60th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL

 

Nature rules … Hammurabi schools.

There’s an essay in Quadrant Online, ‘Post-Truth and the Virtues of Reality,’ that appeals to serfs, dealing as it does with real stuff. Its author, David Shteinman is Managing Director of an Australian consulting engineering company specializing in the application of mathematics and statistics to transport, mining and aerospace, so Shteinman is well aware, working with technology involving transformation of matter and systems of matter, that nature’s feedbacks and judgements must necessarily rule.

In his essay David Shteinman observes the destructive force of post-modernism’s attacks on objective truth and empirical facts, the post-truth phenomenon originating in the humanities departments of our universities but now extending far beyond the academy. Before continuing, herewith a definition of post-modernism (with a serf’s added parentheses.)

Post-modernism is the negation of the Western intellectual tradition of Greek Revolution and Enlightenment thinking. # In place of an objective reality, (without which there could be no science and its physical follow-ons,) post-modernists declare that there is no objective reality. Descriptive and explanatory explanations of science and history can never be true. # Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason and logic are valid means of exposing contradictions in statements and tests. Say post-modernists, no they aren’t, they’re subjective constructs, # Our human development of descriptive and critical language refers to and represents a reality outside itself. Po-mos’ say no, they are always subjective discourses of particular communities. (Note post-modernists own dependency on language and argument in making this claim regarding post-modern ‘truth’.) … Relating to which, # It is possible to construct a general theory to explain aspects of the natural or social world, (think-Copernicus or Darwin or Adam Smith, think also ‘testable’ general theories else how can we prefer one grand theory to another?) Not so, say post-modernists, (though they themselves ascribe to a theory of Marx class-war extended to politics of group-resentments based on race or gender.)

So concerning post-modernism post-truth, one of its major causes, Shteinman argues, comes from the growth of virtual environments involving obsessive screen usage, computer gaming, websites, Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social media, which together with academia’s post- modernist bias, have formed a pincer-movement against objective truth and testing of assumptions.

Virtual environments are characterised by an absence of reality tests. ‘Virtuality’ says Shteinman, is by definition a detachment from the world of physical matter,’ judged by number of ‘likes’, re-tweets and on-line opinion, whereas an engineer is judged by the laws of physics, chemistry and materials relevant to his or her design; the engineer’s actions have consequences that can’t be disregarded. As the physicist Richard Feynman said in his review of the 1986 Space Shuttle disaster, ‘For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.’

True grit.

Like the industrial chemist Primo Levi, whose writings Shteinman discusses in his Quadrant essay, Shteinman thinks there is a real philosophical effect, an ethical and epistemological dimension to work, when you are forced to regularly measure yourself against matter and its laws.

Working with matter forces you to be a thorough-going empiricist. When you work in technical professions or trades, there are objective demands which, by daily repetition become habitual in the practitioner so that their effects become ingrained as character. Measurable reality-testing operates. The bridge does or doesn’t fall down, the brick wall is straight or it isn’t, the farmer’s crop thrives or it does not. Shteinman’s own experience covers mathematical modelling of traffic flow and satellite navigation for improvements in existing processes, which involves testing. All models in industry have to include empirical data, data derived externally from the model, and these models are compared to results in reality. Modelling in engineering is still tested and validated via the indifferent medium of physical matter.

Working in technical professions and trades, Shteinman says, also makes you averse to abstract generalisations that cannot be tested. It steers you to precise meanings in language as used in their intended setting. ‘One cannot ‘play’with the meanings of words on a construction site or in a chemical plant.’

Shteinman describes how Primo Levi, in his book ‘The Periodic Table’ recounting some of his experiences as a Jewish prisoner in Auschwitz, reflects on his life as an industrial chemist and how his work was an antidote to the unproved affirmations and imperatives of fascist dogma. Below are two passages from his chapter on ‘Iron.’

In the first passage Levi describes the chemical battles of his autobiographical self when he and his fellow students take a course in Qualitative Analysis, a confrontation that took place at the same time as Nazi victories were occurring around Europe and the Fascists in Italy were becoming increasingly repressive.

‘One way or another, here the relationship with Matter changed, became dialectical: it was fencing, a face-to-face match. Two unequal opponents: on one side, putting the questions, the unfledged, unarmed chemist…on the other side, responding with enigmas, stood Matter.’

In the second passage Primo Levi recounts an exchange with a fellow student about their engagement with matter in the context of what is going on around them.

‘Was he not filled with disgust at all the dogmas, all the unproved affirmations, all the imperatives? He did feel it; so then how could he not feel a new dignity and majesty in our study, how could he ignore the fact that the chemistry and physics on which we fed, besides being in themselves nourishments vital in themselves, were the antidote to fascism which he and I were seeking, because they were clear and distinct and verifiable at every step, and not a tissue of lies and emptiness, like the radio and newspapers.’…

Primo Levi and David Shteinman extoll the benefits of working with matter that is testable to nature’s feedbacks, in contrast to the dangers inherent in the fuzzy constructs of reality coming from the humanities departments of academia. Unlike engineering models that are subject to universal laws, academic modelling of the economic, political and social behaviour of unpredictable human beings, encompassing human interactivity, human anticipations and strategies involving feedback, is just propagating uncertainty as certainty.

Git real !

Two writers, Nassim Taleb and Thomas Sowell, are highly critical of intellectuals as purveyors of dreams and utopia-building and as formulators of national Five Year and Ten Year Plans, all entailing flawed predictions based on fuzzy criteria and having wilful disregard for consequences.

Nassim Taleb has written two books regarding the complacency and lack of accountability of inhabitants of academia whom he labels ‘Platonists,’ a school of intellectuals who mistake their theories, formulated in the sheltered world of academia, for descriptions of reality.

They think they can predict, observes Nassim Taleb in his book ‘The Black Swan,’ but they’re subject to the narrative fallacy of over simplification and our predilection for compact stories over complexities. And, says Taleb, they are blind with respect to those outliers and ‘unknown unknowns’ people can’t predict, that Taleb calls ‘Black Swan Events.’ Black Swan Events are unforeseen occurrences that happen even amid nature’s regularities, the rogue wave, the rogue meteor impact or complex interaction of atmospheric and ocean systems that prevent us from foretelling Earth’s weather events ten days out. Black Swans are the never envisaged impacts of innovation, from the inventions of the wheel to the internet, they are the unforeseen effects of human interactivity, such as length of engagement in world wars or those invisible hands clapping in the market place.

The world is more complicated than we think. People are not good at predicting and it seems that Platonist theorists come out the worst. In The Black Swan, Taleb cites a study by Philip Tetlock* testing the predictions of a large group of ‘experts’ and non -experts regarding future political and economic occurences within a specified frame time. The study found that the ‘experts’ error rates were many times higher than the experts themselves estimated. 😊  And not only that, the study showed that those with the highest reputations were worse predictors than the non-experts. (Say, intellectuals must really, really not care much for Philip Tetlock. Bet they’d be happy to banish him to one of those deserted islands you read about in literature, or to a gulag, maybe.)

So to continue. Philip Tetlock then decided to dig further into the mechanisms by which his subjects generated post-hoc explanations, Explanations they came up with involved not blaming their own skills but telling themselves that they were playing a different game, for example, ‘Social scientists failed to predict the Cold War collapse of the Soviet Union because crucial economic information had been withheld by the Russians.’ Another excuse involved invoking the outlier, the situation was to blame, ‘No one could have predicted this…’

*Ref: P Tetlock. 1999 ‘Theory- Driven Reasoning about Plausible Pasts and Probable Futures in World Politics.’ American Journal of Political Science 43(2) p335-366.

Taleb finds this habit of focus on a narrow game and linking performance to a given script is a common flaw of nerdy behaviour and in his second book, ‘Anti-fragile,’ he argues that one of the encouragements to this behaviour is that they usually do not have to pay a price for making flawed predictions.

In Chapter 10, ‘Skin in the Game,’ relating to complex modernity, Taleb sees an increasing problem of privilege without obligation, whereby intellectuals and makers of policy in large bureaucracies and corporations, protected by ‘modernity’s connectivity’ and ‘new found invisibility of causal changes,’ may cause harm to others without, themselves, being exposed to risk.

Taleb presents a Triad Table of decision makers in society, the first group, those with no skin in the game who receive benefits without risk to themselves, a second category, those with skin in the game, responsible for their own actions, – and a third category, those who take harm for the sake of others – the heroic, who may or may not be misguided. In the first category Taleb includes theoreticians in academia, bureaucrats and politicians, consultants, corporate executives, bankers and journalists who make predictions. In the second category he lists citizens, lab experimenters, authors, small business men, merchants and speculators. In the third category are knights, soldiers, maverick scientists, artists, innovators and investigative journalists.

Taleb sees a growing trend of ‘experts’ transferring fragility to others and he would welcome addressing asymmetries of risk, enforcing ‘skin in the game, as in the ancient Code of Hammurabi.  He calls the phenomenon of causing harmful action without accountability the Stiglitz Syndrome after Joseph Stiglitz, who without ‘skin in the game,’ made a public assessment regarding the government-sponsored mortgage association, Fanny Mae, that the risk to the government from a potential deficit in GSE debt was effectively zero, Says Taleb, had Joseph Stiglitz been obliged to invest his own funds in Fanny Mae he might have been more critical And while the collapse of Fanny Mae cost the taxpayers billions of dollars, Joseph Stiglitz, with selective amnesia went on to publish a ‘told ya’ so ‘ book post Fanny Mae’s demise. Academics seem not designed to recall their failed predictions. Think Paul Ehrlich.

Grand mastery of all we survey.

Thomas Sowell in his book ‘Intellectuals and Society’ agrees with Nassim Taleb on the growing influence of intellectuals in modern affluent societies, and their disastrous record in predicting and managing society’s ills. Intellectuals, creators of ideas divorced from the feedback restraints of working with matter, are prone to error, though they seem unaware of the fact that the easiest persons to fool may well be themselves.

Thomas Sowell, like Nassim Taleb, examines intellectuals’ track record in the policies they prescribe and also analyses the incentives and constraints that have influenced their views and visions for society’s ills. While intellectuals are skilled in manipulating symbols and creating conceptual systems their abstract creations are too often at variance with reality. Not much kudos in reformulating the hard won wisdom of experience, more kudos in donning the mantle of superior insight and adopting the high moral ground.

Unfortunately, the flawed policies they promote, top-down macro and micro interventions in the economy, pacifism and uni-lateral disarmament in international relations, moral relativism and social justice activism to create socialist utopias, have shown that intellect and wisdom are not synonymous. Thomas Sowell cites a number of examples of failed policies of intellectuals that he calls ‘visions of the anointed’ as compared to ‘the tragic vision,’ one vision, ‘the tragic vision’ an emphasis on nature, recognising the flaws of human beings…power’s corruptive, easiest person to fool, etcetera, therefore build institutions resistant to power, – the other vision’, ‘vision of the anointed,’ the emphasis is on nurture, the person as construct, utopian idealism the go, at its most visionary, your Platonist, your guru or philosopher king who has the answers to everything.

For example, F.D. Roosevelt’s interventionism in the Great Depression, that exacerbated unemployment. Before this intervention, following the stock market crash, US unemployment had peaked at 9% but had already fallen to 6.3% when Roosevelt intervened with his ‘New Deal’ in June, 1930. Six months on, unemployment rose to double digits, later to reach 25%, and never came down for the rest of the decade.

Another example of intellectuals’ getting it wrong: in the 1920’s and 1930’s intellectuals promoted pacifism and disarmament campaigns that played a major role in creating the military weakness and political irresolution within the democratic nations, which made a war against these nations appear more winnable to the leaders of the Axis dictatorship. The intelligentsia in Britain and France were reluctant to recognise the essential threat that Hitler presented. While Germany was already rearming, they were making rearming in their own nation political poison. They portrayed Adolf Hitler as a reasonable leader, instead Hitler exploited the moral disarmament campaign, violating international treaties, remilitarizing the Rhineland and annexing Czechoslavakia. An opportunist, Hitler tailored his aims to what he thought he could get away with. On the eve of marching in Poland, addressing the leaders of his armed forces, he predicted that Britain and France would not help Poland.

One of the problems Sowell sees with intellectuals is their hubris in thinking their competency extends beyond their own range of experience. Being an expert in Mayan Culture or Linguistics does not equip you with the consequential knowledge to survey society and provide solutions to the problems of the rest of us. Sowell offers examples of central planning failures and of Harvard initiated activist programs that exacerbated unemployment in the black community, citing actual data ignored by those promoting the activist policies. Sowell observes that the fancier the schooling, that being in the gifted student program and told how cool they are, the more they seem to think that nothing’s beyond their ken. This cleverness makes up for lack of experience. They advocate rule by the 1% over the 99%. Say, do they not pause to consider that no one individual or class can even possess a fraction of the social knowledge that is dispersed throughout society? Nope!

The Virtue of the Anointed,

With regard to virtue, ‘renouncing war,’ ‘ending poverty,’ Obama: ‘We are the change we are waiting for,’ there’s exultation in solving humanity’s problems, it gives you a role, even if it turns out that you’re exacerbating problems. You can renounce war, but others may not, you can create social engineering programs but they are likely to lead to unforeseeable problems …so it’s important, if you are an intellectual, that you don’t – do – checks.

Thomas Sowell observes that Intellectuals have very little interest in testing. Not only do they not have to face the consequences of their claims but there’s no payment in finding errors. The reputation of an intellectual depends on your being seen as the expert, why would you examine the data? Better to use your considerable language skills to support your case. Rhetoric good, empirical data bad.

…

A serf’s view regarding all of the above. Look, I enjoy a good story as much as the next serf, but when it comes down to ‘did Alice really have adventures in Wonderland or venture behind the looking glass, well! …What appeal to serfs are the dramas of the old Greek tragedies where despite those deux ex machina gods and goddesses getting in the way, you had your actor with the Achilles heel, usually hubris, taking liberties with Nature and wham, bam, you suffered the consequences.

Now these intellectuals of Nassim Taleb’s first triad, it’s all very well they’re creating their narratives and making themselves the leading protagonists, but I ask you, why do I have to be party to their virtual realities, when really, (in reality that is,) a serf’s well-being, sometimes the whole chorus’ and cast’s well-being, sometimes our very lives, depend on functioning well pertaining to fight and flight stage directions in NATURE’S DRAMA, which happens to be fact and not fiction.

The Mock Turtle’s lessons: ‘Reeling and Writhing, of course, to begin with, and then the different branches of Arithmetic – Ambition, Distraction, Uglification and Derision.’(‘Alice in Wonderland.’ Lewis Carroll.)

Advertisements

59th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL



The Will to Deceive and the Will to Believe…
Do not become embroiled in the matador’s red cape…

Pertaining to which, Aristotle’s Law of Identity: A thing is what it is and not some other thing, no way! Law of Non-Contradiction: A statement is either true or it is false, that’s it! Aristotle’s Law of the Excluded Middle: ‘Is or is not’, likewise ‘that’s it’, don’t mess with maybe-there-be-some-mysterious-mister-in-between.





