y CO2 increase. With double the emissions the rate of increase in CO2 should be 3.4 PPM. The IPCC RCP8.5 scenario (written in 2011, updated in 2013) claims 2.6 PPM/Y increase in 2015 and 3.0 PPM/Y in 2020.
The reality is the CO2 increase is going to be about the same as 1977. About 2 PPM. The same as when emissions were 1/2 the level of modern emissions. The record 2.93 PPM/Y occurred 17 years ago before a 50% increase in emissions.
In 2020 assuming CO2 emissions stay under 11.5 GT/Y, the rate of CO2 increase won’t be 3.0 or 3.8, it will be around 2.0 PPM just like it is today. If emissions stay at 10 GT/Y the CO2 increase will be less than 2.0 PPM/Y in 2020 because environmental absorption is steadily increasing.
3. Reserves are 760 GT (76 years at today’s rate of consumption). Only about 50% of reserves are usable. But we will assume new discoveries etc. give us 760 GT to play with. We only have 76 years. If we steadily increase emissions to keep the annual CO2 increase at 2 PPM/Y we run out in about 40 years.
480 PPM is pretty much all the CO2 level can be increased with available fossils fuels. And then we are dry and the CO2 level drops at 8-10 PPM/Y. Talking about ECS is just absurd. 100 years from now the CO2 level will be lower than today. ECS applies to century long times scales and there isn’t a change in hell CO2 will be elevated that long.
4. CO2 benefits. More CO2 has increased plant growth 55% since 1900. That is $1 trillion plus dollars per year just from fish, farm, and forest in benefits to mankind. Plus more CO2 reduces water consumption by plants. Irrigation water is a significant problem and more CO2 may be the only way to stave off water wars. Maintaining elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 will be the difference between starvation or plenty for future populations.
There literally isn’t any harm that could exceed the mass starvation of billions. The global warmers haven’t demonstrated any significant harm from more CO2 at all, they haven’t demonstrated any significant harm from a 2°C temperature increase, and since CO2 which has been measured to cause 0.2 W/m2 of forcing for 22 PPM, isn’t going to cause more than 1 W/m2 of forcing in 2100 under reasonable assumptions so the whole discussion is academic.
There is a case we should be trying to prosecute the global warmers who want to limit our CO2, starve the plants, and leave future populations the choice of dying from thirst or starvation.
@Well gee, it seems you’ve raised the nuttiest point of all time. Of course Science is never ‘done by consensus’, but instead the consensus of scientists about AGW, F=ma, relativity, DNA, Evolution, or Plate Tectonics is reached when their research converges on an understanding of the physical world. By your logic, you’d reject all conclusive findings of modern day science!
warrenlb completely ignores all the facts posted above because he is fixated on the “consensus” argument. He still insists, against all the evidence, that a ‘consensus’ exists supporting the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ (MMGW) narrative.
But we have shown conclusively that the dangerous MMGW “consensus” (for whatever consensus is worth in science; not much) is heavily on the side of skeptics of that debunked claim.
The alarmist clique is mortified by the fact that they cannot get even a few dozen of their scientists to publicly contradict the more than THIRTY THOUSAND scientists and engineers who have refuted the MMGW scare.
There was never a consensus that any dangerous MMGW exists. But the alarmist cult is fixated on that belief. They come up with endless, illogical talking points to argue with, but the fact is:
32,487 vs ≤ 100. Skeptics of dangerous MMGW are the consensus.
Martin Clark August 18, 2015 at 9:26 am
Warrenlb, don’t be fooled by the strawman “dangerous” that dbstealey mentions. The science does not label AGW as “safe” nor does it label it as “dangerous.”
Well… science doesn’t label AGW as safe or unsafe.
However:
The IPCC RCP8.5 (representative concentration pathway) which is the RCP closest to the current situation has 940 PPM in 2100. To get to 940 PPM in 2100 the rate would have average 6.35 PPM/Y and be around
10.7 in 2100.
