“..in searching for a common enemy to unite us…”

[ed. 6 August 2010 - commentary added]
Two quotes to consider, and then some references, and then my basic comments. Additional points are made at http://kali-yuga.org/?p=1273.

Quote 1. Source: -George Orwell, in 1984
…The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, just to keep people frightened…

Quote 2. Source: - The Club of Rome Report – The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Romeby Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. Page 75.

“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.”
(Note – the wording differs slightly between the 1991 and 1993 editions)

Quote 2 variant: Page 75, Chapter “The Vacuum”

The common enemy of humanity is Man.

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”

Resources:
Those seeking more information on The Club of Rome, should find the following links helpful. There are many other resources, of varying degrees of objectivity (as if Wikipedia was an objective source) but the following should be helpful.

Wikipedia’s entry on The Club of Rome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

-Alexander King, at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_King_(scientist)

-Aurelio_Peccei, at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelio_Peccei

The Club of Rome itself: http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/new_path/

Comments:
And now, my comments – this is simple folks, distance yourself from the emotion of the matter to see clearly:

I agree in spirit with the need for greater environmental stewardship and sustainability – our civilization wastes an incredible amount of energy and materials. This will catch up with us.

However the entire climate change discourse, as a discourse, is a hoax, though one largely believed in by the mass of both sides – those believing in anthropogenic climate change and those rejecting it.

My basic point is this – the idea of a general trend, in anthropogenic Global Warming, as seen in the temperature data collected, could actually, possibly, be correct. It could also be incorrect, but either way it doesn’t matter, because either way we are still dealing with a hoax.

What’s more important to us is the rhetorical use of this theme, anthropogenic Global Warming, or Climate Change, used in the media, and by policy makers. This is actually more important to us than the actual facts. Climate Change discourse fits an Orwellian mold perfectly – it is essentially FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt).

It matters not whether or not there has been an overall increase in measured average global temperatures – as caused by human actions – the anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change hypothesis.

And it matters not whether or not there has been – as some of the Climate Change skeptics, so-called “Global Warming Deniers” assert – an overall decline in average global temperatures, e.g. Global cooling.

It is the discourse itself, on Climate Change, on both the Left and Right, which is stilted in such a way as to be the perfect hoax.

Read that again with care, I said the discourse. A discourse is independent of the facts discoursed. The hoax lies in the discourse itself, there could also be a hoax in the factual situation as well, but let’s focus on one thing at a time.

It matters not whether either phenomenon exists, in the past or present, or has quickened, slowed down, or ceased. The rhetorical and propagandist use of the theme is alone what concerns us.

As my friend Khalid Bey likes to point out, there is one tell tale sign of a perfect hoax – not only non falsifiability, but non verifiability. If data verifying or denying a thesis is kept closed, selectively released, if private discussions are made public regarding proposals to alter such data, “fudging” for any reason whatsoever, this shows that the discourse is only secondarily about science, and primarily about political or ideological agendas, and hence enters into the realm of emotions and rhetoric.

The anthropogenic Global Warming thesis could be factually correct based on the data recovered and yet the whole discourse still simply be a fraud.

This is counter-intuitive, most people are accustomed to thinking of a fraud in either or categories, true or false. Things are not this simple, which no doubt facilitates fraud greatly.

I will explore this theme in more depth shortly, for now just mull over that possibility.

_EOF

Comments

  1. says

    Yes.

    Hence the ellipse ..
    A good point however, this is sloppy of me. And could be construed as intellectually dishonest, though this is not my intent.

    i’ll fix it by adding page numbers. Thank you.

  2. Charlie says

    Thanks for being honest.

    The ellipsis were NOT in your blog, I added them. Your (mis-)quote blatantly spliced together to passages on different pages.

    Let me quote you in full:

    “..It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. New enemies therefore have to be identified. New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.”

    Now, the part starting with “New enemies therefore ..” is in a different chapter from the rest of the quote. But the way you’ve placed the two sentences together gives the impression that one thought follows from the other. In point of fact the two sentences are completely unrelated.

