In the essay posted at Human Progess, “What Unifies the Enemies of Civilization?” the authors, Arjun Khemani and Loga Chipkin, present a sweeping critique of various modern ideologies, arguing that they share a common trait: an opposition to the very foundations of Western civilization. The text asserts that movements ranging from radical environmentalism to social justice activism are rooted in a shared disdain for progress, prosperity, and reason—the key pillars upon which modern society rests.
Summary: Anti-merit, authoritarian, collectivist ideas like socialism, environmental extremism, and doomerism are enemies of human progress because they impede innovation, limit personal freedom, and prevent societal growth. Fostering decentralized creativity, by contrast, improves the continued ability of human civilization to advance.
A significant portion of the argument revolves around the rise of what the author terms the “degrowth movement” and its broader ideological allies, such as climate change alarmists and radical egalitarians. These groups are depicted as not merely misguided but as actively working to dismantle the structures that enable human flourishing. The essay paints a picture of these movements as anti-technological, anti-capitalist, and even anti-human in their outlook.
But there is nothing moral about slowing down growth for the planet’s sake or of rebalancing our relationship with nature. Growth is not some abstract thing that greedy capitalists have made a deity of. Growth means more wealth for people in the form of lifesaving and life-enhancing technologies, from shelter to protect us from the violent forces of the Earth to mass food production to bring starvation to an all-time low.
Climate Change Alarmism as an Enemy of Civilization
One of the central villains in this narrative is the environmentalist movement, especially those advocating for extreme measures to combat climate change. The essay suggests that the underlying motivation of climate activists is not merely environmental protection, but rather a more insidious desire to deconstruct the very fabric of modern life. The call for “Net Zero” emissions, for example, is portrayed as a utopian fantasy that disregards the real-world consequences for energy production, economic growth, and human well-being.
And if something like climate change is judged by its effects on people, things have never been better thanks to growth. The Earth doesn’t care about us—but we care about each other. As philosopher Alex Epstein notes, “If you review the world’s leading source of climate disaster data, you will find that it totally contradicts the moral case for eliminating fossil fuels. Climate-related disaster deaths have plummeted by 98 percent over the last century, as CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 420 ppm (parts per million) and temperatures have risen by 1°C.”
In fact, the author highlights that many of the proposed solutions to climate change, such as dismantling industrial economies and abandoning fossil fuels, would lead to catastrophic consequences for human progress. This critique resonates with the broader skeptical stance that climate models are unreliable and that the policies they inspire are far more harmful than the potential risks posed by a changing climate.
The author identifies six key threads that unite these groups: Socialism and centralized institutions, extreme environmentalism, scientism, relativism, dogmatism, and doomerism.
These forces are portrayed as undermining the very fabric of a prosperous and free society, attacking the cornerstones of modern civilization such as individual liberty, economic growth, and rationality. Let’s break down each of these themes in detail.
Socialism and Centralized Institutions
The essay argues that Socialism and its preference for centralized institutions represent one of the most powerful threats to human progress. Socialism, in this context, is not merely an economic system but an ideology that seeks to consolidate power in the hands of a few elites, supposedly in the name of equality or fairness. The author asserts that this is a dangerous development because centralized control inherently stifles innovation, suppresses individual freedoms, and ultimately leads to authoritarianism.
The critique here is rooted in the observation that Socialism often claims to address inequalities but typically does so by curbing the very forces—namely free markets and competition—that have historically lifted billions out of poverty. Socialism, with its disdain for capitalism, naturally aligns with central planning and top-down decision-making, which, the essay warns, can only result in inefficiency and stagnation. The reliance on large, bureaucratic institutions to solve society’s problems contrasts sharply with the spontaneous order created by free markets, and history is rife with examples where such centralization has led to disaster—from the Soviet Union to Venezuela.
The impossibility of socialist-style central planning came to light in 1989, when Boris Yeltsin, then the president of the Soviet Union, visited a grocery store in the United States. Back in Russia, people waited in line for food and other goods, but in the capitalist United States, Yeltsin could buy as much of any of the countless items he wanted, and the lines were nothing like they were back home. In recognition of the stark contrast, Yeltsin told some Russians who were with him that if Russians saw what American supermarkets were like, “there would be a revolution.”