The emissions history (remember we only have 76 years of fossil fuel at current consumption rates):
1977 average CO2 increase is 1.7 GT/Y with 5 GT/Y of emissions
2015 average CO2 increase is 2.1 GT/Y (this will be the third year at around 2.1 PPM/Y) with about 10 GT/Y of emissions.
2100 average CO2 increase to meet RCP8.5 is 10.7 PPM/Y, the amount of fossil fuel emissions needed to achieve this is ???. And fuel will come from where ??? At what cost ???
Global warmers tell us that renewables are competitive now and will be cheaper in the future. Fossil fuel is getting steadily more expensive as easily accessible deposits are consumed. But global warmers also make these future charts that require several times the current fossil fuel consumption to produce the emissions needed for disastrous warming, despite having “cheaper” renewables available. So the question is: are global warmers lying to us now or are they lying about the future. Or both.
Because of gate keeping, and EPA/NSF bias the most published authors are global warmers. Surveying the most published authors doesn’t give a realistic results. The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency study, which had a biased selection criteria and only a 1/3 participation rate says that only 58% of the majority (95-98%) of climate scientists believe CO2 causes a majority of the warming.
An unbiased survey of climate scientists wouldn’t even turn up a majority for CO2 as the dominant climate influence.
Martin Clark says:
…don’t be fooled by the strawman “dangerous” that dbstealey mentions.
I’ve been waiting for someone to take the bait.
The explicit narrative has always been that an increase in human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming, which will lead to climate catastrophe.
The reason for telling the public that CO2 is dangerous is clear: if scientists admitted what the evidence shows — that there has been no global harm from the rise in CO2 — then there would be no way to scare the public into opening its collective wallets. So they must sound the alarm with the message that human emissions will cause dangerous warming.
Next, as PA says, the rise in CO2 has been beneficial to the biosphere. No one who understands the subject denies that fact. The planet is measurably greening as a direct result of more CO2. So the situation is exactly the opposite of what the alarmist crowd has been predicting. They were simply wrong.
If people like Profs Feynman, Popper, Langmuir, Haldane and other great scientists were here today, they would scoff at the complete absence of the Scientific Method. Scientists on the gov’t payroll completely ignore the process:
As Charles Davis says:
Hypothesis: CO2 will cause runaway warming.
Experiment: Let the CO2 continue to increase 20 years.
Result: No warming.
Conclusion: The hypothesis is incorrect.
A thousand expert opinions, experiments and studies are not enough to prove a hypothesis. But all it takes is one wrong prediction to falsify it.
Most readers here agree that CO2 emissions are the cause of some global warming. But that is not the debate. The debate is clearly about whether human emissions will result in anything dangerous. The real world has given its answer: No.
All available evidence indicates that more CO2 will be a net benefit. The science is never settled, but after fifty years of looking for global harm from CO2 and finding none, the question is settled enough to stop wasting any more taxpayer money on “AGW”. There are far more important things that really do need fixing.
It seems like you have some important considerations here.
There are quite many important figures in your comment.
As I´m a quite lazy guy – do you happen to have a link to a version with references?
Science or Fiction August 19, 2015 at 1:51 pm
It seems like you have some important considerations here.
There are quite many important figures in your comment.
As I´m a quite lazy guy – do you happen to have a link to a version with references?
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/
11 years, 0.2 W/m2, 22 PPM.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/Global_Carbon_Project/Global_Carbon_Budget_2014_v1.1.xlsx
Emissions etc.
3000GT CO2/760 GT Carbon are the commonly quoted figures for fossil fuel reserves (divide by 3.67).
If you look at recovery from reserves it is 50-90% and some of the reserves are off limits/inaccessible (0% recoverable)..
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
1982-2010, 14% more CO2, 11% more plant growth.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The estimates for the 20th century were running about 50% But we know the 1982-2010 trend was 11%.
1982 CO2 – 341
2000 CO2 – 370
2010 CO2 – 390
2015 CO2 – 400
So about 5% of the growth from the study occurred in the 21th century (net 55% increased growth) and if brought up to the current 400 PPM would be about 63%.