    Can you offer a reason as to how and why you sliced these two passages together. It reads awful sinister the way you’ve put it, wouldn’t you agree?

  3. says

    No Charlie, in response to your veiled accusations of sinister intellectual dishonesty, there is nothing sinister about it. It is a result of sloppy cut and pasting from on-line sources of dubious quality.

    This is due mainly to, I honestly admit, laziness. I am not often afflicted with laziness, at times it happens, with all of us. I am sure you have experienced it yourself.

    Since I have both the 1991 and 1993 print editions in hand I simply didn’t bother proof checking what I’d – I admit – cut and pasted from online sources in interest of time. I have read the print versions, the quote stuck out in my memory so when I realized there were online sources of the quote I simply copy/pasted them to avoid the tedium of typing the quote since I had previously typed roughly 15 pages from another book, which I will post later. It should have dawned on me to proof-check things with the two print versions I had in my hand. I did not. And I honestly admit this.

    You will also notice that I excised one quote and tightened up things a bit – I will further tighten things up later adding that quote with original page numbers again.

    On the side I will not delete or edit your comments – something that one who really had a sinister intent or agenda would do, now dontcha think.

    My snarkiness aside you were perfectly in the right to call me out on this, but throwing around accusations of sinister intent is a wee bit rude. That said, you were right, I was in error, I have now corrected this error.

  4. says

    On the side, irony suspended, this leads to another blog that I will post later on the dubious nature of on-line sources and the need to refer to print sources. I recently had to spend a good chunk of time transcribing by hand a couple of chapters of Carrol Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” because the web/html sources of a few quotes from it, and the pdf copy that I checked those web pages against, had all been heavily edited in a way that butchered a good deal of the author’s intended meaning in many places.

    This annoyed me highly because in my vast naivete it never really dawned on me that the wonderland that are on-line sources should be laden with mindfields. There are several other blog articles that I haven’t published over the last few weeks because i found that the sources of many quotes were dubious.

    All of which should have caused me to exercise more discipline with the quotes on this page. I did not, I admit it, and probably should take better care in the future lest such slips make me look excessively like an ass online.

    [snark mode off]

  5. Charlie says

    Well done Camel, you’re an honest bloke.

    I was forwarded that quote from someone who thought it was devastating and demonic and was perhaps even the key to the universe.

    I read the (spliced-together) quote and thought it seemed just a little on the implausible side that a couple of liberal humanists would write something so bizarre sounding. I went to google books and tracked down the passage and, sure enough, the two sentences were spliced together for maximum effect — maximum grist for the paranoid mill. Either sentence read alon is entirely innocuous, even banal (i.e. of course famine and water-shortages are the common enemy of man!)

    Where did you cut-and-paste your quote from? I also found it on an anti-semitic hate-blog called “Under the Radar” and indeed the passage seems relatively ubiquitous.

    thanks for correcting the record.

  6. says

    I found it on several sites actually, the quote is sort of plastered all over the place.

    What caused me to post it was the fact that I had read the book from which the quote came, the original struck me strongly. Since I did read these words, with my own eyes, in the print text, and the second quote in particular “In searching for an enemy..” stuck with me strongly, I really didn’t have a reason to suspect the order of the wording, since the substance stood out in my mind.

    Anyway, again, thank you for the correction. It was needed.

  7. says

    Interesting discussion going on here. What I take from it is that I had never heard about this report before and will now be buying a copy of it to see for myself.
    Nancy

  8. says

    Do read it, you can find it on Amazon.com and at some used bookstores.
    I recommend the first version if possible.

    To really grasp the authors’ intent and worldview it is best to read it twice, once breeze over it, and then a second time read it slowly, with focus, and reflect on each chapter and its themes.