And regarding the above, the will to deceive, ‘to conspire or not to conspire?’ Well we know the answer to that question. Like our chimpanzee cousins before us, we’re into game play, leadership alliances and plotting. Our language has multiple words describing it, ‘cabal,’ ‘clique, ‘coterie’ and on a grand scale, ‘conspiracy,’ one of the most broadly prosecuted crimes, ‘the conspiracy to’ … Dictionary definition of conspiracy, ‘Combine secretly for unlawful purposes.’

Further to the will to believe, as associative learners, we’re wired to quick fight and flight responses, that rustling in the jungle requires immediate response. But hey, with the development of our human frontal cortex, our evolved critical language and ability to make conscious reasoned decisions, we can do better …but it takes effort.

An illustration from literature, Shakespeare’s drama ‘The Tempest,’ papery whispers of fictional characters, not to be taken seriously you might say. Not so, it’s written by your Master Shakespeare, keenest observer of human behaviour, subtlest practitioner of the language of persuasion. Herewith, a serf translation of Shakespeare’s play, ‘The Tempest,’ reality or illusion?

All within a play of course, a play
on how we human actors create our
own living dramas that clash with,
or sometimes catch an intimation
of the reality out there, perhaps.
Why the play’s very theme’s ‘deception.’
The very events we witness here on
Prospero’s island – used to be Caliban’s
but now it’s not – we view because of it.

Everyone’s landed on the island because
of a take-over deal between Antonio,
Prospero’s brother, and Sebastian,
brother to the king of Naples, Alonso,
conspirators who robbed Prospero of
his dukedom in Milan, now brought to shore
and judgement by a seeming tempest, dire
spectacle of storm and shipwreck that
Prospero has ordered with his magic.

The play’s the thing, of course, to catch
the conscience of the king and perhaps
of Antonio, planned by that master
magician, Prospero, and ministered
by his airy servant Ariel. Nothing
but transmogrified scenarios from
beginning to end, masques, and music
that sends the actors into dreaming sleeps
like tricksy Ariel’s song to Ferdinand:

Full fathoms five thy father lies …
Nothing of him that doth fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
…
Magic’s in the air and in the language too
that resonates with strange conjunctions
like ‘sea-change’ and ‘sea-swallowing’
and ‘heart-sorrow’ and ‘spell-stopped.’

Not that the actors need much confusing
when you see how easily they deceive themselves.
Do Gonzalo and Antonio describe the same island?
One describes a place ‘advantageous to life,’
the other ‘as ‘twere perfumed by a fen.’
Then there are the case studies of confused identity,
Stephano mistaking Caliban for a moon-calf,
Caliban thinking Stephano fell from heaven,
Miranda seeing Alonso and Antonio for the first time,
marvelling at beauteous man-kind and exclaiming:
‘O brave new world that has such people in it.’

And just to confuse the audience, consider the
final scenario where Prospero addresses us
across the stage proscenium, breaking the magic,
you’d say, except that he’s asking us to release him
and his acting crew, asking us to breath air into the
sails of his craft and send him on his way back to Milan.
What are we supposed to do? Any wonder that
the audience departs the play still held in a kind
of waking dream.’

 

Lot’s of deception here on Prospero’s island. Let’s begin with the ending depicting ‘how easily we deceive ourselves.’ Stephano mistaking Caliban for a moon calf. ‘Know thyself, ‘says the philosopher, Socrates, (that’s the real Socrates talking, not the sock puppet of Plato’s Republic. ‘Probe and question what you think and say.’ ‘The easiest person to fool is thyself, ‘says scientist Richard Feynman, ‘First you guess but then you test.’

Then there’s deception by a coterie, the plotting to rob others of their belongings, as Antonio and Alonso robbed Prospero of his dukedom. Conspiring to take what’s yours’ is pretty dire, but there’s worse, conspiring to take over you, rob you of your precious self-possession, that’s what gurus try to do. Prospero as guru gives an exhibition on how it’s done. There’s transmogrification of the scenario, sea- change into something rich and strange, and language games, ‘this becomes some other thing’ ‘tyranny become liberty.’ More of these anon. Prospero could, maybe, be forgiven because he himself has been deceived, and in the end he takes off his guru cape of deception, but the wish to control others, it’s the god-wish, aim to own and control earth, sea, air and all that lies therein … moving into ‘conspiracy theory’ territory here, that cleverly-directed, behind-the-curtain, over-reaching control by your philosopher king characters afflicted with hubris.

Here’s a word of caution. That word ‘conspiracy,’ well it’s an emotive word, beloved of those who argue the existence of conspiracies and also by those who do not … favoured by pro-conspiracists who wish to denigrate a perceived enemy, like the German Fascists did in the 1930’s and 40’s with their anti-semite demonization campaign as a first step to ethnic cleansing and used by those who would disparage enquiry into possible malfeasance by their own side. Here’s WIKI rebutting the conspiracy theory per se by slipping a gratuitous add-on to the dictionary definition , the add on … ‘both evidence against the conspiracy and absence of evidence for it, are interpreted as evidence of its truth, and the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than truth.’ WIKI calling Conspiracy Theory per se an empty set. And here’s a clever twist to conspiracy dismissal by a certain Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, who conducted a certain psychological survey of participants in the climate debate with the provocative title, ‘ NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.’ Now if that isn’t a challenge to critics of the ‘science’ to jump right into the briar patch. Trouble is the survey contains no bona fide data that you can actually come to grips with, so you’re steered to supposition and there you are, surmising just what you’ve been set up to surmise. Tricky Brer-Fox Professor Lewandowsky, he’s created ‘a sticky tar baby’ for ‘science deniers.’ Best to walk on by and call it for what it is, do not be distracted by the matadors’ lures.

Aha, toro!

Re scenario as lure, a nice case study by the master of engineering consent himself, Edward Bernays, nephew of Freud, writer of a book on propaganda that influenced Dr Goebell’s in his infamous WW2 propaganda campaign, Bernays’ own smoke-screen event, his involvement with the American Tobacco Company and the cigarette ‘Lucky Strike’ campaign.

When you’re out to dupe,
everything becomes
the matador’s red cape.

When Bernays began working for The A.T.C, he was given the objective of increasing cigarette sales among women, who for the most part had formerly avoided smoking. Bernays’ first strategy was to persuade women to smoke cigarettes in place of eating sweets. He began using photographers, artists, newspapers, and magazines to promote the special beauty of thin women. Medical authorities were found to promote the choice of cigarettes over sweets. Home-makers were cautioned that keeping cigarettes on hand was a social necessity. The campaign was a success but a taboo remained on women smoking in public, an association linked to ‘fallen women,’ that Bernays set out to change. Tying the smoking campaign to the women’s freedom movement, he organized a contingent of attractive women to smoke cigarettes, ‘torches of freedom,’ in the 1928 New York Easter Parade.

The Easter Parade liberty parade was a big media event. Bernays had given media an advance message that something unusual was to be expected and they were all there to witness Bertha Hunt stepping out of the crowd on Fifth Avenue and lighting up a Lucky Strike cigarette, followed by ten other young women brandishing their ‘torches of freedom,’ as they marched in the parade.

What was not known by the media was that Bertha Hunt was Edward Bernays’ secretary and the story that she gave the New York Times of why she smoked that cigarette was a fiction. Her story, published appropriately on April 1st, 1928, described how a prior embarrassing episode when she smoked in the street was behind the dramatic ‘Torches of Freedom,’ protest. ‘I talked it over with my friends, and we decided it was high time something was done about the situation.’

The carefully scripted event was a publicity success and women across the country were soon smoking as planned. For his successful campaign, Bernays was paid $25,000 a princely sum in those days, and American Tobacco company sales doubled between 1923 and 1929. Other cigarette companies adopted the Bernays’ approach of cigarette smoking being associated with female emancipation and glamour, and today in the US, the UK and Australia, cigarette smoking statistics for women are not far behind the stats for males, around 16% males and 12% females.

Sophistry of word games.

Oh toro, do not be distracted by those faux scenario lures…or by word-play neither. Some apt observation of same in history, Plato on ‘justice’ as ‘your right to what is yours,’ turns out this means ‘ your right to ‘your’ place in a rigid hierarchy, i.e. the serf’s right to slave and the philosopher-king-class right to rule. And Hegel corrupting the logical concept of contradiction by a word game, claiming that ‘since science progresses via contradictions,’ contradictions are ‘permissible’ and ‘highly desirable.’ What Hegel is doing is omitting a part of the argument that’ contradictions could be said to be welcome as a means of identifying and eliminating false arguments and theories. Hegel, by sleight of hand eliminates the italics aspect and focuses on a connotation of ‘welcome’ as inviting to stay as a ‘welcome’ guest, thereby debasing logical argument, all contradictions conveniently welcome in the tyrannous Prussian State where Hegel presides as Court Philosopher.

Sophistry of word games, some nice observations of same in literature. As well as Master Shakespeare’s sea-change into something rich and strange, there’s Orwell’s toss-words-down-the-memory-hole so that which no longer has words to describe it may not be said, and Lewis Carroll’s ‘When I use a word it means just what I chose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

Just a question of who is who is to be master.

Well no. At the risk of a little heaviness, need to recognise that reality, evolution and ideas all have the same forms and logic is the formulation of the forms. A thing is what it is and can’t be some other thing. When word definitions are changed from what is to something else the currency of the argument becomes debased. Sometimes with your persuasive gurus, you need to focus, not on what they say, their public pronouncements, but on what they do.

A case in point there’s the Trilateral Commission, a get-together of high-level philosopher kings if ever there were one, and their New World Economic Order, a scenario that’s been lumped in with those far-out conspiracy theories like that top-of-the-conspiracy-theory-list ‘The Moon Landing Hoax.’ No need to dig here it would appear, but hey, let’s do it, focus on who and what they do, not so much on what they say.

Lots of words in their armoury we’re going to by-pass, buzz-words like ‘sustainability’ and ‘renewable’ energy, sea-changes by them to meanings of key concepts like ‘democracy’ and ‘identity,’ words demonized so that ‘individual,’ means, per se, a ‘selfish’ person, far cry from the enlightenment’ individuals’ who extended suffrage, reformed working conditions and abolished slavery, and ‘CO2,’ with oxygen a life-enabling gas and plant food morphed into an existential threat.

So who are you and what is it you’re doing when you’re…

Well here’s a little list though by no means complete of who they are, these members of the Trilateral Commission, from its founding in 1973. The Trilateral Commission was created by David Rockefeller, chairman of the powerful Chase Manhattan Bank and Professor of Political Science at Columbia University, Zbigniew Brzezinski, (author of the book,’ Between Two Ages: America in the Technetronic Era,’) with the stated aim of fostering a global technocracy to manage the world’s resources efficiently. Since its inception it has co-opted an elite membership, its US membership mostly drawn from another private organisation, the influential behind the scenes US Council of Foreign Relations.

Yes it’s a gathering of philosopher kings alright. By December 1976 there were 19 Trilateral members holding positions in the United States Government., including president Jimmy Carter. Carter chose for his Cabinet appointees, eighteen Trilateral members, his running mate Walter Mondale, three cabinet members and fourteen top government posts and he appointed Brzezinski as Assistant to the President for National Security Measures, arguably the second most powerful position in the U.S.

The Long March Through the Institutions.

Subsequent US Administrations have continued to be dominated by Trilaterals. Every administration since Carter has had top level representation through the President or Vice President. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Richard Cheney were members, all of them advancing their globalist goal by placing Trilateral Commission members in top positions of global trade, global banking and foreign policy. Powerful people like Kissinger, Greenspan, Albright, and later, democrat members including John Podesta and Dianne Feinstein are members. Since 1973 there have been seven World Bank Presidents and six of them were Trilateral Commission members. More detail here:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Trilateral_UsurpSovereign.html

Lots of clout, discretely employed and hostile to the concept of the nation state. Other members of the Trilateral Commission not yet mentioned, George Soros and Eric Schmidt. George Soros funder- extordinaire via his Open Society Foundation, of organizations active to bring about that New Economic World Order and Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. Money and media, lotsa’ clout there…aims requires means, and regarding context, there happened to be a global institution just waiting the Trilateral grand technetronic take-over. Enter stage left the United Nations.

The United Nations was set up after the Second World War, by agreement of forty nation states, to replace the ailing League of Nations. Its main purpose expressed in the UN Charter, Article 1.1: To maintain International Peace and security and to that end to take effective and collective measures for the removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means , and in conformity with justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes and situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

Another important objective in the UN Charter was its Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of a country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of government: this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be universal and equal suffrage and shall be held in secret vote or by equivalent voting procedures.

Oh Octopussy….

In the way of bureaucracies over time to expand their domains and actions, the United Nations expanded its role, and from its initial HQ in Geneva, a growing UN global presence required more HQ edifices around the world…New York, Washington, The Hague, Rome, Vienna, you know how it is.

Not too difficult for the Trilateral Commission to become a player. David Rockefeller had been a significant donor to the U.N. Its New York building occupies land gifted by him, and in 1983, a member of the Trilateral Commission, Gro Harlem Brundtland chaired the UN Commission on Environment and Development, also called The Brundtland Commission, charged with finding solutions to global environmental problems of ozone depletion and global warming. Not surprising that The Brundtland Report published in 1987 as ‘Our Common Core’ came up with a changed economic model and new mode of governance, i.e. the Trilateral Commission model for a New World Order. Thereon from the Brundtland Report to the Rio Summit and UN Framework Convention on Climate Change signed by Trilateral Commission member, US President George Bush, and also on to Agenda 21, the UN itself gave credit to the Brundtland Commission for their creation.

Agenda 21, yu gotta’ read it to believe it…

…They’re not expecting that you will, 389 page blue-print for a new world order ruled by them. Here it is, and link to my 55th Edition where I provide a more detailed overview of the Trilateral Commission and Agenda 21.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2018/11/01/55th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/

Agenda 21. Section I, Social and Economic Dimensions: This section covers us humans and what we may consume…eat …use, where we may live and how we are to be allowed to develop. Significant chapters, Chapter 2, ‘International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development for all,’ Sustainable Development a phrase first coined by Gro Brundtland. Chapter 4, ‘Changing consumption patterns for sustainable development.’

Section II, Conservation and Management of Resources Development: Well this is certainly comprehensive, fourteen chapters of precept and regulation, a new world order alright, bureaucrat control over air, land, and all living things thereon, our energy use, control of seas, rivers and other waterways, management of all waste products, ‘waste’ denoted by them to include CO2, a basis of life on earth, without it no plants and no us. In section a of Chapter 14, item 14.9, outlining its many policy prescripts, there’s an opening phrase you’ll find repeated at (14.13) (14.14) (14.15) and many times thereafter…‘Government at the appropriate level, with the support of the relevant international and regional organizations, should’…
Take a look at the UN Wildlands Project a master plan of Agenda 21, adopted by President Clinton in 1993. It’s a major land grab, it’s a –…Government at the appropriate level, with the support of the relevant international and regional organizations, should’… it is part of the design to transform land from public ownership to large tracts of no-go wilderness managed by technocrats, each eco-area protected by buffer zones and with designated corridors linking human habitation.