CO2 enrichment is a proven fact. The effort to disprove it is irrational cultish behavior.
http://www.hydroponicist.com/pages/images/CO2-graph.gif
Great 🙂 Thanks.
A frontier mentality opened up North America. North America became the food basket of the world. Millions if not billions have been saved by American aid over the years. I think we need more of frontier mentality. Instead of worrying about what might happen or what someone is trying to tell you might happen, you just get on with living and deal with every crisis that arrives. It’s fine to look ahead but impossible to see clearly through the fog of political bull. The frontiers people knew how to survive and didn’t whimper about it as much as today’s “civilized” experts seem to.
Many of most hysterical alarmists come for same countries which is why most of reaction is in these countries. Mann, Lewandovsky, Cook, Klein even.
“Countries founded on a powerful frontier mentality have this idea of limitless nature than can be endlessly extracted”.
She’s making it up as she goes along. Firstly, “nature that can be extracted” makes no sense. She’s talking gibberish. Secondly, in her garbled, confused way, she seems to be referring to the concept of Malthusianism, the idea that we humans are using up resources faster than is sustainable, which really has nothing to do with the CAGW religion which we skeptics/climate realists “deny”.
Bruce Cobb — To borrow a phrase from the left — RIGHT ON! — Eugene WR Gallun
“…she seems to be referring to the concept of Malthusianism”
Or the concept of Eco journalism which provides far more profit.
It’s sad that people of intellect can be convinced to trade their integrity and join a tribe that is perceived to be strong and dominant. Maybe they even try to convince themselves that it is the correct choice.
When it comes to CO2 – humans are actually adding this valuable resource to the natural cycle.
Klein: “The rest of Europe has a keener sense of boundaries – they’ve lived against the limits of nature for longer.”
And they placed their pioneer spirit into the world of ideas, bringing about The Renaissance.
“The term Renaissance, literally means “rebirth” and is the period in European civilization immediately following the Middle Ages, conventionally held to have been characterized by a surge of interest in classical learning and values. The Renaissance also witnessed the discovery and exploration of new continents, the substitution of the Copernican for the Ptolemaic system of astronomy, the decline of the feudal system and the growth of commerce, and the invention or application of such potentially powerful innovations as paper, printing, the mariner’s compass, and gunpowder. To the scholars and thinkers of the day, however, it was primarily a time of the revival of classical learning and wisdom after a long period of cultural decline and stagnation.”
-R. A. Guisepi
They always have to have their own approved right-on liberal ‘explanation’ for everything don’t they?
Hey, Naomi, maybe it’s simply because the majority of Canadians, Aussies, British and yes, even Yanks, are actually in possession of their critical faculties, have studied the ‘evidence’ for cAGW and having found it utterly wanting have concluded that catastrophic climate change theory is simply an indefensible croc of ****.
What she’s saying is true…
Socialism is a step up for cultures that came from kings…
..and socialism is a step down for cultures that came from independence
+1
And countries lile Cuba or North Korea bave become an inheritable communism.
I don’t know if that is a step up, down or sideways.
It’s simpler than that.
People in “the developing world” aren’t focused on “fixing the climate” (what an absurd statement).
They are focused on wealth transfer.
And people in those countries cited know who’s going to be paying.
Stop feeding this goddamn troll, will you!
A person who has a self-reliant attitude knows that he can assess a set of facts with sufficient competency that he can know how to proceed. This of course frees him from being dependent upon the control and opinion of others. It destroys the ability of the progressive hive-mind to influence his actions, which is why they speak the way the do towards self reliance and personal initiative.
Socialism is far more than just the ideology that society will be more equitable when we all live at the expense of everyone else. It is the smothering ideology that the only opinions that a person should have are those who are the opinions that society as a whole approves of. This is the hive-mind in action. Any thought that didn’t come from the hive-mind diminishes the power of the hive-mind. The socialist world view is that society will be more equitable when we each only think based on what everyone else is thinking. Socialists not only work at stealing all your material assets, they must also try to steal all your spiritual assets as well.