Posted by: Dr Churchill | July 23, 2019

The Butcher Of Beijing is dead…

The Butcher Of Beijing is dead…

Former Chinese Premier Li Peng has died in the government compound in Beijing long time after tens of thousands of students, workers, & pro-Democracy and pro-Liberty protesters were killed by his orders back in 1989.

Li Peng the butcher of Beijing outlived his hundreds of thousands of victims by a whole three decades — enough time to suffer from his memories until he died yesterday.

Li Peng had held many senior government positions in Communist China in the 1970s, 1980s, and in the 1990s. He died on Monday evening from an unspecified illness, the official Xinhua news agency reported. Xinhua described Li Peng as a “time-tested and loyal communist soldier, and an outstanding proletarian revolutionist, statesman and leader of the Party and the state.”

However, it was Li Peng’s role in the ultimate decision to send soldiers to clear Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 4th and 5th of 1989, that was “the putsch” that took the power away from then ailing leader Deng Xiao Ping, and thus came for Li Peng to make the final call, and that is why Li Peng is rightly now called “The Butcher of Beijing” by the people, who know the truth in all things.

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 3.27.05 PM

History also has judged that Li Peng deserved this name because back in May 1989, as the pro-democracy protests gained strength in Tiananmen Square, Li angrily told students at a meeting that “The situation will not develop as you wish and expect.”

A day later, he told the public in a televised address that he was declaring martial law.

After 30 Years Of Amnesia, Remembering A Forgotten Tiananmen square jives with Li’s declaration that paved the way for troops to descend upon the peaceful protesters amongst those who died to defend Liberty and Democracy. Tens of thousands of people died, and although the government has never released a death toll and suppresses any discussion of the bloody incident — the mass graves of Tiananmen are legendary in their size and depth.

Today, the level of Chinese digital and physical censorship is so high, that the image of a man standing in front of a tank – one of the most iconic photographs ever taken – is completely blocked and totally unfamiliar to the people of China.

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 2.52.03 PM

A solitary figure in a white shirt and black trousers clutches a bag and stands in front of a column of halted tanks, a cluster of street lights floating to one side like balloons. The man’s shoulders are rounded, almost passive in front of the four tanks whose gun barrels are raised as if in an ironic salute.

Thirty years on from the violent crushing of pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, the tank man’s identity remains unknown, and it is most certain that he is not alive long after the iconic photo was taken. But the photograph that captured his solitary moment of dissent in June 1989 remains one of the most memorable images of the last century, known universally as Tank Man.

Every Tank Man photo has a secret quality because the Man looks more vulnerable, and fragile since he is a common man asking a simple question to the soldiers:

“Why are you doing this?”

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 2.50.56 PM

My feeling is that this guy had no concern for his safety. He was fed up and just didn’t care. He just wanted answers…

On the 30th anniversary of the protests, we recall that the picture of the Tank Man was taken, on the 5th of June 1989, and that the man was later shot dead by the Chinese secret police…

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 2.50.17 PM

Tanks massed in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 as the Chinese authorities under orders from Premier Li Peng aligned their forces in order to crush the pro-Liberty students’ demonstrations in a bloody crackdown.

At a time of huge political turmoil in 1989 all over the world, with the Soviet Union’s collapse and the Berlin wall toppling, the unknown Chinese man’s face-off with the tanks came after weeks of demonstrations calling for democratic reforms that had rocked the capital of China Beijing, and with protesters on hunger strikes starting to occupy Tiananmen Square on the 13th of May 1989, asking politely for Liberty and a small measure of Democracy.

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 2.49.45 PM

Within days they were more than a million strong, all of them milling inside the vast Square at the center of Beijing.

Upon the orders of Premier Li Peng, the People’s Liberation Army was sent in on the 4th of June with a whole armored division of soldiers and tanks, who opened fire indiscriminately on the protesters, thus killing and injuring many tens of thousands amongst the young people of Beijing occupying the Tiananmen square’s center.

In a public diary entry about that time, Premier Li Peng, maintained that he “firmly stood on the right side of the line with Comrade Deng Xiaoping.” And of course, China’s Communist Party leadership doubled down on its support behind Li Peng’s martial law approach to the 1989 Tiananmen Democracy protests in its official state obituary on Tuesday.

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 2.50.05 PM

It said that at that time, Li Peng “took decisive measures to stop the unrest and quell the counter-revolutionary riots.” His decisions, the official obituary stated, “stabilized the domestic situation and played an important role in this major struggle concerning the future of the party and the country.”

“Bearing Witness Is Really All We Have” is a folio of the collective memories of covering the Tiananmen Square military attacks, murderous rage, and the burial of the protesters in mass unmarked graves — is the bloody aftermath and the only truthful account of what happened…

The Chinese Communist government’s staunch support for the deadly crackdown comes during tense times for China’s leadership, as mass protests in semi-autonomous Hong Kong against Beijing continue to intensify, and as the Uigur peoples’ Muslim majority is rounded up, and concentrated in the reeducation camps all over northern China to remain there and be “recivilized” for years to come…

Still, the glowing celebration of Premier Li Peng’s legacy within mainland China suggests Beijing isn’t willing to back down in 2019, against Chinese minorities, or the students, or the workers, or even the Hong Kong pro-Democracy & pro-Liberty protesters…

They give stern warning to all that a bloody crackdown is as much imminent today as it was back then on the early days of that bloody June of 1989, as presided over by the “Butcher of Beijing.”

What can you say?

Communists are communists, and a few tens of thousands of dead protesters for Freedom & Democracy — are simply a statistic in their minds, and an anomaly in their hearts.

No Heart.

No Conscience.

No Remorse, of any kind.

Just another bloody communist… who is now dead, thirty years after his many thousands of victims died in pain back in Tiananmen square on that bloody night of June 4th of 1989…

Cheers for the fallen soldiers of Liberty who died not in vain in Tiananmen square.

May your memory never be erased.

R.I.P.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

While Li Peng will be remembered internationally for the brutal and bloody legacy of the military tanks ordered to unleash their might by running over people with bloody and gummed up with human gristle tracks, lording it over Tiananmen Square — in China his economic strategy will likely rise to the fore, and he will be revered and remembered as pious leader, for as long as the Communists stay in power.

Because it was during his time as premier, that the economy grew considerably, the average lower class living standards improved, and the role of private businesses dramatically expanded — he is given kudos for achievements other than killing hundreds of thousands of people…

Indeed, Li implemented major economic reform, such as creating special economic zones and transforming a largely rural country into one of the biggest economies in the world.

Still, Li never received the historical acclaim and prestige that other leaders of his era, such as economic reformer and Li’s successor, Zhu Rongji, attained.

Li also strongly advocated for placing the Muslim minorities into the concentration & reeducation camps and he also pushed for the construction of the massive Three Gorges Dam, a giant infrastructure project to build a powerful hydroelectric dam across the Yangtze River. It displaced more than 1.4 million people and continues to be marred by environmental and construction issues.

Screen Shot 2019-07-23 at 2.50.17 PM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | July 23, 2019

The new British PM is finally pro-Britain…

Britain has chosen Boris Johnson to become the country’s next prime minister, replacing the feckless Theresa May who favored an accommodation with the German Angela Merkel leader of the EU, instead of carrying on the Brexit favored and voted upon by the citizens of the United Kingdom…

Boris Johnson the new PM, had this to say as he took office: “Today at this pivotal moment in our history, we again have to reconcile two sets of instincts, two noble sets of instincts, between the deep desire for friendship and free trade and mutual support, security and defense, between Britain and our European partners, and the simultaneous desire, equally deep and heartfelt, for democratic self-government in this country. We are getting ready to come out on 31 October. Come what may. Do or die. Come what may.”

The new Prime Minister Mr Boris Johnson, won the leadership because of Theresa May’s repeated failure to follow through on the Brexit electoral demand of the UK’s constituency and instead tried to fool the people into staying into the German led Union of the EU.

However, the new PM Boris Johnson assured all of us, that he will leave the EU by the current Oct 31 deadline, whether or not a deal is reached.

President Trump said: “He will be great!”

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Indeed, my friend Boris, will be great.

Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 5.11.46 PM

The current state of the US’s & UK’s “Special Relationship” is based on the term which was coined by Winston Churchill during the early stages of the Second World War, and it is an apt reminder of why Britain needs to “crash out” of the European Union today in a pel-mel fashion, by diving out headfirst…

Still back in the days after Winston Churchill’s greatness over the decades following the second world war, most US presidents were circumspect about assigning an elevated status to the special relationship with Britain, until today’s President who has warmed up to the idea swiftly.

Because during the decades of the Cold War — although the US and particularly the establishment Washington valued the United Kingdom as a vital and distinctive ally, especially for its pivotal role in the European theatre, as well as in the ASEAN and in NATO, the Atlantic alliance — they did not trust the “junior partner” very much because they were afraid that England was overrun with Cambridge Communists who were eagerly giving away all the secrets of the West to the Russians because of an immature idealism and a sense of entitlement and privilege.

Yet it was the close connection between the US and the UK that can be traced to June 1940, when the amazing defeat of France by Nazi Germany transformed the geopolitical map of the world, and pushed Churchill to gravitate towards his natural allies Stalin and Roosevelt.

And it was the continuing Churchillian British defiance against the mighty German NAZIs, that proved essential, in order to prevent a total Nazi and Axis powers global dominance, because my grandfather Winston Churchill knew that defeating Hitler would require both the Russian and the American participation in the war — and he sought to be the sentinel guarding Thermopylae with his 300K British troops rescued from Dunkirk, until such time that the Americans and the Russians would see fit to come to his aid.

And it was the capitulation of France and the unification of Europe under Adolf Hitler that caused the French collaborationist Petain government to break diplomatic relations with England — that caused Britain to crash out of Europe and finally decide to chart it’s own course with the only remaining natural ally the United States of America (Children of a Common Mother) and the countries of the British Commonwealth, dominions and empire, right along with the reluctant ally, Russia and her Soviet empire.

So, however the historically heroic Churchill and the Russian people suffered for the first two years of the war — it was President Franklin Roosevelt who in his weakened physical and mental state, was siting on the sidelines for the first two whole years of the war, waiting to see who would be declared the winner of this awful conflict, so he can make a separate peace with the Victor.

FDR as an opportunistic Democrat, did not mind the least bit to make an accommodation, if not an alliance with Herr Hitler, because he was fully convinced that most all of the American people were appeasers, who did not want to fight once again over Europe. And that was his terrible miscalculation, as seen by the independent Americans who rushed to the aid of Churchill as individual citizens paying their own way to cross the Atlantic and join the conflict as volunteers and patriots for the cause of the Ligtht, Liberty and Democracy, for this world.

Some of them had even been fighting alongside the Republican freedom fighters of Spain a few years prior to the Second World War — where the Germans perfected their technique of destroying civilians cities through brutal air bombing attacks against innocents in order to break the back of the resistance to their bloody aims and to the dark brutality of tyranny they exposed in order to install their evil empire as overlords of the whole of Europe and the rest off the World.

It was especially then that it became apparent to Churchill and to the British people that crashing headfirst out of Europe was pivotal to their survival — in the emerging age of German super-airpower, at a time when the U.S. was still focused on manufacturing tractors and automobiles, and could not match Germany’s aggressive armaments production tactics that were honed throughout the German NAZI conquest of Europe’s all manufacturing powers, and that of the Japanese juggernaut that had been unleashed and it was toppling state after state like dominoes falling all over Asia, and increasingly looking as the war will be ending with the Axis powers dominating all of Europe and Asia.

To his credit though, FDR however, also believed that, after the obscenity of the First world war, it was necessary to set out fresh principles in order to forge a more decent and stable world after the first world war — the “war to end all wars” and that is why he claimed that he dithered and prevaricated for two whole years, until the Japanese forced his hand, by destroying the American Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor, and effectively taking over the whole of the Pacific in one clean fell swoop.

Perhaps history has been too kind to FDR, and perhaps that is why, in the drafting of the Atlantic Charter, it was Roosevelt, even more than Churchill who affirmed the basic precepts of a rules-based liberal & democratic world order, including the right of self-determination of all peoples, the principle of no territorial changes by force, the reduction of trade barriers, the advancement of social welfare and the promotion of international disarmament — and all other future rights and benefits, as a lengthy magical wish list for the future of the World, after the second world war should have ended…

A tall order indeed, but after the fall of Pearl Harbor, it was that Atlantic Charter, which became the documentary basis of the “Declaration of the United Nations” in January 1942, when the UN was first convened in spirit and paper alone…”

And although the Allied victory in 1945 owed much to the Russian & Soviet Red Armies — because in the four years between France’s collapse and D-Day, it was the Russian Soviet forces that inflicted about 90% of the German army’s battle casualties and also suffered upwards of 90% attrition rates amongst the dead of the war — still the heart of the alliance was the US&UK allied powers, fighting together and forging a brotherly relationship.

And after the fateful first two years of the war during which time Britain stood alone — it was that convergence of the US & UK armed forces, that came to define the war effort as just one example of the close historical relationship between the two major powers, where the sharing of planning, armaments, defensive positions, spy-craft product, exchange of “signals intelligence” and the institution of the Combined Chiefs of Staff were the most notable examples.

And as this relationship was rooted in a shared heritage of classical political liberalism, going back to the English Parliament’s struggle against monarchical power and against the threat of invasions by tyrannical European powers in the 17th and 18th centuries — it also provided a backdrop for the future foundational stones of the “New World Order” edifice.

Still, the growth of American financial wherewithal coupled with American ingenuity and Yankee innovation of productions methods and engineering, created a significant armaments dominance as the war progressed, became the dominant factor of contention because Russia was bleeding its population suffering over 90% of the war dead, and Britain was similarly hemoraging as it was described by Josip Stalin in his conversation with Churchill and Roosevelt during the Teheran conference of the “Big Three” where he said that the war was being fought with American money, British strategy, and Russian men.

Backbiting naturally ensues amongst allies, and especially emanates form newspaper men, who in 1944 wrote in the British yellow press tabloids, funny comments about the “Yanks” being “oversexed, overpaid and over here,” thus prompting the American trope, that the Brits were “undersexed, underpaid and under Eisenhower.”

And amidst all that nonsense, is where the idea of a “Special Relationship” came in, with Churchill first amongst all British leaders feeling the time ripe for reconciliation amongst Allies, while believing, or at the very least hoping, that the junior partner (himself) could manage the senior partner, because of his vast diplomatic and strategic mind, and the fact of their shared language, cultural values, and that of the judo-christian religious concerns that most of the population of the two countries embraced.

“It must be our purpose to make use of American power for purposes we regard as good” is how another British Foreign Office memorandum put it, during the crazy days at war’s peak, back in 1944.

What’s more, being relatively new to “World Power,” the US would surely need the help, advice and guidance, of Great Britain, that at any rate had been a seasoned global power veteran over the few prior centuries…

Tellingly, a Foreign Office memorandum stated in 1944, that “It must be our purpose to make use of American power for purposes we regard as good, and if we go about our business in the right way, we can help steer this great unwieldy barge, the United States of America, into the right harbor.”

In 1943, Harold Macmillan, a future British prime minister, reached for a classical analogy to describe Allied Force Headquarters in Algiers. “We … are Greeks in this American empire,” he told a colleague languidly. “You will find the Americans much as the Greeks found the Romans — great big, vulgar, bustling people, more vigorous than we are, and also more idle, with more unspoiled virtues but also more corrupt.”

“We must run AFHQ as the Greeks ran the operations of the Emperor Claudius.”

A combination of American brawn and British brains—that was the conceit behind London’s conception of the special relationship.

In Washington, things naturally looked a bit different, not least because of the legacy of 1776, but because in all American folk memory and all of America’s textbooks, Britain, one might say, was the original “evil empire” — the brutal overlord, from which the Americans had escaped thanks to the combined efforts of the Founders, the Minutemen, the clergy and the much hoped for Divine Providence. Therefore, any deep cooperation with the British carried a rather steep price and a malodorous reputation…

Remember that when the US had entered the First World War in 1917, President Woodrow Wilson had demanded that it be called an “associated” rather than an “allied” power, in order to show that it did not share the imperialist values of Britain and France.

Similarly during the Second World War, one of Roosevelt’s primary strategic aims was to end all vestiges of European colonialism.

So in 1942, FDR’s insistence that Great Britain should concede independence to India, provoked a private threat of resignation from my grandfather Winston Churchill who saw the survival of the Empire linked to that of Victory and also saw it as paramount for the survival of Great Britain as well.

This was prophetic as we can see later, when during the Suez canal crisis of 1956, President Dwight Eisenhower pilloried Britain at the UN because he regarded the joint British and French invasion of Egypt to recover control of the Suez Canal as a grotesque reversion to the unacceptable 19th century empire habit of gunboat diplomacy…

Suez canal aside, it was in the Cold War and during the global struggle to confront and contain the spread of malignant communism, that British power became of the greatest value to NATO and the secret asset to the Americans.

But attitudes in Washington shift at a glacial speed, and as the US set out to confront communism world-wide, the new policy came into effect after the Westminster College of Missouri speech, where Winston Churchill spoke about “The Sinews Of Peace” and this is where my grandfather rather eloquently explained that in this new global struggle, British power was as great an asset for America as it had once been, during the ravages of the Second World War.

Because although Britain was teetering in retreat from her global Empire, she still had an industrial output in the early 1950s equal to that of France and West Germany combined, and its armed forces numbered nearly a million, trailing only the Soviet Union and the U.S. In 1952, Britain followed the superpowers in testing an atomic bomb, thereby becoming the world’s third nuclear-armed state. It also retained bases around the world at key strategic points, from Gibraltar to Singapore, which enhanced the projection of U.S. power.

Most U.S. policy makers still avoided the term “special relationship.” In 1950, Secretary of State Dean Acheson ordered all copies of a memo that used the phrase to be burned. He did not contest “the genuineness of the special relationship” but feared that, “in the hands of troublemakers,” the memo “could stir no end of a hullabaloo, both domestic and international.”

By 1962, Acheson believed that Britain was just about “played out” as a global power. His warning that it had “lost an empire and not yet found a role” touched a raw nerve in London, but Macmillan’s government had already decided to do as Acheson was urging and make the “turn” to Europe. Yet it did so in order to bolster the special relationship. The British cabinet concluded that “the Common Market, if left to develop alone under French leadership, would grow into a separate political force in Europe” and eventually might “exercise greater influence” on the U.S. than the British were able to do, which could undermine Britain’s position as “the bridge between Europe and North America.”

Do the U.S. and the U.K. still need one another in the age of Trump and Brexit? Join the conversation below.

In the event, the U.K. was kept out of the European Common Market all through the 1960s by French President Charles de Gaulle, who was still bitter at les Anglo-Saxons for marginalizing him during World War II. Even after the U.K. finally joined the European Community in 1973, its leaders continued to see their country as a bridge between America and Europe. Their tactic was to manage disagreement with U.S. policies discreetly, in contrast with the Gaullist practice of public denunciation. Britain’s axiom, one might say, was “Never say ‘no,’ say ‘yes, but’”—with the “yes” stated loyally in public and the caveats uttered behind closed doors.

Few U.K. leaders were more Americophile than Margaret Thatcher. Her rapport with President Ronald Reagan became legendary, though she could be caustic about him in private. She supported his firmness toward the old Soviet leadership but encouraged his opening up to Mikhail Gorbachev (a man with whom she famously decided she could “do business”). Even when furious about Reagan’s apparent readiness to sacrifice the principles of Western nuclear deterrence during the Reykjavik summit of October 1986, she responded with classic “closed doors” diplomacy. She invited herself to Camp David and “hand-bagged” the president into a public reiteration of NATO’s official policy.

President George W. Bush (right) and British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House, January 31, 2003. PHOTO: BROOKS KRAFT/CORBIS/GETTY IMAGES
Yet nothing Mrs. Thatcher said in private or public could stop the president from unilaterally sending U.S. troops into Grenada in 1983, even though this was a Commonwealth country and Queen Elizabeth was its head of state. And after 9/11, Prime Minister Tony Blair supported President George W. Bush over the invasion of Iraq, partly in the hope of bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East, but got little for his pains except a tarnished reputation.

Such episodes have prompted criticism that the special relationship is just a fig-leaf for the continued waning of British power. Yet the U.S.-U.K. relationship does remain distinctive in several respects. The sharing of military intelligence, dating back to World War II, has evolved into the so-called “Five Eyes” network of global surveillance among the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

No American ally other than the U.K. has been allowed the same access to U.S. nuclear technology and delivery systems.
The nuclear relationship is also truly special. No other American ally has been allowed the same access to U.S. nuclear technology and delivery systems, in the form of first Polaris and then Trident ballistic missiles. More amorphous, but equally unique, is the habit of consultation: British and American politicians, officials and members of the armed forces at all levels find it natural to talk with their opposite numbers. The common language helps, as does the historic commonality of worldviews and political values.

In consequence, the special relationship has proved a linchpin of the NATO alliance. The U.K., along with France, is the U.S.’s only European ally with a significant “out-of-area” military capability—as seen in the recent reinforcement of British and French forces in Syria, to allow the Trump administration to pull back U.S. troops. And the British are regarded as far more reliable allies than the French. As for the European Community and eventually the European Union, Britain’s membership and its trans-Atlantic bridging role have been supported by every U.S. administration from John F. Kennedy to Barack Obama.

Which brings us back to Mr. Trump and Mr. Darroch. Today, the cohesion of the West matters as much as ever in the face of a newly assertive Russia and China. Under fourth-term President Vladimir Putin, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its continued interference in the domestic politics of Western democracies threaten the stability of the postwar order. Mr. Putin has recently dismissed liberalism as “obsolete.” In Beijing, President-for-life Xi Jinping has embarked on a grandiose strategy to take control of the South China Sea and to expand China’s global reach under the “one belt, one road” initiative.

In 2019, the U.S. remains the world’s leading military and economic power, but its hegemony is under threat from these challengers. Arguably it needs allies as much today as it did during the Cold War. (And yes, those allies definitely need to do more to sustain the alliance.) Yet President Trump has been erratic in his attitude to NATO, hostile toward the European Union and positively jubilant about Brexit—none of which is conducive to the solidarity of the West.

The Darroch affair might seem like a storm in a British teacup. But it also matters to the U.S. Mr. Trump has made no secret of wanting a Brexiteer as British ambassador. And Boris Johnson, the man likely to become Britain’s prime minister next week, pointedly refused to support Mr. Darroch in a recent TV debate. Mr. Johnson’s critics have suggested that he is anxious to appease the president in the hope of a favorable post-Brexit trade deal. Mr. Johnson says that he will “leave” Europe by Oct. 31, “do or die.”

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Indeed, historically, the postwar special relationship has been most effective when Britain has had strong links with Europe as well as the U.S.

If anything now, Brexit will strengthen the special relationship, and thus the entire Western World will be strengthened at will.

A bientot then.

Let’s get out of the Germany’s Third Reich 2.0 already.

Crash out of it if necessary, walk out of it if need be, or simply waltz off into the brilliant English landscape of a sunny day.

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 28, 2019

Liberate this, this Fourth of July

Today, as we are approaching once again the 4th of July Independence Day of 2019, I’ve been thinking grand thoughts about our Constitutional Republic, and it’s long term fate as it was put by Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation — in the notes of Dr James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention — when he was asked what kind of newfangled government they had decided to bring forth, and he answered: “It is a Republic, madam, but only if You Can Keep It.”

Dr Franklin’s perspective and response on the inauguration of a Constitutional Republic in these United States of America: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It…” shows Benjamin Franklin to be the evergreen optimist who at the age of 81, gave what was for him the best speech of his life…

And while today we marvel at fireworks on the Fourth of July, marking our Independence — we tend to forget the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, and their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures, because most of them were quite underwhelmed and considerably less enthusiastic, than the hot dog eating, beer swilling and fireworks rocketing Americans of today.

Even Benjamin Franklin, the optimist, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention by reasoning that: “When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

Old Ben thought it impossible, to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, “with all its faults,” was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin’s logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty  — “democracy” — as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of “Franklin” which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.

But as fragile as America’s federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.

The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program, especially their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians — are fit objects of national shame, not honor.

But statesmen of succeeding generations — with Abraham Lincoln, the 14th President,  foremost among them, would continue the quest for a “more perfect union.”

Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the “popular will” can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the “popular will” is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.

As we look at the state of our federal union 232 years after the Founders completed their Constitutional Convention work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation’s most powerful symbol of unity — a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.

On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the “pursuit of happiness.”

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 5.01.42 PM

The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today’s conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery–a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless. More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned-off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system. Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day.

If there is a lesson in all of this it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document. It requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

And it is abundantly clear that in order to “Keep It” we need to regain that spirit of REASON and OPTIMISM, that Dr Franklin so abundantly shared. That is, if we want to have any hope of  keeping our REPUBLIC, by rekindling a Western AngloSaxon Liberal Democratic rebirth. And it must be in the direction of Classical Liberalism, as applied in the Western Democracies of the best parts of our lives today, because going back to the past is never an option. We must look boldly to the future and hope for the best, as Old Ben always advised us to do.

This New Era has to be the era of classical liberalism that is based on the US Constitution, along with Natural law, infused and influenced by the particular biblical and common law traditions of the AngloAmerican nations, based on the “thought cannon” of all the multihued and multicolored individual leaders and commoners alike — who fought, spoke, toiled and even died, with force, about the outcome of political philosophy and patriotism, as they set their hopes on making our country Rational Again and guiding America on the path towards universal reason.

And it is pivotally important that the liberal western nomenclature has to be wrestled away from the hands of the freaks, and brought back to sanity. Classical liberalism, is a reasonable system of ideas for Governance, but first the use of the word “Liberal” has to forcefully extracted from the clutches of the word-thieving, doublespeak spewing crazy people, who seek to enslave once again, the masses of the “great unwashed.”

And because Classical Liberal Democracy is a fantastic idea of Independence and Liberty for our Republic, and it is contrary to all of the socialist leftist ideas that today’s so called democratic socialist, and all of the leftist liberal demonrats soil themselves with — we need to save these words from the loonies and their crazy ilk.

And because we are indeed in the midst of a Culture War, and we play with fire if we forget 1984, and the observations of George Orwell and Winston that the current and future Nazis, Fascists & Communists, will call themselves AntiFascists…

Screen Shot 2019-06-29 at 12.42.48 PM

And that the illiberal and totalitarians, will call themselves liberals…

Double speak folks, is where the game rests.

And we need to be liberated from that soonest.

So if we wish to be truly liberated from the sinister use of our language to weaponize our words and definitions and to turn them against our sanity, and common sense reason — it is the drawing away from the flames of the current cultural conflagration.

Because we need to regain the strength of our own cultural relevancy and linguistic definitions before we go through with the recovery of Classical Liberalism as the great aspiration of our Free Societies, our Free nations, and our Free World.

Alongside of that, we can harvest the particular Anglo-American political and religious traditions that were the original source of the English-speaking nations’ cohesion and strength.

Even all the way from the time of the American Independence, and during our flesh eating Civil War, and all the way to the current wars, as well as before and during the Second World War — these classics liberal democratic traditions represented the touchstone of our strength so that we can keep our Republic alive and kicking.

But all that, was well before the current wholesale displacement of our Greco-Roman civilizing Judeo-Christian traditions, by the pseudo leftist fake liberalism.

On January 4, 1939, Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave the State of the Union address to an American nation that he believed, would soon be at war on an unprecedented scale, because FDR knew that America, Britain, and their allies would have to fight not only the Socialists of the Fascist, and Nazi (National Socialism) varieties and its imitators, but also the Soviet Communists as well. Yet even FDR struggled to define, what would the Western allies be fighting for, in the coming titanic struggle.

And perhaps only Winston Churchill fighting — all alone fighting a war to the death, for the first two years of the II World war — had fully understood and embraced this primeval conflict between Good & Evil, as his destiny, and his ultimate call-to-arms, in order to save the whole World from thousand years of Darkness & Totalitarianism.

My grandfather Winston Churchill grasped the meaning of Totalitarian Evil — full & well.

But who else thought that way?

Nobody else…

Nobody else, except the simple people, the salt of the earth kind, the ones not in any positions of authority, the ones bereft of any wealth, the small shopkeepers, and daily market men, the women who rear the children and toil alongside the men who turn kids to adulthood…

Nobody else.

Yet, the Christian fearing, English speaking and AngloSaxon people — all thought this way too…

And all those offshoots of the Christian AngloSaxon civilization all around the world, along with the peoples of the Commonwealth of nations — also sensed that they had to fight alongside my grandfather Winston Churchill, if they were to maintain not just their nationhood, but also their civilization and their long nurtured civility.

So why is it that nobody else amongst the World’s leaders, stood alongside my grandfather during his darkest hours?

Could they not see the dawn of tyranny?

Why?

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.58.54 AM

Finally Franklin Roosevelt, emerged in his glory and started fully acting as the true President of the United States — a Christian Nation, and thus slowly came around to recognizing this existential threat that the National Socialists and their Totalitarian Axis of Evil, presented for all Western Democracies, and especially for America. He finally saw this, under the influence of Churchill’s bombastic tirades and overlong communiques, but in the beginning FDR was an appeaser, as all the Democrats and indeed most of Americans were.

Only the American fighters of the Lincoln brigade who sought to curtail fascism in Spain during the doomed Republican fight there against the combined forces of Franco, Hitler, and Mussolini, alongside those of Stalin — all seeking to snuff out any notion of Liberty amongst the People of the Iberian nations, while rehearsing and training their mighty armies to be unleashed for their combined destruction of Liberty and Democracy throughout Europe and the rest of the World. That is why Hitler and Stalin had a secret agreement to carve up all the nations in their periphery, starting from the still weeping Poland, and the Baltic states, along the rest of the ancient states and nations of central and eastern Europe…

The Lincoln brigade members and the American flyers who joined England in her desperate hours, are to be commended for being the early pioneers and the early fighters for freedom and democracy, and as they are largely forgotten today — may the soil that covers them, be light upon them.

Still even after the Spanish Republic’s total and complete annihilation and destruction at the hands of the Nazis and the fascists — it was impossible for FDR to grasp all these, mainly because in Roosevelt’s eyes, the war was unwindable for the Europeans and he sought to make a deal with the Nazis, because he understood that if Hitler could be turned against the Russian bear — then he could have two birds on his plate, without firing a single bullet.

But under the unceasing probing, informing and beneficial influence of Winston Churchill — finally even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, started turning around, as he also started thinking that the war, if it would be fought — it would revolve around three things that are vital for the interests of the Western Democracies, and of America, not necessarily in that order…

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.13.53 AM

FDR slowly came around but in the beginning he was an appeaser of Hitler and Mussolini, as all the American Democrats were at that time…

That was mainly because in Roosevelt’s eyes, the war was unwindable for the Europeans and he sought to make a deal with the Nazis, because he understood that if Hitler could be turned against the Russian bear — then he could have two birds on his plate without firing a single bullet.

But under the unceasing influence of Churchill, the FDR started turning around, and also started thinking that the war, if it would be fought — it would revolve around three things that are vital for the interests of the Democrats and not of America necessarily…

As he put it: “Events abroad directly challenge three institutions indispensable to Americans, now as always. The first is religion. It is the source of the other two — democracy and international good faith.”

As you can clearly see, FDR, nowhere does he mention LIBERTY and FREE WILL, or NATIONAL DETERMINATION for the subject nations wasting under the NAZI rule.

According to this view, both Liberty and the freedoms that are the inheritance of Americans as individuals, alongside the freedom of America as an independent nation among other free Peoples, have their source in one place — which is the Christian inheritance of Free Will, and Self Determination of all Peoples. This is the true inheritance of this nation and of the whole of the Free Western World.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 2.48.31 PM

Yet, FDR supposed that the Nazis and the Marxists knew this as well as he did, and that is why they were seeking to overthrow not only democracy and liberty, but its Christian source of power as well.

Roosevelt said, that “This was their aim, to achieve an ordering of society which relegates religion, democracy, and good faith among nations to the background, … but the United States rejects such an ordering and retains its ancient faith.”

FDR’s framing of what was at stake made the impending conflict not only a war about freedom, although it was surely that. It was also a war about religion. In fact, in the same address, Roosevelt described the conflict as one between the “God-fearing democracies” and their enemies—those nations that did not fear God, the biblical Amalek. It is striking how far this framing of the war differs from what is taught in most schools and universities today. It is a rare instructor in history or politics who describes the struggle against Nazism and Marxism as one fought between “God-fearing democracy” and its enemies. It is usually said that the war was fought between “liberal democracy” and its enemies.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.59.25 AM

But Roosevelt seems not to have been aware that leftist liberalism was the cause in whose name hundreds of thousands of Americans were about to give their lives. In fact, the words “liberal” and “liberalism” appear nowhere in the eight pages of his address. This shift isn’t just about word-choice. The fact is that America, Britain, and other Western countries have undergone a dramatic change in self-understanding in the wake of the trauma of the Second World War. Somehow, a war fought to defend God-fearing democracy inadvertently ended up destroying the religious foundations of the victorious Western nations.

Over the course of a few generations, the God-fearing democracies came to see themselves as liberal democracies, and liberalism replaced Christianity as the fundamental framework within which these nations lived and conducted their affairs. We can see the beginning of this change immediately after the Second World War in the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination in 1947, that state governments may no longer support and encourage a particular religion or any religion.

Technically, this decision is deduced from the First Amendment of the Constitution as applied through the Fourteenth, but of course, the Fourteenth amendment (1868) had already been on the books for 79 years without anyone recognizing that support and encouragement for religion by the states was a violation of individual’s right to due process. What had changed in the interim was not the letter of the law, but the narrative framework through which the Justices of the Supreme Court, as representatives of elite opinion, understood the relationship between Christian tradition and the American nation. That there has been such a change is obvious from the fact that by the time one reaches Everson v Board of Education (1947), Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, feels constrained to provide a new story of the American founding broadly hostile to government encouragement of religion. Among other things he writes: “It is not inappropriate briefly to review the background and environment of the period in which that constitutional language was fashioned and adopted.”

He continued thus: “A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government favored churches. The centuries immediately before and contemporaneous with the colonization of America had been filled with turmoil, civil strife, and persecutions, generated in large part by established sects determined to maintain their absolute political and religious supremacy. With the power of government supporting them, at various times and places, Catholics had persecuted Protestants, Protestants had persecuted Catholics, Protestant sects had persecuted other Protestant sects, Catholics of one shade of belief had persecuted Catholics of another shade of belief, and all of these had from time to time persecuted Jews. In efforts to force loyalty to whatever religious group happened to be on top and in league with the government of a particular time and place, men and women had been fined, cast in jail, cruelly tortured, and killed.”