Section III, Strengthening the Role of Major Groups: Getting everyone on board, but not as described by that UN first General Assembly in 1948, Everyone has the right to take part in the government of the country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. Agenda 21 is not about individual involvement in decision making, it is about your role as part of a collective, you are subsumed by your role, in which the planned Delphi process prevails, plenary discussion but the outcomes are foreordained, you are a member of the women’s group, an indigenous group, etc. some ironic 1984 newspeak here ‘strengthening the role of farmers,’ as more and more regulations are being imposed on land use.

Section IV, Means of Implementation …involving financing and costs. You’ll get a shock when you go there. Some hefty estimated annual costs included, Utopias don’t come cheap, quite a drain on nation’s economies. The Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development program, Section 11, Ch 14 alone, annual costs in excess of two trillion dollars So if you’re needing to get the citizens on board for all that costly and controlling regulation you have to scare people and here’s how you do it … by way of SCIENCE and GUILT, Global Warming caused by us! That’s Chapter 35, ‘Science for sustainability,’ messaging by the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change set up by the UN, post the Brundtland Report, controlled by bureaucrats and charged with a mission to assess human caused global warming. Any wonder they found it, though their temperature models don’t match observations and they had to disappear past warming in the historical record to achieve it.

Further Means of Implementation, Chapter 36, ‘Promoting education, public awareness and training.’ Have to get school children on board, the mandatory international Education Core-Curriculum teaches sustainability from Prep to Year 12, in every subject, even math and focuses on ‘emotional’ learning, not critical thinking skills. K-12 Core Curriculum, compliments of the UN, now mandatory education program in western ‘democracies.’

So now better let’s give all of the above some teeth. L-A-W-Law, Chapter 38, ‘International legal instruments and mechanisms,’ they’re by-passing nations’ laws here, now isn’t that contra to, you know… Everyone has the right to take part in the government of the country, directly or through freely chosen representatives…

An article by Professor of Law, James Allan, gives a detailed description of the ways by way of International L-A-W-Law, that a nation’s voters are locked out when it comes to resolving debatable political or social policies.
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2016/09/problem-creeping-international-legal-rule/
One way is by way of ambiguously phrased UN International Treaties that play an increasingly large and influential role in determining judicial outcomes compared to less ambiguous, domestic regulations, The second type of international law, known as customary law, is a non-treaty sort of international law that can flow on from treaties and have influence on local judicial decision making although it has never been agreed to by any accountable legislators. Lots of government-from-afar by those unaccountable globalists today. Oh Prospero!

So regarding globalist unaccountability, let’s take a look at that Trilateral Commission member, George Soros and his actions as funding puppet master for Trilateral globalist causes. I’ve written a full post on Soros, and links to his funding, https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/50th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/ so just briefly, herewith some of his-behind-the-scenes activities.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In Hungary in 1979, George Soros launched the first of his Open Society Foundations supposedly to help ‘build vibrant and tolerant democracies’ whose governments are accountable to their citizens.’ Passing strange that the Open Society Foundations he funds in more than 79 countries and the organizations funded by them are doing quite the opposite.

In the George Soros Manifesto ‘Open Society, Reforming Global Capitalism’ he declares his hostility to individual freedom, which he equates with egoism, and his hostility to the nation state which he seeks to subvert. The President chosen by Soros to run his open society organization, Aryeh Neier, is a Lenin Marxist and founder, in the 1960s, of ‘Students for Democracy’ an activist group committed to overthrowing American institutions and remaking them in a Marxist mould. Soros by indirect means funds action to shut down alternative free speech via orchestrated protest movements including the May Day Riots across the US. A left-wing organization called Rise-Up Org, that claimed responsibility for the May Day violence is financed by Alliance for Global Justice, one of Soros’ top 150 seven-figure grantees. It is also funded by Tides Foundation, number three on Open Society Foundation grantee list. Many inter-connections. Rise-up is connected to Antifa and Antifa is an alias of Refuse Fascism, which is sponsored by Alliance for Global Justice which is funded by Tides Foundation which is also funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundation …Get it?

George Soros funded programs are directed towards that long march through the institutions, to controlling the media, to capturing the education system, and weakening western democracies by promoting illegal mass immigration and by corrupting the electoral system. Seeking to manipulate federal elections strikes at the heart of the democratic system. Those leaked Soros funding documents show that Soros poured hundreds of millions of dollars into often secret efforts to change election laws, to fuel litigation to attack election integrity measures, such as citizenship verification and voter ID, to push public narratives about voter fraud as a myth, and attempts to manipulate media coverage of election issues in mainstream media outlets like The New York Times.

The funding documents name groups that received more than $500,000 each year, including the Centre for Community Change, the Advancement Project Centre and the Brennan Centre. Two of these organizations, the Advancement Project and Brennan Centre, regularly oppose election integrity measures in court and influence media by
pushing voter fraud denial narratives.

https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2016/11/07/leaked-documents-reveal-expansive-soros-funding-to-manipulate-federal-elections/

So hey, guess actions speak louder than words from that supporter of ‘the open society,’ Mr George Soros. And guess actions speak louder than words for those other members of The Trilateral Commission also… Just remember to keep your eye on the matador and do not become embroiled in the matador’s red cape.

Special Edition – Global Warming

Global Warming – A Wicked Jabberwocky Kinda’ Problem – Reviewed in Five Fits.

Jabberwocky – Lewis Carroll

Whereas global warming is claimed to be a wicked problem, a mysterious je ne sais quoi, – yet demanding of fear and guilt responses to the unknown, exemplified by Paul Ehrlich’s panic predictions, and attributable to alarm-triggering messaging as described by H L Mencken, there are some who look askance at mysteries masquerading as problems, myself among them, and so herewith, in Five Fits, a serf review of the wicked and mysterious ‘problem’ of man-made global warming.

FIT1: Whereas ‘mysterious’ denotes ‘uncertainties,’ of ‘what,’ ‘why,’ ‘ how’ and who knows ‘where or when,’ many in the cli-science community have hazarded guesses regarding the unknowns of climate science, many failed papers and predictions regarding same, short term predictions adjustable to time extensions for man-made Climate Armageddon, for loss of arctic ice, death of polar bears and lemurs, increase of wildfires, weird weather events, rising of seas, un-documented but mega wipe-out of species … though not those countless bats and birds hit by wind turbines or zapped by miles of solar arrays.

Of the ‘what’ and ‘why,’ carbon is said to be the main actor in the drama, CO2, basis of life on Planet Earth, only 0.039 percent of our atmosphere but vital for plant growth, oxygen and us, has now gone rogue (?) or maybe demonized, likely the latter, for raisons d’etat. Read Professor Richard Lindzen’s paper regarding politicks behind the climate-change science in which he traces conscious efforts to politicize Climate Science, the most impressive exploitation for political purposes being ‘creation of the International Panel on Climate Change by two United Nations bodies, the United Nations Environmental Panel and the World Meteorological Organization.‘ https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf Christiana Figueres adds another dimension, to the above; ‘it’s about creating a United Nations-managed New World Order.’

Regarding ‘how’ man made global warming has come about, it’s explained by way of shortwave CO2 forcing, a complicated phenomenon, arguments about climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 continuing and continually adjusted.

Each cause of global warming heats up the atmosphere in a distinctive pattern, its ‘signature.’ The signature of carbon emissions is a prominent ‘hotspot’ at about 10-12 kms in the air over the tropics. The hotspot is integral to the IPCC climate theory, ref. the IPCC Assessment Report 4 (AR4) 2007. Ch 9 for Source of Signature based on IPCC 1890-1999 warming, ref: https://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf Dr David Evans, author of the above link, describes on pp 12,13, the process for water vapour feedback where the troposphere is effectively a blanket at the water vapour absorption frequencies. That hundreds of temperature sensitive radiosondes have not been able to find this signature is a travesty about which the supporters of the Carbon global warming theory are either silent or make tendentious claims of, ‘ well, it ‘could’ be there.’ ‘But it isn’t there,’ says David Evans. ‘No hotspot, therefore IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.’

FIT 2: Whereas climate models are the crystal ball of climate science, ‘science’ not séance, so they’re okay, well not so okay, there’s that failure of the model projections to match observations. And that’s a major fail.

There’s that failure of the model projections to deal with complex interactive atmospheric and oceanic systems.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/12/climate-models-for-lawyers/

Says denizen kim @ Climate Etc. Feb.2011, regarding inter-active climate-change:

I think I’ve never heard so loud
the quiet message in a cloud.

Observes Ross McKitrick on that Hockey Stick model, icon of the IPCC review of Climate change, the core issues; the cherry-picked, proxy data set and the flawed methodology.

https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/hockey-stick-retrospective.pdf

Noted problems in that Hockey Stick proxy data, (C Loehle 2009.) Regarding effects of moisture, shade and other factors on ring growth, this ode, from Brad Keyes of CliScep blog, Dec.2013.

Ode to a Bristlecone Pine.

What good is that wood?
That wood is no good.
Would you graph that wood?
I don’t think I would.

FIT 3: Whereas that mysterious burst of warming in the 1980’s and 1990’s, – claims of an Unprecedented Warming Period, UWP, but no, the long historical record, CET, Central England Temperature Record tells us not so, the Medieval Warming Period was just as warm and maybe warmer, and there’s all those other see-saw weather perturbations, ‘The pendulum of climate change,’ that Brian Fagan, author of ‘The Little Ice Age,’ observed ‘rarely paused for more than a generation,’

Herewith Tony Brown, climate historian, CET long term temperature data:

Temperature data cross referenced with all those written records, farmers’ almanacs, ships’ logs, records of glacier retreats and advances.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

In those ups and downs in the long CET record, @Figure 6, several hockey sticks can be observed prior to the Mann construct, one in the early 1100’s, another in the late 1600’s, and one in the early 1900’s before the mid-century cooling prior to the 1980’s warming.

FIT 4: And whereas the laws of logic conform to nature’s laws. Nature can’t be unnatural, contradictory, paradoxical or magical, the Darwin Award is for getting it right, which means getting to survive another day,

Wicked problem, indefinable je ne sais quoi, it’s a masquerade, appearance instead of reality, (eat a photo of a burger next time), resemblance to truthiness, it’s called a mystery,- a mystery is a nothing to which are attributed properties.

Mystery of alleged unprecedented global warming crisis. What is it? Aristotle’s Laws of Logic apply. Law of Identity: a thing is what it is and not something else. If it can’t be clearly defined and measured, what is it? No ‘maybe’s,’ ‘could be’s’, ‘should be’s,’ Aristotle’s law of Non-Contradiction Regarding Statements and Theories: A self-contradiction is a lie. For all propositions P, it is impossible to be P and not P at the same time. True in logic as in nature, what is unreasonable is not true.

There’s no such thing
as truth you know,
I swear that this is true,
the universe exists to
make a fool of you.

Aristotle’s Law of the Excluded Middle: truth is a binary alternative, can’t mess with Mister In-Between. If a proposition can’t evaluate to ‘true’ or ‘false’ it is by definition unreasonable. The mysterious is Mister In-Between. It doesn’t equate to ‘true’ or ‘false.’ What is ‘it,’ this mysterious wicked problem? The mysterious is a null set. An empty set has no properties. Phantasmagoria.

FIT 5: Herewith an addendum … -So if not magical, that patch of warming in the 1980’s-1990’s – what is it? Well whatever it is, it has to conform to proper tests, to observation, and there’s a paper by Professor W.J.R Alexander that says it is the sun and those Cheshire sunspots that come and go, and what is more there’s a long hydrological record, back to the Egyptians, as evidence that this is so.

I have a paper in hard copy by Professor Alexander, ‘A critical assessment of current climate change science.’ (April 2006) that I downloaded in 2011, but I can’t get Google to retrieve it. I discuss it in some detail on my blog, see below. It is a detailed study of the river flow of the Vaal River, South Africa’s major river, and its synchronicity with the double sunspot cycle such that Professor Alexander was able to predict the South African floods of 1995 and 2006. https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2018/12/23/56th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/ I have found some of its significant data reproduced in a shorter publication by Alexander on Professor Pielke’s blog. It includes in its Tables 9 and 10, on pp 23/24 of the original paper. Figure 9 is very important. It demonstrates the unequivocal synchronous relationship between annual sunspot numbers and the annual flows in the Vaal River. Note the alternating above (rising) and below (falling) flow sequences. Note also their synchronous relationship with sunspot numbers; as well as the statistically significant (95%), 21-year periodicity in the flow data that is synchronous with the double sunspot cycle.

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/climate-change-the-west-vs-the-rest-by-will-alexander/

Professor Alexander observes that in a number of his memos and publications he has demonstrated an undeniable linkage between changes in solar magnetic polarity and concurrent changes in South African rainfall and river flow.

‘As long ago as in 1995 at the international IGBP conference here in Pretoria after I presented my Floods, droughts and climate change study,’ says Professor Alexander, ‘I asked the question, What causes El Nino? I received the joking response that if I could answer that question I might qualify for the Nobel Prize. Well, I can now answer that question. It is the direct consequence of changes in solar magnetic polarity. The occurrences during the past months, January and February 2006, have provided the proof that I needed.’ A critical assessment of current climate change scice, April 2006 p29.

Now here’s a contra hypothesis to CO2 man made warming and it’s based on observations that don’t conflict with the projections (predictions) or the long historical record. Regardless of whether Alexander is correct about the weather or not, the flaws in the existing IPCC theory remain. They are there on the record.

58th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL




Going on a quest? Something humans do, from Gilgamesh to Odysseus to…






It is a truth quite well known, that going on a quest means wandering, and that with a purpose, which usually means leaving home, often travelling to the ends of the earth, even maybe visiting the underworld, like Gilgamesh or Odysseus on their epic quests. In one of the above, the quest was not about leaving home but about getting home, home from the ends of the earth, in this case, after the Trojan Wars, Odysseus returning to his wife and son in his kingdom in Ithaca.

Some interesting parallels and differences can be observed by a broad study of the themes and motifs in these two dramatic poems. The story of Odysseus has much in common with the pre-semitic epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia, which predates the Odyssey by at least one and a half thousand years and is thought to be the earliest epic verse written in cuneiform script on clay tablets. In both quests, fate and human endeavour offer a parallel, fate taking the form of an arbitrary and often calamitous intervention by the gods in the affairs of men.