Extreme Environmentalism
Extreme environmentalism, according to the essay, has evolved from a legitimate concern about ecological stewardship into a movement that seeks to roll back human progress in the name of saving the planet. The Net Zero agenda, for instance, is described not merely as impractical but as an existential threat to industrial society. The author sees radical environmentalists as being fundamentally anti-human, in the sense that their policies would lead to massive energy shortages, economic collapse, and the erosion of living standards for billions of people.
You may laugh at those environmentalists who throw paint at art, but they’ve been effective at halting the development of nuclear power, a potential source of abundant energy that we’ve known how to build for decades. We can’t calculate how much suffering could have been ameliorated had we been free to build nuclear power plants across the Earth.
The obsession with reducing carbon emissions at all costs, without regard to technological feasibility or the needs of the developing world, is seen as one of the most dangerous aspects of this movement. The essay suggests that extreme environmentalists view humanity as a blight on the Earth, and their ultimate goal is not to ensure sustainable progress but to reverse industrialization and shrink human activity to a bare minimum. Such a philosophy ignores the benefits that fossil fuels and industrialization have brought, including longer life expectancies, reduced poverty, and increased global wealth.
Scientism
The essay also takes aim at “scientism,” which it distinguishes from science itself. Scientism, as defined here, is the ideological misuse of science to justify policy decisions without regard for the uncertainties or limitations inherent in scientific models. This is particularly evident in the climate change debate, where complex, uncertain models are used to push drastic political agendas. The author warns that this approach transforms science from a tool for understanding the world into a dogma that must not be questioned.
Quite simply, people think that they can take science’s successes and carry them over into every other field of human endeavor. In political and cultural battles, it is often thought that he who knows the most science must be in the right. If only we put the most scientifically minded people in charge of the world, it is thought, then they could solve all our problems from on high.
Scientism conflates the predictive models of scientists with absolute truth, ignoring the fact that these models are based on assumptions that may or may not hold true in the real world. As a result, the author argues, policies based on such models are often overconfident and lead to unintended consequences, especially when they aim to overhaul entire economic systems based on the projections of what might happen decades from now. This reliance on scientism creates a technocratic elite who dictate policies without room for dissent or skepticism, under the guise of “following the science.”
Relativism
Relativism, as discussed in the essay, is the philosophical rejection of objective truth, particularly in the realms of culture, ethics, and knowledge. In its place, relativism promotes the idea that all viewpoints are equally valid, which, according to the author, undermines the foundations of Western civilization that are built on reason, debate, and the search for universal truths.
Relativism might seem open-minded and fair, but it is neither. For it is not open to the possibility that one party is in the right and the other in the wrong. It is not open to the idea that one society is open and dynamic and the other closed and static. It is not open to the notion that one country cherishes life while the other worships death.
This worldview has seeped into educational systems, media, and public discourse, leading to what the author sees as a weakening of societal cohesion. If there are no objective truths—only competing narratives—then the very idea of rational debate or progress becomes meaningless. This erosion of confidence in reason has serious implications, particularly in science and law, where objective standards are essential for maintaining order and advancing knowledge. Relativism, in this view, creates a society that is easily manipulated, as people no longer trust in a shared reality but instead retreat into their own subjective experiences and tribal affiliations.
Dogmatism
Despite the claim by many modern ideologies that they are grounded in open-mindedness or scientific inquiry, the essay argues that dogmatism is rampant in these movements. Whether it’s climate activism, social justice, or radical environmentalism, the author sees a rigid adherence to doctrines that brook no dissent. This dogmatism is presented as a betrayal of the Enlightenment principles upon which Western civilization was built—principles that value skepticism, debate, and the testing of ideas through reasoned discourse.
Because all our ideas contain errors, dogmatism always prevents us from improving on the ideas locked in dogma’s cage. Couple that with the fact that any error, no matter how small, could result in the eventual extinction of the human race, and we have good reason to rid our society of all dogmatic elements.
The rise of cancel culture is cited as an example of this new dogmatism. In the name of combating “misinformation” or “hate speech,” individuals who question prevailing narratives are often silenced, de-platformed, or otherwise marginalized. This stifling of debate is seen as not only intellectually dishonest but dangerous, as it prevents society from correcting its mistakes and refining its ideas through open discussion.