In Black’s opinion rendering, “Religion is no longer the source of American democracy and independence” as it had been in FDR’s State of the Union address eight years earlier.

And if anything, religion is now portrayed as a danger and a threat to democratic freedoms, the very form of the American Constitution having been the result of the excesses of religion that drove the first Europeans to settle in America. It is here that we find the transition from a God-fearing democracy to a liberal democracy: One in which religion is perceived as being so great a threat that the federal government must act to ensure that no child in the country is taught religion in any publicly supported school.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.59.06 AM

Within less than two decades, the Supreme Court had banned not only religious instruction but prayer and devotional reading from the Bible in schools, placing the great majority of the nation’s children in the care of an “idiotic-safe-space” scrubbed clean of any reference to the place of Christianity and Judaism in laying the foundations of the American republic.

Instead of arising out of longstanding Christian tradition, America was reimagined as a product of Enlightenment rationalism, as seen when during the high school years and during all the college years the young people of this country spend inside those leftist holding pens — especially in the so called mandatory education K-12, they hear not a word about the Bible or the common law, but they are peripherally introduced to the pivotal and cardinal philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, that are presented as the Holy Gospel of liberal education.

Yet it is inside these public schools, these colleges, and these universities, that we are provided with the public space in which the American mind is molded, into a morosed vessel of misinformation.

And so what is seen as legitimate in these institutions of learning — it is what ends up being the legitimate discourse in the public life of the country if only a generation later…

Yet, we all know that a nation that honors its religious traditions in the schools will end up honoring traditions in the broader public sphere. Whereas a nation that heaps dishonor on its religious traditions by banning them from the schools will end up dishonoring its traditions in the broader public sphere as America consistently does today.

Today, the meme “Why Rationalism Does Not, Cannot, and Will Not Work” is a commonplace and awfully tired trope, used by all, and especially amongst erstwhile liberal as well as conservative mass media commentators, and the journalistic talking heads, who constantly harp away, by saying that sadly, the demolition of traditional concepts and norms is being driven by Democrats-Democrats, Leftists, Marxists, neo-Marxists, cultural Marxists, or just the confused Socialist Left, and its brethren the Democratic Socialists — residing inside all four (Yes Four) sectors of our Government. [Notably in the big four equally strong centers of power and foundational sectors of our government and society — I have included the Media, alongside the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary.]

Because this travesty of thought although especially prevalent inside our schools, our colleges, and our universities — it still fully blossoms in the place where it finds its apotheosis, inside the Mass Media Entertainment and Brain Washing Machine Centers masquerading as today’s Journalism.

And that is truly the saddest thing going on today in our culture — the overtaking of all of our journalism, by socialist & marxist entertainers, pretending to “high fallutin” ideals of fairness and impartiality as those bygone men and women of yore who were members of the classical journalistic ethical breed.
Today, all the pseudo-journos, lead with their feelings and not with the truth — and still are foolish enough to preach Marxist principles to the American public, thinking that people will swallow such drivel easily.

And because of that, they are an easy target for criticism because they say explicitly that their aim is to critique the concepts employed by the existing Constitutional & Democratic Republic American power structures, with the express and stated aim of undermining them.

But the Marxists, and the Socialists, and the neo-Marxists’ agendas, are not sufficient as an explanation of what we’re seeing taking place in our culture wars today, because even in the universities, where the Marxists are strongest, they remain a tiny minority. Further, in government and among the public, they have not, until very recently, been anything more than a curiosity, and could not by themselves have affected the sweeping civilizational changes that have been under way for several decades now…

Think, for instance, of the total and complete elimination of any references to God, to the Bible, and towards prayer, from the American schools. Think of the public embrace of new sexual norms, the easy divorce and all out support for even late term abortions. Or think about the collapse of Western nations’ will to pay back their debts, balance their budgets, or strengthen their borders and thus regulate immigration and unfettered & catastrophic waves of migration. In these cases, as in many others, it wasn’t the Marxist minority that determined the course of events, but the Uniparty system that destroyed the U.S. and the UK with their acquiescence and complicity in letting these matters of such grave importance for our AngloSaxon Western Civilization nations, slip away…

Indeed, these things happened because they were supported by a broad liberal public, and were promoted by its elected representatives in both the Democratic and Republican parties in America, and on both the center-left and center-right in Europe. The key to understanding our present condition, then, is this: If liberals had been willing and able to mount a vigorous defense of inherited political and moral norms against the conceptual revolutions proposed by the neo-Marxist left, these challenges would have been defeated easily.

But liberalism has proved itself either unwilling or unable to successfully defend almost any inherited political ideals or norms once a focused attack on them has been under way for twenty or thirty years. Why is liberal political thought systematically incapable of defending inherited traditions? Virtually all of liberal thought today— including that of “social liberals” such as John Rawls; and that of “classical liberals” or “libertarians” such as Robert Nozick — is based on Enlightenment rationalist political theories that were purposely designed to be independent of all inherited political traditions. In fact, the central claim of Enlightenment political theories was that they were based on “reason alone,” which meant that they could, in principle, be understood and agreed upon by anyone, regardless of the particular religious or national traditions in which they were raised. Reason alone was said to be all you needed to derive and wield ideas like individual freedom, equality, consent, and universal rights—the central ideas in the toolkit of contemporary leftist liberalism.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 12.00.35 PM

The trouble with these Enlightenment rationalist claims is that they aren’t actually true. In fact, individuals exercising “reason alone” do not come to any kind of stable consensus about anything. As the great English political theorist John Selden wrote already in the 17th century, reason alone is capable of coming to virtually any conclusion.

And this brings us to the uncertainty and inconsistency with which the free and unadorned application of reason has always been burdened…. No one of any education can be unaware that in ancient times even the masters and practitioners of right reason, i.e., the philosophers, took part in endless discussions about good and evil, and the boundaries that separated them, in which they were completely at odds with one another.

There was no one to put an end to these disputes.

The number of sectarian groups multiplied, and so many new doctrines sprouted up that even though the study of philosophy was based upon the most careful reasoning possible given the intelligence and talents of its practitioners, the number of its schools would easily have reached the apocryphal figure of 288, if every difference in doctrine had been formalized. … Thus people who have set about seeking the universal principles of living well have arrived at very different conclusions, among which everyone considers his own to be the best, and usually either condemns or criticizes everyone else’s. …

Hence both Zeno and Chrysippus, as well as the Persian Magi, considered relations with one’s mother and even with one’s daughter to be permitted, just as were relations with other men; and the philosopher Theodorus said the same about theft, sacrilege, and adultery. And yet the jurist Ulpian (who was not even a Christian) and others of the pagans said explicitly that these are crimes against nature; while Theodotus, Diagoras of Melos, and some other well-known writers completely undermined all the fear and respect that rein in humanity by claiming that the gods did not exist. Add to these Plato, the most divinely inspired of all philosophers, who believed that women should be held in common and people should be able to have sex with almost anyone they want; and the others who thought that all possessions should be shared as though the law required it.

Yet for us the modern practical philosophy of Madison and Jefferson informs our Republic’s best conversations, as is evidenced herewith:

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.” –James Madison

Or here:

“Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms… If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”         –James Monroe

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.22.52 PM

But in antiquity, these modern rationalists did not exist and instead we had the teachings of Archelaus, Aristippus and Carneades, according to which nothing at all that is just,  depends upon nature; rather, what we call “just” is based in fact on written law, and on the preferences or interests of human beings…. And yet we hear everywhere that law (especially natural law) is right reason; and everyone agrees with this sentiment, even those who disagree fiercely about what “right reason” is. … We should therefore use with caution, and not be too quick to depend upon, the unfettered and simple application of analytical reason alone, which is often thought to be so unpredictable and unstable that what one person sees, particularly in this kind of investigation, as a very evident principle, or a conclusion which follows from a principle, will often seem to another person of equal intelligence to be obviously false and worthless, or at least inadmissible as truth.

This is just what happened all the time among those heroes of the discipline who used free and untrammeled reason to argue about the nature of good and evil, the shameful and the honorable, as everyone knows who is even slightly familiar with their writings.

This is why Tertullian says this about the philosophy of the gentiles, i.e. about “Using the kind of reason which they generally called “right” that it reserves nothing for divine authority, since it makes its own opinions into laws of nature. Considering the variety of philosophical schools and sects, you are not likely to find anything as unclear and contradictory as these “laws of nature.”” Tertullian’s words were published in 1640, but they might as well have been written today.

So for me it is best we go towards our own enlightened founders here as said thus: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”         –Thomas Jefferson

Today, the enlightenment-inspired liberals insist that “reason alone,” exercised through the sole instrument of open debate in the universities and in the public sphere, will lead everyone to their preferred conclusions about politics and morals. The reality, however, is that the exercise of free human reasoning leads to Marxism or to a quasi-Darwinian “white identity politics” just as easily as it leads to social liberalism or libertarianism.

And tomorrow, it will lead somewhere else entirely, abandoning the results of today’s reasoning as relics of a bygone and benighted past. We can now understand the causes of the present trajectory of public life in the Western nations. Until the eve of the Second World War, these were still, in many respects, traditional societies.

True, these “God-fearing democracies” respected Enlightenment philosophy and liked the idea of “having to do your own thinking” (as FDR put it). But it was not “doing your own thinking” that had produced the basis for a stable nation. It was Protestant religious and political tradition that determined the fundamentals of the political order.

The power of the Enlightenment’s “critique” of all inherited tradition continued to be balanced and contained by the force of Christian tradition. Within two decades of the conclusion of the war, this balancing force had collapsed. In despair over its horrors, Americans and Europeans were now prepared to embrace Enlightenment, and to accept whatever political truths might be dictated by reason alone.

Indeed, the revolution unleashed in this way, did have certain positive consequences and some rather funny ones too.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.24.37 PM

Among these I would count the elimination of state-sanctioned racial segregation in the American South, and many other items could certainly be named.

But the new era of what Selden called “free and untrammeled reason” as the sole guide for our understanding of what is good and right has thrown us into a perpetual revolution that is devouring all inherited wisdom and common sense. As is now obvious to many, this revolution has no natural stopping point. If its course cannot be deflected, it will end with the destruction of the Western democracies and their replacement by a despotism sufficiently vicious to be able to put a stop to the revolution by force.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

In recent decades, American and European elites have devoted themselves to the project of rethinking society from scratch.

What were once linchpin concepts such as family and nation, man and woman, God and Scripture, the honorable and the sacred, have been found wanting and severely damaged, if not overthrown. The resulting void has been filled by new doctrines, until now mostly neo-Marxist or libertarian in character. But a racialist “white identity” politics in a Darwinian key is gathering momentum as well. All three of these approaches to political and moral questions are, in a sense, creatures of the Enlightenment, claiming to be founded on a universally accessible reason and to play by its rules. This is another way of saying that none of them have much regard for inherited tradition, seeing it as contributing little to our understanding of politics and morals.

Yet, because contemporary political doctrines claim to play by Enlightenment rules, conservatives seeking to stem the tide of the revolution have often felt that they would be on the strongest possible ground if they appealed to universal reason themselves: Catholic scholars, for example, have led the effort to develop an updated political theory based on natural law. Whereas Straussians, to cite another prominent school, have sought to elaborate the theory of Lockean natural right, fortifying it with the assertion that the American Declaration of Independence commits the United States to such a view as a kind of official ideology of the state. These efforts have generally been conducted by individuals who are personally sympathetic to political conservatism—that is, to the preservation of the inherited political and moral traditions of Western nations. And yet it is striking that these attempts to revive natural law and natural right defend a conservative political understanding that is itself created in the image of their opponents:

Namely, the rationalist school of Enlightenment political theory — Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise, Rousseau’s Social Contract, Spinoza, Kant — insisted that it was speaking in the name of a universal reason that is supposed to be accessible to everyone, in all times and places, and to provide the one correct answer to all foundational political questions. In just the same way, present-day “conservative rationalists” insist that their own political thinking is the product of universal reason, accessible to all, and leading to the one true answer on political things. Missing from such conservative rationalism is any significant place for tradition — any reason to prefer political and moral concepts that have held good and done good for our ancestors and for us over centuries, if not thousands of years.

And although conservative rationalism can boast of certain impressive achievements, as a general matter it is fair to say that conservative rationalism has failed: It has not visibly retarded the progress of the revolution that has so damaged the most basic of inherited Jewish and Christian concepts.

But beyond this, by endorsing the methods and assumptions of Enlightenment rationalism, conservative rationalism has contributed something to the calamity, leaving the traditions that once upheld the political order in America and other Western countries — understood as the inherited customs of particular nations — largely without defenders. This is a decisive point, because traditions of ideas, regardless of their content, are never disembodied things that float free of the families, tribes and nations into which real human beings are born and in which they are educated. Our ideas, no matter how much we may develop and revise them or rebel against them in part, are still the product of the traditions we inherit, or adopt later in life, because conservative rationalists mistake their ideas for universal thoughts that can be accessed universally, they pay little attention to way in which the traditions of nations are formed and what it takes to strengthen them or even to maintain them. Their students are therefore largely unaware, for example, that it is not freedom, but honor and self-restraint that are primarily responsible for the solidity of national traditions.

Yet, we ought to know that without understanding and practice in these things, “conservative rationalists” cannot in fact conserve much of anything, and often end up taking part, on a daily basis, in the general undermining of the very things that they say they wish to conserve.

Conservative rationalism has led not to a flourishing of the conservative impulse in America, the UK, and other Western Greco-Roman civilization steeped in Judeo-Christian traditions nations — but rather to its extinction.

Therefore it is high time now to regain the Classical Liberalism of Winston Churchill, of Ronald Reagan, of Maggie Thatcher and of Jack Kemp — because they had it right in the first place.

A God fearing people living in Freedom and Dignity with Liberty and Rights for all is what the “City of Human Liberty, in the sunny uplands of Freedom, Law, and Democracy” is what I, and am sure most of you all, aspire to live in.

Screen Shot 2019-06-28 at 11.59.39 AM

Yet in these days of Culture Wars, let thus remember that “The Harder the Conflict, the Greater the Triumph” –George Washington

So when Americans celebrate the 4th of July this week with hot dogs and fireworks, I would like to take a moment to look past the visual imagery and the smells of barbecue, in order to focus on what our founding fathers fought for in the Revolutionary War and in all the subsequent conflicts including Civil and Uncivil wars and even the culture wars of today:

They fought the hardest for Life, Liberty and for the Pursuit of Happiness, but also for taking the risks associated with these noble pursuits…

“Those that are willing to give up essential liberty in order to gain a little temporary safety — deserve neither liberty nor safety.” –Benjamin Franklin

Yet today, it seems that these inalienable rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, as they stem from our Constitution, are being eroded with each successive administration and with law making anti-constitutionalist judges and even with most Supreme Court decisions and rulings.

And it seems to me that with big government — if we aren’t already there, tyranny seems to be coming, closely followed by the Holy Inquisition…

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 3.36.27 AM

So maybe, this Fourth of July as we stand at the crossroads as a Nation — we must decide if we will allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by tyranny or if we will come together and stand up for the principles of our Constitution.

Do we allow the Cultural Wars to overrun the eternal issues that make Life worth Living for any generation, such as the preservation of life, that of liberty and that of the pursuit of happiness?

Now, if you want to do something to further liberty, democracy, and the keeping of our Republic for the next generations in this country I highly recommend checking out the Lincoln Party here at http://www.LincolnParty.Net

LincolnParty.Net

Happy Fourth dude…

Now after reading all this — feel free to go light up some fires with your mental firecrackers, and help people see the Light.

Please do not be afraid to light up fires into the explosive brains of your friends and family…

The children of tomorrow will Thank You for that.

Screen Shot 2019-07-03 at 2.34.23 PM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 18, 2019

George Orwell prophetic words of 1944

George Orwell. the author of the prophetic book about totalitarianism, titled “1984” wrote his most prescient words to a friend, in a recently found personal letter that was sent on the 18th of May of the year 1944, in the middle of the Second World War, and almost five years before the publication of his pivotal book titled “1984” into which he was “looking” at the future of our World forty years forward, as he were expressing himself about the dystopia that seemed to be the future of the Western Democracies at the aftermath of the Totalitarian powers taking hold of every one country everywhere on this Earth of ours…

It is understood by all that since Orwell, had seen in his lifetime the awfully stifling totalitarianism, taking place in Spain, in NAZI Germany, and indeed in the whole of Hitler occupied Europe, and of course throughout the Soviet Union Republics & Russia, prompted Orwell to talk and write about this evil darkness overtaking the whole world.

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 9.36.07 AM

Thus it came that George Orwell several years before the publication of “1984” but certainly while he was writing the drafts and coalescing the thoughts that are central to the book “1984” and while he was commenting on his daily radio show at the BBC — he wrote to a friend about the world’s totalitarian situation, and the creeping fascism that will surely engulf the Western Civilization.

Yet he wrote from the standpoint of a reporter, who has seen first hand the ravages brought to the people from the kind faced and mealy mouthed Socialists, who unleashed daily terror, under the name of Democrat, or Leftist or Liberal, or even of that very National Socialist, the hated NAZI party of Adolf Hitler. Orwell was not though an ordinary observer. Having suffered at the hands of those totalitarians and having the scars from the bullet that pierced his neck — he was the man who hated fascism in all its forms and garden varieties of the poison weed called Socialism.

And thus Orwell came to recognize the “wolf in sheep skin” as the crypto-fascism of today, the daily variety of fascism, that is easily found to be hiding in plain sight, under the cloth of niceness, compassion and government support, by the nanny-state, for the masses, so loved by the Leftists, who are recently christened as “Liberal & Progressives.”

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 11.11.37 AM

And it is this fascist tendency that is beloved by today’s Intellectuals, and by the seemingly endless Democratic parties asking for more government controls of the everyday life of all the people.

And it is also the far more obvious and odious totalitarianism emanating from the wooden truncheons and the baseball bats of the brownshirts of the Democrats, and out of the muzzles of the guns of the progressive liberals’ and the US Democrat party military squads — the domestic terrorist Antifa organizations in America, and their counterparts in the UK, and all the rest of the violent wings of the Democratic party, who like the IRA that destroyed Ireland for over 50 years, have now come to embody the hate that destroys Western Democracies in our lifetime.

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 9.41.05 AM

Yet George Orwell, presciently sensing, and fully seeing that which we seem to be experiencing today in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America — presaged the evils of today’s violent totalitarians, by describing their prevailing action plans and their “modus operandi” in the following prophetic statement that he made in this letter written in the Spring of 1944, well before the end of the Second World War — the bloodiest conflict in history of mankind — and five years before the book “1984” came onto being.

George wrote to his friend: “The progressive intellectuals are more totalitarian in outlook than the common people, because most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc, so long as they feel that it is a win on “our” side.
Being a “progressive” is so much nicer a word than being a “totalitarian” yet the intellectually progressives’ ideas are turning into a frightening set of dismal realities, such as the doublespeak of the Ministry of Truth, which alters reality by saying things such as, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, and TOTALITARIANISM IS PROGRESS.”

–George Orwell

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 9.41.57 AM

Words to the wise.

That is all folks.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Screen Shot 2019-06-19 at 9.38.39 AM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 6, 2019

Always Remember the 6th of June

Dr Churchill for US President in 2020 (Ind.)

@DrPanoChurchill

“Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.”
–Winston Churchill

Never Surrender Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkTw3_PmKtc
–Winston Churchill

Screen Shot 2019-06-06 at 3.49.27 PM

#DDay #RememberDDay

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Another 6th day of the Sixth month is cause for the poppy fields to blossom.

Screen Shot 2019-06-06 at 3.36.28 PM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | June 5, 2019

D-Day 6-6-1944

D-DAY 75 YEARS ON… NEVER FORGET WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY… IT’S BECAUSE OF OUR HEROES !
Never have I forgetten
How I came to be here today
Because during D-Day in WWII
You risked your life… and for that
You are forever in my heart,
because we remember & will never forget.

Screen Shot 2019-06-05 at 10.47.12 PM

The June 4th incident otherwise known as the Tiananmen Square massacre of the students in 1989 was the biggest revolution for Democracy China has ever known… and it resulted in massive death and persecution and the return to a tyrannical oligarchical Communist system of totalitarian one party ruthless rule.

The Tiananmen Square protests, commonly known in mainland China as the June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件, liùsì shìjiàn) or Six four, were worker & student-led demonstrations in Beijing in mid 1989 that was the popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests during that period, sometimes called the ’89 Democracy Movement (Chinese: 八九民运, bājiǔ mínyùn).

The protests were forcibly suppressed after the government declared martial law and sent in the military to occupy central parts of Beijing. In what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, troops with assault rifles and tanks fired at the demonstrators trying to block the military’s advance towards Tiananmen Square. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred thousands to as low as 26,000 with many more additional hundred of thousands of demonstrators wounded, arrested, exported to concentration camps and exiled internally for long periods of time.

Set off by the death of pro-reform Communist leader Hu Yaobang in April 1989, amid the backdrop of rapid economic development and social changes in post-Mao China, the protests reflected anxieties about the country’s future in the popular consciousness and among the political elite. The reforms of the 1980s had led to a nascent market economy which benefited some people but seriously disaffected others, and the one-party political system also faced a challenge of legitimacy. Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. The students called for democracy, greater accountability, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech, although they were highly disorganized and their goals varied.

The Tiananmen Square massacre of Democracy in 1989 China, still grips that nation in fear of truth, fear of liberty, and most importantly, fear of its people rising up and demanding their God given rights of Free Will and of the Free Disposition of Self.

The 1989 Tiananmen Square June 4th massacre was presaged by the “Tiananmen Square protests” colloquially known as the 1989 “Tiananmen Square massacre,” were a part of the Student Chinese democracy movement blossoming in 1989, as the spread of anti-communist revolutions of 1989 erupted at the end of the Cold War.

This trend along with the death of Hu Yaobang, whose economic reforms gave hope for the young students, caused them to rise up against the runaway inflation, against political corruption, nepotism, and because of their wish to represent themselves, as the third wave of democracy clashed with totalitarianism amongst the other anti-communist revolutions of 1989, that were taking place in all of the European countries that were previously enslaved by the Communist ideology, and by the Red Army all over the place and amongst the satellite nations of the old Soviet union and elsewhere.

Yet in China’s Beijing, the rebellious students had a few concrete goals, and demands, shy of any revolution. They had such simple demands, such as the end of corruption within the Communist Party, democratic reforms, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc, that it seemed like a sit-in at a University campus, seeking simple dialogue and understanding by their elders…

Their methods were all peaceful, and when they found out that they will not be heard — they started with some hunger strikes, a longer term sit-in, and they progressed with the “occupation” of the public spaces of the square.

Instead of a dialogue, the authorities issued proclamations pagans the students, that soon enough resulted in the enforcement of a state of martial law, that was declared by Premier Li Peng in Beijing, and was executed by provincial country bumpkin units who used violent armed force, in a bloody mayhem from the evening of 3rd of June 1989 (Martial Law was declared from 20 May 1989 – 10 January 1990, 7 months and 3 weeks) until pretty much whoever remained in the square amongst the demonstrators and the students, was pretty much dead and buried in the same square in makeshift mass graves.

Up to today… those graves remain undisturbed and unidentified, with military police supervising the Square 24/7/365 for the last three decades and counting.

The fate of the various assembled protesters who were mainly workers, students, and rioters who had started barricading as were attacked by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, is that all of them were killed. In addition, all nearby civilians who were deemed threatening as witnesses and bystanders, were also killed through rapid fire machine-guns, and with tanks running over them. These frontier army mechanized infantry units, were brought to the Square, by the PLA and they entered the Tiananmen Square at all the multiple gates of the square in order to pen in the students and the workers and crush them completely without offering any avenues or exits of escape.

The killing lasted throughout the night all around the Tiananmen square and the surrounding districts, and throughout central Beijing, and extended in the various neighborhoods radiating out to the suburbs.

Screen Shot 2019-06-04 at 5.35.54 PM

Hundreds of thousands of protesters were killed, with many more thousands wounded inside and outside of Tiananmen Square, on the 3rd of June and on the 4th of June after the first civilians started to be killed on the early hours of the 3rd of June leading to the 4th of June.

There were a few more protests across China in reaction to the crackdown, but were all put down violently and exceedingly fast.

The protest leaders and the pro-democracy activists who survived the massacre, were later arrested, exiled in concentration camps, or imprisoned for long terms at the political enemies jails, or at the re-education camps, and all of the major protesters, and leaders of the student and worker movement for Democracy, were charged with violent crimes and were executed in the following months.

Zhao Ziyang was purged from General Secretary and Politburo positions and was placed under house arrest. Jiang Zemin, previously Party Secretary of Shanghai, was promoted to General Secretary and paramount leader, by Deng Xiaoping.

Western economic sanctions and arms embargoes on the People’s Republic of China
were enacted and although no precise figures exist, because of China’s denial of the Massacre — estimates vary from hundreds of thousands to twenty six thousands of dead protesters.

It is important to state that at the height of the protests, before the military’s crackdown of June 4th, there were upwards of One (1) million people assembled in the Square, and that explains the high number of casualties in this massive open air occupation of the square, when the tanks rolled in and crushed the people…

Because as the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support for the demonstrators around the country, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. Ultimately, China’s paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and other Communist Party elders believed the protests to be a political threat and resolved to use force.[14][15] The State Council declared martial law on May 20 and mobilized as many as 300,000 troops to Beijing. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city’s major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of June 4, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process.

The international community, human rights organizations, and political analysts condemned the Chinese government for the massacre. Western countries imposed arms embargoes on China. The Chinese government made widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press, strengthened the police and internal security forces, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. More broadly, the suppression halted the policies of liberalization in the 1980s. Considered a watershed event, the protests set the limits on political expression in China up to the present day. Its memory is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China.

Sadly to this day, China does not want to face the Truth…

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Is it because the Communist system is so tyrannical that is afraid of telling it’s own citizens the truth about their past?

As for the fate of this lone demonstrator stopping the tanks — it has been confirmed that he was killed and placed in an unmarked grave by the Communist army’s mechanized infantry.

His remnants have been fertilizing the Tiananmen Square’s flower beds for the last 30 years to this day.

RIP brother fighter for Freedom and Democracy.

RIP courageous liberator.

RIP my brother, keeper of the undying flame of Liberty.

RIP my beacon of Hope for the Chinese people of today.

And may the soil that covers your body always be light and always may it bring about, the most fragrant flowers of that beautiful square.

And may your memory far outlast the Communist tyrants that are responsible for your death and for so much bloodshed during this awful massacre of 1989…

Yet, you should know that I am certain that you will always live in our memories and in the human book of Liberty and Democracy, for ever — long after the Chinese Communist party and it’s peons have all have bitten the dust.

When at the end of the American Constitutional Convention that lasted from May 25th of 1787 all the way to September 17th of 1787, these outrageous and unreasonable men resolved to form a new type of government for America, they rushed home with a simple goal in mind:

How to keep this new form of government alive for the long term, past the usual lifespan of Democracies, Republics, and Empires, usually lasting for a century and a half, and up to two centuries at a maximum.

And this anxiety for the long term viability of what they termed this American Experiment, is best demonstrated by Dr Benjamin Franklin who when asked about the outcome of the Constitutional Convention, by an elderly widow and a group of citizens, he replied — “A Republic if you can keep it.”

“A Republic if you can keep it.”

And thus while today we are once again doubtful of our ability to keep the Republic alive and united — we need to also stop simply marveling at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, because their own reaction to the draft of the proposed US Constitution, when it was presented to them for their signatures, was also considerably less enthusiastic than that of Dr Benjamin Franklin, who was doing his St Paul impersonation in selling the “Vision” of a crowdsourced system of governance built with some safety valves for venting off steam from the pressure cooker that the Republican Democracy always builds up to the point of explosion…

Now, old Dr Ben Franklin, being the eternal optimist, even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention saying that … “When you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views.”

I would add to that “and their personal creeds of ideology, their various faiths, and their partisan politics” because those things were omitted by Dr Franklin in his erudite speech, since they were not so prevalent back then.

And because obviously, Dr Franklin thought it impossible to expect a “perfect production” from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, “with all its faults,” was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge.

Nearly all of the delegates harbored objections, but persuaded by Franklin’s logic, they put aside their misgivings and affixed their signatures to it. Their over-riding concern was the tendency in nearly all parts of the young country toward disorder and disintegration. Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty – “democracy” – as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. But they had not yet worked out fully the question that has plagued all nations aspiring to democratic government ever since: how to implement principles of popular majority rule while at the same time preserving stable governments that protect the rights and liberties of all citizens.

Screen Shot 2019-05-28 at 2.10.02 PM

Few believed that a new federal constitution alone would be sufficient to create a unified nation out of a collection of independent republics spread out over a vast physical space, extraordinarily diverse in their economic interests, regional loyalties, and ethnic and religious attachments. And there would be new signs of disorder after 1787 that would remind Americans what an incomplete and unstable national structure they had created: settlers in western Pennsylvania rebelled in 1794 because of taxes on their locally distilled whiskey; in western North Carolina there were abortive attempts to create an independent republic of “Franklin” which would ally itself with Spain to insure its independence from the United States; there was continued conflict with Indians across the whole western frontier and increased fear of slave unrest, particularly when news of the slave-led revolution in Haiti reached American shores.

But as fragile as America’s federal edifice was at the time of the founding, there was much in the culture and environment that contributed to a national consensus and cohesion: a common language; a solid belief in the principles of English common law and constitutionalism; a widespread commitment (albeit in diverse forms) to the Protestant religion; a shared revolutionary experience; and, perhaps most important, an economic environment which promised most free, white Americans if not great wealth, at least an independent sufficiency.

The American statesmen who succeeded those of the founding generation served their country with a self-conscious sense that the challenges of maintaining a democratic union were every bit as great after 1787 as they were before. Some aspects of their nation-building program–their continuing toleration of slavery and genocidal policies toward American Indians – are fit objects of national shame, not honor. But statesmen of succeeding generations, with President Abraham Lincoln foremost among them, would continue the quest for a “more perfect union.”

Such has been our success in building a powerful and cohesive democratic nation-state in post-Civil War America that most Americans today assume that principles of democracy and national harmony somehow naturally go hand-in-hand. But as we look around the rest of the world in the post-Soviet era, we find ample evidence that democratic revolutions do not inevitably lead to national harmony or universal justice. We see that the expression of the “popular will” can create a cacophony of discordant voices, leaving many baffled about the true meaning of majority rule. In far too many places around the world today, the expression of the “popular will” is nothing more than the unleashing of primordial forces of tribal and religious identity which further confound the goal of building stable and consensual governments.

And now, as we look at the state of our federal union 232 years after the Founders completed their work, there is cause for satisfaction that we have avoided many of the plagues afflicting so many other societies, but this is hardly cause for complacency. To be sure, the US Constitution itself has not only survived the crises confronting it in the past, but in so doing, it has in itself become our nation’s most powerful symbol of unity–a far preferable alternative to a monarch or a national religion, the institutions on which most nations around the world have relied. Moreover, our Constitution is a stronger, better document than it was when it initially emerged from the Philadelphia Convention. Through the amendment process (in particular, through the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments), it has become the protector of the rights of all the people, not just some of the people.

On the other hand, the challenges to national unity under our Constitution are, if anything, far greater than those confronting the infant nation in 1787. Although the new nation was a pluralistic one by the standards of the 18th century, the face of America in 1998 looks very different from the original: we are no longer a people united by a common language, religion or culture; and while our overall level of material prosperity is staggering by the standards of any age, the widening gulf between rich and poor is perhaps the most serious threat to a common definition of the “pursuit of happiness.”

The conditions that threaten to undermine our sense of nationhood, bound up in the debate over slavery and manifested in intense sectional conflict during the pre-Civil War era, are today both more complex and diffuse. Some of today’s conditions are part of the tragic legacy of slavery–a racial climate marked too often by mutual mistrust and misunderstanding and a condition of desperate poverty within our inner cities that has left many young people so alienated that any standard definition of citizenship becomes meaningless. More commonly, but in the long run perhaps just as alarming, tens of millions of Americans have been turned-off by the corrupting effects of money on the political system. Bombarded with negative advertising about their candidates, they express their feelings of alienation by staying home on election day, and on Memorial day too…

And if there is a lesson in all of this, it is that our Constitution is neither a self-actuating nor a self-correcting document.

Instead it requires the constant attention and devotion of all citizens. There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.” The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health.

So what is wrong with our people today always seeking to divide ourselves in sections of outrage, hate and incivility?

Have we become too stupid in our minds, to be able to support a cohesive Union and a Republican Democracy, that we promised 232 years ago to KEEP IT?

I don’t know…

Yet I see that horror in the faces of the Americans I’ve met today walking around the Fort Lawton cemetery of the war dead… that is decked out with little flags for all the fallen n American soldiers throughout. And I’ve come to give a small speech but got rather emotional about the lack of flags for the two graves of the “other” fallen that have come to rest in this welcoming veteran’s cemetery since 1944…

And since today, I’ve witnessed acts of devotion in this hallowed ground towards all of our fallen with small flags fluttering in the wind and often flowers, placed in front of all the graves, honoring all the grave markers — I have also seen the lack of flags for the gravestones of the “others” buried in the same cemetery.

The foreign soldiers.

These “others” being the POWs who shared their bodies to fertilize our own soil, and have lain here amongst our bravest and greatest luminous stars who gave up their lives and all of their tomorrows to protect our todays.

So, I walked up to those graves of the foreign POWs and planted our American Union flags on the moist earth next to their headstone as a real clear memory of all the war dead.
It was then that the caretaker of the cemetery walked up to me and asked me why I was planting American flags on these foreign graves?

Yet soon enough with moist eyes — he could not fail to agree with my answering reason.

Because I simply told him that these foreigners deserved the same memory and honors, as all the other fallen heroes across the vast cemetery, because for one thing, they’ve been here long enough (interned since 1944) on this all too American field of honor, that they are now fully American, and for another — it is our inclusion that makes us a UNION.

And there is nothing more American than this…

Screen Shot 2019-05-27 at 12.06.36 PM

And the “others” also need to be remembered, because although they fought on opposite sides — it always takes two to tango — and after all we are all human beings, and we all carry our eternal souls in our dreams, same as the other Americans who fought for the Confederacy in the last Civil War.

And that moment, my friend, has much to teach us about the future of our shaky UNION today…

Because all of our soldiers in the last Civil War and in all other wars, sacrificed their lives for all of us — so we best keep this Republic going for a while longer, even if it takes a bit of effort to stay civil with each other and if not able to LOVE, at least LET LIVE and NOT HATE those who happen to have different color of ideas, or different skin color of political views, or different race of beliefs.

So my friends stop being RACISTS in your political maelstrom, and become civil with each other again, unless you want a Civil War to engulf your country and risk planting yourself and your children, in this moist green earth forever.

So I reckon that what is required of the rest of us is a small sacrifice to keep our Republican Democracy vibrant and alive.

“United we stand” is a familiar aspiration.

But “divided we fall” is the actual secret of America.

With all our diversity, in all our languages, in all of our colorations of belief, skin, and ideology — we should all agree on one big idea. And that Big Idea is that we are all woven into the fabric of our nation and we ought to keep it from being torn asunder.

Because it’s time to see that the tears for the fallen in our Republic’s Civil Wars, are indeed the tares in the fabric of our national tapestry of historical authenticity. And as we are reminded in this cemetery — our continued existence is not a right, but a privilege that each of has to be willing to earn, with minds that are skeptical but open, and hands ready to work and willing to embrace each other, even if it is just in order to avoid the looming CIVIL WAR.

Keep in mind that the very flag that we say that we honor, is the icon of compromise, and only when we all accept that, we can see our fellow citizens of liberal and conservative or independent views, as people of different colored skin, and thus protected from your latent & all to personal yet offensive RACISM.

Nobody is immune to tares of our national cloth, but we would also need to join hands in common purpose to repair those tares in the blue fabric filled with stars which is, after all, called, “the union” and is accented with our loving stripes of national honor.

So when you are mesmerized by the politics of hate in the news — please shiut them down and stop recklessly tugging at the threads that hold us together, because today’s liberals, independents, and conservatives, know all too well how to barricade themselves in digital citadels where some self hating, and hate spewing media, with calculated bias, assure their viewers that our country is already in the throes of the Civil War.

Don’t you believe them for a moment.

The idea that the Civil War is here and now, is completely incorrect.

Screen Shot 2019-05-27 at 12.06.56 PM

But if we wall ourselves in castles of confirming information, I fear a new Civil War. This time, a real civil war with nukes and all. And it is going to be a war that will turn the whole earth into a vast graveyard…

Given this danger, why do both major parties promote almost nothing but divisive scandals and hate towards each other?

Because it is so much easier than dealing with real problems, like health insurance, militarism, or immigration reform.

And as ersatz politicians always fear taking on the actual challenges that would require hard work, listening to people, drafting thoughtful legislation, and spending blood, sweat & tears towards the always distant view of a more perfect union — we end up receiving simple chimeras and mirages instead of Manna from up above, fit to feed our Nation.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

But whose fault is this?

Obviously not the fault of the politicians…

Really.

The Constitution was written on the premise that “We the people” would be hard-working citizens.

But, by and large, we don’t study the issues. Politicians lie because we don’t know the facts.

They dangle shiny new scandals because we allow ourselves to be mesmerized. We’re asked to vote in federal elections once every two years – and half of us cannot find the time.

How is that for keeping up the promise to Dr Franklin, and the other unreasonable men of our founding days of the Constitution of 1787 about “A Republic if you can keep it”?

Screen Shot 2019-05-27 at 12.20.55 PM

And how is the speech of Abraham Lincoln titled: “A house divided against itself cannot stand” delivered on June 16, 1858 in front of more than 1,000 delegates who had met in the Springfield, Illinois statehouse, in order to hear him speak — not a familiar concept to us today, as it was to then candidate Lincoln’s audience, as a statement first uttered by none other but Jesus Christ, the son of God and our Saviour, as recorded by all three synoptic gospel writers Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

And why do we expect to avoid the consequences of such behaviors today as those that led to the Civil War in the days of honest Abe Lincoln, the prescient President who had foreseen the ravages of the looming Civil War and the tempest of division looming large in the clouds up ahead as he was accepting the nomination of his Republican party that was the Independent party of his day and himself was clearly the “Third Party Candidate” vying to defeat and unseat the two powerful candidates, of the Two Leading Political Parties of the 1860s — the Democrat party (Pro-Slavery, Southern Plantation, Conservative) and the Whig party (Liberal, Northern, Aristocratic) — who were well financed and very much supported by that Era’s powerful establishment?

And if another Civil War is looming up ahead as part of our national destiny, then why can’t we shake-off the feeling of helplessness, hopelessness, and despair, that the two main “Arsonists” (the two political parties) of today, “burn it all down” by sowing division, throwing firebombs, and lighting gasoline fires, inside the crowded national theater of the “American Body Politic” as only the Independents of today (The Lincoln Party) are the ones trying to douse the flames as the lone firefighters?

Why don’t more of you join the firefighting brigades of the Lincoln party to extinguish the flames of hate and discord and to bring about the bucket brigades to douse the tinders and to help save our fellow citizens from the awful conflagration?

Or is it that the two main “National Arsonists” the Democrats and the Republicans, truly want to enlarge the Veterans’ cemeteries by 1000fold in another iteration of this all too un-civil conflagration, that we politely term “Civil War” and whose last occurrence filled these cemeteries where we memorialize and honor once again today, on May 27th 2019, the Union soldiers who died during the American Civil War, that harvested almost a million souls from the salt of the earth American people on both sides of the political spectrum in the short four years, between April 12th of 1861 and April 9th of 1865?

Is that awful destiny going to be our future once again?

Screen Shot 2019-05-28 at 2.11.49 PM

Posted by: Dr Churchill | May 24, 2019

Cloud Atlas: Anthropomorphic Cloud Formation & Rainfall

Cloud seeding is a certain uncertainty of our future on this earth…

Cloud seeding across the globe, is a definite shield both against Climate Change which is our future’s certain uncertainty… and also it is a boon for farming and agriculture for the most affected areas and human populations living around the latitudes and longitudes that will suffer the exacerbated effects of Climate Change as they already appear to cause people to shift away from their cultural zones and ancestral homes…

Since Cybernetics is my preferred scientific adjunct for solving many problems, and thus I have used bioengineering, and cloud seeding for good purpose in many parts of the world.

And although that has been a diligent effort of mine for a while, with many successful efforts across the world, we now see that in the big scheme of things — not only it helps to bring water to those most needful of its succor, but the process, also heals climate change by trapping plenty of CO2 in the process of regretting the earth and reconstituting the green living skin of our planet that absorbs all the extra CO2 from the atmosphere and converts it to plant mass and woodsy forests, that redirect the excessive CO2 back into the earth, thus cooling the whole thing down.

As for those Casandras that say that cloud seeding, and abundant rainfall does not solve the problems of persistent and pervasive drought due to climate change — I have one name to say to them: Loess plateau.

After many years of Environmental leadership, I’ve come to the conclusion that in order to address Climate Change, a far more direct human interference is needed, such as cloud seeding on a massive scale, economic nudges, governmental & policy means, and also a decentralized and highly localized technological mechanism of rainfalls. All are needed, because only new technological efforts will lead to successful human adaptation and mitigation to the new realities created by Climate Change, and to the reclaiming of the extra CO2 for the Earth’s ground storage.

And cloud seeding will be crucial in the face of serial catastrophic effects of climate change, and therefore what I term as Carbonomics, is the encyclopedia of all those technological, socio-economic and monetary means and methods, as it represents the surest way out of a Climate change induced civilization collapse. In addition Carbonomics is a beacon of hope, to be followed on the journey onwards, in that slow yet inexorable slog of humanity’s all but certain climate change adaptation and mitigation for a better tomorrow.

Technological tools are aplenty, and most of them already at our disposal. Take for example Geo-engineering cloud seeding, which it involves the shooting of mineralized aerosols into the skies, with hail cannons, or dropping them from high flying planes like bombs, or shooting them up with long range and high altitude missiles. Today, cloud seeding is a magical art worked by the land, the sea, the sky, the gods and spirits. But it also starts to be a tool for humans too.

Because as you see, clouds are formed when water vapour condenses on cloud seeds – tiny particles of dust. This happens when the land is heated by the sun, when air is forced to rise over hills and mountains, at weather fronts, and over rainforests and peat bogs where water evaporates from leaves and mosses seeding clouds. When the air cools and the tiny droplets of water vapour become larger and heavier drops they fall as rain, hail, or snow. Thunder and lightning are generated by the electric charges in storm clouds.

Or take snow as an example of human ingenuity, such as that falling in Colorado with uncertain regularity. Winter descended early on Colorado this past year 2018, bringing snow to the state’s tallest peaks just a few days after Labor Day. But dry conditions continue to haunt the state’s ranchers, since last winter, because the San Juan Mountains received just 50 percent of their normal snowpack. By the time summer rolled around, grazing pasture was scarce, and some ranchers were forced to sell cattle they couldn’t afford to feed. “To see them be loaded on the truck just brings tears,” La Plata County rancher Barbara Jefferies told a reporter in June…

Snow that accumulates on mountaintops across the Western United States in the winter flows into the region’s irrigation systems and reservoirs during the rest of the year, and supplies drinking water to much of the region. This resource is taking a hit from climate change: Between the 1980s and the 2000s, the amount of water in the snowpack declined by 10% to 20% annually. Research published in the journal Nature Communications last year, projects an additional loss of up to 60% before the year 2050, if the snowfall is left alone without human cloud seeding interference.

So, now some municipalities are hoping to coax more snow from the sky through a process called cloud seeding.

There are now cloud seeding programs in at least nine states across the Western United States and 50 countries worldwide, including Australia, India, and Saudi Arabia. Though controlling the weather may seem like the stuff of science fiction, the technology has been around for decades. In 1946, chemist and General Electric researcher Vincent Schaefer discovered through a lab experiment that dry ice (solid carbon dioxide) caused moisture to crystallize earlier than normal. Flying in a plane over the mountains of Massachusetts, he injected 6 pounds of dry ice pellets into the clouds and initiated the world’s first artificial snowfall. That same year, his colleague Bernard Vonnegut—brother of novelist Kurt Vonnegut, discovered that silver iodide, particles of silver so small they’re difficult to see under a microscope, caused “explosive ice growth” by jump-starting the crystal formation process. Bernard’s discovery reportedly inspired the fictional science of Ice-Nine, a form of water that could freeze entire oceans upon contact, in his brother’s novel Cat’s Cradle.

Ice usually doesn’t form until the temperature drops to at least 10 degrees Fahrenheit, but cloud seeding can cause moisture to latch onto the silver iodide and make snow particles form as early as 20 degrees. “It’s like a false start,” says Jeffrey R. French, an atmospheric science professor at the University of Wyoming and lead on the first research demonstrating the physical evidence of how precipitation forms during cloud seeding.

Following Bernard’s discovery, scientists soon began putting silver iodide particles into clouds projected to storm—either by releasing flares full of the chemical from airplanes or shooting the flares thousands of feet into the sky from the ground. By the 1970s, the United States was spending as much as $20 million annually on weather modification research.

Researchers have shown that cloud seeding can encourage at least some additional snowfall: In one well-known study, the Wyoming Water Development Commission measured seeded storms’ precipitation rates from 2008 to 2014 and found that the silver iodide increased the likelihood of added precipitation by 5 to 15 percent. The strategy can also make hail smaller, reducing crop damage to farms. Cloud seeding can even force a predicted rainstorm to fall early—which is how the Chinese governmentkept the stadium dry during the opening ceremony for the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

Despite the technology’s promises, most of the federal funding for cloud seeding in the United States fizzled out in the late ’80s. The tools used to measure its effectiveness just weren’t accurate enough to justify funding programs or research, French explains. And a widely distributed 2003 National Research Council report found a lack of “convincing scientific proof of the efficacy of intentional weather modification.”

That could soon change. In January, a group of scientists, funded mainly by the Idaho Power Company, an energy provider, published research that for the first time demonstrated exactly how snow is created through cloud seeding. Flying in and out of the clouds just north of Boise, Idaho, French and his team, including scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the Idaho Power Company, observed and measured the growth of ice crystals after seeding clouds. (Before this, studies had only been able to statistically analyze the amount of rainfall in a cloud-seeded region, which isn’t direct proof that the silver iodide created any precipitation.)

The report created new momentum for the technology, says David Raff, science adviser for the Bureau of Reclamation, the national department that manages water in the West. Now, the bureau is “interested in exploring pilot activities to explore snow pack generation,” he says.

But there are some pretty significant questions that need to be answered before the bureau would prioritize funding weather modification, he continues, like exploring liabilities, such as unexpected flooding, that could arise. A 2010 federal review of available research found that the concentration of silver in the water supply within range of seeding projects is minimal—0.1 micrograms per liter or less—and poses no health risks.

Since the earth’s birth as a cloud of dust and gas 4.5 billion years ago clouds have played an essential role regulating her temperature and bringing the rain that is a necessary condition for life. The existence of all beings is dependent on the climate and extreme changes have been the main cause of the mass extinctions that have come close to wiping all living things from the face of the planet.

So cloud engineering is all there is, because without water — we might as well be living on Mars or Venus, where our survival is highly uncertain. In conclusion we need to engage in plenty of geo-engineering if we are to have a Life here on planet Earth for the future.

And if all that geo-engineering activity is seen through normal people’s lens, it would provide a really disturbing image of people being at war with nature, people fighting the sky gods, or people shooting missiles at the Heavens up above. And obviously, all that runs quite contrary to the first principle of respectful relationship with Mother Earth, Gaia, or Pacha-Mama, but I see it as a necessity to fight off the most severe devastations of Climate change on the most defenseless and “innocent” peoples of this earth. Am speaking of the salt of the earth people. The vast numbers of people making a living out of the fecundity of our planet’s crusty soil, the agricultural hummus, and the earth’s green living skin…

It is the gift of fire from the Gods all over again. Cloud seeding is the necessary ingredient to let us live on this earth.

Yet for is an all out effort and it proves our success as a technological tool making species. And because of my deep involvement with geo-engineering, same as with bioengineering — this now comes as an opportunity to reassess my work, refocus and redouble my efforts, and also re-evaluate my own life’s contribution of and expand my work through open sourcing the knowledge and the technology of cloud seeding so that all peoples of this earth can use it, regardless of their access — in the face of the potential for a punishing system-wide collapse, due to climate change and due to a warming planet.

I’ll be Johnny appleseed to the world’s poor and blighted agriculturalists and that will satisfy my life’s mission statement quite enough, by spreading the rains to all and sundry. All it takes is some simple cloud seeding with the right means and also some directed evaporation and dispersement of the clouds above the blighted areas of the world. All in a day’s work.

And although human created clouds are now at our disposal each and every day — shaping-up anthropomorphic clouds is still beyond our technological expertise…

Yet I have no doubt that all of us see God-Deus-Machina, in our cloud formations…

Screen Shot 2019-05-22 at 1.23.30 PM

Let it rain baby — let it rain…

These are the positive effects of the Anthropocene era.

And as I digest the threat — the human response is what matters, since our approach so far has been one of denial, which is not a mountain in Alaska. That mountain being called Denali…

Yet, here I am in an effort to analyze also the recent studies on climate change and its implications for our ecosystems, economies and societies, as provided by academic journals, by the IPCC, and also by most other peer reviewed publications that feed directly from all the academic research institutes & universities.

That academic research synthesis, leads to hard and serious conclusions, that there will be a near-term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of all people, nations and peoples of this earth.

So I choose to review here, primarily some of the reasons why collapse-denial may exist, in particular, within the professions of governance, and even sustainability research and civil society practice, therefore leading to these arguments that have been absent from these fields until now.

And I also review here and transpose the abstract of Professor Jem Bendell, who offers a new meta-framing of the implications for research, organizational practice, personal development and public policy ideas, called the Deep Adaptation Agenda.

His work is titled “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy” and is published at the IFLAS Occasional (www.iflas.info) of July 27th 20181. Its key aspects of resilience, relinquishment and restorations are explained. His agenda does not seek to build on existing scholarship on “climate adaptation” as it is premised on the view that social collapse is now inevitable.

The author believes this is one of the first papers in the sustainability management field to conclude that climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term and therefore to invite scholars to explore the implications.

Can professionals in sustainability management, policy and research – myself included – continue to work with the assumption or hope that we can slow down climate change, or respond to it sufficiently to sustain our civilization?

Or it is that because disturbing information on climate change passed across my screen, this was the question I could no longer ignore, and therefore decided to take a few months to analyze the latest climate science.

And as I began to conclude that we can no longer work with that assumption or hope, I asked a second question. Have professionals in the sustainability field discussed the possibility that it is too late to avert an environmental catastrophe and the implications for their work?

A quick literature review revealed that my fellow professionals have not been publishing work that explores, or starts from, that perspective. That led to a third question, on why sustainability professionals are not exploring this fundamentally important issue to our whole field as well as our personal lives.

To explore that, I drew on psychological analyses, conversations with colleagues, reviews of debates amongst environmentalists in social media and self- reflection on my own reticence. Concluding that there is a need to promote discussion about the implications of a social collapse triggered by an environmental catastrophe, I asked my fourth question on what are the ways that people are talking about collapse on social media.

I identified a variety of conceptualisations and from that asked myself what could provide a map for people to navigate this extremely difficult issue. For that, I drew on a range of reading and experiences over my 29 years in the forefront of the Environmental movement, as the leader of the global Environmental Parliament, and as an international management, corporate & climate sustainability expert, in order to outline an agenda for Human Adaptation to climate change.

The result of these five questions is an article that does not contribute to one specific set of literature or practice in the broad field of sustainability management and policy. Rather, it questions the basis for all the work in this field. It does not seek to add to the existing research, policy and practice on climate adaptation, as I found that to be framed by the view that we can manage the impacts of a changing climate on our physical, economic, social, political and psychological situations. Instead, this article may contribute to future work on sustainable management and policy as much by subtraction as by addition. By that I mean the implication is for you to take a time to step back, to consider “what if” the analysis in these pages is true, to allow yourself to grieve, and to overcome enough of the typical fears we all have, to find meaning in new ways of being and acting. That may be in the fields of academia or management – or could be in some other field that this realisation leads you to.
First, I briefly explain the paucity of research that considers or starts from social collapse due to environmental catastrophe and give acknowledgement to the existing work in this field that many readers may consider relevant.

Second, I summarize what I consider to be the most important climate science of the last few years and how it is leading more people to conclude that we face disruptive changes in the near-term.

Third, I explain how that perspective is marginalized within the professional environmental sector – and so invite you to consider the value of leaving mainstream views behind.

Fourth, I outline the ways that people on relevant social networks are framing our situation as one of facing collapse, catastrophe or extinction and how these views trigger different emotions and ideas.

Fifth, I outline a “Deep Adaptation Agenda” to help guide discussions on what we might do once we recognise climate change is an unfolding tragedy. Finally, I make some suggestions for how this agenda could influence our future research and teaching in the sustainability field.

As researchers and reflective practitioners, we have an opportunity and obligation to not just do what is expected by our employers and the norms of our profession, but also to reflect on the relevance of our work within wider society. I am aware that some people consider statements from academics that we now face inevitable near-term social collapse to be irresponsible due to the potential impact that may have on the motivation or mental health of people reading such statements. My research and engagement in dialogue on this topic, some of which I will outline in this paper, leads me to conclude the exact opposite. It is a responsible act to communicate this analysis now and invite people to support each other, myself included, in exploring the implications, including the psychological and spiritual implications.

When discussing negative outlooks on climate change and its implications for human society, the response is often to seek insight through placing this information in context. That context is often assumed to be found in balancing it with other information. As the information on our climate predicament is so negative, the balance is often found in highlighting more positive information about progress on the sustainability agenda. This process of seeking to “balance out” is a habit of the informed and reasoning mind. Yet that does not make it a logical means of deliberation if positive information being shared does not relate to the situation being described by the negative information. For instance, discussing progress in the health and safety policies of the White Star Line with the captain of the Titanic as it sank into the icy waters of the North Atlantic would not be a sensible use of time. Yet given that this balancing is often the way people respond to discussion of the scale and speed of our climate tragedy, let us first recognize the positive news from the broader sustainability agenda.

Certainly, there has been some progress on environmental issues in past decades, from reducing pollution, to habitat preservation, to waste management. Much valiant effort has been made to reduce carbon emissions over the last twenty years, one part of climate action officially termed “mitigation” (Aaron-Morrison et. al. 2017). There have been many steps forward on climate and carbon management – from awareness, to policies, to innovations (Flannery, 2015). Larger and quicker steps must be taken. That is helped by the agreement reached in December 2015 at the COP21 intergovernmental climate summit and now that there is significant Chinese engagement on the issue. To support the maintenance and scaling of these efforts is essential. In addition, increasing action is occurring on adaptation to climate change, such as flood defences, planning laws and irrigation systems (Singh et al, 2016). Whereas we can praise these efforts, their existence does not matter to an analysis of our overall predicament with climate change.

Rather than building from existing theories on sustainable business, this paper is focusing on a phenomenon. That phenomenon is not climate change per se, but the state of climate change in 2018, which I will argue from a secondary review of research now indicates near term social collapse. The gap in the literature that this paper may begin to address is the lack of discussion within management studies and practice of the end of the idea that we can either solve or cope with climate change. In the Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal (SAMPJ), which this paper was originally submitted to, there has been no discussion of this topic before, apart from my own co-authored paper (Bendell, et al, 2017). Three papers mention climate adaptation in passing, with just one focusing on it by considering how to improve irrigated agriculture (de Sousa Fragoso et al, 2018). Organization and Environment is a leading journal for discussion of the implications of climate for organizations and vice versa, where since the 1980s both philosophical and theoretical positions on environment are discussed as well as organisational or management implications. However, the journal has not published any research papers exploring theories and implications of social collapse due to environmental catastrophe. Three articles mention climate adaptation. Two of those have adaptation as a context, but explore other issues as their main focus, specifically social learning (Orsato, et al 2018) and network learning (Temby et al, 2016). Only one paper in that journal looks at climate adaptation as its main focus and the implications for organisation. While a helpful summary of how difficult the implications are for management, the paper does not explore the implications of a widespread social collapse ( Clément and Rivera, 2016).

Away from management studies, the field of climate adaptation is wide (Lesnikowski, et al 2015). To illustrate, a search on Google Scholar returns over 40,000 hits for the term “climate adaptation.” In answering the questions I set for myself in this paper, I will not be reviewing that existing field and scholarship. One might ask “why not”? The answer is that the field of climate adaptation is oriented around ways to maintain our current societies as they face manageable climactic perturbations (ibid). The concept of “deep adaptation” resonates with that agenda where we accept that we will need to change, but breaks with it by taking as its starting point the prescient inevitability or perhaps avoidability of societal collapse.

A full text search of the journal database shows that the following terms have never been included in articles in this journal: environmental collapse, economic collapse, social collapse, societal collapse, environmental catastrophe, human extinction. Catastrophe is mentioned in 3 papers, with two about Bangladesh factory fires and the other being Bendell et al (2017).

A full text search of the journal database shows that the terms environmental collapse, social collapse and societal collapse have been mention in one different article each. Economic collapse has been mentioned in three articles. Human extinction is mentioned two articles. Environmental catastrophe is mentioned in twelve articles. A reading of these articles showed that they were not exploring collapse.

Our non-linear world, requires that this paper is not the venue for a detailed examination of all the latest climate science. However, I reviewed the scientific literature from the past few years and where there was still large uncertainty then sought the latest data from research institutes. In this section I summarize the findings to establish the premise that it is time we consider the implications of it being too late to avert a global environmental catastrophe in the lifetimes of people alive today.

The simple evidence of global ambient temperature rise is undisputable. Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, and global temperatures have increased by 0.9°C since 1880 (NASA/GISS, 2018). The most surprising warming is in the Arctic, where the 2016 land surface temperature was 2.0°C above the 1981-2010 average, breaking the previous records of 2007, 2011, and 2015 by 0.8°C, representing a 3.5°C increase since the record began in 1900 (Aaron- Morrison et al, 2017).

This data is fairly easy to collate and not widely challenged, so swiftly finds its way into academic publications. However, to obtain a sense of the implications of this warming on environment and society, one needs real- time data on the current situation and the trends that it may infer. Climate change and its associated impacts have, as we will see, been significant in the last few years. Therefore, to appreciate the situation we need to look directly to the research institutes, researchers and their websites, for the most recent information. That means using, but not relying solely on, academic journal articles and the slowly produced reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This international institution has done useful work but has a track record of significantly underestimating the pace of change, which has been more accurately predicted over past decades by eminent climate scientists.

Therefore, in this review, I will draw upon a range of sources, with a focus on data since 2014. That is because, unfortunately, data collected since then is often consistent with non-linear changes to our environment. Non-linear changes are of central importance to understanding climate change, as they suggest both that impacts will be far more rapid and severe than predictions based on linear projections and that the changes no longer correlate with the rate of anthropogenic carbon emissions. In other words – ‘runaway climate change.’
The warming of the Arctic reached wider public awareness as it has begun destabilizing winds in the higher atmosphere, specifically the jet stream and the northern polar vortex, leading to extreme movements of warmer air north in to the Arctic and cold air to the south. At one point in early 2018, temperature recordings from the Arctic were 20 degrees Celsius above the average for that date (Watts, 2018).

The warming Arctic has led to dramatic loss in sea ice, the average September extent of which has been decreasing

at a rate of 13.2% per decade since 1980, so that over two thirds of the ice cover has gone (NSIDC/NASA, 2018). This data is made more concerning by changes in sea ice volume, which is an indicator of resilience of the ice sheet to future warming and storms. It was at the lowest it has ever been in 2017, continuing a consistent downward trend (Kahn, 2017).

Given a reduction in the reflection of the Sun’s rays from the surface of white ice, an ice-free Arctic is predicted to increase warming globally by a substantial degree. Writing in 2014, scientists calculated this change is already equivalent to 25% of the direct forcing of temperature increase from CO2 during the past 30 years (Pistone et al, 2014). That means we could remove a quarter of the cumulative CO2 emissions of the last three decades and it would already be outweighed by the loss of the reflective power of Arctic sea ice. One of the most eminent climate scientists in the world, Peter Wadhams, believes an ice-free Arctic will occur one summer in the next few years and that it will likely increase by 50% the warming caused by the CO2 produced by human activity (Wadhams, 2016).4 In itself, that renders the calculations of the IPCC redundant, along with the targets and proposals of the UNFCCC.

Between 2002 and 2016, Greenland shed approximately 280 gigatons of ice per year, and the island’s lower-elevation and coastal areas experienced up to 13.1 feet (4 meters) of ice mass loss (expressed in equivalent-water- height) over a 14-year period (NASA, 2018). Along with other melting of land ice, and the thermal expansion of water, this has contributed to a global mean sea level rise of about 3.2 mm/year, representing a total increase of over 80 mm, since 1993 (JPL/PO.DAAC, 2018). Stating a figure per year implies a linear increase, which is what has been assumed by IPCC and others in making their predictions. However, recent data shows that the upward trend is non-linear (Malmquist, 2018). That means sea level is rising due to non-linear increases in the melting of land-based ice.

The observed phenomena, of actual temperatures and sea levels, are greater than what the climate models over the past decades were predicting for our current time. They are consistent with non-linear changes in our environment that then trigger uncontrollable impacts on human habitat and agriculture, with subsequent complex impacts on social, economic and political systems. I will return to the implications of these trends after listing some more of the impacts that are already being reported as occurring today.

Already we see impacts on storm, drought and flood frequency and strength due to increased volatility from more energy in the atmosphere (Herring et al, 2018). We are witnessing negative impacts on agriculture. Climate change has reduced growth in crop yields by 1–2 percent per decade over the past century (Wiebe et al, 2015). The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) reports that weather abnormalities related to climate change are costing billions of dollars a year, and growing exponentially.

For now, the impact is calculated in money, but the nutritional implications are key (FAO, 2018). We are also seeing impacts on marine ecosystems. About half of the world’s coral reefs have died in the last 30 years, due a mixture of reasons though higher water temperatures and acidification due to higher CO2 concentrations in ocean water being key (Phys.org, 2018). In ten years prior to 2016 the Atlantic Ocean soaked up 50 percent more carbon dioxide than it did the previous decade, measurably speeding up the acidification of the ocean (Woosley et al, 2016). This study is indicative of oceans worldwide, and the consequent acidification degrades the base of the marine food web, thereby reducing the ability of fish populations to reproduce themselves across the globe (Britten et al, 2015). Meanwhile, warming oceans are already reducing the population size of some fish species (Aaron-Morrison et al, 2017). Compounding these threats to human nutrition, in some regions we are witnessing an exponential rise in the spread of mosquito and tick-borne viruses as temperatures become more conducive to them (ECJCR, 2018).

Looking Ahead, we have to focus on the impacts I just summarized because they are already upon us and even without increasing their severity they will nevertheless increase their impacts on our ecosystems, soils, seas, and upon our societies over time.

It is difficult to predict future impacts. But it is more difficult not to predict them. Because the reported impacts today are at the very worst end of predictions being made in the early 1990s model based climate predictions, because the models today suggest an increase in storm number and strength (Herring et al, 2018). They predict a decline of normal agriculture, including the compromising of mass production of grains in the northern hemisphere and intermittent disruption to rice production in the tropics. That includes predicted declines in the yields of rice, wheat, and corn in China by 36.25%, 18.26%, and 45.10%, respectively, by the end of this century (Zhang et al, 2016). Naresh Kumar et al. (2014) project a 6–23 and 15–25% reduction in the wheat yield in India during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively, under the mainstream projected climate change scenarios. The loss of coral and the acidification of the seas is predicted to reduce fisheries productivity by over half (Rogers et al, 2017).

The rates of sea level rise suggest they may be soon become exponential (Malmquist, 2018), which will pose significant problems for billions of people living in coastal zones (Neumann et al, 2015). Environmental scientists are now describing our current era as the sixth mass extinction event in the history of planet Earth, with this one caused by us. About half of all plants and animal species in the world’s most biodiverse places are at risk of extinction due to climate change (WWF, 2018). The World Bank reported in 2018 that countries needed to prepare for over 100 million internally displaced people due to the effects of climate change (Rigaud et al, 2018), in addition to millions of international refugees.

Despite you, me, and most people we know in this field, already hearing data on this global situation, it is useful to recap simply to invite a sober acceptance of our current predicament. It has led some commentators to describe our time as a new geological era shaped by humans – the Anthropocene (Hamilton, et al, 2015). It has led others to conclude that we should be exploring how to live in an unstable post-Sustainability situation (Benson and Craig, 2014; Foster, 2015). This context is worth being reminded of, as it provides the basis upon which to assess the significance, or otherwise, of all the praiseworthy efforts that have been underway and reported in some detail in this and other journals over the past decade. I will now offer an attempt at a summary of that broader context insofar as it might frame our future work on sustainability.

The politically permissible scientific consensus is that we need to stay beneath 2 degrees warming of global ambient temperatures, to avoid dangerous and uncontrollable levels of climate change, with impacts such as mass starvation, disease, flooding, storm destruction, forced migration and war. That figure was agreed by governments that were dealing with many domestic and international pressures from vested interests, particularly corporations. It is therefore not a figure that many scientists would advise, given that many ecosystems will be lost and many risks created if we approach 2 degrees global ambient warming (Wadhams, 2018). The IPCC agreed in 2013 that if the world does not keep further anthropogenic emissions below a total of 800 billion tonnes of carbon we are not likely to keep average temperatures below 2 degrees of global averaged warming.

That left about 270 billion tonnes of carbon to burn (Pidcock, 2013). Total global emissions remain at around 11 billion tonnes of carbon per year (which is 37 billion tonnes of CO2). Those calculations appear worrying but give the impression we have at least a decade to change. It takes significant time to change economic systems so if we are not already on the path to dramatic reductions it is unlikely we will keep within the carbon limit. With an increase of carbon emissions of 2% in 2017, the decoupling of economic activity from emissions is not yet making a net dent in global emissions (Canadell et al, 2017).

So, we are not on the path to prevent going over 2 degrees warming through emissions reductions. In any case the IPCC estimate of a carbon budget was controversial with many scientists who estimated that existing CO2 in the atmosphere should already produce global ambient temperature rises over 5°C and so there is no carbon budget – it has already been overspent (Wasdell, 2015).
That situation is why some experts have argued for more work on removing carbon from the atmosphere with machines. Unfortunately, the current technology needs to be scaled by a factor of 2 million within 2 years, all powered by renewables, alongside massive emission cuts, to reduce the amount of heating already locked into the system (Wadhams, 2018).

Biological approaches to carbon capture appear far more promising (Hawken and Wilkinson, 2017). These include planting trees, restoring soils used in agriculture, and growing seagrass and kelp, amongst other approaches. They also offer wider beneficial environmental and social side effects. Studies on seagrass (Greiner et al, 2013) and seaweed (Flannery, 2015) indicate we could be taking millions of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere immediately and continually if we had a massive effort to restore seagrass meadows and to farm seaweed. The net sequestration effect is still being assessed but in certain environments will be significant (Howard et al, 2017).

Research into “management-intensive rotational grazing” practices (MIRG), also known as holistic grazing, show how a healthy grassland can store carbon. A 2014 study measured annual per- hectare increases in soil carbon at 8 tons per year on farms converted to these practices (Machmuller et al, 2015). The world uses about 3.5 billion hectares of land for pasture and fodder crops. Using the 8 tons figure above, converting a tenth of that land to MIRG practices would sequester a quarter of present emissions. In addition, no-till methods of horticulture can sequester as much as two tons of carbon per hectare per year, so could also make significant contributions. It is clear, therefore, that our assessment of carbon budgets must focus as much on these agricultural systems as we do on emissions reductions.

Clearly a massive campaign and policy agenda to transform agriculture and restore ecosystems globally is needed right now. It will be a huge undertaking, undoing 60 years of developments in world agriculture. In addition, it means the conservation of our existing wetlands and forests must suddenly become successful, after decades of failure across lands outside of geographically limited nature reserves. Even if such will emerges immediately, the heating and instability already locked into the climate will cause damage to ecosystems, so it will be difficult for such approaches to curb the global atmospheric carbon level. The reality that we have progressed too far already to avert disruptions to ecosystems is highlighted by the finding that if CO2 removal from the atmosphere could work at scale, it would not prevent massive damage to marine life, which is locked in for many years due to acidification from the dissolving of CO2 in the oceans (Mathesius et al, 2015).

Despite the limitations of what humans can do to work with nature to encourage its carbon sequestration processes, the planet has been helping us out anyway. A global “greening” of the planet has significantly slowed the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the start of the century. Plants have been growing faster and larger due to higher CO2 levels in the air and warming temperatures that reduce the CO2 emitted by plants via respiration. The effects led the proportion of annual carbon emissions remaining in the air to fall from about 50% to 40% in the last decade. However, this process only offers a limited effect, as the absolute level of CO2 in the atmosphere is continuing to rise, breaking the milestone of 400 parts per million (ppm) in 2015. Given that changes in seasons, temperatures extremes, flood and drought are beginning to negatively affect ecosystems, the risk exists that this global greening effect may be reduced in time (Keenan et al, 2016)

These potential reductions in atmospheric carbon from natural and assisted biological processes is a flickering ray of hope in our dark situation. However, the uncertainty about their impact needs to be contrasted with

the uncertain yet significant impact of increasing methane release in the atmosphere. It is a gas that enables far more trapping of heat from the sun’s rays than CO2 but was ignored in most of the climate models over the past decades. The authors of the 2016 Global Methane Budget report found that in the early years of this century, concentrations of methane rose by only about 0.5ppb each year, compared with 10ppb in 2014 and 2015. Various sources were identified, from fossil fuels – to agriculture to melting permafrost (Saunois et al, 2016).

Given the contentiousness of this topic in the scientific community, it may even be contentious for me to say that there is no scientific consensus on the sources of current methane emissions or the potential risk and timing of significant methane releases from either surface and subsea permafrost. A recent attempt at consensus on methane risk from melting surface permafrost concluded methane release would happen over centuries or millennia, not this decade (Schuur et al. 2015). Yet within three years that consensus was broken by one of the most detailed experiments which found that if the melting permafrost remains waterlogged, which is likely, then it produces significant amounts of methane within just a few years (Knoblauch et al, 2018). The debate is now likely to be about whether other microorganisms might thrive in that environment to eat up the methane – and whether or not in time to reduce the climate impact.
The debate about methane release from clathrate forms, or frozen methane hydrates, on the Arctic sea floor is even more contentious. In 2010 a group of scientists published a study that warned how the warming of the Arctic could lead to a speed and scale of methane release that would be catastrophic to life on earth through atmospheric heating of over 5 degrees within just a few years of such a release (Shakhova et al, 2010). The study triggered a fierce debate, much of which was ill considered, perhaps understandable given the shocking implications of this information (Ahmed, 2013). Since then, key questions at the heart of this scientific debate (about what would amount to the probable extinction of the human race) include the amount of time it will take for ocean warming to destabilise hydrates on the sea floor, and how much methane will be consumed by aerobic and anaerobic microbes before it reaches the surface and escapes to the atmosphere. In a global review of this contentious topic, scientists concluded that there is not the evidence to predict a sudden release of catastrophic levels of methane in the near-term (Ruppel and Kessler, 2017). However, a key reason for their conclusion was the lack of data showing actual increases in atmospheric methane at the surface of the Arctic, which is partly the result of a lack of sensors collecting such information. Most ground-level methane measuring systems are on land. Could that be why the unusual increases in atmospheric methane concentrations cannot be fully explained by existing data sets from around the world (Saunois et al, 2016)? One way of calculating how much methane is probably coming from our oceans is to compare data from ground-level measurements, which are mostly but not entirely on land, with upper atmosphere measurements, which indicate an averaging out of total sources.

Data published by scientists from the Arctic News (2018) website indicates that in March 2018 at mid altitudes, methane was around 1865 parts per billion (ppb), which represents a 1.8 percent increase of 35 ppb from the same time in 2017, while surface measurements of methane increased by about 15 ppb in that time. Both figures are consistent with a non-linear increase – potentially exponential – in atmospheric levels since 2007. That is worrying data in itself, but the more significant matter is the difference between the increase measured at ground and mid altitudes. That is consistent with this added methane coming from our oceans, which could in turn be from methane hydrates.

This closer look at the latest data on methane is worthwhile given the critical risks to which it relates. It suggests that the recent attempt at a consensus that it is highly unlikely we will see near-term massive release of methane from the Arctic Ocean is sadly inconclusive. In 2017 scientists working on the Eastern Siberian sea shelf, reported that the permafrost layer has thinned enough to risk destabilising hydrates (The Arctic, 2017). That report of subsea permafrost destabilisation in the East Siberian Arctic sea shelf, the latest unprecedented temperatures in the Arctic, and the data in non-linear rises in high-atmosphere methane levels, combine to make it feel like we are about to play Russian Roulette with the entire human race, with already two bullets loaded. Nothing is certain. But it is sobering that humanity has arrived at a situation of our own making where we now debate the strength of analyses of our near-term extinction.

The truly shocking information on the trends in climate change and its impacts on ecology and society are leading some to call for us to experiment with geoengineering the climate, from fertilizing the oceans so they photosynthesize more CO2, to releasing chemicals in the upper atmosphere so the Sun’s rays are reflected. The unpredictability of geoengineering the climate through the latter method, in particular the dangers of disturbances to seasonal rains that billions of people rely on, make it unlikely to be used (Keller et al, 2014). The potential natural geoengineering from increased sulphur releases from volcanoes due to isostatic rebound as weight on the Earth’s crust is redistributed is not likely to make a significant contribution to earth temperatures for decades or centuries.
It is a truism that we do not know what the future will be. But we can see trends. We do not know if the power of human ingenuity will help sufficiently to change the environmental trajectory we are on. Unfortunately, the recent years of innovation, investment and patenting indicate how human ingenuity has increasingly been channelled into consumerism and financial engineering. We might pray for time. But the evidence before us suggests that we are set for disruptive and uncontrollable levels of climate change, bringing starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war.

We do not know for certain how disruptive the impacts of climate change will be or where will be most affected, especially as economic and social systems will respond in complex ways. But the evidence is mounting that the impacts will be catastrophic to our livelihoods and the societies that we live within. Our norms of behaviour, that we call our “civilisation,” may also degrade. When we contemplate this possibility, it can seem abstract. The words I ended the previous paragraph with may seem, subconsciously at least, to be describing a situation to feel sorry about as we witness scenes on TV or online. But when I say starvation, destruction, migration, disease and war, I mean in your own life. With the power down, soon you wouldn’t have water coming out of your tap. You will depend on your neighbours for food and some warmth. You will become malnourished. You won’t know whether to stay or go. You will fear being violently killed before starving to death.
These descriptions may seem overly dramatic. Some readers might consider them an unacademic form of writing. Which would be an interesting comment on why we even write at all. I chose the words above as an attempt to cut through the sense that this topic is purely theoretical. As we are considering here a situation where the publishers of this journal would no longer exist, the electricity to read its outputs won’t exist, and a profession to educate won’t exist, I think it time we break some of the conventions of this format. However, some of us may take pride in upholding the norms of the current society, even amidst collapse. Even though some of us might believe in the importance of maintaining norms of behaviour, as indicators of shared values, others will consider that the probability of collapse means that effort at reforming our current system is no longer the pragmatic choice. My conclusion to this situation has been that we need to expand our work on “sustainability” to consider how communities, countries and humanity can adapt to the coming troubles. I have dubbed this the “Deep Adaptation Agenda,” to contrast it with the limited scope of current climate adaptation activities. My experience is that a lot of people are resistant to the conclusions I have just shared. So before explaining the implications, let us consider some of the emotional and psychological responses to the information I have just summarised.
Systems of Denial
It would not be unusual to feel a bit affronted, disturbed, or saddened by the information and arguments I have just shared. In the past few years, many people have said to me that “it can’t be too late to stop climate change, because if it was, how would we find the energy to keep on striving for change?” With such views, a possible reality is denied because people want to continue their striving. What does that tell us? The “striving” is based in a rationale of maintaining self-identities related to espoused values. It is understandable why that happens. If one has always thought of oneself as having self-worth through promoting the public good, then

information that initially appears to take away that self-image is difficult to assimilate.
That process of strategic denial to maintain striving and identity is easily seen in online debates about the latest climate science. One particular case is illustrative. In 2017 the New York Magazine published an article that drew together the latest data and analysis of what the implications of rapid climatic warming would be on ecosystems and humanity. Unlike the many dry academic articles on these subjects, this popular article sought to describe these processes in visceral ways (Wallace-Wells, 2017). The reaction of some environmentalists to this article did not focus on the accuracy of the descriptions or what might be done to reduce some of the worst effects that were identified in the article. Instead, they focused on whether such ideas should be communicated to the general public. Climate scientist Michael Mann warned against presenting “the problem as unsolvable, and feed[ing] a sense of doom, inevitability and hopelessness” (in Becker, 2017). Environmental journalist Alex Steffen (2017) tweeted that “Dropping the dire truth… on unsupported readers does not produce action, but fear.” In a blog post, Daniel Aldana Cohen (2017) an assistant sociology professor working on climate politics, called the piece “climate disaster porn.” Their reactions reflect what some people have said to me in professional environmental circles. The argument made is that to discuss the likelihood and nature of social collapse due to climate change is irresponsible because it might trigger hopelessness amongst the general public. I always thought it odd to restrict our own exploration of reality and censor our own sensemaking due to our ideas about how our conclusions might come across to others. Given that this attempt at censoring was so widely shared in the environmental field in 2017, it deserves some closer attention.
I see four particular insights about what is happening when people argue we should not communicate to the public the likelihood and nature of the catastrophe we face. First, it is not untypical for people to respond to data in terms of what perspectives we wish for ourselves and others to have, rather than what the data may suggest is happening. That reflects an approach to reality and society that may be tolerable in times of plenty but counterproductive when facing major risks. Second, bad news and extreme scenarios impact on human psychology. We sometimes overlook that the question of how they impact is a matter for informed discussion that can draw upon psychology and communications theories. Indeed, there are journals dedicated to environmental psychology. There is some evidence from social psychology to suggest that by focusing on impacts now, it makes climate change more proximate, which increases support for mitigation (McDonald et al, 2015). That is not conclusive, and this field is one for further exploration. That serious scholars or activists would make a claim about impacts of communication without specific theory or evidence suggests that they are not actually motivated to know the effect on the public but are attracted to a certain argument that explains their view.

A third insight from the debates about whether to publish information on the probable collapse of our societies is that sometimes people can express a paternalistic relationship between themselves as environmental experts and other people whom they categorise as “the public”. That is related to the non-populist anti-politics technocratic attitude that has pervaded contemporary environmentalism. It is a perspective that frames the challenges as one of encouraging people to try harder to be nicer and better rather than coming together in solidarity to either undermine or overthrow a system that demands we participate in environmental degradation.
A fourth insight is that “hopelessness” and its related emotions of dismay and despair are understandably feared but wrongly assumed to be entirely negative and to be avoided whatever the situation. Alex Steffen warned that “Despair is never helpful” (2017). However, the range of ancient wisdom traditions see a significant place for hopelessness and despair. Contemporary reflections on people’s emotional and even spiritual growth as a result of their hopelessness and despair align with these ancient ideas. The loss of a capability, a loved one or a way of life, or the receipt of a terminal diagnosis have all been reported, or personally experienced, as a trigger for a new way of perceiving self and world, with hopelessness and despair being a necessary step in the process (Matousek, 2008). In such contexts “hope” is not a good thing to maintain, as it depends on what one is hoping for. When the debate raged about the value of the New York Magazine article, some commentators picked up on this theme. “In abandoning hope that one way of life will continue, we open up a space for alternative hopes,” wrote Tommy Lynch (2017).
This question of valid and useful hope is something that we must explore much further. Leadership theorist Jonathan Gosling has raised the question of whether we need a more “radical hope” in the context of climate change and a growing sense of “things falling apart” (Gosling, 2016). He invites us to explore what we could learn from other cultures that have faced catastrophe. Examining the way Native American Indians coped with being moved on to reservations, Lear (2008) looked at what he calls the “blind spot” of any culture: the inability to conceive of its own destruction and possible extinction. He explored the role of forms of hope that involved neither denial or blind optimism. “What makes this hope radical, is that it is directed toward a future goodness that transcends the current ability to understand what it is” (ibid). He explains how some of the Native American chiefs had a form of “imaginative excellence” by trying to imagine what ethical values would be needed in their new lifestyle on the reservation. He suggests that besides the standard alternatives of freedom or death (in service of one’s culture) there is another way, less grand yet demanding just as much courage: the way of “creative adaptation.” This form of creatively constructed hope may be relevant to our Western civilisation as we confront disruptive climate change (Gosling and Case, 2013).

Such deliberations are few and far between in either the fields of environmental studies or management studies. It is to help break this semi- censorship of our own community of inquiry on sustainability that motivated me to write this article. Some scholarship has looked at the process of denial more closely. Drawing on sociologist Stanley Cohen, Foster (2015) identifies two subtle forms of denial – interpretative and implicative. If we accept certain facts but interpret them in a way that makes them “safer” to our personal psychology, it is a form of “interpretative denial”. If we recognise the troubling implications of these facts but respond by busying ourselves on activities that do not arise from a full assessment of the situation, then that is “implicative denial”. Foster argues that implicative denial is rife within the environmental movement, from dipping into a local Transition Towns initiative, signing online petitions, or renouncing flying, there are endless ways for people to be “doing something” without seriously confronting the reality of climate change.
There are three main factors that could be encouraging professional environmentalists in their denial that our societies will collapse in the near- term. The first is the way the natural scientific community operates. Eminent climate scientist James Hansen has always been ahead of the conservative consensus in his analyses and predictions. Using the case study of sea level rise, he threw light on processes that lead to “scientific reticence” to conclude and communicate scenarios that would be disturbing to employers, funders, governments and the public (Hansen, 2007). A more detailed study of this process across issues and institutions found that climate-change scientists routinely underestimate impacts “by erring on the side of least drama” – (Brysse et al, 2013). Combined with the norms of scientific analysis and reporting to be cautious and avoid bombast, and the time it takes to fund, research, produce and publish peer-reviewed scientific studies, this means that the information available to environmental professionals about the state of the climate is not as frightening as it could be. In this paper I have had to mix information from peer-reviewed articles with recent data from individual scientists and their research institutions to provide the evidence which suggests we are now in a non-linear situation of climactic changes and effects.
A second set of factors influencing denial may be personal. George Marshall summarised the insights from psychology on climate denial, including the interpretive and implicative denial of those of who are aware but have not prioritised it. In particular, we are social beings and our assessment of what to do about information is influenced by our culture. Therefore, people often avoid voicing certain thoughts when they go against the social norm around them and/or their social identity. Especially in situations of shared powerlessness, it can be perceived as safer to hide one’s views and do nothing if it goes against the status quo. Marshall also explains how our typical fear of death means that we do not give our full attention to information that reminds us of that. According to anthropologist Ernest Becker (1973): “A fear of death lies at the centre of all human belief.” Marshall explains: “The denial of death is a ‘vital lie’ that leads us to invest

our efforts into our cultures and social groups to obtain a sense of permanence and survival beyond our death. Thus, [Becker] argued, when we receive reminders of our death – what he calls death salience – we respond by defending those values and cultures.” This view was recently expounded as part of the “terror management theory” proposed by Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, and Tom Pyszczynski (2015). Although Marshall does not consider it directly, these processes would apply more so to “collapse denial” than to climate denial, as the death involves not only oneself but all of what one could contribute to.
These personal processes are likely made worse for sustainability experts than the general public, given the typical allegiance of professionals to incumbent social structures. Research has revealed that people who have a higher level of formal education are more supportive of the existing social and economic systems that those that have less education (Schmidt, 2000). The argument is that people who have invested time and money in progressing to a higher status within existing social structures are more naturally inclined to imagine reform of those systems than their upending. This situation is accentuated if we assume our livelihood, identity and self- worth is dependent on the perspective that progress on sustainability is possible and that we are part of that progressive process.
The third factor influencing denial is institutional. I have worked for over 20 years within or with organisations working on the sustainability agenda, in non-profit, private and governmental sectors. In none of these sectors is there an obvious institutional self-interest in articulating the probability or inevitability of social collapse. Not to members of your charity, not to consumers of your product, not to voters for your party. There are a few niche companies that benefit from a collapse discourse leading some
people to seek to prepare by buying their products. This field may expand in future, at various scales of preparedness, which I return to below. But the internal culture of environmental groups remains strongly in favour of appearing effective, even when decades of investment and campaigning have not produced a net positive outcome on climate, ecosystems or many specific species.
Let us look at the largest environmental charity, WWF, as an example of this process of organisational drivers of implicative denial. I worked for them when we were striving towards all UK wood product imports being from sustainable forests by 1995. Then it became “well-managed” forests by 2000. Then targets were quietly forgotten while the potensiphonic language5 of solving deforestation through innovative partnerships remained. If the employees of the world’s leading environmental groups were on performance related pay, they would probably owe their members and donors money by now. The fact that some readers may find such a comment to be rude and unhelpful highlights how our interests in civility, praise and belonging within a professional community can censor those of
5
language that emphasizes power and supremacy

us who seek to communicate uncomfortable truths in memorable ways (like that journalist in the New York Magazine).
These personal and institutional factors mean that environmental professionals may be some of the slowest to process the implications of the latest climate information. In 2017, a survey of more than 8,000 people across 8 different countries – Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, India, South Africa, the UK, and the US – asked respondents to gauge their perceived level of security as compared to two years ago in regards to global risks. A total of 61% said they felt more insecure, while only 18% said they felt more secure. On climate change, 48% of respondents strongly agreed that it is a global catastrophic risk, with an additional 36% of people tending to agree with that. Only 14% of respondents disagreed to some degree with the idea that climate change presented a catastrophic risk (Hill, 2017). This perspective on climate may help explain other survey data that suggests remarkable changes in how people view technology, progress, their society, and the future prospects for their children. A 2017 global survey found that only 13% of the public think the world is getting better, which is major change from the ten years before (Ipsos MORI, 2017). In the USA, polls indicate that belief in technology as a good force has been fading (Asay, 2013). This information may reflect a wider questioning of the idea that progress is always good and possible. Such as shift in perspective is indicated by opinion polls showing that far fewer people today than the last decade believe their children will have a better future than themselves (Stokes, 2017). Another indicator of whether people believe in their future is if they believe in the basis of their society. Studies have consistently found that more people are losing faith in electoral democracy and in the economic system (Bendell and Lopatin, 2017). The questioning of mainstream life and of progress is also reflected in the shift away from secular-rational values to traditional values that has been occurring worldwide since 2010 (World Values Survey, 2016). How do children feel about their futures? I have not found a large or longitudinal study on children’s views of the future, but one journalist who asked children from 6 to 12 years old to paint what they expect the world in 50 years to be like generated mostly apocalyptic images (Banos Ruiz, 2017). This evidence suggests that the idea we “experts” need to be careful about what to tell “them” the “unsupported public” may be a narcissistic delusion in need of immediate remedy.
Emotional difficulties with realising the tragedy that is coming, and that is in many ways upon us already, are understandable. Yet these difficulties need to be overcome so we can explore what the implications may be for our work, lives and communities.
Framing After Denial
As a sense of calamity grows within the environmental movement, some argue against a focus on “carbon reductionism” for how it may limit our appreciation of why we face this tragedy and what to do about it