In the Odyssey, the sea-god Poseidon continually frustrates Odysseus’ attempts to arrive home. Odysseus has offended Poseidon in one of his encounters en-route with a monster kyklops, Polyphemus, the god-child of Poseidon, and so he wishes to foil Odysseus’ efforts to reach home. Odysseus is shipwrecked on the island of the sea-nymph Kalypso, who falls in love with Odysseus and holds him captive for seven years, so that ‘he lives and grieves upon that island / in thraldom to the nymph; he cannot stir / cannot fare homeward, for no ship is left him / fitted with oars – no crewmen, or companions /to pull him on the broad back of the sea.’*

Here’s the Goddess Athena interceding for Odysseus to her father, Zeus, who sends the god Hermes to Kalypso to command that she set Odysseus free. Reluctantly Kalypso allows Odysseus to cut timber on her island and build a sail boat, and she provides him with supplies and instructions for navigation. But it’s not too long before that god of earthquakes, Poseidon, storming home across the mountains of Asia, sights Odysseus and declaims: ‘Here is a pretty cruise! While I was gone / the gods have changed their minds about Odysseus./ Look at him now, just off-shore that island / that frees him from the bondage of his exile!/Still I can give him a rough road in, and I will.’

The gods, as fate, have their place in the Gilgamesh story also, and clearly Gilgamesh brings this fate upon himself.




In The Epic of Gilgamesh you’ve got the young King of Uruk, handsome, athletic, seems he’s a bit too athletic, acting up badly so that his people make a plea to the god Anu to rein him in. The god Anu sends wild man, Enkidu, who lives with the beasts of the forest, to challenge Gilgamesh. But first Enkidu must be partially civilized by the temple goddess Shamhat, who seduces him and once that’s accomplished, after seven days he’s ready to go out and confront Gilgamesh.

Enkidu departs for Uruk, meets Gilgamesh and there’s a tremendous fight which Gilgamesh eventually wins. He and Enkidu become best of friends and together they set off to do heroic acts, to conquer and kill the monster Humbaba, whom the gods have made guardian of the great Forest of Cedar. When Gilgamesh and Enkidu kill Humbaba, the dangerous goddess Ishtar is impressed and makes overtures to Gilgamesh but he scornfully rejects her advances reminding her of the fate of her prior lovers. In revenge she asks the god Enkil to allow the starry Bull of Heaven to come to Earth to attack Gilgamesh and he reluctantly agrees. After a fearful battle, the two friends kill the great bull and this so angers all the gods that they decide to punish Gilgamesh by making his friend mortally ill.

Tended by Gilgamesh, after many days of suffering and visions of his fate in the underworld, Enkidu dies. When Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh won’t accept his friend’s death until the visible sign of corruption, the worm, appears. Then unable to bear the reality of human mortality, ‘How can I rest when Enkidu whom I love is dust, /and I too shall die and be laid in the Earth forever?’ * Gilgamesh sets out on a new quest, a quest for immortality.

Both epics reveal a metaphysical concern with life and death, a common underlying theme, the search for life in relation to death’s inevitability. From this theme, in the two epic quests, the characters of each of the protagonists evolve.

In both books, character is revealed by the heroes’ attitude to life and death, by their ability to face reality, and here the differences in character of Gilgamesh and Odysseus are revealed. Both epics depict a similar vision of death and a grim underworld, described by Enkidu in his dream of the house of the dead, where ‘residents are deprived of light,/ where soil is their sustenance and clay their food,/ where they are clad like birds in coats of feathers.’ and by Odysseus in his account of his journey to the underworld to question the blind seer, Teiresias, on what he must do to achieve his return to Ithaca. It’s a harrowing journey in which he meets ‘the blurred and breathless dead,’ conversing, not only with the seer, but with the shades of his mother, dead from grief over the loss of her son, and meets heroic comrades like Akhilleus who describes his feelings to Odysseus regarding the underworld: ‘Better I say, to break sod as a farm hand / for some poor countryman, on iron rations,/ than lord it over all the exhausted dead.’

And as the witch, Circe, sent Odysseus to the underworld, a journey which may be said to symbolize a search for life, so another enigmatic, magical woman, Siduru, tells Gilgamesh how to cross the ocean and waters of death to consult with Utnapishtim, only survivor of the Great Deluge, pre-biblical reference to Noah’s Flood, on how to avoid death. And as these sorties into the unknown necessarily involve fate, quests like the above don’t amount to much in human engagement unless they also involve TESTS.

‘Let the trial come,’ says Odysseus, and in the two heroes’ different quests involving human endeavour, Odysseus comes up trumps. Having fought at Troy and seen death at close range, having visited the dreaded underworld and been told of his own death by the seer Teiresias, Odysseus chooses to embrace his human condition, return to his wife and son, even though the nymph Kalypso offers to make him immortal if he remains with her. Odysseus shows himself to be a man of strong human loyalties, prepared to give up everlasting life for the sake of a few years with his family. And having chosen to embrace his humanity, he wastes no time on regrets, but courageously directs himself to his task: ‘Each day / I long for home, long for the sight of home./ If any god has marked me out again / for shipwreck, my tough heart can undergo it.’ What hardships have I not long since endured /at sea, in battle! Let the trial come.’

In confronting trial and tribulation, Odysseus is well endowed for the heroic quest, always grounded in reality, he is curious, intelligent and courageous. While curiosity leads him to investigate what manner of people and places he comes across on his travels, Odysseus makes few errors in his dealings with those he encounters, whether human or divine. Not for nothing is he called, ‘Odysseus the master strategist,’ or ‘improviser,’ ‘man of all occasions,’ or ‘cunning Odysseus.’ He likes to enter places in disguise, even when he returns home to fight the hordes of suitors who have invaded his kingdom and live off his patrimony while they vie for the hand of his faithful wife Penelope. No one recognises him until he’s ready to confront them and in these encounters Odysseus makes few mistakes.

We see his diplomacy when he is welcomed as guest in the kingdom of Alkinoos, and we learn of his past mishaps as Odysseus recounts the story of his journey home before he was shipwrecked on the island of Kalypso. In all these encounters except one, problems arise deux ex machina and also because his crew fail to heed sacred oaths and instructions: ‘Don’t open the god Aiolos’s gift, the sack of winds, that allows us safe voyage!’ They do and are blown back to where they set out. ‘Don’t eat the gods’cattle or sheep on the divine island of Helios or harm will ensue!’ They do and their ships are sunk and the crew drowned.

One mistake Odysseus does make is when he takes a group of his men to explore the Island of the Cyclops and they become trapped in the cave of the one-eyed giant, Polyphemus. Polyphemus rolls a boulder in the entrance of the cave and questions his guests. The wily Odysseus tells the cyclops that he served under Agammemnon and that his name is ‘Nobody’. He doesn’t divulge where his ship is moored. He requests ‘guest protection,’ for himself and his crew but to their horror, Polyphemus catches up two of the men in his hands and strikes their heads on the cave floor, spattering their brains. ‘Then he dismembered them and made his meal /gaping and crunching like a mountain lion.’ Later he proceeds to devour other men as well. Odysseus works out what to do, offers Polyphemus gift-wine ‘to wash down your scraps of men.’. The giant has never tasted wine before and while he sleeps in a drunken stupor. Odysseus and his men blind him with a burning spar that they‘ve sharpened in the fire. When Polyphemus calls out in pain that ‘Nobody has ruined him,’ the other Cyclops outside his cave who had responded to his cries go away.

By dawn, when the injured cyclops rolls the boulder away from the door to allow his flock of sheep to leave the cave, Odysseus has already devised an escape plan so that he and his men pass through the cave entrance slung beneath the bodies of the giant’s rams. But as he escapes, Odysseus makes his fatal mistake, announcing his own name and baiting Polyphemus, ‘O Kyklops! Would you feast on my companions? /Puny, am I, in a Caveman’s hands? / How do you like the beating we gave you,/you dammed cannibal.? Eater of guests /under your roof! Zeus and the gods have paid you.’

‘If any mortal man enquire /how you were put to shame and blinded, tell him /Odysseus raider of cities took your eye.’

Turns out that there’s one god who learns of this from Polyphemus and that’s the monster’s father, Poseidon, and now Odysseus’ voyage home will be beset with deux-ex-machina, calamitous intervention, unhappily of Odysseus’ own making. But thanks to his own strenuous actions and help from the goddess Athena, Odysseus makes it home at last, defeats the suitors in battle and is reunited with his wife and son.

Odysseus came up trumps, Gilgamesh not so much. In the beginning of the Gilgamesh epic, we’re told that Gilgamesh has all the right attributes for a hero, athletic young king of Uruk, doesn’t shy away from a fight, beats Enkidu in fierce combat. But there’s a flaw. From the beginning Gilgamesh shows poor judgement in action. The reason the gods intervene in the first place is because the townspeople are fed up with him, he’s a tyrant abusing his rights. Then there’s the decision to go on a quest, not a wise quest, but a quest to kill the guardian of the cedar forest, a guardian put there by the gods. He’s in conflict with the gods from go to woe. Next, his encounter with the goddess of the city, Ishtar, who offers him marriage. If this had been Odysseus, he would have found a way to praise her charms while avoiding the dangerous liaison. Insulting her got Gilgamesh a visit from the Bull of Heaven and more trouble from the gods.

And now a change of quest. After Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh embarks on yet another foolish quest, a quest for eternal life. When he finally meets with Utnapishtim, he discovers just how foolish this is. Gilgamesh can’t even hold on to the rejuvenation plant he acquires at great effort. After journeying all that way to seek Utnapishtim’s advice, Gilgamesh doesn’t trust him about the plant. He could have found a way to test the plant’s potency there and then, but chooses to carry it all the way home and loses it on the way, because of carelessness.

So now Gilgamesh goes home. What has been gained by this quest? Perhaps for the reader, and perhaps for Gilgamesh, when he returns exhausted to Uruk, there may be some wisdom gained from the quest experience. But for Gilgamesh, it comes at the expense of a life spent on a futile activity, whereas he could have experienced a productive life as king and protector of his city and of its people’s enterprise, could have enjoyed his own human experience as he was advised to do in the course of his quest:

‘Make merry each day, dance and play, day and night,/ let your clothes be clean, let your head be washed,/ may you bathe in water. /

Gaze on the little one who holds your hand, /let a woman enjoy your repeated embrace, / for such is the destiny of mortal men.’

… But he didn’t

* ‘The Odyssey Homer.’ Translation, Robert Fitzgerald. (Panther 1965.)

*’The Epic of Gilgamesh.’ Translation, Andrew George. (Penguin 2003.)

57th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL




Slavery Begins with the Mind. An Essay on Propaganda.




A little history of Gurus.

Those gurus, they’re off the charts when it comes to deadly sins, for they will rob you of your most precious thing, and that’s your self possession. – A serf.

Meet Edward Bernays, considered one of the fathers of public relations, ‘public relations’ being a euphemism for ‘propaganda.’

Born in 1891 to Jewish parents, Edward Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, pioneer of psycho-analysis and the important role played by the subconscious in human behaviour. Named by Life Magazine as one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century, Bernays adopted his uncle’s ideas to develop techniques of persuasion to influence public behaviour, writing in one of his books regarding opinion moulding, or what he called engineering consent, that ‘If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a point and within certain limits.’ E.Bernays. ‘Propaganda.’ (1928.) Brooklyn, N.Y. P47.

Like gurus before him and gurus who came after, Bernays justified his PR activities as the noble, because ‘necessary’ lie, necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in society. In the same book, (1928) he stated:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our county… We are governed, our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society… in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.’ (1928 ) PP 9-10.

Bernays is presenting here a distorted view of democracy that subverts both its social basis in the free actions of individuals and its governance basis by way of non-arbitrary rule of law for all its citizens. And in the techniques and programs he employed, you can gauge for yourself how far from ‘noble’ were Bernays’ public relations’ practices.

When he started working for American Tobacco Company, Bernays was given the objective of increasing Lucky Strike sales among women, who for the most part had formerly avoided smoking. The first strategy was to persuade women to smoke cigarettes instead of eating. Bernays began using photographers, artists, newspapers, and magazines to promote the special beauty of thin women. Medical authorities were found to promote the choice of cigarettes over sweets. Home-makers were cautioned that keeping cigarettes on hand was a social necessity. The campaign was a success but a taboo remained on women smoking in public. Tying the smoking campaign to the women’s freedom movement Bernays organized a contingent of attractive women to smoke cigarettes, ‘torches of freedom,’ in the 1928 New York Easter Parade. The carefully scripted event was a publicity success and women across the country were soon smoking as planned.

The United Fruit Company hired Bernays in the early 1940s to increase banana sales which he did by linking them with good health and placing them in the hands of celebrities. But then he went further, orchestrating political propaganda in concert with the US government to facilitate the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Guatemala, Jacabo Guzman, who had begun land reforms including buying back land owned by the United Fruit Company. Under previous governments the U.F.C. had acquired ownership of 42% of the land and was exempt from paying taxes and duties on exports. Bernays’ campaign resulted in having Guzman replaced by someone more acceptable to the United Fruit Company.

So when you wish to make BIG changes you have to be persuasive. Here’s another guru, Plato writing his plans for the utopian Republic he hoped would replace Athenian Democracy, a Republic in which all change would be arrested. The rigid caste system that Plato designed to achieve his static society necessitated his myth or necessary ‘noble lie,’ of the metals in men, gold in an elite class who should lead, and beneath them, tiers of inferior metals with their ordained, unquestioned roles of obedience to the philosopher king. In this hierarchy, only the gold elite get education, but it is an education of received truths not to be questioned, and Plato hopes that in time even the philosopher class will come to believe his noble lie.

More dishonesty. Plato used Socrates as his sock puppet to give respectability to his totalitarian program. Socrates, advocate of the open society and critical debate, no longer around to speak for individual autonomy, becomes the mouthpiece for Plato’s authoritarian doctrines. Here, on justice and rule of law, Plato has Socrates giving a whole new meaning to words like ‘justice’ or ‘freedom’ via convoluted argument … What means justice for each citizen? Why, it’s the right to possess what is his own. And what is this right specifically? Why it’s the right, (within the imposed caste system) to attend to his own business, that is, the right of the labourer to labour, and presumably of the slave to slave. So much for justice.

Then there’s Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, propagandist for the tyrannous Prussian State of Frederic William 3rd. Unlike Plato, Hegel does not teach that the world is in flux towards historical decay but rather, the trend is towards The Idea, the powerful State of ‘now’ is progress and therefore, what prevails is ‘right.’

Hegel promotes his historicist doctrine by a dialectical method that is an assault on logic. While criticism and science proceed on the argument that contradictions are impermissible and attempts must be made to eliminate them, Hegel argues that since science progresses via contradictions, contradictions are to be welcomed and there is no need to eliminate them. What Hegel is doing is omitting part of the argument that contradictions could be said to be welcome only as a means of identifying and eliminating false arguments and theories. By eliminating the italics part of the argument, Hegel focuses on the connotation of welcome as inviting to stay as a welcome guest. By such sophistry, all criticism and argument, important in arguing our freedoms, must cease, as also attacks against Hegel’s own philosophy. And by conflating liberty with control, employing smoke and mirrors language as pseudo demonstration, therefore and therefore and therefore … to undermine human freedoms, Hegel uses a pun on liberty to show that a liberty is the same as a law, from which it follows that the more laws, the more liberty.

