info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Love
Aug 16, 2022, 8:23:24 AM8/16/22
to
Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe
Jordan B Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--QS_UyW2SY
Another good one, and perhaps even more notable
because he is now consciously trying to modify
his tone after listening to feedback from both
friends and foes (something he explains in his
preamble). I think he largely succeeds in doing
that, which is good because sometimes his tone
is so prominent that it risks obscuring his
meanings rather than enhancing them.
The message he delivers centres on Deloitte and its
role in influencing the practices of governments
and others globally with respect to managing their
responses to the so-called "climate emergency").
That's something I personally find refreshing
because after nearly two decades of hearing about
variously named shadowey forces (insert theremin
sound) it's finally getting very direct and
unshadowey. Jordan doesn't limit his discussion to
just Deloitte or the practices he criticises. He
also reiterates his reasons for opposing treating
the climate issue as an "emergency", and for his
general opposition to unwise ideological zeal on
the part of power-wielding elites who, in his
opinion, have grossly insufficient regard for the
suffering that their actions will visit on others,
especially the poor and working classes.
I will always prefer articles read by their writers
to ones presented as mere text. Poetic or lyrical
composition is a very low resolution simulation of
personal presentation. Some people's writing is so
skillful, it's a thing of beauty by itself, but even
in those cases I would like to see and hear a
followup interview with the writer, at least.
Luckily for us, JBP's article is in fact available
in print (if one wishes to get past The Telegraph's
paywall).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/peddlers-environmental-doom-have-shown-true-totalitarian-colours/
--
Love, speaking out of turn
Jordan B Peterson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--QS_UyW2SY
Another good one, and perhaps even more notable
because he is now consciously trying to modify
his tone after listening to feedback from both
friends and foes (something he explains in his
preamble). I think he largely succeeds in doing
that, which is good because sometimes his tone
is so prominent that it risks obscuring his
meanings rather than enhancing them.
The message he delivers centres on Deloitte and its
role in influencing the practices of governments
and others globally with respect to managing their
responses to the so-called "climate emergency").
That's something I personally find refreshing
because after nearly two decades of hearing about
variously named shadowey forces (insert theremin
sound) it's finally getting very direct and
unshadowey. Jordan doesn't limit his discussion to
just Deloitte or the practices he criticises. He
also reiterates his reasons for opposing treating
the climate issue as an "emergency", and for his
general opposition to unwise ideological zeal on
the part of power-wielding elites who, in his
opinion, have grossly insufficient regard for the
suffering that their actions will visit on others,
especially the poor and working classes.
I will always prefer articles read by their writers
to ones presented as mere text. Poetic or lyrical
composition is a very low resolution simulation of
personal presentation. Some people's writing is so
skillful, it's a thing of beauty by itself, but even
in those cases I would like to see and hear a
followup interview with the writer, at least.
Luckily for us, JBP's article is in fact available
in print (if one wishes to get past The Telegraph's
paywall).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/peddlers-environmental-doom-have-shown-true-totalitarian-colours/
--
Love, speaking out of turn
Noah Sombrero
Aug 16, 2022, 10:05:12 AM8/16/22
to
> Poetic or lyrical
>composition is a very low resolution simulation of
>personal presentation. Some people's writing is so
>skillful, it's a thing of beauty by itself, but even
>in those cases I would like to see and hear a
>followup interview with the writer, at least.
>Luckily for us, JBP's article is in fact available
>in print (if one wishes to get past The Telegraph's
>paywall).
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/15/peddlers-environmental-doom-have-shown-true-totalitarian-colours/
--
Noah Sombrero
Ned
Aug 16, 2022, 10:52:29 AM8/16/22
to
that white sectional behind him on the left?
What kind of phone is that sitting on the cute little stool to
his right? Is he an iOS or an android guy?
You realize, I assume, that he is responding to the manufactured
fear and hysteria of the "cabal of centralized globalist utopians"
about climate change by spreading fear and hysteria about
economic collapse that will result from that cabal's policies to
combat climate change?
Are we on the same page that nothing really substantive can
(or will) be done about climate change until there is a massive
unambiguous catastrophe that kills millions of people worldwide?
In a way, a microcosm - I mean a huge microcosm but still
a microcosm - of all our efforts to try to deal with climate
change is the way that China tried to deal with overpopulation.
It failed. They prevented 200 million births over the period of
the "one-child-only" policy, but they are now facing really dire
economic and demographic difficulties as a result of it.
So they abandoned it. Which is exactly what every country that
has signed on to the climate accords will do when those accords
start to actually pinch the lifestyles of voters in those countries.
The reason it is a microcosm is that the problem which China
attempted to deal with is the fundamental engine of the problem
of climate change: Too many people are burning hydrocarbons
on earth today and that total is growing inexorably and
geometrically and will continue to do so for decades! Period.
Disaster, massive worldwide disaster, is the only thing that will
unite enough of the people on earth to actually deal with the problem.
Near the end of his presentation he gave what he called "an
alternative solution, a better way forward"...
1. Obtain true operative consent from those affected.
2. Work WITH them.
3. Help replace dirty energy with clean, but do it on your own dime.
4. Make sure the results are cheap and plentiful.
Now, look around you. Look at your truckers, look at the Trumpies.
Do you think they are going to consent to ANYTHING that costs
them a dime? Do you think China and India can "replace dirty energy
with clean on their own dime" in any conceivable feasible way over
the next few decades? With CHEAP and PLENTIFUL results!!?
In your heart you know that is impossible.
Ned
P.S. Here's our take-away (I think) from it all..
GRAZE WITH THE CATTLE!
Noah Sombrero
Aug 16, 2022, 11:16:17 AM8/16/22
to
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Ned <ned...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Definitely. That is always the way. Put up the stop light after the
traffic accident. That way, at least, politicos can say they are
doing something about problems. Before the catastrophe, people will
always protest, there is no problem. So be it.
> In a way, a microcosm - I mean a huge microcosm but still
>a microcosm - of all our efforts to try to deal with climate
>change is the way that China tried to deal with overpopulation.
>
> It failed. They prevented 200 million births over the period of
>the "one-child-only" policy, but they are now facing really dire
>economic and demographic difficulties as a result of it.
>
> So they abandoned it. Which is exactly what every country that
>has signed on to the climate accords will do when those accords
>start to actually pinch the lifestyles of voters in those countries.
In the us, the killer is any solution that costs people to loose jobs.
It does not help that new tech jobs are not looking for layed off
loggers or miners or oil drillers. It is true, if environmental
action is going to cost jobs, there simply must be a way for those
affected to get a new job at a comparable wage. Not mcdonalds.
> The reason it is a microcosm is that the problem which China
>attempted to deal with is the fundamental engine of the problem
>of climate change: Too many people are burning hydrocarbons
>on earth today and that total is growing inexorably and
>geometrically and will continue to do so for decades! Period.
We know that. Unfortunately, it is another one of those utterly
deniable situations.
> Disaster, massive worldwide disaster, is the only thing that will
>unite enough of the people on earth to actually deal with the problem.
Too late then.
> Near the end of his presentation he gave what he called "an
>alternative solution, a better way forward"...
>
>1. Obtain true operative consent from those affected.
>2. Work WITH them.
>3. Help replace dirty energy with clean, but do it on your own dime.
>4. Make sure the results are cheap and plentiful.
>
> Now, look around you. Look at your truckers, look at the Trumpies.
>Do you think they are going to consent to ANYTHING that costs
>them a dime? Do you think China and India can "replace dirty energy
>with clean on their own dime" in any conceivable feasible way over
>the next few decades? With CHEAP and PLENTIFUL results!!?
>
> In your heart you know that is impossible.
All over me knows.
> Ned
>
>P.S. Here's our take-away (I think) from it all..
>
> GRAZE WITH THE CATTLE!
We were meant to hunter gatherers. As long as we stayed that way
things were cool. You want to go back? Me neither.
--
Noah Sombrero
wrote:
traffic accident. That way, at least, politicos can say they are
doing something about problems. Before the catastrophe, people will
always protest, there is no problem. So be it.
> In a way, a microcosm - I mean a huge microcosm but still
>a microcosm - of all our efforts to try to deal with climate
>change is the way that China tried to deal with overpopulation.
>
> It failed. They prevented 200 million births over the period of
>the "one-child-only" policy, but they are now facing really dire
>economic and demographic difficulties as a result of it.
>
> So they abandoned it. Which is exactly what every country that
>has signed on to the climate accords will do when those accords
>start to actually pinch the lifestyles of voters in those countries.
It does not help that new tech jobs are not looking for layed off
loggers or miners or oil drillers. It is true, if environmental
action is going to cost jobs, there simply must be a way for those
affected to get a new job at a comparable wage. Not mcdonalds.
> The reason it is a microcosm is that the problem which China
>attempted to deal with is the fundamental engine of the problem
>of climate change: Too many people are burning hydrocarbons
>on earth today and that total is growing inexorably and
>geometrically and will continue to do so for decades! Period.
deniable situations.
> Disaster, massive worldwide disaster, is the only thing that will
>unite enough of the people on earth to actually deal with the problem.
> Near the end of his presentation he gave what he called "an
>alternative solution, a better way forward"...
>
>1. Obtain true operative consent from those affected.
>2. Work WITH them.
>3. Help replace dirty energy with clean, but do it on your own dime.
>4. Make sure the results are cheap and plentiful.
>
> Now, look around you. Look at your truckers, look at the Trumpies.
>Do you think they are going to consent to ANYTHING that costs
>them a dime? Do you think China and India can "replace dirty energy
>with clean on their own dime" in any conceivable feasible way over
>the next few decades? With CHEAP and PLENTIFUL results!!?
>
> In your heart you know that is impossible.
> Ned
>
>P.S. Here's our take-away (I think) from it all..
>
> GRAZE WITH THE CATTLE!
things were cool. You want to go back? Me neither.
--
Noah Sombrero
Love
Aug 16, 2022, 1:07:08 PM8/16/22
to
In article <b9a15f9f-811a-4949...@googlegroups.com>, ned...@ix.netcom.com says...
Well, I don't think it's an emergency, so the next
few decades (which really means less than two decades
when lefties are in power) is not a demand I would be
making, or consent to, anyway.
If you haven't been paying attention, the utopian
authoritarians want BIG changes NOW and they think
they have the right combination of circumstances to
force it to happen. They won't be doing without
beef or private jets, and riding bicycles and
eating bugs, if they have their way with the world.
I will be, and so will my grandchildren, but not
them.
Come on, you know in your heart of hearts that's
true.
You're right that a massive event would be what it
would take to motivate a big worldwide response on
a scale that would meet the demands of the utopian
authoritarians. But hold! Oh, my, we just had one,
and we DID make a big worldwide response, but now,
three years in, we don't trust our authority
structures enough for that anymore.
few decades (which really means less than two decades
when lefties are in power) is not a demand I would be
making, or consent to, anyway.
If you haven't been paying attention, the utopian
authoritarians want BIG changes NOW and they think
they have the right combination of circumstances to
force it to happen. They won't be doing without
beef or private jets, and riding bicycles and
eating bugs, if they have their way with the world.
I will be, and so will my grandchildren, but not
them.
Come on, you know in your heart of hearts that's
true.
You're right that a massive event would be what it
would take to motivate a big worldwide response on
a scale that would meet the demands of the utopian
authoritarians. But hold! Oh, my, we just had one,
and we DID make a big worldwide response, but now,
three years in, we don't trust our authority
structures enough for that anymore.
Noah Sombrero
Aug 16, 2022, 2:06:13 PM8/16/22
to
authoritarians. Mostly they are mild mannered geeks banging around
with their test tubes.
The consensus is that changes in progress now will continue for some
time no matter what. But maybe, in a hundred years, the final
conflagration could be avoided. Ferget that though.
>They won't be doing without
>beef or private jets, and riding bicycles and
>eating bugs, if they have their way with the world.
>I will be, and so will my grandchildren, but not
>them.
>
>Come on, you know in your heart of hearts that's
>true.
when times get tough. And a few like Vladomir who stick it out. Let
us not overgeneralize.
>You're right that a massive event would be what it
>would take to motivate a big worldwide response on
>a scale that would meet the demands of the utopian
>authoritarians. But hold! Oh, my, we just had one,
>and we DID make a big worldwide response, but now,
>three years in, we don't trust our authority
>structures enough for that anymore.
around when the cataclysm finally comes.
Besides, like I said, no politico wants to put up a stop light until
after the accident. So ferget it.
--
Noah Sombrero
Ned
Aug 16, 2022, 2:32:26 PM8/16/22
to
to preach the gospel of climate doom. But the whole
'factual' basis of climate disaster has been so elevated
to the level of Scientific Truth that it is a cancelable
offense to deny it.
> You're right that a massive event would be what it
> would take to motivate a big worldwide response on
> a scale that would meet the demands of the utopian
> authoritarians. But hold! Oh, my, we just had one,
> and we DID make a big worldwide response, but now,
> three years in, we don't trust our authority
> structures enough for that anymore.
> --
> Love, speaking out of turn
>
got covid. I really don't know what to say about the vaccines.
Did they protect me? The CDC will say yes because I went
for two and half years without getting it (BUT, in that 2 1/2
year period we knew personally only ONE person who got
it, NONE who were hospitalized and NONE who died of it).
The CDC will also say my mild case of it was proof. (BUT,
I have never seen published numbers comparing death rates
from Omicron in counties with low vaccination rates to death
rates in counties with high vaccination rates - which would
tend to confirm that claim, but I've never seen data that
shows that.)
On the subject of millions of dead (from climate catastrophe),
I think that number may be too small to get world-wide attention.
I think it might require HUNDREDS of millions dead.
Ned
Ned
Aug 16, 2022, 2:42:46 PM8/16/22
to
offense' to deny climate catastrophe. This comment should
probably go under the post earlier today by Julian about the
'Quiet Quitting' generation.
The fact that anybody can (and WILL) be cancelled for
failing to affirm woke ideology or climate disaster says
something about the job structure in America. Most jobs
in America are meaningless and unnecessary.
That fact that anybody, no matter how high in the organization,
can be cancelled immediately shows just how unnecessary
every job position in America has become.
Virtually all jobs have become 'simulacra' of jobs. People
doing them, for the most part, just pretend to do them, with
no real competence, and, obviously, no real necessary
contribution to the organization.
Ned
Wilson
Aug 16, 2022, 5:11:49 PM8/16/22
to
20/10
Love
Aug 18, 2022, 7:20:34 AM8/18/22
to
In article <gu8nfh5d6knui53m3...@4ax.com>, fed...@fea.st says...
My wife and mother are both in the same boat. My
mother seems okay with new (and quite expensive)
hearing aids. My wife has aids too but really
enjoys a little rig I made for her much more.
I acquired a little FM transmitter, and an FM
pocket radio, and hooked the transmitter to the
TV audio output (headphone jack). Now not only
can she adjust the TV volume for herself, she can
place the speaker as close to herself as she wants.
The radio actually has quite good sound. Since
both units use digital tuning, drift has not been
an issue, and finding a band without a strong
competing broadcast station in it has been possible.
I know another woman who has one of those wireless
headphones for the same purpose, but I must say,
having no devices in my ear or otherwise mounted
on my head would be my preference.
mother seems okay with new (and quite expensive)
hearing aids. My wife has aids too but really
enjoys a little rig I made for her much more.
I acquired a little FM transmitter, and an FM
pocket radio, and hooked the transmitter to the
TV audio output (headphone jack). Now not only
can she adjust the TV volume for herself, she can
place the speaker as close to herself as she wants.
The radio actually has quite good sound. Since
both units use digital tuning, drift has not been
an issue, and finding a band without a strong
competing broadcast station in it has been possible.
I know another woman who has one of those wireless
headphones for the same purpose, but I must say,
having no devices in my ear or otherwise mounted
on my head would be my preference.
Noah Sombrero
Aug 18, 2022, 8:41:13 AM8/18/22
to
a tinkle there. The right one is marginal.
I have a hearing aid. It makes sound louder. It is not only a matter
of volume, if enough frequencies are gone, it becomes hard to
understand the words you are hearing. I did wade through it with jp's
ukraine piece a while back. It was worth it.
--
Noah Sombrero
0 new messages