Doomerism
Finally, the essay explores the phenomenon of “doomerism,” or the belief that the world is inevitably headed toward catastrophe—whether through climate change, overpopulation, or resource depletion. Doomerism is described as a nihilistic ideology that robs people of hope and paralyzes them with fear. Instead of focusing on human ingenuity and our proven ability to overcome challenges, doomerists obsess over worst-case scenarios and use these apocalyptic visions to justify radical and often destructive policies.
Another dangerous effect of doomerism is tyranny, whether through cultural taboos, governmental regulations, or outright bans. They all amount to slowing the growth of knowledge and wealth, and of progress more generally. For if the next innovative step marks our doom, then surely a little—or a lot—of tyranny is justified! But innovation is the very panacea that doomers are worried about. It is stasis, not change, that will mark our end.
In particular, climate doomerism is called out for its exaggerated claims about the imminence of planetary collapse. The essay highlights the fact that such predictions have been made for decades without coming to pass—yet each new generation of environmentalists insists that this time the end is near. The danger of doomerism is that it fosters a mindset of helplessness and despair, which in turn justifies authoritarian measures to “save” humanity from itself. This, the author argues, is the real threat: a retreat from the optimism and progress that have defined modern civilization in favor of a future where human freedom and prosperity are sacrificed on the altar of fear.
Conclusion: A Battle for Civilization
In summing up, the essay makes a strong case that these six ideologies—Socialism, extreme environmentalism, scientism, relativism, dogmatism, and doomerism—are united in their opposition to the values that have made Western civilization successful. Each of these movements, in its own way, seeks to dismantle the structures that have allowed humanity to flourish. Whether through economic centralization, the rejection of human progress, or the suppression of free speech, these ideologies pose a direct threat to the continued success of modern society.
The author calls for a defense of the Enlightenment principles of reason, liberty, and progress, warning that if these ideologies are allowed to dominate, they will lead to a future marked by poverty, stagnation, and oppression. The stakes, according to this essay, are nothing less than the survival of civilization itself.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So much for watching MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC. And reading the NYTimes and Washington Post.
If the polling data from the article linked below is any indication, the public’s trust in the mainstream media remains quite low.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-remains-trend-low.aspx
“WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans continue to register record-low trust in the mass media, with 31% expressing a “great deal” or “fair amount” of confidence in the media to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly,” similar to last year’s 32%. Americans’ trust in the media — such as newspapers, television and radio — first fell to 32% in 2016 and did so again last year.
For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express “not very much” confidence.”
****************
So, when the media choose to compromise the ethics and principals of journalism and become compliant mouthpieces for activist movements discussed the head posting here, the can and should expect their credibility to take the hit that the polling data suggests.
If human psychology is any guide here, most people probably do not like hearing that we humans and our civilization are heading down a rat hole. The climate alarmist narrative is probably the most prominent example currently, and the media’s bias and lack of scientific literacy is at the root of it all.
I quit subscribing to all cable, satellite and internet streaming TV services as I grew increasing tired of squandering my money on the media outlets that are a part of most basic subscription packages and most other channels that I never watch.
If CNN and others eventually go under some day, I doubt that many tears will be shed outside of a defunct CNN itself.
The least trusted profession is politicians. It has been for decades if not generations. This fact exposes a big problem and hints at the solution. People electing law makers to lead and create the laws by which they will live, prosper and die, whom they do not trust or respect is a strange, even farcical situation. It is a sad indictment of the quality of democracy the world over.
In an ideal democracy the law makers would be the most trusted and respected members of society. So, think about this the next time you sell your vote to the highest bid from a politician who does not own his mind or conscience and you do not respect and trust. In short you are the problem and the solution.
I posit that the least trusted profession is that of Law & Justice… the Laws that have been “on the books” for decades, are being totally ignored, by Judges who have no knowledge of jurisprudence, only of their personal prejudices.
def. of ‘prejudice’: The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. THAT is NOT “the Law”.
Sure, lawyers have been despised since at least the days of the Pharisees. “First kill all the lawyers”. But there’s a huge overlap between Lawyers and Politicians isn’t there?
But there’s a huge overlap between Lawyers and Politicians isn’t there?
Which is a very large problem.
Interesting formulation “sell your vote to the highest bidder”. Many politicians promise benefits of one kind or another which can only come by stealing from someone else. Guaranteeing your ‘right’ to free this and free that. Your right to free healthcare for example. It’s always to be paid for by ‘The Rich ™ paying their Fair Share’.
Mush-brained socialists never think it through logically. If there were only one person on earth, you could still have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, bearing arms, no-one occupying your house and using your property against your will, no-one searching and seizing your house, person, or personal effects, etc., as guaranteed in the US Constitution. But how could you have a right to free health care, shelter, food, internet access, or any other thing that you yourself cannot or do not produce?
Also let’s ponder the second part of that formulation “from a politician who does not own his mind or conscience”.
Most if not all politicians owe the funding of their campaigns to wealthy donors with interests not held in common with the majority of the public. To the extent that they need others’ money to campaign, they do not have the freedom to espouse any view or propose any policy that is not aligned with the interests of the donors.
Applying these thoughts to the current US presidential race, who promises free stuff and has a history of saying what they’re told to say? Who promises to get government off our backs?
I don’t think I have to answer that explicitly, but there are those who may argue that both candidates promise freebies so neither can be supported, or both owe big donors, look at Elon Musk!
It’s a rare case where the perfect solution is at hand and can be chosen. The system is such that you choose the better of two options and sometimes the lesser of two evils. Not exercising your vote for the least bad choice is tantamount to supporting the worst choice.
As I said, the solution is in the hearts and minds of the voters. I think voting for the lesser evil for the power it offers is a poor choice over voting the greatest good although it may seem to have little power. I think God can easily reach a free mind and conscience but not so much a mind that is owned and controlled by handlers of whatever stripe.
“We need change. Trust me.”
“the public’s trust in the mainstream media remains quite low.”
Yet most apparently still believe what the msm says.
I’m sure this essay will be called a “conspiracy theory” by the people it’s calling out. It is right on and if we allow this ideology to continue it will be proven.
What unifies them?
[Nonsensical] Critical theories and leukophobia.
Thanks for expanding my vocabulary: Leukophobia – The fear of the color white.
Well, phobia from the Greek phobos does mean fear, but in the woke dialect, phobia has morphed into a synonym for hate. Think homophobia, transphobia.
Leukophobia is certainly not an approved woke term. It is a double plus ungood thoughtcrime! Imagine ridiculing upright wokesters by inventing a term for hatred of White ‘people’! Disparaging the appropriate hatred of White ‘people’ (devils) is racist! As such, Strat is manifestly an enemy of The People.
I have wokeaphobia. (the hate version- not fear)
“If you are white, especially if you are a white male, you are racist.”
“White supremeists (aka supremacists)”
I agree with all the dangers he list but he left out “LAW FARE’. The practice of puffing disasters and of scientists running models to position for law suits by anyone using laws structured for the purpose.
Not just climate.
How about criminalization of “mis-gendering?”
LAW FARE is just one of the many tools used by these pernicious philosophies.
We are at war. A world war.
“A never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way.”
— George Reeves Superman intro
Wow. Never ever would that phrase introduce a 2024 remake.
It didn’t even make it to 2024. I don’t remember exactly when, but DC got rid of it several years ago. Superman renounced his US citizenship in favor of a “citizen of the world” or something like that.
All the ism’s combined equal LEFTISM
Add fascism to be complete.
Leftists are a mix of socialists and fascists
Mainly fascists, because the corporations follow orders from Washington so well
If the economy fails with fascism, the government will blame greedy capitalists.
My Rule of Thumb:
Leftists ruin everything they touch, and then blame someone else (Trump, MAGA Republicans, Russians, Big Oil, rural white Americans, etc.)
A worthy post.
Here in the US, we have The Bill of Rights listing the limits of any such Government the article describes.
It’s no wonder some of those in power and in love with power here seek to undermine it at every opportunity!
What government cannot do it outsources
correction (lol): (Re The Bill of Rights) “those in power and in love with power” have undermined it at every opportunity.
‘The author identifies six key threads that unite these groups: Socialism and centralized institutions, extreme environmentalism, scientism, relativism, dogmatism, and doomerism.’
Sad to say this, but my dear old alma mater scores 100% on this checklist. Probably true for most others, as well.
“We got so good at stopping projects that we forgot how to build things in America.” John Podesta
“We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it. George Monbiot
Lots of “we” in those quotes.
“Whether it’s Facebook or Twitter or X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content we lose total control …” (Hillary Clinton).
Who ‘we’ are in that context couldn’t be clearer.
And replace it with what, George? I can’t believe you’ve got a better idea.
Socialism of course. This time it’ll work! Trust us. We have an app for that!
We are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.