  9. says

    I’m 54, so I remember Julian Simon’s bet against Ehrlich (Club of Rome) in 1980 about future prices of raw materials. The amount was $1,000 of raw materials and the payout would be in 1990. If doomsayers were right, population increases would increase demands of scarce raw materials and prices would increase, Simon would have to pay the difference. If Simon was right, humanity would use its ingenuity, the raw materials would be more abundant and prices lower.
    Population increased in the intervening 10 years. Guess who won the bet. Google it.

  10. says

    Very Interesting, although a little too much ‘pomp and circumstance’ for my pallette!

    Global Warming is indeed a hoax, created to mislead the populus….just my tuppence worth!

  11. says

    The Club of Rome is the central them of Jonathon Frantzens new book Freedom. I didnt know anything about it until i read the book and have bee researching ever since.

  12. says

    I should check the book out, I’m itching for a new good read.
    There is much that’s said of the Club of Rome, much of it lacks substance and is but rumor an innuendo but what is solid and verifiable is very, very, interesting. They are worth knowing more about as they really are movers and shakers, as a set.

  13. says

    But we must admit things that’s happening right now, like natural calamities can be associated with global warming. But whatever the reason maybe, we must all do something about it.

  14. says

    Thanks for commenting, I believe that in order to do something, about anything, we first must actually know what is going on and what is it’s cause.

    To make it clear, my best friend is a physicist – in going over the literature out there and really explaining the science well, he convinced of two things, one that

    -Anthropogenic Global Warming IS a real phenomenon, but it’s drivers, and effects are being grossly simplified in the mdeia almost to the point of outright lies – also real is anthropogenic Global Cooling, and other forms of anthropogenic Climate Change that have nothing to do with *warming* per se, and may be FAR wider than just the “Greenhouse effect” alone.

    -Carbon Dioxide, CO2, is no where near as significant a factor as a driver of real honest human caused Climate Change and/or Global Warming.

    -Multiple other things are going on, including cyclical non-human caused aspects that interact in synergy with the human caused factors.

    -The public discourse is being simplified simply for political and financial reasons. The stance of bodies like the Club of Rome comes to mind here.

    Instead of a sane and rational debate what we see are the so-called anti-science deniers (many of whom are competent scientists) and the so-called rational science positive sustainabilty factions, and it is clear when you really look at it that both being played, honestly, by individuals with massive amounts of money invested in building a financial framework around globally enforced policies that not only will NOT do a lick of good in dealing with real calamities, but may actually facilitate them.

    There is something to Climate Change, but the discourse is simplified for us in a way that prevents us from really seeing deeper what’s going on.

    It’s made into a political football between the progressive and environmentalist left and the conservative right.

    I do not disagree it is a mistake to ignore natural calamities, but what is a mistake is to pretend we know the real causes, and even the serious pro-global warming scientists admit we have no idea what is really going on, and every indication that our fears on these matters are being used for policy purposes in ways that naive apolitical scientists may not fully understand themselves, much less than a general public. The scandals and fraud with carbon trading being an example.

    The first step is to stop making it an article of belief and politics, make it a matter of real science across the board, which means listening to and hearing ALL scientific voices instead of spreading lies about diseinters being Big Oil funded (and the reality is that “big oil” or rather “big energy” has cynically played both sides of the fence) and really look at the evidence from multiple perspectives.

    There IS NO scientific consensus on anthropogenic Climate Change, it’s drivers, it’s effects, and the degree to which various human actions can affect it, and which human actions will affect it. I’ve talked to/corresponded with/met enough actual real scientists on this issue to satisfy my own curiosity,

    The recent climategate scandals (and there were multiple ones) prove that this is not yet being done. That the political game of so-called consensus (and science doesn’t work on building consensus, it works best in breaking an old consensus by exploring aspects of a problem that the consensus view failed to take into account.

    The only thing in which consensus truly matters is politics, and propaganda.

    Again, thanks for commenting.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  2. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  3. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  4. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  5. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  6. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  7. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  8. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  9. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

  10. [...] “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.,” they wrote. [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *