The New Climate Denial


I was always a defender of ‘climate change’, my defence wasn’t because of “what the science is telling us”, people who say this usually aren’t scientists, and neither am I - but I do know that scientists often disagree, I know that certain datasets get totally sidelined and ignored, that entire areas of research are persistently shunned and ridiculed by the scientific mainstream. I know that attention and funding and research is dependent on institutions, governments, corporations and other private actors who have a vested interest in seeing specific outcomes. 

For example: In evolutionary theory traditional Darwinian evolution is based on Phyletic Gradualism. This model still dominates the popular mindset in regards to how speciation occurs - Phyletic Gradualism supports the idea that things evolve slowly and gradually over long periods of time by anagenesis; meaning that a species gradually adapts to its environment through selection pressures until morphogenetic changes eventually drift into a new type.

This is how most people, including many scientists still think evolution occurs. Never mind the fact that this isn’t actually what happens 99.9% of the time.

What really happens, except in some rare cases where gradualism does occur; is that things don’t actually evolve. They stay in stasis for millions of years - most species preserve their morphology until some kind of geological event takes place and then you have cladogenesis; an explosion of new species which happens abruptly - this is called a Punctuated Equilibrium, it’s a rapid evolutionary event. This is evident in the fossil record and it’s the reason why every geological epoch has its own unique set of species. 

Most scientists simply ignored Punctuated Equilibrium because they assumed that there was nothing interesting about the long periods of stasis that most species undergo throughout their lifetime (about 4 million years on average, but in some cases much much longer - as is the case with living fossils) and instead focused on the rare cases of gradualism. My hunch is that they also ignored it because of their own biases - it doesn’t sit well with Darwin’s models of evolution by natural selection as it sounds more like creationism.

It’s not creationism - it’s a different model of evolution based on long periods of stasis and short (geologically speaking) periods of punctuation leading to rapid change, but Darwin is monolithic and his models continue to dominate and colour the thinking of popular scientists like Richard Dawkins. 

Do you get it? Scientists themselves don’t always follow the data and are certainly not immune to ideology and political bias - they follow the money, the orthodoxy, the community and the status quo.

And then the media follows the orthodoxy and the heterodox scientists get ignored.

And the masses follow the media, which tells them to “trust the science”.

It can be hard for some people to understand that the new Church is the institutional, scientific, academic and media systems that practice tight gatekeeping and narrative control; effectively bullying people down certain avenues whilst vilifying heretics - even if they are right. 

“And yet it moves” Galileo said, as they refused to look through his telescope - or in the case of stasis; it doesn’t.

How many people consider the possibility that we could have entirely new kinds of science rather than the science that is supported and perpetuated by the establishment? 

It’s something to seriously think about. 

So, my main reason for defending human-induced climate change was not because of what the science is telling us, as unlike Punctuated Equilibrium; which clearly presents itself as evident in the fossil record - the data and circumstances are much more complex and uncertain when it comes to the current climate. 

My reason for defending it then was anecdotal - I assumed that since there is so much deforestation occurring around the planet coupled with all of the carbon emissions released into the atmosphere from human technologies; that this would likely affect the climate and warm it up.

I still think this could be the case, I am not outrightly denying it - but I think that the true picture is much more complex and it’s about time we start waking up to this. I guess I’m wondering if there is a Climate Agenda and if there are other factors involved - so I think we should start exploring and asking what it’s all about.

Today we are constantly gaslighted and guilt-tripped by the dominant institutional systems as they attempt to make us feel like it’s our fault; or that we should do something about the situation, that we should be the ones who put pressure on corporations and governments to change their ways - enter Greta Thunberg etc.

Imagine the scenario by thinking about that old PC game from the mid-90s called Theme Park - which was a construction and management simulation. Imagine filling your Theme Park full of exciting rollercoasters🎢 which release large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (just imagine these do) and loads of great burger 🍔 joints - you let in your customers and the rollercoasters and burgers are a hit, I wonder why? Maybe it’s because rollercoasters are fun and burgers taste great!

Then imagine trying to convince the people in your theme park not to eat the burgers or go on the rides by making them feel guilty for doing so. Some of them decide to be ethical and resist the rides and burgers, but the Theme Park remains and most continue to enjoy what it has to offer.

You are doing this why?... Because you have begun to realise that this formula isn’t sustainable, which is a shame because it’s really difficult to figure out a model for consumption that operates differently - and you're making lots of money.

What do you do? Well imagine you have made enough money by this stage from all of the rides and burgers to develop new technologies and a new system where you don’t need the theme parks or the consumers inside them anymore — you can create something much better for yourself. 

The only problem is you have all of this surplus of stock and people that you don’t know what to do with, they are causing a problem now and you want to get rid of them  - you need to convince them that the Theme Park cannot keep operations going anymore and that things need to change, it isn’t going to be easy.

The Theme Park is real - it’s our world system, it’s post-industrial global capitalism; which is coming to an end and is currently being replaced with something else.

You need to dramatically reduce the population - to about half a billion (according to the Georgia Guidestones, philosopher John Grey, Bill Gates and most other globalists and futurists) - Essentially you need collapse to happen so you can create your new world system. 

You need to kill off the old system and most of everyone else with it. How do you do it?

In many ways you don’t need to do a lot, “the future will take care of itself” as Nick Land put it. Modernism is a curious thing, just look at the graph for population growth since 10,000 BCE - it’s a vertical cliff.

But the exponential growth in world population is set to plummet and there are many reasons for this. 

One reason is urbanisation and education; it is expected that modern urbanisation will continue to spread around the planet and this is correlated with population decline - traditional societies create stable populations, but modernism is not the norm.

It is your God-given right to have children, but modernism wants you to feel bad about that too; movements like anti-natalism perpetuate the idea that you should feel guilty about having children, yet in countries all over the world where urbanism and modernism are spreading, including places like India - the population is set to drop below replacements levels as people move off the land and into mega cities. It only takes one generation to not have enough children and the population can no longer sustain itself. Globalism is set to spread around the world, this alone is enough to cause a population cataclysm.

Another reason is pollution - Everyone’s favourite ‘crackpot’ Alex Jones was warning people for years about petrochemicals, hormones and other pollutants which were “turning the frogs gay” - people laughed at him for that but the reality is that he was making a point about how environmental pollutants impact life systems. It is now confirmed that pollutants are causing mass infertility in men and males are being born with smaller penises. It’s expected that most couples will not be able to conceive naturally by the mid-2040s.

A common reaction to this information is cognitive dissonance and a defensive display that tries to side with the globalist mindset. Something like “well isn’t that a good thing as there are too many people anyway?” - but there aren’t too many people, it’s the consumption of resources in developed countries which causes a problem. And however much you protest as part of Extinction Rebellion or try to reduce your carbon footprint; the reality is that elites already have plans in place to deal with the situation, which they have known about for a long time. 

It doesn’t matter what you do; do what you like, it’s your choice - exercise your freedom and work from your own conscious and guide your own decisions.

A brilliant analogy is Ronald Emerich’s film 2012; the Arc’s are created for the elites, who will survive and cross-over into the new world and everyone else gets left behind to die out.

This is the central question for elites; (let’s not forget The Great Reset) “what do you do with all of the people who get left behind?”

You have to get them thinking in the right way so they don’t cause chaos and revolt (AI and control of the media and the narrative is already proving useful here)

It just so happens that rejection of traditional values, destruction of the family, propensities for transhumanism, social stratification which replaces face to face interaction with human to machine interaction, social distancing for “disease prevention” (how convenient), promotion of vegetarianism and veganism, global-thinking over nationalistic thinking, promotion of queer and trans identity, destruction of religion and spirituality replaced with subservience to the state... basically; Communism, feminisation and loss of national identity is a suitable model for population control when you have a surplus of people that you don’t know what to do with and who are going to be left behind and will die out anyway (Yuval Noah Harari’s “global useless class”).

There is nothing wrong with any of these things in the abstract - there is nothing wrong with caring about the environment (I do), choosing to be vegan (I used to be), there is nothing wrong with being trans (I’m trans myself) or being queer (I’m two-spirit), there is nothing wrong with choosing not to have children and there is nothing wrong with rejecting tradition and living in different ways (I do that). I support the right for individuals to practice all of these things in a free and liberal society and I vehemently condemn bigotry against those who choose these lifestyles.

But the outright rejection of traditional values and norms is part of an agenda that serves a system that no longer has any use for its surplus stock of humans. It’s making us obsolete and it’s a convenient way to keep us subservient and docile whilst elites create the new world which is for them, it’s not for us. 

This is, in a nutshell, the sole reason why there has been so much reaction and pushback in recent years - it’s a symptom. 

It’s a bottleneck, it’s The Great Filter... actually, it’s a Punctuated Equilibrium - or in this case better defined as Punctuational Change.

This is how the climate question ties in with evolution and the future of humanity, or post-humanity.

So I am not exactly denying climate change, climate change is very real, it’s happening, it’s getting warmer. I am questioning the dominant narrative and the way it is being sold to us. We need to all start questioning the narrative and begin standing up for ourselves and our defending our humanity . 

As I mentioned and the beginning of this text, although I am not a scientist, I do not believe that there is enough evidence that climate change is purely down to human actions alone. 

The Earth has gone through various interglacial periods where it has warmed before - even going into ‘Hothouse’ stages where carbon dioxide built up and caused runaway climatic change; the Earth survived, evolution punctuated and new species arose; hence here you are today reading this text, a robot, or are you a human? Or something else!?

It is evident in our geological record that climate change is the norm for our planet - it has gone through multiple ice ages, extinction events and various warmings in its long and dramatic history. It is interesting to consider why - Are these down to galactic changes and cosmic events? Our planet isn’t a closed system, it’s part of the wider cosmos and things that happen in the cosmos affect our planet. Could something like interplanetary climate change be happening now? What about the Sun? Is the Sun changing? - what is the role of climate change as part of wider evolutionary change and transformation? 

Maybe it’s all interlinked, this is why I will not be guilt-tripped and gaslighted into feeling bad that human actions alone have caused this or do anything that I am told to do by the propaganda machine and the agenda coming from above.

Scientists have been warning us that this one could be really bad. OK, so what’s the worst-case scenario? That our planet ends up like Mars?... It could happen, it might do. If it does, what do we need to do? 

Speciate, bifurcate, punctuate - move towards a Type-1 Civilisation that can control the weather, expand space travel and use AI and automation to make other planets like Mars habitable (there are already plans for the development of a City on Mars set to begin by the 2050s) - you’ll also need to use synthetic biology and biotechnology to genetically alter human beings so that they can survive the changes coming to this planet, interstellar space travel and survive on other planets. All of this is in the works.

Which is why we need to be careful that our genetics, spirituality, individuality and unique characteristics of our species don’t get fucked over in the process.

I am well aware that a Biosingularity is inevitable and probably the only way to survive this. In the past Reza Negrestani has written of the tyranny of the sun 🌞. The Sun; personified as the father, is considered tyrannical inasmuch as we have been completely dependent on it throughout our evolutionary history, until now (note that humanism also rejects the Sun). Our only hope may be to reject the father and submit to something else (something perhaps more tyrannical) - a Dark Sun ?! Perhaps ... Or maybe we are just coming of age.

A New Dawn is upon us. 

How might we protect the light of consciousness 🌟!!?

Tread careful 🪐 🔥