The greatest threat to democracy is Donald J. Trump as he wants to bring back the Constitutional Republic and do away with one party (the democrats) rule, aka autocracy.
FWIW, Trump is the only candidate running for office at any level in this country who literally can not be bought.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. This needs wide distribution. All of our problems are due to unworthy people demanding absolute power. To hell with them.
If anyone listened to the “mostly peaceful protesters” in Portland 4 years ago, they were clear about what they wanted – The end to the current version of western civilization, razed down to the ground. To be replaced by something wonderful, to be named and explained after the current system is destroyed.
I think of it as Christianity 2.0. Lots of soothing words and nice phrases, lots of caring, without mentioning any of the difficulties or any unpleasantness when it has been tried before.
They are so close to triumph this time, with VP Harris, that they can really taste it. With her success they will have a wise, beautiful, caring, compassionate, sympathetic woman in the lead, surrounded by a close set of Smart People to advise her, and the help of an outer band of more Smart People in Academia to direct things at the working level. All the ugly rich people will just disappear, along with any signs that they used to exist. No more factories or mines or dams or powerplants or roads or money, no more evil chemicals, everyone with the very best healthcare, for free, and all the food that anyone should ever need (as defined by the Smart People).
There will be artisans to produce, by hand, all the equipment that is truly needed, from natural materials, and a lot of workers out in the field, tilling and harvesting as they sing inspiring songs. And then in the evening they will sit around a small, carefully curated fire and tell one another narratives of how success was won, as they eat their healthy bowls of gruel.
It will be Utopia.
“There will be artisans to produce, by hand, all the equipment that is truly needed, from natural materials, and a lot of workers out in the field, tilling and harvesting…”
____________________________________________________________________________
Pretty much what Pol Pot attempted to do.
Hmmm my search on Charles Rotter’s post for that monster came up empty.
Yeah, someone go harvest me a new iPhone.
This is not a website for the argument but: Christianity 1.0 has a manual describing its vision of the past, present and future. I accept your right to think the book is craziness, but please understand why it was a poor choice for comparison.
“I think of it as Christianity 2.0.”
I wondered how long it would take for a crack at Christianity to come up.
“Christianity 1.0” (The Crusades, The Inquisition, etc.) may fit your description, but “Christianity 0.0” does not. Read Jude and Acts. Preach to good news of Jesus Christ. Nothing about forcing anyone to believe. But, as Jude shows, the leadership became corrupt. Eventually leading to “Christianity 1.0”.
I want the freedom to preach “Christianity 0.0” without fear of Government reprisal.
(But even with Government reprisals at the beginning, it didn’t stop the Gospel of “Christianity 0.0” from spreading.)
It spread because it had the best promise ever- during a period of civilization collapse and immense suffering. No wonder it lasts. Doesn’t make it true- though it might be. There’s believing something because you want it to be true vs. having evidence. I hope it’s true, but I doubt it, being skeptical of all politics, religion and even one of favorite topics, UAPs (despite having seen one).
That “Free Zone” they created was an insurrection by every definition of the word.
I can hear “Swing Low, Sweet Chariot” in your words.
Lots of words there need tighter definitions.
Play a little Devil’s Advocate here. Not long after the population bomb came out there were all sorts of faddish speculations. One calculated the numbers of humans possible if the only limitation was space. Fanciful but put forth to show that growth cannot expand to infinity. Cancer is such an example of uncontrolled growth. There do seem to be examples where capitalism does get out of hand but one might argue that it was not really what was followed. It seems to me that the related academic problem is significantly the increasing loss of due process, the idealist concept of peer review. The size of the structural operation may be one of the problems which leads to centralization and top-down control. I read “The Road to Serfdom” necessarily three times and suspect that we are on such a poorly prepared one. Dinosaurs may be a lousy metaphor but their size led to complications. Governments, universities, and other structurally similar operations may just be too big? The accompanying loss of history also seems to be accelerating.
If I was an activist lawyer type there would seem to be multiple examples to go after where the U. S. Constitution 5th amendment is violated. Let’s assume that something that seems obviously impossible may actually be true, but we don’t know for sure and there are aspects that fall in this particular realm at least to a few of us. “….nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” While this might be argued as a small segment, especially when compared to crimes, it still denies “due process” as a logical method if not a necessity to reach a successful conclusion. It is a simply an extreme failure to do ‘homework.’
While true, the complicated essay is a bit highfallutin for my taste.
I prefer simpler punchy slogan stuff:
Rud, I agree with you about the piece. But there is a phenomenon which is hard to explain or diagnose very simply. Its the gradual passage of technical phlisophical theories into the air we breathe, into the common assumptions underlying everyday discourse.
An example is the use of the expression ‘the wrong side of history’. You find this phrase used by people who have no idea it comes out of Marxist and Hegelian theories of history and the supposed laws of historical progression and evolution via dialectic.
Summarized once by Betrand Russell as the art of drawing a conclusion which does not follow from two false and mutually inconsistent premises.
Another is the way that trans ideologies have migrated into the background. The concept that it is ‘misgendering’ someone if you refer to them as being of their biological sex.
The one being referred to in the piece is epistemological and ethical relativism, which is Post Modernism from the lunatic factory on the Left Bank, but migrated into the common background assumptions of everyday discourse.
‘Climate Change’ is a similar portmanteau word which incorporates a whole mass of erroneous assumptions and theories into everyday usage and thought.
I agree the piece is wordy and too vague and high level, but there is a need for this process and the examples to be explained so people can see what is going on here.
There is a vitally important place for both Rud. The slogans without the explicitly formulated philosophy would be difficult to defend.
Every deluded fool that believes in the “climate crisis” or “social justice” or socialism needs to read this article.
Sadly, if they could be induced to start reading it, they would encounter many red flags where they see so many things that they ‘know’ to be true being contradicted that most would likely stop at the first few sentences.
Not to be defeatist about it, but I don’t think we can persuade others with written text. It is only by interacting with others personally that we can achieve that. We may then use the written word, but just putting it out there will mostly only be preaching to the choir.
Relativism, as practised by those with power and authority in western societies, and their fellow travellers in the mass media, does not – in practice – promote the idea that all viewpoints are equally valid. It chooses which viewpoints to promulgate, and which to demonise and suppress.
The most obvious illustration of this is the overt tolerance, respect, even adulation given to one religion, its tenets and its adherents, while two other religions – closely related to each other – which happen to underpin many of the ideals and morals of western societies, are subject to scorn, derision, harassment and exclusion from discourse and debate. Even from some of the leaders of those religions.
In discussing scientism, I think it’s important to distinguish between “science” and “The Science”. “The Science” which comprises a fixed set of beliefs and assertions whose veracity may not be questioned, has long been an important tool of climatism and alarmism. In the recent pandemic, “The Science” became a powerful weapon used by those in power to suppress independent thought by draconian measures including cancelling professional licenses and destroying careers. The consequences for public health are slowly emerging and they’re not pretty; there appear to have been no consequences (yet) for the perpetrators of those totalitarian atrocities.
“In discussing scientism, I think it’s important to distinguish between “science” and “The Science”.”
“The Science” claims to have proof (of whatever) but never is pushed (or a push allowed) to produce it.
(Cue the video of Fauci saying “I am The Science!”.)
Cue the WEF claiming to “own The Science.”
The first history book I read about the Nazi concentration camps and “The Science” experiments made me want to puke.
My observation is that GLOBALISTS represent the biggest threat to civil living standards.
The Globalism ideology has infected so many western democratic governments and institutions, I can’t really see a way back to where the exclusive interests & wellbeing of the citizens are the main focus and priority of their elected governments.
Globalist government leaders are more concerned about currying favor and receiving accolades from captured, unelected international NGOs like the UN, the WEF, the EU and so many more.
Of course the way they achieve these ends is to shovel vast amounts of taxpayers’ money to ‘special’ foreign projects.
You left out money.
What it all boils down to is: In order to save the planet, we have to kill off all the humans.
Not all, just most. Gore, Mann, Obama and the like get to stay by virtue of their ‘virtue’. Even POL POT only killed anyone educated.
I think he went after the ‘learned’, too.
This attack on modern civilization just shows that it really isn’t about the environment at all. Well, of course, useful idiots will continue to believe that, which is unfortunate. I wonder if those who oppose the use of fossil fuels ever stop to wonder why the US is inundated by so many people coming from countries like Haiti. In other words, why do they want to come here? It would be great if convicted Stop Oil protestors could be sentenced to spending time in Haiti or various poor South American (or African) countries. This would be the next best thing to putting them in a non-existent time machine and sending them back to the 17th century for a while.
They all seem to have a utopian dream of people living simple lives without most modern conveniences. But I can’t imagine that any of them would want to actually live like that (outside of a camping trip which only lasts days). Countries where people are desperately poor are places where nature and the environment is not cared for as it is in wealthy countries. Just imagine if these loons ever get their way and the US became like Haiti. People would be raiding state and national parks for game and firewood just to survive, stripping the land of wildlife and variation. Of course, it would take a lot longer and would mostly happen around urban areas as that is where most people live these days. It would be much worse in the UK, which like Haiti is an island.
When people are driven to desperation, no one cares about endangered species, old growth forests, undeveloped landscapes and natural areas. Instead of pumping this black liquid and associated flammable gas from the ground (and making use of certain radioactive elements) and using that to run society, the hordes of humanity will simply go back to ravaging the land to get what they need to survive. Haiti is just one example. This has been the case wherever large numbers of people are poor and go hungry. And it’s pretty much always the fault of the governments of those destitute places as to why they are that way.
“stripping the land of wildlife and vegetation” – auto correct mistake
Authors Khemani and Chipkin find 6 troublesome movements. Who cares if they identify 5 or 25? It would be much more valuable to write about counter-terrorism, rejecting pussy-footing.
Let us abbreviate the enemy to “greens”. The cause of the problems caused by these 6 groups is lack of intelligence. In the 1950/60 era as we recovered from WWII, a few people of merit made the bulk of decisions in society. They were bright, experienced, practical people compared with the crop of post-2000 decision makers. There are now vastly more decisions being promoted or/and made. The intelligence of some of these control freaks has dropped below average, so we have dumb people trying to control wise people. That equation does not work. What remedy might be fruitful?
The main remedy that I can frame relies on better education of all people. Schools have to raise standards, employing only teachers able to lift standards. We cannot have arts grads teaching physics because of a shortage of physics teachers. This is a decades long remedy that should have little opposition or criticism. What can be done sooner?
Lamentably, my main remedy is negative. We have to ridicule and refute everything green. Green times are over. Greens have had their run and they have given us nothing of value. The many greens I have dealt with have been overall as thick as two short planks. But, they see themselves as the saviours of all society. Bunkum.
So, try not to spend time and effort writing articles that delineate 6 troublesome groups. Invest your time in being critical of this green stupidity. There is abundant green material to laugh into oblivion. Do it.
Geoff S
Nonsense! The science is settled with the plant food meme-
Lost underwater ‘city’ discovered in India could rewrite the history of civilisation (msn.com)
We’re all doomed unless Just Stop Oil Coal and Gas.
My favorite ideology that represents a threat to civilization:
Half the people are below average intelligence.
😳
I don’t think there are six – there is one all-encompassing ideology that these six are aspects of. I don’t have a name for it, other than it is anti-modern civilization.
Anti-humanity.
Within a dialetcial paradigm, which every utopian dream since the 19th c.has existed, is the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. Every cycle of conflict along the dialectical trajectory has a synthesis that establishes a new equilibrium. All the cycles resulting in synthesis along the trajectory are leading to the ultimate synthesis that ends all conflicts and need for a synthesis…that is utopia.
Radical Environmentalism
Cycle A
Thesis: People need enegy and people buy the most cost effective energy available.
Antithesis: People who buy of the most cost effective energy availabe is doom for planet earth.
Conflict: people need and want cheap energy.. These people are are responsible for dooming hte planet.
Sytheisis: People are the problem unless they agree to abandon the most cost effective energy availabe and use more expensive energy to stave off doom and frankly it’s already too late.
Cycle B
Thesis: What doom??
Antithesis: Doom is all around us?
Conflict: due to the doom all around us, it is rigtheous to say you are the problem and to make you pay. People are not yet ready to agree that doom is all around us nor pay for doom that does not exisit.
Synthesis: NONE: Trust the farce and use force, use dogmaticism as the presupposition of all truth, since there is no ground for truth anywhere else, weaponize everything including science and the truth to convince people they are problem and that they have to pay.
The Media, The elite, Oligarchs, Fed. State and local govements telling us how to spend our money negates liberity and free market, which is socialistic to the core.
All this boils down to a new form of non-nationalistic global fascism of artifical/non-free centrally controlled markets, dogamtic and authoritatian rule via weoponizaiton of media and information and potlical levareage..