'What I believe'

Answering questions

Seemorerocks

I have received the following letter from a Facebook friend, Stephanie. There was far too much in her letter to answer individually.

Because she raises some good questions, ones that I have had to face and because this may be of interest I have decided to answer her here.

Hi Robin,

We've never spoken or met, I am an avid follower of your blog and a great admirer of your work. I just finished watching the latest 7 videos you posted with Christina Consolo and Leuren Moret, two of the most well-spoken, outspoken critics of the nuclear industry. I have been following Leuren for almost 2 years, especially the interviews she has done with Alfred Webre, where she explicitly talks of a global depopulation agenda, HAARP, and the elite banking cartels of NYC an the City of London who profit from all of this...

That being said, I would like to think she is, as she claims, a 'citizen scientist', independent of corporate affiliation.

Which brings me to my question for you: What do you believe?? There seems to be a very obvious schism between her message and that of other scientist and journalists, namely Michael C Ruppert (through whom I found you!) I just don't know what to believe... I closely follow Mike Ruppert, who I deeply admire, but who repeatedly denies this theory of depopulation and the use of HAARP, instead emphasizing that the spirit of Mother Earth is responsible for all these typhoons, Earthquakes (although he clearly agrees with Guy McPherson in stating that mankind is almost entirely responsible for climate change or climate chaos as he puts it).

I know you are very busy, so I will understand if you don't have time to respond, and I want to thank you for all the time and effort you have dedicated to spreading the news of this horrendous affair. I would ask that perhaps you might suggest to Mike that he take some time (even though I know he's also very busy) to watch some of Leuren's videos, and maybe even invite her onto the Lifeboat Hour. If we can resolve these conflicting ideologies I believe we have a chance to unite our efforts and spread education and wisdom.

Thank you,

Stephanie

Because the original question relates to Christina Consolo and Leuren Moret I have to point out from the outset that my acquaintance with Christine Consolo is strictly limited to the article that appeared on the RT site in August, as well as this series of videos.

The second person, Leuren Moret, is not someone that I am familiar with at all, so I have to judge her strictly on the basis of what she says and the evidence she provides.

The second (and important) point I have to make is that I am not the "avid follower" of anyone - not Michael C Ruppert - not even Guy McPherson. 

They are both people that have won my admiration and respect through the good work they have done to bring their particular areas of expertise to public opinion.

I would like to be able to say that I am not ideologically-driven and my 'beliefs' are purely evidence-based.  But as I have experienced in the last week their is no such thing as objectivity and people are able to come the closest to truth ('as they see it' - I like this qualifier of Chris Hedges, another person for whom I have the greatest admiration) when they are able to bring their subjectivity to the table.

None of the great thinkers and journalists are neutral (much less adhere to a 'consensus').  It is the values-base and the reality  - evidence-based research that they bring to their work that makes them great.

As an example, if you are researching the use of depleted uranium if you think that it is justifiable to kill people in the interests of some policy end you would come to a different conclusions from someone who holds that (in the words of another great journalist, Robert Fisk "war is the failure of the human spirit'.

Examining assumptions

It is important to be aware of, and to keep assessing one's own assumptions, so answering Stephanie's letter has given me a chance to lay out what my conscious assumptions - there may be a whole host of largely unconscious assumptions, linked to my conditioning - my upbringing, my country of birth and life experiences which I am largely unconscious.

The assumptions are the result of my prior conditioning and experiences as well of prior research and knowledge of events.

If I am reasonably open these assumptions should be subject to some evolution as the world around me changes.

The major assumption is based around what for me is a truism.

'Infinite growth is impossible  on a finite planet'

• As a result of our success as a species our numbers have increased to levels which are no longer sustainable, so we are seeing the results of population overshoot and the shortage of resources, such as Peak Oil. 

• The combination of human population overshoot and industrial civilisation has given rise to pollution, destruction of habitat and finally the destruction of species to the extent that we are seeing a mass ('sixth') extinction 

• Anthropogenic climate change has been largely (but not exclusively) caused by unprecedented releases of carbon 'greenhouse' gasses .  The release of greenhouse gasses has been allowed to continue to the point where a whole range of positive feedback mechanisms have been released that constitute trigger points meaning that climate change is irreversible.  This makes the collapse of human, industrial civilisation inevitable, whether through global temperatures to the extent that resultant climate chaos and weather extremes makes agriculture impossible and eventually, the support of life itself, impossible.

• The meltdown at Fukushima as well as numerous problems, accidents and near-accidents at other plants represent a direct threat to life on the planet. If industrial civilisation collapses we are likely to see the simultaneous meltdown of all the world's 400 reactors.

• The powers-that-be are aware of all of this, that the 'game's up'.  The response is to use any manipulation possible to keep the world's Ponzi economy limping along while making a grab for what is left in the way of resources through deep-sea drilling, fracking and exploitation of tar sands in Canada. The use of these expensive and dirty sources of energy are 'frying' the planet, and, far from being proof of the 'incorrectness' of the 'theory' of Peak Oil it is a confirmation that all sources of cheap energy to drive the economy are past peak.

• Aware of the crisis the response is to redistribute what wealth remains and put money and power into the hands of Wall Street and a small minority (the 'one per cent').   To defend this against the majority a 1984-style fascist surveillance state is being introduced where, domestically, the powers of the state are directed against the population, while maintaining the facade of the constitutional republic or parliamentary democracy.    Internationally, there is a global struggle for scarce resources leading to war and  a change in the correlation of power internationally.

Just two years ago, (indeed when I started this blog) I thought the biggest danger was the collapse of the international economy and the challenge was to develop sufficient resilience to transition through 'energy decline' to a post-carbon era.

I have had to modify this assumption and recognise that the future looks far more bleak than that.

It demonstrates that we can never know what is down the road and we can only base our conclusions on the best evidence we have - we are always open to being proven wrong.  

Conspiracy theories

One thing that the post- 9/11 world has taught me is that nothing is as it seems and there is definitely  a reality that we may call 'conspiracy'.  Much of what we get through sources of mass information are largely lies and distraction.

Anything that points away from this 'manufacture of consent' is called 'conspiracy theory'.  That is supposed to be enough in itself to cause disbelief and ridicule.

On the hand, quite plainly there is enough in 'conspiracy theory' that is self- generating and leads to conclusions that are often quite preposterous.

I have noticed that often there is a line of argument which makes connections that are seem to be quite reasonable, but then there is a sudden leap to another idea that has no logical connection to the earlier ideas.  For instance evidence of official involvement in the 9/11 events leads to assumptions about a hidden cabal of Jews or freemasons that want to depopulate the earth.

Some things that interest people - whether it be UFO's or chemtrails, or HAARP - 

I have to say, at best I am agnostic about.

I have been willing to explore these in the past

I have to say though,  now I am increasingly unwilling to be sidetracked.

I have noticed that many of the people for whom these ideas are important also happen to be deniers of climate change and Peak Oil.  While there are obviously things that we can agree on (the nature of the casino economy or 9/11) the non-acceptance of the most important is for me a litmus test.

'Agenda 21' and 'depopulation' 

I have been aware of issues of population and resources since the early 70's, and of climate change since the late 80's.  Even though I can now see a whole lot of denial and self- deception amongst these activists, I rebel viscerally against any attempt to denounce them as part of some dark, NWO attempt to depopulate the world.  

What, when we have depopulated the earth and made it uninhabitable for humans are the elite that remains going to do?  Live in a bubble? Leave for Outer Space? What are they going to eat?  

Believe it or not, they are not actually lizards, but humans just like us, who depend on the same inputs to survive.  

They are likely to  be sheltered from the effects of runaway climate change for a little bit longer than the people of Africa and Asia - but not for long.

independence 

I can't really speak for others - for Mike Ruppert or Guy McPherson, or anyone else

I suspect that as humans our response to the knowledge that as humans we are likely to go the same way as other species that have, as part of their success, overreached and destroyed their own resources - is complex and likely to be a mix of a cold recognition of reality and an emotional response that ranges from denial, to anger, to bargaining, to depression, and finally - acceptance.

I personally wouldn't expect anything else from any human being.

Finally, all I can ask for is that you listen to what people have to say, look at the evidence and reach your own truth as you perceive it.

Following people is often not the best way to go.

When push comes to shove the only person you can rely on fully is yourself.