Propagandists past and present? There’s moah! Dr Joseph Goebells, propagandist extraordinaire of Hitler’s ‘Blood and Soil’ war machine, master of emotive slogan campaigns and imitator, or so Edward Bernays was told, of the persuasive techniques of Bernays himself. Joseph Goebells used Bernays’ book, ‘Crystallizing Public Opinion,’ as a basis of his propaganda tactics to demonize the Jewish population and carry out a genocide campaign against them. Dr Goebells, epitome of guru Dr Evil.

Today, there’s one, George Soros, who wants to do away with the nation state altogether and run a globalist state governed at a distance by unelected technocrats like himself, and by golly he’s got the money to do it, lots of dollars to fund campaigns to destroy western institutions from within. Soros’ campaigns include education ‘occupy their heads,’ training social justice warriors and a campaign to promote illegal immigrants’ right to vote. Activist bodies and groups are given grants by his ‘Open Society Foundation, ‘Open’ only in reference to untrammelled immigration, much of his funding of violent protest groups like Rise Up Org and Antifa, is more discrete but has definitely been traced to indirect and backdoor payments.

https://medium.com/@Sard0n1ca/how-soros-came-to-own-or-fund-antifa-is-irrelevant-to-this-discussion-b53a5b9e3283

https://sisypheannews.com/2017/05/16/another-look-into-antifas-shady-connections/

Like those other smoke and mirror gurus, Soros likes to flout the laws of logic. While Soros, in his ‘Open Society’ (2000) manifesto admits that the Enlightenment unleashed the creative energies of the human intellect to bring about achievements and living standards ‘beyond compare,’ he then dismisses these achievements ‘beyond compare,’ by arguing that in the Enlightenment ‘Reason was unequal to the task.’ As an historical illustration he cites the excesses of the French Revolution, not an applicable example as participants in the French Revolution abandoned constitutional safeguards and rational behaviour, instead responding to events by leadership fiat-decision-making and mob-rule.

A further criticism of the Enlightenment made by Soros is that rationalism produced the ‘unencumbered individual,’ a simplistic view of individuals living as though without family or local connections or any social values, and disregarding the reformist actions of many of these individuals to extend suffrage, enact factory laws, and abolish slavery, not just reformists but humanists, like John Stuart Mill, Lord Shaftsbury, and Charles Dickens. Soros equates ‘individual’ with ‘selfish,’ though no such analogy is justified, his colleges train students to be ‘encumbered’ social justice warriors. And here’s Hegelian contradiction:

‘It’s time, ‘says Soros,’ to subject reason, as construed by the Enlightenment, to the same kind of critical examination that the Enlightenment inflicted on the dominant external authorities, both divine and temporal. We have now lived in the age of reason for the past two hundred years, long enough to discover that reason has its limitations. We are ready to enter the age of fallibility.’ ( G.S. Open Society. P 125.)

What does it mean, ‘subject reason to ‘reason,’ subjecting reason to itself? And what does it mean to ‘enter the age of fallibility?’ Would not our ‘human fallibility’ require us to act by trial and error-testing, which is rational behaviour for a fallible being and also the objective basis of the scientific method?. What Soros says here is illogical, he’s putting fallibility in place of reason. By abandoning reason, where does that get us? Well it gets us just where gurus want us, amenable to propaganda slogans modelled on George Orwell’s 1984, you know, slogans involving double – think, like ‘War is Peace.’ ‘Freedom is Control.’ ‘Truth is Lies.’ Can’t have a rational populace alert to the contradictions gurus employ to get control of their minds.

So how come a procession of dastardly gurus are motivated to control the rest of us cits, and how come they so often succeed in their machinations? Seems it’s there in the wiring of the homo sapien brain. Remember this little scenario in Alfred Hitchcock’s film, ‘The Birds’?




‘Who are you, what are you?’

Who are you? Well, you have only to look at that famous image of ‘The Ascent of Man,’ to see that descended from the gods we are not. Has to be that a large measure of what we do is determined by our genetic inheritance, from lizard brain to our evolution by way of our early mammalian ancestors.

What are you? Bright side, dark side, let’s do dark side first. Says Daniel Kahneman in his book, ‘Thinking Fast and Slow,’ ‘We are machines for jumping to conclusions.’ That’s pretty much it, says Kahneman, a psychologist who turned psychology into quantitative investigation. Daniel Kahneman argues the existence in our brains of two independent systems for organizing knowledge, one he labels System One, a fight or flight survival mechanism which probably evolved with our ancestors, the lizard brain, a fast thinking system making judgements and taking action without waiting for our conscious awareness to catch up. Making use of memories and heuristics linked with strong emotions like fear and pain, though the fast thinking system worked well for fight or flight survival in a jungle, its judgements are often wrong. Our System Two is the slow process of forming judgements based on conscious thinking in the frontal cortex that checks the actions of System One and allows us to correct our mistakes.

For System One thinking, says Kahneman, the measure of success is coherence of a story, consistency, not completeness of evidence… ‘what you see is all that there is.’ To answer difficult questions there’s a grab-bag of simple heuristics we adopt to make adequate but often wrong answers to difficult questions like ‘the availability heuristic, what comes readily from memory, first in line.’ And the bad news is, as Kahneman first discovered, working with Israeli Defence Forces in the 1950’s, that your System Two thinkers are also prone to similar thinking errors and heuristics, more apologist than critical of the emotions of System One.

And something else runs counter to individual decision making regarding that early inheritance. Homo sapiens evolved as social animals in family groups and tribes that developed within a web of culture. The individuals who made those hand imprints on the walls of the Lascaux Caves were also part of a group, as we, members of tribes, associations, nations, live in societies with pressures to conform according to accepted rules and mores.

‘Nothing so outlandish,’ said rational pessimist, Michel de Montaigne, regarding tyranny of custom, ‘that cannot be demonstrated in public practise somewhere in the world.’ And those customs, from some gentle beginning, unperceived, ‘unmask a furious and tyrannical countenance, against which we have no more courage or power so much as to lift our eyes.’ Montaigne ‘Essay; Of Custom.’

Taking a walk on the bright side…
du, dudu, dudu dudu du du…

Throughout history, some cultures have emerged that are more enabling to rational thinking than others. Compare the tribal society of Sparta, where institutions were seen as god given and unalterable, to the emerging democracy of Athens, 5th century B.C. where its citizens dared to question what and how? Being a member of a maritime society is helpful, observing many cultures and recognizing that institutions are made by man and therefore may be changed. Greek tragedians, Sophocles and Euripides, writing drama about political and social problems, Greek philosophers, Socrates and Aristotle, Socrates developing critical argument, Aristotle developing tools of logic, ways of recognising and eliminating contradictions that hinder enquiry, these were major steps for human kind.

Evolutionary nature has endowed human beings with dexterous hands with opposable thumbs, big brains, language capacity beyond signalling, all of which curious humans, wanting to solve a problem have exploited to the max.

Man the debater as mentioned above, and man the builder, creator and discoverer. Builders of roads, bridges, builders of aqueducts and printing press, inventors of the wheel, paper, first harnessers of fire technology then of water and steam power. Herewith an example of deliberative thinking I like to cite, James Watt, the Scottish instrument maker, out walking in the city of Glasgow, one afternoon in 1765. For months Watt had been working on Newcomen’s steam engine trying to solve the problem of inefficiency from wasted steam:

‘I was thinking upon the engine at the time,’ he wrote later, ‘when the idea came into my mind that as steam was an elastic body it would rush into a vacuum, and if a communication were made between the cylinder and an exhausted vessel, it would rush into it and thereby be condensed without cooling the cylinder … I had not walked further than the golf-house when the whole thing was strong in my mind.’ (‘The Scottish Enlightenment.’ Arthur Herman. Chapter 12.)

Man the creator, achievements in the arts, Shakespeare exploring in iambic pentameter, possibilities of dramatic language and cognition, giving us characters thinking out loud, whether to themselves or to others, reflecting on what they themselves have said, and in the course of reflecting, becoming a different kind of character. In the visual arts, Greek, 6th to 4th century B.C. vase painters and sculptors and Renaissance artists, Leonardo and Michelangelo, exploring ways of suggesting depth of field and movement on canvas, and in stone statues, as in life, suggesting muscle and living tissue. Music composers, Mozart, Beethoven and ‘Song of Man,’ Johan Sebastian Bach, creating out of sound bits, complex orchestrations and miraculous harmonies of song.

Man the discoverer, those curious investigators of the scientific revolution, persistently seeking real answers to nature’s mysteries … Galileo, Isaac Newton, James Hutton, Charles Darwin….

Great movements in civilization by way of individual and opportunist endeavour. Opportunistism, every living thing must do it, find and explore new opportunities, new skills, new niches, live to fight another day – that’s the Darwin Award for doing it right.

Great movements in civilization but ever under attack. Enter your gurus, Gurus they just want to exploit YOU. Endless procession of shaman and kings who ruled by divine right or would rule as philosopher kings of privileged insight like your present day globalists, remake and control society to their own plan, and always an authoritative plan. Technology, internet, universal education should be enabling to open society, but as in George Orwell’s dystopian ‘1984’ they’re being used by guru groups to propagandize and enslave our minds. Herewith:

http://invisibleserfscollar.com/rewiring-students-brains-at-a-neural-level-to-constrain-guide-and-motivate-desired-future-behaviors/

Viva la resistance!

‘Why can’t we?’ ‘The Sun Also Rises.’ Ernest Hemingway.

… Well actually we can.

So let us begin… Aristotle’s three laws of logic are your key to fight-back, and of course, shown by history, individuals from Socrates and Galileo to Darwin, a felt need to get it right as the spur to real engagement with nature, of which we are a part.

Aristotle’s Law of Identity.

First law of logic is the Law of Identity. A thing is what it is and is no other thing. As in the logic of mathematics, 1=1, does not = 2 or = 3, so in reality of nature, a thing is itself and not some other thing, A=A, can’t be B or C.

Reasoning is uniquely possible to Homo sapiens by virtue of words, our tools of cognition. A word is a symbol with a definition and that means careful definition, ‘definition,’ the set of properties or characteristics that distinguish a thing from all other things, a distinct set of implications.’

For Homo sapiens, inventers of descriptive and critical language, consciousness is identification, the quest for non- contradictory identification. Here is a comment at Science and Fiction’s blog, (16/08/18 ) ‘The main loop of a conscious entity’s running code is an incessant query: what is it? Answering that produces identity.’

What is the question?
What is the question?

Gurus need to mess this up. It’s the art of persuasion. If they’re going to convince their focus group that ‘lies are freedom’ or ‘ignorance is strength,’ they have to subvert the Law of Identity by sleight of hand, word-craft mis-definition and drum in the identity switch by forced association and oft repeated slogans…Gurus understand that habit rules.




Law of Identity.

                                                              A thing is itself, it has
                                                              its own identity, A
                                                              cannot be B or C, this
                                                              simply defies reality.
                                                              ‘Nothing,’ says Edward Bernays
                                                              ‘is simply what it really is,
                                                              but I, smoke and mirror-wise,
                                                              can make it seem this, that or
                                                              some other thing, by means
                                                              of a symbol – conjuring trick.




Aristotle’s Law of Contradiction.

Definitions again: ‘Truth: an idea that cannot be contradicted by any other implication within its context.’ Truth in logic, as in nature, is one of two possible states, the other possible state is false.

Reality, evolution, ideas, all have the same forms and logic is the formalization of the forms. In nature, all those living entities, including us, function in ways, natural particular to themselves, function reflects the law of causality, Darwinian cause and effect in one direction, the order is one way, following the arrow of time. Second Law of logic, regarding statements by Homo sapiens describing distinct entities and their particular functions …‘that’ necessarily follows without contradiction from ‘this.’

Gurus like Hegel welcome contradictions to pervert the second law because truth is not their object. They each have their own 1984 agenda… sell you that values’-laden fast car or diamond bracelet… or find a lucrative niche for themselves like mistletoe on a tree… or create a dystopia where they will be philosopher king. Means to these ends, reality and logic have to be reconstituted, contradictions employed, such as inverting cause and effect, cart before horse, cli-science, increasing CO2 is causing temperature rise, whereas the long record shows the opposite. Or disregard ‘cause’ altogether, logic and science can surely get along without it, despite what Feynman says about putting your theory under rigorous scrutiny. Simple correlation might do the trick, the rooster crows at sun rise. Or you can bring in those smoke and mirror words, laden entities with added entendre; fear and guilt and virtue signalling work wonders with words like ‘justice,’ equity,’ and ‘sustainability.’

Or you might try crowd- appeal, ‘all’ and ‘every’ are handy quantifications, consensus has emotional power, especially when you add argument from authority, ‘nine out of ten doctors say…’



Aristotle’s Law of Contradiction.

                                                          All contradictions welcome
                                                          in Hegel’s dialectics.
                                                          As with Humpty Dumpty, things
                                                          mean what Hegel says they mean,
                                                          more, not less; ‘tis a tricksy
                                                          balancing act involving
                                                          a number of conflicting
                                                          meanings, all held together
                                                          and at the same time. Clevah!




Aristotle’s Law of the Excluded Middle.

The Law of the Excluded Middle: a statement has to be true or it is false, it’s a binary opposition. If a statement does not evaluate to ‘true’ or ‘false,’ it is, by definition, unreasonable. Truth in logic, as in nature, is one of two possible states, the other possible state is false No other option such as ‘maybe, could be, should be. Gone are problems like the liar’s paradox, designed to confuse and weaken you, if part of a statement is untrue, the statement is false, that’s it!

And if a description can’t be substantiated, then it doesn’t exist, no such thing as an empty set. This eliminates the mysterious and the superstitious in one fell swoop. Shakespeare wasn’t wrong when he said that’ nothing can come of nothing.’ H/t King Lear, Act 1. Negation of nothing is nothing: ‘I did not destroy New York today,’ does not mean that I built anything. The negation of life is nothing The negation of death, is nothing. Life after death, well you know… Better make life count and guard your precious self possession, don’t let those gurus take it from you.



Law of the Excluded Middle.

                                                        Law of the excluded middle,
                                                        in nature, either it is or is not,
                                                        no mister in between is possible,
                                                        if it can’t be substantiated, it
                                                        doesn’t exist, there are no empty
                                                        sets nor empty suits.

                                                        Not so,’ says George Soros
                                                        following Plato and Big Bro’)
                                                        ghostly apparitions a specialty
                                                        by means of my state-of-the-art
                                                        phantasmagoria machine,
                                                        I’ll give a local habitation and
                                                        a name to any ideal entity,
                                                        utopia on earth or divinity in
                                                        heaven, or demon manifestations
                                                        of fear and guilt, any size, as required.



Well that’s about it! Reconstituting reality requires truth as a casualty, and every guru from wa-a-ay back KNOWS the so called ‘noble’ lie is a necessity, by raison d’etat, and ‘the state is us’ and we know what is best for you and we know what is best for us.

Finis – phew

 

56th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL




No Matter How Beautiful the Model…
A serf’s musings on climate science.




All Nature faithfully.

So if it can’t or won’t agree with observation, if it’s gigo –garbage in and out, then no matter how beautiful the model, it’s wro-ong.

There’s a verse by Nietzsche that describes the art of painting and which aptly applies to climate science if you substitute the word, ‘models,’ for ‘paints.’

                                             ‘All Nature faithfully ‘ – But by what feint
                                             Can Nature be subdued to art’s constraint?
                                             Her smallest fragrant is still infinite!
                                             And so he paints but what he likes in it.
                                             What does he like? He likes, what he can paint.

And so, herewith, via writings by Professors’ Richard Lindzen, Ross McKitrick, W.J.R. Alexander and Judith Curry, identifying problems with climate models, a serf’s musings on why those climate models, however beautiful they may seem, are fatally flawed.



If it can’t, or won’t, describe all Nature faithfully …

A little history of science change. Richard Lindzen, in his paper, ‘Climate Science: is it currently designed to answer questions?’ (2008) looks at reasons, why climate science won’t, and does not, seek to describe Nature faithfully…namely, as a consequence of 20th century politicization of science generally, and of climate science modeling specifically. Enter Government, stage left, with customary dead–hand effect.

Richard Lindzen traces the ways in which science has changed from its traditional practice involving ‘the creative opposition of theory and observation wherein each tests the other in such a manner as to converge on a better understanding of the world.’ (P2) He identifies, in the aftermath of WW2. a shifting paradigm from ‘gratitude’ for the achievements of science during the War and in the ensuing two decades, with the lessening of new discoveries, change to a new paradigm for the science community in the late 1960’s, a paradigm of ‘fear,’ fear of the Soviet Union, fear of cancer, etc. Lindzen observes that ‘fear,’ as an incentive structure for big government spending in science and expansion of bureaucratic structures for stakeholders, is more compelling than gratitude.



Some consequences of fear as a basis of support.

With the end of the Cold War, there arose a need to look for other fear incentives, which soon put the focus on the environment. Enter, also left of stage, your Anthropological Global Warming, Climate Incentive… Climate Change Science, here’s a small and immature field of science depending on fear-based support, which makes it particularly vulnerable to fear-based corruption.

Richard Lindzen points to ways this is actually taking place in climate science. One consequence of the big spending paradigm in science appears to be that less emphasis is given to theory, because of its intrinsic difficulty and small scale, and more emphasis, instead, is on model simulation, (which calls for large capital investment in computation) and emphasis on adoption of large programs unconstrained by specific goals. More to be gained by perpetuation of problems than by solving them.

‘In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.’ (P4)

‘Perhaps,’ says Lindzen ,‘the most impressive exploitation of climate science for political purposes has been the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by two UN agencies, UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) and WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and the agreement of all major countries at the 1992 Rio Conference to accept the IPCC as authoritative. Formally, the IPCC summarizes the peer reviewed literature on climate every five years. The charge to the IPCC is not simply to summarize, but rather to provide the science with which to support the negotiating process whose aim is to control greenhouse gas levels. This is a political rather than a scientific charge… That said, the participating scientists have some leeway in which to reasonably describe matters, since the primary document that the public associates with the IPCC is not the extensive report prepared by the scientists, but rather the Summary for Policymakers which is written by an assemblage of representatives from governments and NGO’s, with only a small scientific representation.’



Who controls the message?

This politicization process, exploiting public alarm, necessitates political corruption of scientific institutions, as it requires political spokespersons on message within the expanding academic, government and research organizations that support science.

Richard Lindzen gives examples of how the leading spokespersons of these institutions’ hierarchical structures are no longer scientists but political appointees. For example Anthony Socci, spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science but a former staffer to Al Gore. John Holdren, whose primary affiliation is the pseudo-scientific Wood’s Hole Research Centre, an environmental advocacy centre whose name is designed to confuse it with Wood’s Hole Oceanographic Centre, which actually is a research centre. John Holdren , another Al Gore Admin spokesman, is a professor in Harvard’s Government Department. Then there’s America’s National Academy of Science, which has allowed a back door for the election of candidates for membership and election to positions on the executive council, by-passing the conventional vetting procedure. Ralph Ciceroni, Paul Ehrlich, James Hansen, Steven Schneider, John Holdren and Susan Solomon were elected via this route. (P8)

Given the above you’d hardly be surprised if working scientists would make special efforts to support the global warming hypothesis. And there is ample evidence that shows that they do. Remember that crucial opposition between theory and test, test meaning observation? Well in climate science the desired direction is to bring the data into agreement with the models and not vice versa. As Lindzen illustrates by several examples, many scientists act as though it is the role of science to vindicate the greenhouse paradigm for climate change and vindicate the credibility of the models. ‘Comparisons of models with data are, for example, referred to as model validation studies rather than model tests.’ (P10.)



Bringing data into agreement with the models.

In his paper, Richard Lindzen presents seven examples of scientists doing just that. Here’s just one, and the most famous, maybe ‘infamous’ example, the effort to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period, by Michael Mann et al MBH98, (1998 -1999.) Quoting Lindzen directly:

‘In the first IPCC assessment (IPCC, 1990), the traditional picture of the climate of the past 1100 years was presented. In this picture, there was a medieval warm period that was somewhat warmer than the present, as well as the little ice age that was cooler. The presence of a period warmer than the present in the absence of any anthropogenic greenhouse gases was deemed an embarrassment for those holding that present warming could only be accounted for by the activities of man. Not surprisingly, efforts were made to get rid of the medieval warm period (According to Demming, 2005, in 1995, “A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The most infamous effort was that due to Mann et al (1998, 199913) which used primarily a few handfuls of tree ring records to obtain a reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature going back eventually a thousand years that no longer showed a medieval warm period. Indeed, it showed a slight cooling for almost a thousand years culminating in a sharp warming beginning in the nineteenth century. The curve came to be known as the hockey stick, and featured prominently in the next IPCC report, where it was then suggested that the present warming was unprecedented in the past 1000 years. The study immediately encountered severe questions concerning both the proxy data and its statistical analysis (interestingly, the most penetrating critiques came from outside the field: McIntyre and McKitrick, 2003, 2005). This led to two independent assessments of the hockey stick (Wegman,2006, North, 2006), both of which found the statistics inadequate for the claims. The story is given in detail in Holland (2007). Since the existence of a medieval warm period is amply documented in historical accounts for the North Atlantic region (Soon et al, 2003), Mann et al countered that the warming had to be regional but not characteristic of the whole northern hemisphere. Given that an underlying assumption of their analysis was that the geographic pattern of warming had to have remained constant, this would have invalidated the analysis ab initio without reference to the specifics of the statistics. Indeed, the 4th IPCC (2007) assessment no longer featured the hockey stick, but the claim that current warming is unprecedented remains, and Mann et al’s reconstruction is still shown in Chapter 6 of the 4th IPCC assessment, buried among other reconstructions.’ (PP10/12)

Lots more in Lindzen’s paper on those pressures to inhibit enquiry and problem solving and the need for model validation that take place when an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda as is the case with climate, where a politically designed position becomes a goal rather than a consequence

And more on that hockey stick here, in a paper by Professor Ross McKitrick.



Hockey, anyone?

Ross McKitrick’s paper, ‘A Brief Retrospective on the Hockey Stick’ (2014) is a concise summary of the controversial MBH98 paper and the methodological problems that McKitrick and Steve McIntyre identified in Michael Mann’s creation of that iconic hockey stick. Worth reading in the original, linked above, its analytical explanation is only six pages long, and clearly formatted in six sections.

1: Core Issues: The Proxy Data set. Those suspect tree ring records, namely bristlecone pine cores from high mountains in the US Southwest. These long-lived trees grow in highly contorted shapes as bark dies back to a single twisted strip. The scientists who published the data specifically warned that the data should not be used for temperature construction. Mann’s method exaggerated the significance of the bristlecones so as to make that chronology out to be the dominant global pattern rather than a minor and regional one. Mann understated the certainties of the final reconstruction leading to the claim of 1998 s the warmest year of the last millennium. Mann put obstacles in place for subsequent researchers wanting to obtain his data and replicate his methodologies, six years later were only received by the intervention s of US Congress ional investigators and editors of Nature magazine.

2: Critique of the method: One quote:

‘Mann’s PC step was programmed incorrectly and created two weird effects in how it handled data. First, if the underlying data set was mostly random noise, but there was one hockey stick-shaped series in the group, the flawed PC step would isolate it out, generate a hockey stick composite and call it the dominant pattern, even if it was just a minor background fluctuation. Second, if the underlying data consisted of a particular type of randomness called “red noise”—basically randomness operating on a slow, cyclical scale—then the PC step would rearrange the red noise into a hockey stick-shaped composite. Either way, the resulting composites would have a hockey stick shape for the LS step to glom onto and produce the famous final result.’ (P2)

3: Stickhandling: Here’s a Mannian response to whether he used a well understood statistic which McKitrick tells us is found in every statistics textbook and is the workhorse of model testing. In 2005, following an article in the Wall St Journal, Mann was sent a list of questions by the Energy and Commerce Committee of the US Congress, one of which was whether he had computed a required statistic benchmark. His answer:

‘My colleagues and I did not rely on this statistic in our assessments of “skill” (i.e., the reliability of a statistical model, based on the ability of a statistical model to match data not used in constructing the model) because, in our view, and in the view of other reputable scientists in the field, it is not an adequate measure of “skill.” The statistic used by Mann et al. 1998, the reduction of error, or “RE” statistic, is generally favored by scientists in the field.’ (P3)

McKitrick argues that this is classic misdirection. Mann was not asked whether he relied on the statistic when assessing his results because if he had relied on it he would never have claimed his results were significant:

‘He only claimed significance by ignoring it. The question specifically was whether he computed it. Tellingly, in his reply he changed the subject. But it hardly matters. Either he did not compute it, in which case he was lying in the paper by saying he had, or he did, in which case his failure to disclose it was misleading to his readers.’ (P3)

4: The National Academy of Science (NAS) Report.: McKitrick describes how Gerald North et al came up with elliptical ways to actually say that the Hockey Stick was unreliable … reductions can be assessed in a variety of tests … if the Coefficient of Efficiency (CE ) score is near zero or negative, your model is junk … the Wahl and Amman paper in which they use Mann’s data and code and compute the test scores that he didn’t report The CE scores range from near zero to negative … telling us that Mann’s results are …well you know!

5: The Censored Folder: ‘Hey, when we removed the rings the graph collapsed.’

‘Mann also published an online review article, (Mann et al. 2000,) that assured readers in categorical terms that their results were “robust” to non-climatic bias in tree ring data6 and even to the complete removal of tree rings from their data set, though they illustrated that point only for the post-1760 interval. In the course of our analysis, Steve found some directories at Mann’s FTP site (the “CENSORED” directories), which, through detective work, were found to contain assessments of the impact from dropping the bristlecones from the underlying data. In light of the claim in Mann et al. (2000), this should not have made any difference, but it did. In our NAS presentation we showed graphs of the data in Mann’s “CENSORED” results, in which the hockey stick shape completely disappears. That is, even applying Mann’s biased methods, after dropping the few bristlecone pine series there is no remaining hockey stick shape. The claim in Mann et al about robustness to the exclusion of the tree ring data was obviously misleading.’ (P5)

6: Conclusion: Seems to Professor McKitrick that this whole Hockey Stick episode has ‘social significance as an indicator of a rather defective aspect of early 21st century scientific culture…’ (P6)



Biblical prophecies and modern predictions, questions, evidence ‘n tests…

Behold there came seven years of great plenty throughout the land of Egypt – and there shall arise after them seven years of famine. (Genesis, 6.)

W.J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Bio-systems Engineering at the University of Pretoria, published a report, ‘A Critical Assessment of Current Climate Change Science, (April, 2006)’ which I downloaded for my files in 2011. The report is an impressive and fascinating study of sunspot observations and their correlation with flood data of the River Vaal, and the report is also a critique of climate science and bodies like the IPCC for their reluctance to make use of the extensive hydrological and historical observations available to them in the South African data base.

‘Tis Unfortunate that Google no longer provides connection to this paper or several other publications by Professor Alexander, one wonders why, as Professor Alexander brought a wealth of experience to water research and management, so here is a link to a shorter publication by Alexander which I located at R Pielke Senior’s blog and which includes in its Tables 9-10, (on pp 23/24 of the original paper ) observations important in the much longer report.

Regarding that wealth of experience: in his early career Professor Alexander spent years in the field building dams, canals pipelines and the Orange-Fish Tunnel, which is the longest tunnel in the world. Later, as Chief of the Division of Hydrology he was responsible for collection and publication of hydrological data and conducting research necessary for water resource management in a water-scarce country and designing structures exposed to flood damage. A major challenge for Professor Alexander was the search for multi-year river flow prediction capabilities and solving this problem was motivation for his continuing research when he was appointed Professor Emeritus at Pretoria University in 1985. This research reads like a detective story.



Not jest an academic enquiry but a real need.

Lot’s of prior knowledge of the multiyear characteristics of rainfall and river flow in the historical record. In the 1900’s there’s scientist, civil- engineer, R,E Hutchins who served in the British Colonial Office in India during the severe drought of 1876, at the time searching for predictable links between droughts and sunspot numbers. When Hutchins migrated to South Africa he continued his research, finding a correspondence between average price of food grain and sunspot numbers and showing that the linkage between floods that broke the drought and sunspot numbers was greatest in the temperate zones, not the tropics or northern America or Europe.

Following Hutchins, in 1950, civil engineer R.E Hurst, analysing 1080 years of data recorded on the Nile River in Egypt in order to determine the required storage capacity of the proposed Aswan High Dam, found an unexplained anomaly in the data. Using graphical methods he recognized the same phenomenon in the long record, which became known as Hurst’s Ghost and which was confirmed by Mandelbrot and Wallis, in their paper.’ Some Long-Run Properties of Geophysical Research,’(1969) finding the anomaly present in their own extensive research of varve deposits, river flow and meander, earthquake frequencies and sunspots.

In the mid 1970’s hydrologists in the South African Department of Water Affairs also encountered Hurst’s anomaly, and perceiving that the reservoir capacity–yield model was deficient, began looking further. Graphical analysis revealed that there was a clear 21 year periodicity in the data that was the cause of the difficulty. These graphs showed a clear pattern in the accumulated departures from the record mean values that were approximately synchronous with sunspot activity.

Over the following years, Professor Alexander continued studying Vaal River periodicity and in 1995 Published his paper ‘Floods, droughts and Climate Change’, in which he successfully predicted the next breaking of the drought.

In November 2005 Alexander issued another flood alert, which was again a successful prediction. From his examination of sun spot cycles available from the World Data Centre for the Sun spot Index, Professor Alexander observed a pattern, not apparent in the conventional graphs a pattern that that did not appear in the 10.5 year sunspot cycle but via alternating pairs of year cycles where there is a meaningful difference in sunspot activity in the alternating cycle of the pair. What is important is not annual sunspot density but rate of change in the densities. Herewith his graphs that illustrate the process.



The Graphs.

The Figure 9, below, is very important demonstrating the unequivocal synchronous relationship between annual sunspot numbers and the annual flows in the Vaal River that is South Africa’s major river. Note the alternating above (rising) and below (falling) flow sequences and their synchronous relationship with sunspot numbers; also the statistically significant (95%), 21-year periodicity in the flow data synchronous with the double sunspot cycle.

Notice the absence of 11-year periodicity in the correlogram of the Vaal River. It is no wonder that climate change scientists have been unable to detect synchronous relationships with the 11-year sunspot cycle. It does not exist! This is because the properties of the alternating solar cycles are fundamentally different to the extent that the climatic responses are also very different.



Figure 9. Comparisons of the characteristics of annual sunspot numbers with corresponding characteristics of the annual flows in the Vaal River. Another frequent error associated with the sunspot cycle is the assumption that the maximum effect is associated with the sunspot maxima. This is altogether wrong. The maxima occur immediately after the solar minima.

Table 10 illustrates this.




Look away, look away, climate man…

In his paper Alexander notes serious deficiencies in climate science. He cites and comments on the following passage from IPCC Report (2001) technical summary of Working Group 1:

This section bridges to the climate change of the future by describing the only tool that provides quantitative estimates of future climate changes, namely numerical models…

The complexity of the processes in the climate system prevents the use of extrapolation of past trends or statistical and other purely empirical techniques for projections…

The degree to which the model can simulate the responses of the climate system hinges to a very large degree on the level of understanding of the physical, geographical, chemical biological processes that govern the climate system. (A. P13.)

‘Unfortunately,’ says Professor Alexander, ‘this process is fundamentally flawed. The interest is in climate change. Climate in turn does not refer to an instant in time but to a period of time. For example, agricultural and water supply droughts have durations measured in years. The interest is therefore in the properties of future multi-year time series, not in changes in mean conditions. Global climate models are inherently incapable of producing information in this format.

It is clear from the above extracts that the climate researchers did not appreciate the fundamental difference between process theory, which they applied, and observation theory, which is the foundation of the applied sciences. A simple example is the biblical reference to Joseph’s prediction of plenty followed by famine.’ (P13.)

Contra to the IPCC statement of complexity preventing extrapolation of past trends, statistical or purely empirical techniques, ‘more than 3000 years ago, administrators in the ancient Egyptian civilizations were aware of the anomalous grouping of wet and dry sequences of wet and dry seasons and the ability to predict future conditions,’ which the IPCC denied. And there’s that record from the water level gauging structure on the Nile near Cairo, the longest hydrological record in the world, which the IPCC ignored. Following Nature? No way, what has Nature to do with us?



Can’t agree with Nature faithfully…

In a post at Climate Etc, November, 2016, Professor Judith Curry presents a critical analysis of climate models with some follow up insightful commentary by readers.. Read the full post above, which addresses the following four questions: (1) What is a Global Climate Model? (2) What is the reliability of climate models? (3) What are the failings of Climate models? (4) Are Global Climate Models’ a reliable tool for predicting climate change?

Here’s a summary of Judith Curry’s analysis paper, ‘Climate models for lawyers,’ as a response to each of those questions.

Question 1: Judith Curry describes a Global Climate Model as a simulation of the Earth’s climate system, with modules that simulate the atmosphere, ocean, land surface, sea ice and glaciers. The atmospheric module simulates evolution of the winds, temperatures, humidity and atmospheric pressure using complex mathematical equations that can only be solved using computers. These equations attempt to incorporate fundamental physical principles such as Newton’s Laws of Motion and the First Law of Thermodynamics. Global Climate Models, (GCMs) also use mathematical equations to describe some complex dynamics… three dimensional ocean circulation, how it transports heat, and how the ocean exchanges heat and moisture with the atmosphere, land surface modeling to describe how vegetation, soil, snow and ice exchange energy and moisture with the atmosphere.

Trying to solve these equations on a computer, GCMs divide atmosphere, oceans and land into a three-dimensional grid system. The equations are then calculated for each cell in the grid repeatedly for successive time steps marching forward in time throughout the simulation. The necessary coarseness of the model resolution is driven by the computing resources available and tradeoffs between model resolution, model complexity and length and number of simulations to be conducted. Because models’ special resolutions are relatively coarse, smaller resolutions or sub-grid resolutions, like clouds and rainfall, are represented as parameters or simple formulas which are ‘calibrated,’ or ‘tuned’ so that models perform adequately when compared with historical observations. This calibration is needed because the real processes are either poorly understood or too complex to incorporate into the models.



Mesdames et messieurs, faites vos jeux

As Judith Curry observes:

‘There are literally thousands of different choices made in the construction of a climate model (e.g. resolution, complexity of the sub-models, parameterizations). Each different set of choices produces a different model having different sensitivities. Further, different modeling groups have different focal interests e.g. long paleoclimate simulations, details of ocean circulations, nuances of the interactions between aerosol particles and clouds, the carbon cycle. These different interests focus computational resources on a particular aspect of simulating the climate system at the expense of others.’ (P3)

Question 2: concerning the reliability of GCMs: Problems arise from uncertainties in model structure, model parameterizations and initial conditions and from ad hoc modeling to compensate for the absence of neglected factors. Continual ad hoc adjustments in models, (calibration) masks underlying deficiencies in model structural form. (P5) And therefore model calibration to match 20th century historic temperatures is no metric for models’ accuracy and nor does agreement of models’ forecasts and hindcasts imply that a model gives a correct answer for the right reason. For example, the various coupled climate models used in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report each reproduces the time series for the 20th century but with different feedbacks and sensitivities producing different simulations.(P5)

Question 3: A significant failing of climate models is their failure to understand the causes of global warming. Models’ assumptions of human – caused warming rely not only on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere but also on how ‘sensitive’ the climate is to these increases. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration was estimated by the International Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) in 2007, to be in the range 2 to 4.5 degrees. Since then the uncertainty of the range has been increasing, the bottom of the range has been lowered from 2 to 1,5 degrees, and no best estimate is now given as a consequence of substantial discrepancy between observation lower best estimations of ECS versus the higher estimates from climate models.

And ‘arguably the most fundamental challenge for climate models,’ says Judith Curry, ‘lies in the coupling of two chaotic fluids, the ocean and the atmosphere.’

‘Coupling a non-linear chaotic atmospheric model to a non-linear, chaotic ocean model gives rise to something much more complex than the deterministic chaos of the weather model, particularly under conditions of transient forcing, (such as the increasing conditions of CO2) Coupled atmospheric/ocean modes of internal variability arise on timescales of weeks, years, decades, centuries and millennia. These coupled modes give rise to bifurcation, instability and chaos. How to characterize such phenomena arising from transient forcing of the coupled atmosphere/ocean system defies classification by current theories of non linear dynamic al systems, particularly in situations involving transient changes of parameter values. Stainforth et al (2007) refer to this situation as ‘Pandemonium.’ (P9)

Question 4: Regarding fitness for purpose, Judith Curry concludes that given the above and given the failure of climate models to explain the observed early 20th century warming and the mid-century cooling, the climate models are not fit for the purpose of simulating and predicting the evolution of Earth’s climate.

So there it is. Given the above analysis by Professors Curry, Lindzen, McKitrick and Alexander … alas, you modelers in cloud towers, whiling away the tenured hours, looks like those climate models, beautiful as they may appear, just – don’t – match – the -observations and so, … well you know!

55th EDITION SERF UNDER_GROUND JOURNAL




U.N. AGENDA 21. BLUE-PRINT FOR A GLOBALIST UTOPIA.





Taking a little stroll down Memory Lane and some history of the origins of the United Nations.

Like a phoenix arising from the ashes, in 1945 the United Nations came into being as a replacement for a now discredited League of Nations, established after World War 1 to prevent future war. The League of Nations had never been a fully representative body, nor did it have formal powers to exert influence when disputes arose, and by 1939 it had become redundant and was unable to prevent the outbreak of World War 2. In the aftermath of that long war, there was widespread belief that some new institution had to be created, one better able to arbitrate international conflict and negotiate peace, with broader goals than prevention of war and formal powers beyond those of a mere advisory body, including, if required, the power of military back up.

The forty nations that founded the new United Nations, with Poland joining later, signed a charter based on recommendations worked out by representatives from China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. Article 1.1 stated its main purpose:

To maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective and collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

There was another important objective described in the Charter respecting principles of equal rights and self determination for all peoples, which in the context of the post-war period, was directed at those small nations in danger of being swallowed up by the Communist behemoths emerging from the war, and supporting this objective, in 1948 the first General Assembly of the U.N. adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, affirming:

* Everyone has the right to take part in the government of the country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

* The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent voting procedures.

It was not envisaged that the United Nations organization, a body for peace and freedom, would itself morph into a creeping behemoth of global power and dominance, but it has.

A lot of water under the bridge since 1948 and that affirmation by the U.N. that the right to govern lies with the nation state and is derived from the consent of its people.



You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby…

From its beginnings in 1948 to the early 1990s, the U.N. was heavily engaged in peace- keeping operations from monitoring the Armistice Agreement in the Middle East between Israel and its Arab neighbours to more than seventy peace keeping operations, including involvement in Cold War inter-state disputes and civil war in Africa and the former Yugoslavia. Some of these involvements were relatively successful, others, as in Rwanda and Sbrenica, spectacularly unsuccessful, when U.N. peacekeepers failed to intervene to prevent mass genocide.

Increasingly peace keeping began to include multi-dimensional missions requiring more administrators, police officers, legal experts, economists, electoral observers, and human rights monitors. More bureaucracy, more office HQs needed as activities expanded, not only related to peace-keeping but as a result of new roles in global intervention that the UN was taking upon itself from the 1970’s onwards.

New and expanded agencies, this is what bureaucrats do. From that U.N. original official headquarters in Geneva to the official HQ General Assembly in New York, and the International Court at The Hague, the U.N. proceeded to set up regional offices to house its expanding specialized agencies, in Washington … U.N. International Monetary System, and its education organization, UNESCO, in Rome … the Food and Agriculture Organization, in Paris…the Science and Cultural Organization, in Vienna … Industry and Development Organization and there were other HQ’s in Nairobi and Montreal. Geneva became HQ for the International Labour Organization and also for the World Health Organization and the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization.

Expansion details. In 1983, the U.N.General Assembly convened the World Commission on Environment and Development, also called the Brundtland Commission. This Commission, chaired by Gro Harlem Bruntland, was charged with finding a long term solution to environmental problems of ozone depletion and global warming, a solution involving processes of managing national resources and processes of international cooperation. The Brundtland Report, published in 1987 as Our Common Future, stated that the time had come for a marriage between the environment and the economy involving a changed economic model and new mode of governance. It introduced the term ‘sustainable development,’ a prescription to ensure that economic development would not endanger the ability of future generations to enjoy the fruits of the earth. From the Report:

‘ The challenge of finding sustainable development paths ought to provide the impetus – indeed the imperative – for a renewed search for multilateral solutions and a restructured international economic system of co-operation. These challenges cut across the divides of national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain, and of separated disciplines of science.’ ‘Our Common Future. From One Earth to One World.’ Gro Harlem Brundtland.Oslo.1987

Agenda 21, Sustainable Development. – we’ll get to it eventually …



Say, What’s Behind the Green Door?

Behind Agenda 21, blueprint for global governance there’s the United Nations’ Brundtland Report recommendation for a new economic model and first mention of Sustainable Development, with a capital ‘S’ and a capital ‘D.’ Behind the Brundtland Report you have the Trilateral Commission, an elite organization with powerful members, bankers, directors of industry, politicians, media heavies. Gro Brundtland, ex-Prime-Minister of Norway, was herself a member. And what do the members of the Trilateral Commission want? Why, they want a new world order, a world order based on an economic model first advocated by a group at Columbia University during the economic depression of the 1930’s but discredited in the same decade. In the 1980’s this movement for a new world order became another phoenix arising, thanks to the efforts of the Trilateral Commission. Here’s an informative you tube overview of its history by Patrick M. Wood, financial analyst and author who has studied elite globalization policies since the 1970s when with scholar Antony Sutton, he co-authored the book, ‘Trilaterals over Washington.’ https://tragedyandhope.com/technocracy-trilaterals-tpp-an-interview-with-patrick-wood/

The Trilateral Commission was created in 1973 by David Rockefeller and political scientist, Zbigniew Brzezinski, (author of the book,’ Between Two Ages: America in the Technetronic Era,’) with the stated aim of fostering a global technocracy to manage the world’s resources efficiently… Say, I’ve read the Brzezinski book, found it depressingly reminiscent of the philosopher king, Plato, in Karl Popper’s ‘Open Society and Its Enemies,’ Plato with his Master Plan for Utopia ruled by an elite oligarchy. Similarly, Brzezinski’s and Rockerfeller’s Commission, set up as a trilateral organization with members by invitation from North America, Europe and Japan. Since its inception it has co-opted an elite membership, including three U.S. Presidents, Carter, Clinton, Bush senior, powerful people like Kissinger, Greenspan, Al Gore, Soros, and later, Democrat Party members including John Podesta and Dianne Feinstein. Eric Schmidt of Google is a member. In a statement to ‘The New American,’ Patrick Wood stated the significance of the organization, ‘The Trilateral Commission was founded to create a new international order. Their members have been the architects and drivers of all modern globalization, including that which comes through the United Nations as Sustainable Development and Green Economy. Although the Trilateral Commission is international in scope, in the US they are more than just being part of the so-called Deep State, they are the Deep State!’

Powerful people with power aims. Rockefeller was a significant donor to the United Nations, its New York HQ occupies land gifted by him, not too difficult for him to foist their technocrat mission on the world via the United Nations via the Brundtland Commission. And so they have. From the Brundtland Commission to the Rio Earth Summit and Agenda 21. The U.N. itself gave credit to the Brundtland Commission for its creation.

So before I discuss some of its detail, take a look at the Agenda 21 voluminous 389 page master-plan by way of its content pages, a kind of global fly-over of a very detailed blue-print for the new international economic order, resources-based, resources-controlled and resources-rationed in the name of sustainable development and technocrat management.



And Tomorrow the World …

… Herewith the Agenda 21 contents in outline…

United Nations Conference on Environment & Development

Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992

AGENDA 21.

Contents.

Chapter
1.Preamble. Paragraphs 1.1 – 1.6

SECTION I. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS

2. International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development in developing countries and related domestic policies. Paragraphs 2.1 – 2.43
3. Combating poverty 3.1 – 3.12
4. Changing consumption patterns 4.1 – 4.27
5. Demographic dynamics and sustainability 5.1 – 5.66
6. Protecting and promoting human health conditions 6.1 – 6.46
7. Promoting sustainable human settlement development 7.1 – 7.80
8. Integrating environment and development in decision-making 8.1 – 8.54

SECTION II. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPMENT

9. Protection of the atmosphere 9.1 – 9.35
10. Integrated approach to the planning and management of land resources 10.1 – 10.18 11. Combating deforestation 11.1 – 11.40
12. Managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought 12.1 – 12.63
13. Managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development 13.1 – 13.24
14. Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development 14.1 – 14.104
15. Conservation of biological diversity 15.1 – 15.11
16. Environmentally sound management of biotechnology 16.1 – 16.46
17. Protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas, including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, and coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources 17.1 – 17.136
18. Protection of the quality and supply of freshwater resources: application of integrated approaches to the development, management and use of water resources 18.1 – 18.90
19. Environmentally sound management of toxic chemicals, including prevention of illegal international traffic in toxic and dangerous products 19.1 – 19.76
20. Environmentally sound management of hazardous wastes, in hazardous wastes 20.1 – 20.46
21. Environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues 21.1 – 21.49
22. Safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes 22.1 – 22.9

SECTION III. STRENGTHENING THE ROLE OF MAJOR GROUPS

23. Preamble 23.1 – 23.4
24. Global action for women towards sustainable and equitable development 24.1 – 24.12 25. Children and youth in sustainable development 25.1 – 25.17
26. Recognizing and strengthening the role of indigenous people and their communities 26.1 – 26.9
27. Strengthening the role of non-governmental organizations: partners for sustainable development 27.1 – 27.13
28. Local authorities’ initiatives in support of Agenda 21 28.1 – 28.7
29. Strengthening the role of workers and their trade unions 29.1 – 29.14
30. Strengthening the role of business and industry 30.1 – 30.30
31. Scientific and technological community 31.1 – 31.12
32. Strengthening the role of farmers 32.1 – 32.14

SECTION IV. MEANS OF IMPLEMENTATION

33. Financial resources and mechanisms 33.1 – 33.21
34. Transfer of environmentally sound technology, cooperation and capacity-building 34.1 – 34.29
35. Science for sustainable development 35.1 – 35.25
36. Promoting education, public awareness and training 36.1 – 36.27
37. National mechanisms and international cooperation for capacity-building in developing countries 37.1 – 37.13
38. International institutional arrangements 38.1 – 38.45
39. International legal instruments and mechanisms 39.1 – 39.10
40. Information for decision making. 40.1 – 40.30




Plan for Utopia.

And now for the overview…

Following the Chapter 1 Preamble, Agenda 21 is set out in four sections.

Section 1, Social and Economic Dimensions: This section covers us humans and what we may consume…eat …use, where we may live and how we are to be allowed to develop. Significant chapters, Chapter 2, ‘International cooperation to accelerate sustainable development for all,’ Chapter 4, ‘Changing consumption patterns for sustainable development.’ Chapter 5, ‘Demographics and dynamics.’ Chapter 7. ‘Promoting habitable human settlement,’ and Chapter 8, ‘Integrating environment and development in decision making.’

Section 11, Conservation and Management of Resources Development: Well this is certainly comprehensive, fourteen chapters of precept and regulation, a new world order alright, bureaucrat control over air, land, and all living things thereon, our energy use, control of seas, rivers and other waterways, management of all waste products, ‘waste’ denoted by them to include CO2, a basis of life on earth, without it no plants and no us.

Section 111, Strengthening the Role of Major Groups: Getting everyone on board, but not as described by that UN first General Assembly in 1948, Everyone has the right to take part in the government of the country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

Agenda 21 is not about individual involvement in decision making, it is about your role as part of a collective, you are subsumed by your role ( in which the planned Delphi process prevails, plenary discussion but the outcomes are foreordained,) you are a member of the women’s group, an indigenous group, a worker group, or your role is defined as part of a business group, a science-technology group or farmers’ group, some ironic 1984 newspeak here ‘strengthening the role of farmers,’ as more and more regulations are being imposed on land use.

Section 1V, Means of Implementation … involving financing and costs You’ll get a shock when you go there. Some hefty estimated annual costs included in Means of Implementation… Utopias don’t come cheap, quite a drain on nation’s economies. So if you’re needing to get the citizens on board for all that costly and controlling regulation you have to be persuasive, consider that H.L. Mencken adage about keeping the populace alarmed and hence clamouring for government to save them. You have to scare people and here’s how you do it … by way of SCIENCE and GUILT, Global Warming caused by us! That’s Chapter 35, ‘Science for sustainability,’ messaging by the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change set up by the UN and charged with a mission to assess human caused global warming. Any wonder they found it, though their temperature models don’t match observations and they had to disappear past warming in the historical record to achieve it.

Further Means of Implementation in Agenda 21, Chapter 36, ‘Promoting education, public awareness and training.’ Have to get school children on board, the mandatory international Education Core-Curriculum teaches sustainability from Prep to Year 12, in every subject, even math. Public awareness by public broadcasters, listen to the pervasive advertising and admonitions of thou shouldst or thou shouldst not. Leaders of large news outlets, CNN and Time Magazine include Trilateral members, Google, remember that Trilateral Commission connection, Google is censoring information. So now let’s give it some teeth.L-A-W-Law, Chapter 38, ‘International legal instruments and mechanisms,’ they’re by-passing nation’s laws here, now isn’t that contra to… The will of the people shall be the basis of authority of governments; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent voting procedures. More on legal means of implementation later.

So let’s take a look at Chapter 1, the Preamble, a mix of noble cause motherhood statement and observing H.L.Mencken’s fear and alarm comment:

‘Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend, for our well being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future.’

‘Trust us,’ says the United Nations Organization:

‘No Nation can achieve this on its own , but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development’ – ‘This global partnership must build on the premises of General Assembly 44/228 when the nations of the world called for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.’

Some doubtful calls in the above. Those claims of worsening standards of living? Not according to Hans Rosling showing data from World Census stats. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usdJgEwMinM That call for U.N. assistance? Can’t remember when we were asked. Decisions from afar, we the people don’t get to vote on those treaties and conventions that can have such a pervasive effect on our lives. You see the effect with that case study for technocrat management, the European Union, where fiat decision making has brought currency crises, high youth unemployment http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2015/07/03/andrew-stuttaford-what-the-euro-has-wrought/ and social problems from unchecked immigration programs.

So now let’s take a closer look at some of the content in Agenda 21.



The Devil’s in the Detail.

In nice bureaucratic patterning the chapters in each of the four sections are set out in terms of ‘Basis for Action,’ ‘Objectives,’ ‘Activities’ and ‘Means of Implementation.’ Each chapter has segments, Part a. parts b and c, and some even go to parts j and k and l.

One of those chapters with parts a to l is Chapter 14, ‘Promoting Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development,’ the U.N SARD program that extends to 24 pages of prescripts and program areas for technocratic implementation. It certainly comes as quite a drain on national economies. Totaling the estimated average annual costs, years 1993 to 2000, for Chapter 14 alone, programs a to l, exceeded two trillion dollars.

Promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development is a very big issue in Agenda 21. Thing is, that as a basis for action, by year 2025, with an expected population of 8.5 billion, and that UN ‘SARD’ program objective, there’s quite a lot of land has to be taken out of the equation. There’s all that less productive land ear-marked for conservation, so remaining farms have to work better and that means more government direction of farmers, hence the long activities list below. In section a of Chapter 14, item 14.9, outlining its many policy prescripts, there’s an opening phrase you’ll find repeated at (14.13) (14.14) (14.15) and many times thereafter… ‘Government at the appropriate level, with the support of the relevant international and regional organizations, should’…

Herewith: 14.9:
‘Governments at the appropriate level, with the support of the relevant international and regional organizations, should:
a. Carry out national policy reviews related to food security including adequate levels and stability of food supply and access to food by all households;
b. Review national and regional agricultural policy in relation, inter alia, to foreign trade, price policy, exchange rate policies, agricultural subsidies and taxes, as well as organization for regional economic integration;
c. Implement policies to influence land tenure and property rights positively with due recognition of the minimum size of land-holding required to maintain production and check further fragmentation;
d. Consider demographic trends and population movements and identify critical areas for agricultural production;
e. Formulate, introduce and monitor policies, laws and regulations and incentives leading to sustainable agricultural and rural development and improved food security and to the development and transfer of appropriate farm technologies, including, where appropriate, low-input sustainable agricultural (LISA) systems;
f. Support national and regional early warning systems through food-security assistance schemes that monitor food supply and demand and factors affecting household access to food;
g. Review policies with respect to improving harvesting, storage, processing, distribution and marketing of products at the local, national and regional levels;
h. Formulate and implement integrated agricultural projects that include other natural resource activities, such as management of rangelands, forests, wildlife, as appropriate;
i. Promote social and economic research and policies that encourage sustainable agriculture development, particularly in fragile ecosystems and densely populated areas;

In the above list from section a … (hope you’re following the sections and sub-sections bureau-format … think Russian wooden dolls, inside each, another…) you’ll see lots of information gathering words, ‘identify’, ‘collect,’ ‘review,’ ‘monitor.’ Technocrats rely on big data collection to socially engineer us and dictate what, when, how resources are to be managed. Imbedded in most chapters in ‘activities,’ you’ll find mention of the importance of setting up national and international data bases.

In the list above, there’s also reference, at 14.9 d, to ‘identifying critical areas for agricultural production,’ ‘critical,’ by implication, meaning a fragile area to be protected from development. In chapter 14, one of the objectives of Section E, Land conservation and rehabilitation , is to create programs ‘leading to the reclamation of degraded lands and the conservation of areas at risk, and to improving the general planning, management and utilization of land resources.’ These programs, including the UN ‘Debt for Nature Swaps,’ DNS, and World Wide Fund for Nature Population Resettlement action, have had controversial outcomes. The UN program ‘Debt for Nature Swaps’ financing solutions for Sustainable Development is presented at its posted site by the statement.: ‘Debt for Nature Swaps, DNS can mobilize resources for protecting nature while reducing the debt burden of developing nations…Agreement that reduces a developing country’s debt stock or services in exchange for a commitment to protect nature from the debtor government … The savings from the reduced debt services are invested in conservation projects.’

Not a win-win exchange, however, when large tracts of land can no longer be utilized by the people and are now managed by outsiders, where hefty transaction costs paid for by the debtors and people like the Barhwa pygmies of Zaire, the Batwa pygmies of Rwanda and the Sanje bush people in Kenya have been driven from their ancestral lands to make way for national conservation parks, all managed in part by WWF people.



Give me land lots of land under starry skies above, tra la..

There’s also a land acquisition program taking place in developed nations as per Chapter 15 .3 of Agenda 21 proposing ‘urgent and decisive action’ to be taken ‘to conserve and maintain genes, species and ecosystems with a view to the sustainable management and use of biological resources.’ The UN-designed Wildlands Project, a master plan of Agenda 21, is part of the design to transform land from public ownership to large tracts of no-go wilderness managed by technocrats, each eco-area protected by buffer zones and with designated corridors linking human habitation areas. In the United States, in 1993, the Clinton Administration adopted the Agenda 21 Wildlands Project Plan and here it is, easily available on the internet.

http://allnewspipeline.com/images/UN_SimulationMap21.jpg

Agenda 21, Chapter 7, Promoting human settlement development , is the program design whereby almost everybody is to be herded into cities for sustainable development. A framework for strengthening management recommended at 7.16. is the ‘United Nations Development Programme /World Bank/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) Urban Management Programme (UMP), Its coverage should be extended to all interested countries during the period 1993- 2000.’

An allied program to the UN Habitat Sustainable Cities Programme is ICLEI the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Section 7.21. Agenda 21, specifically recommends involvement with ICLEI, not surprising since ICLEI was responsible for preparing the Local Council section of Agenda 21.

A lot of local councils have already adopted Agenda 21 initiatives under names like ‘A Greener City.’ What these programs envisage is a way of life in cities across four domains of ecology, economics, politics and culture, the sustainable city that will feed itself with a sustainable reliance on surrounding countryside, power itself with renewable energy and produce the smallest conceivable ecological footprint and climate change impact. In my home town in OZ, the Melbourne City Council is already on board with new building codes for sustainable development. More high-rise development along public transport systems, punitive rates charges on single dwellings, bike zones on main roads and controls on energy use, twin planks of technocrat control, land use and energy , item 7.3, in their Greening City Policy.

7.3.1 Introduce five-star energy ratings for all new residential buildings into the Victorian Building Regulations, and promote and encourage the inclusion of new energy efficiency standards for commercial development in the Building Code of Australia
7.3.2 Implement planning policies on renewable energy, starting with guidelines for wind farms, in order to integrate the Government’s policy of support for renewable energy resources across the State with the planning system
7.3.3 Support the development of a series of energy-efficient, greenhouse friendly demonstration projects, for example, Epping North as a sustainable suburb
7.3.4 Ensure that all Major Projects Victoria developments incorporate high levels of energy efficiency
7.3.5 Update the Victoria Planning Provisions and related guidelines to reflect and support the goals and directions of the Victorian Greenhouse Strategy
7.3.6 Introduce changes to Victoria’s planning and building systems that will be needed to help adapt to the impacts of climate change – following the completion of a three-year CSIRO research program funded by the Government



L-A-W – LAW.

Bears repeating, United Nations 1948: Everyone has the right to take part in the government of the country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

There’s a Quadrant Magazine article * by Professor of Law at Queensland University, Australia., James Allan, ‘The Problem of Creeping International Legal Rule,’ September 2016, that explores the ways in which two kinds of International Law exert undemocratic influence on domestic law.(* Should be available online but Google tells me ‘No,’)

The first is by way of ambiguously phrased UN International Treaties that play an increasingly large and influential role in determining judicial outcomes compared to less ambiguous, domestic regulations, international treaties which have been formulated without any citizen input. The second type of international law, known as customary law, is a non-treaty sort of international law that can flow on from treaties and have influence on local judicial decision making although it has never been agreed to by any accountable legislators. Who gets to make these decisions are publicists, legal academics who have no democratic warrant whatsoever, and as James Allan points out, as a group ‘may well have political and moral views that diverge from those of the general public.’ And James Allan notes, regarding the election of this group of people into the International Court of Justice, many of them from non-democracies, a great deal of horse trading takes place, a method of selecting International Court judges that Allan describes as ‘opaque,’ The article is a detailed description of ways, via International Law, that a nation’s voters are overwhelmingly locked out when it comes to resolving debatable social policies.

Well that’s it cits, Agenda 21 globalist Utopia? What do we do, it’s over to you and me and us. Gotta’ get political parties representing us at the national level. Say, doesn’t everyone have the right to take part in the government of the country, directly or through freely chosen representatives ?