(Eisenstein, 2018). I agree that climate change is not just a pollution problem, but an indicator of how our human psyche and culture became divorced from our natural habitat. However, that does not mean we should deprioritise the climate situation for a broader environmental agenda.
If we allow ourselves to accept that a climate-induced form of economic and social collapse is now likely, then we can begin to explore the nature and likelihood of that collapse. That is when we discover a range of different views. Some frame the future as involving a collapse of this economic and social system, which does not necessarily mean a complete collapse of law, order, identity and values. Some regard that kind of collapse as offering a potential upside in bringing humanity to a post-consumerist way of life that would be more conscious of relationships between people and nature (Eisenstein, 2013). Some even argue that this reconnection with nature will generate hitherto unimaginable solutions to our predicament. Sometimes that view comes with a belief in the power of spiritual practices to influence the material world according to human intent. The perspective that natural or spiritual reconnection might save us from catastrophe is, however, a psychological response one could analyse as a form of denial.
Some analysts emphasise the unpredictable and catastrophic nature of this collapse, so that it will not be possible to plan a way to transition at either collective or small-scale levels to a new way of life that we might imagine as tolerable, let alone beautiful. Then others go further still and argue that the data can be interpreted as indicating climate change is now in a runaway pattern, with inevitable methane release from the seafloor leading to a rapid collapse of societies that will trigger multiple meltdowns of some of the world’s 400 nuclear power-stations, leading to the extinction of the human race (McPherson, 2016). This assessment that we face near-term human extinction can draw on the conclusions by geologists that the last mass extinction of life on earth, where 95% of species disappeared, was due to methane-induced rapid warming of the atmosphere (Lee, 2014; Brand et al, 2016).
With each of these framings – collapse, catastrophe, extinction – people describe different degrees of certainty. Different people speak of a scenario being possible, probable or inevitable. In my conversations with both professionals in sustainability or climate, and others not directly involved, I have found that people choose a scenario and a probability depending not on what the data and its analysis might suggest, but what they are choosing to live with as a story about this topic. That parallels findings in psychology that none of us are purely logic machines but relate information into stories about how things relate and why (Marshall, 2014). None of us are immune to that process. Currently, I have chosen to interpret the information as indicating inevitable collapse, probable catastrophe and possible extinction. There is a growing community of people who conclude we face inevitable human extinction and treat that view as a prerequisite for meaningful discussions about the implications for our lives right now. For instance, there are thousands of people on Facebook groups who believe

human extinction is near. In such groups I have witnessed how people who doubt extinction is either inevitable or coming soon are disparaged by some participants for being weak and deluded. This could reflect how some of us may find it easier to believe in a certain than an uncertain story, especially when the uncertain future would be so different to today that it is difficult to comprehend. Reflection on the end of times, or eschatology, is a major dimension of the human experience, and the total sense of loss of everything one could ever contribute to is an extremely powerful experience for many people. How they emerge from that experience depends on many factors, with loving kindness, creativity, transcendence, anger, depression, nihilism and apathy all being potential responses. Given the potential spiritual experience triggered by sensing the imminent extinction of the human race, we can appreciate why a belief in the inevitability of extinction could be a basis for some people to come together.
In my work with mature students, I have found that inviting them to consider collapse as inevitable, catastrophe as probable and extinction as possible, has not led to apathy or depression. Instead, in a supportive environment, where we have enjoyed community with each other, celebrating ancestors and enjoying nature before then looking at this information and possible framings for it, something positive happens. I have witnessed a shedding of concern for conforming to the status quo, and a new creativity about what to focus on going forward. Despite that, a certain discombobulation occurs and remains over time as one tries to find a way forward in a society where such perspectives are uncommon. Continued sharing about the implications as we transition our work and lives is valuable.
One further factor in the framing of our situation concerns timing. Which also concerns geography. Where and when will the collapse or catastrophe begin? When will it affect my livelihood and society? Has it already begun? Although it is difficult to forecast and impossible to predict with certainty, that does not mean we should not try. The current data on temperature rise at the poles and impacts on weather patterns around the world suggests we are already in the midst of dramatic changes that will impact massively and negatively on agriculture within the next twenty years. Impacts have already begun. That sense of near-term disruption to our ability to feed ourselves and our families, and the implications for crime and conflict, adds another level to the discombobulation I mentioned. Should you drop everything now and move somewhere more suitable for self-sufficiency? Should you be spending time reading the rest of this article? Should I even finish writing it? Some of the people who believe that we face inevitable extinction believe that no one will read this article because we will see a collapse of civilisation in the next twelve months when the harvests fail across the northern hemisphere. They see social collapse leading to immediate meltdowns of nuclear power stations and thus human extinction being a near-term phenomenon. Certainly not more than five years from now. The clarity and drama of their message is why Inevitable Near Term

Human Extinction (INTHE) has become a widely used phrase online for discussions about climate-collapse.
Writing about that perspective makes me sad. Even four years after I first let myself consider near-term extinction properly, not as something to dismiss, it still makes my jaw drop, eyes moisten, and air escape my lungs. I have seen how the idea of INTHE can lead me to focus on truth, love and joy in the now, which is wonderful, but how it can also make me lose interest in planning for the future. And yet I always come around to the same conclusion – we do not know. Ignoring the future because it is unlikely to matter might backfire. “Running for the hills” – to create our own eco- community – might backfire. But we definitely know that continuing to work in the ways we have done until now is not just backfiring – it is holding the gun to our own heads. With this in mind, we can choose to explore how to evolve what we do, without any simple answers. In my post-denial state, shared by increasing numbers of my students and colleagues, I realised that we would benefit from conceptual maps for how to address these questions. I therefore set about synthesising the main things people talked about doing differently in light of a view of inevitable collapse and probable catastrophe. That is what I offer now as the “deep adaptation agenda.”
The Deep Adaptation Agenda
For many years, discussions and initiatives on adaptation to climate change were seen by environmental activists and policymakers as unhelpful to the necessary focus on carbon emissions reductions. That view finally changed in 2010 when the IPCC gave more attention to how societies and economies could be helped to adapt to climate change, and the United Nations Global Adaptation Network was founded to promote knowledge sharing and collaboration. Five years later the Paris Accord between member states produced a “Global Goal on Adaptation” (GGA) with the aim of “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the global temperature goal” (cited in Singh, Harmeling and Rai, 2016). Countries committed to develop National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and report on their creation to the UN.
Since then the funding being made available to climate adaptation has grown, with all the international development institutions active on adaptation finance. In 2018 the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), African Development Bank (AfDB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the World Bank each agreed major financing for governments to increase resilience of their communities. Some of their projects include the Green Climate Fund, which was created to provide lower income countries with assistance. Typical projects include improving the ability of small-scale farmers to cope with weather variability through the introduction of irrigation and the ability of urban planners to respond to rising sea levels

and extreme rainfall events through reengineering drainage systems (Climate Action Programme, 2018). These initiatives are falling short of the commitments made by governments over the past 8 years, and so more is being done to promote private bonds to finance adaptation (Bernhardt, 2018) as well as stimulate private philanthropy on this agenda (Williams, 2018).

These efforts are paralleled by an increased range of activities under the umbrella of “Disaster Risk Reduction” which has its own international agency – the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). The aim of their work is to reduce the damage caused by natural hazards like earthquakes, floods, droughts and cyclones, through reducing sensitivity to these hazards as well as increasing the capacity to respond when disasters hit. That focus means significant engagement with urban planners and local governments. In the business sector, this disaster risk reduction agenda meets the private sector through the well-established fields of risk management and business continuity management. Companies ask themselves what the points of failure might be in their value chains and seek to reduce those vulnerabilities or the significance of something failing.

Given the climate science we discussed earlier, some people may think this action is too little too late. Yet, if such action reduces some harm temporarily, that will help people, just like you and me, and therefore such action should not be disregarded. Nevertheless, we can look more critically at how people and organisations are framing the situation and the limitations that such a framing may impose. The initiatives are typically described as promoting “resilience”, rather than sustainability. Some definitions of resilience within the environmental sector are surprisingly upbeat. For instance, the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2015) explains that “resilience is the capacity of a system, be it an individual, a forest, a city or an economy, to deal with change and continue to develop. It is about how humans and nature can use shocks and disturbances like a financial crisis or climate change to spur renewal and innovative thinking.” In offering that definition, they are drawing on concepts in biology, where ecosystems are observed to overcome disturbances and increase their complexity (Brand and Jax, 2007).

Two issues require attention at this point. First, the upbeat allegiance to “development” and “progress” in certain discourses about resilience may not be helpful as we enter a period when material “progress” may not be possible and so aiming for it might become counter-productive. Second, apart from some limited soft skills development, the initiatives under the resilience banner are nearly all focused on physical adaptation to climate change, rather than considering a wider perspective on psychological resilience. In psychology, “resilience is the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or significant sources of stress — such as family and relationship problems, serious health problems or workplace and financial stressors. It means ‘bouncing back’ from difficult experiences” (American Psychology Association, 2018). How a person “bounces back” after difficulties or loss, may be through a creative reinterpretation of identity and priorities. The concept of resilience in psychology does not, therefore, assume that people return to how they were before. Given the climate reality we now face, this less progressivist framing of resilience is more useful for a deeper adaptation agenda.

In pursuit of a conceptual map of “deep adaptation,” we can conceive of resilience of human societies as the capacity to adapt to changing circumstances so as to survive with valued norms and behaviours. Given that analysts are concluding that a social collapse is inevitable, the question becomes: What are the valued norms and behaviours that human societies will wish to maintain as they seek to survive? That highlights how deep adaptation will involve more than “resilience.” It brings us to a second area of this agenda, which I have named “relinquishment.” It involves people and communities letting go of certain assets, behaviours and beliefs where retaining them could make matters worse. Examples include withdrawing from coastlines, shutting down vulnerable industrial facilities, or giving up expectations for certain types of consumption. The third area can be called “restoration.” It involves people and communities rediscovering attitudes and approaches to life and organisation that our hydrocarbon-fuelled civilisation eroded. Examples include re-wilding landscapes, so they provide more ecological benefits and require less management, changing diets back to match the seasons, rediscovering non-electronically powered forms of play, and increased community-level productivity and support.

It is not my intention in this paper to map out more specific implications of a deep adaptation agenda. Indeed, it is impossible to do so, and to attempt it would assume we are in a situation for calculated attempts at management, when what we face is a complex predicament beyond our control. Rather, I hope the deep adaptation agenda of resilience, relinquishment and restoration can be a useful framework for community dialogue in the face of climate change. Resilience asks us “how do we keep what we really want to keep?” Relinquishment asks us “what do we need to let go of in order to not make matters worse?” Restoration asks us “what can we bring back to help us with the coming difficulties and tragedies?” In 2017, this deep adaptation agenda was used to frame a festival of alternatives organised by Peterborough Environment City Trust. It included a whole day devoted to exploring what relinquishment could involve. As such, it allowed more open conversation and imagination than a narrower focus on resilience. Further events are planned across the UK. Whether it will be useful framing for a broader-level policy agenda is yet to be seen.
How does this “deep adaptation agenda” relate to the broad conceptual framework of sustainable development? It is related to other perspectives that despite the attention of international institutions to “sustainable development goals,” the era of “sustainable development” as unifying concept and goal is now ending. It is an explicitly post-sustainability

framing, and part of the Restoration Approach to engaging with social and environmental dilemmas, as I outlined elsewhere (Bendell, et al 2017).
Research Futures in the Face of Climate Tragedy
I was only partly joking earlier when I questioned why I was even writing this paper. If all the data and analysis turn out to be misleading, and this society continues nicely for the coming decades, then this article will not have helped my career. If the predicted collapse comes within the next decade, then I won’t have a career. It is the perfect lose-lose. I mention this to highlight how it will not be easy to identify ways forward as academic researchers and educators in the field of organizational sustainability.

For the academics reading this paper, most of you will have increasing teaching loads, in areas where you are expected to cover certain content. I know you may have little time and space for reinventing your expertise and focus. Those of you who have a mandate to research might discover that the deep adaptation agenda is not an easy topic for finding research partners and funders. This restrictive situation was not always the reality faced by academics. It is the result of changes in higher education, that are one expression of an ideology that has made the human race so poor at addressing a threat to its wellbeing and even existence. It is an ideology that many of us have been complicit in promoting, if we have been working in business schools. It is important to recognise that complicity, before considering how to evolve our research in the face of the climate tragedy.

The West’s response to environmental issues has been restricted by the dominance of neoliberal economics since the 1970s. That led to hyper- individualist, market fundamentalist, incremental and atomistic approaches. By hyper-individualist, I mean a focus on individual action as consumers, switching light bulbs or buying sustainable furniture, rather than promoting political action as engaged citizens. By market fundamentalist, I mean a focus on market mechanisms like the complex, costly and largely useless carbon cap and trade systems, rather than exploring what more government intervention could achieve.

By incremental, I mean a focus on celebrating small steps forward such as a company publishing a sustainability report, rather than strategies designed for a speed and scale of change suggested by the science. By atomistic, I mean a focus on seeing climate action as a separate issue from the governance of markets, finance and banking, rather than exploring what kind of economic system could permit or enable sustainability.

This ideology has now influenced the workloads and priorities of academics in most universities, which restricts how we can respond to the climate tragedy. In my own case, I took an unpaid sabbatical, and writing this paper is one of the outcomes of that decision. We no longer have time for the career games of aiming to publish in top-ranked journals to impress our line managers or improve our CV for if we enter the job market. Nor do we have a need for the narrow specialisms that are required to publish in such journals.

So, yes, I am suggesting that in order to let oneself evolve in response to the climate tragedy one may have to quit a job – and even a career. However, if one is prepared to do that, then one can engage with an employer and professional community from a new place of confidence.

If staying in academia, I recommend you begin to ask some questions of all that you research and teach. When reading others’ research, I recommend asking: “How might these findings inform efforts for a more massive and urgent pursuit of resilience, relinquishment and restoration in the face of social collapse?” You may find that most of what you read offers little on that question, and, therefore, you no longer wish to engage with it. On one’s own research, I recommend asking: “If I didn’t believe in incremental incorporation of climate concerns into current organisations and systems, what might I want to know more about?” In answering that question, I recommend talking to non-specialists as much as people in your own field, so that you are able to talk more freely and consider all options.

In my own work, I stopped researching corporate sustainability. I learned about leadership and communications and began to research, teach and advise on these matters, in the political arena. I began to work on systems to enable re-localisation of economies and support for community development, particular those systems using local currencies. I sought to share that knowledge more widely, and therefore launched a free online course (The Money and Society Mass Open Online Course). I began to spend more time reading and talking about the climate tragedy and what I might do, or stop doing, with that in mind. This rethinking and repositioning is ongoing, but I can no longer work on subjects that do not have some relevance to deep adaptation.

Looking ahead, I see the need and opportunity for more work at multiple levels. People will need more support to access information and networks for how to attempt a shift in their livelihoods and lifestyles. Existing approaches to living off-grid in intentional communities are useful to learn from, but this agenda needs to go further in asking questions like how small-scale production of drugs like aspirin is possible. Free online and in-person courses as well as support networks on self-sufficiency need to be scaled. Local governments will need similar support on how to develop the capabilities today that will help their local communities to collaborate, not fracture, during a collapse. For instance, they will need to roll out systems for productive cooperation between neighbours, such as product and service exchange platforms enabled by locally issued currency. At the international level, there is the need to work on how to responsibly address the wider fallout from collapsing societies (Harrington, 2016). These will be many, but obviously include the challenges of refugee support and the securing of dangerous industrial and nuclear sites at the moment of a societal collapse.

Other intellectual disciplines and traditions may be of interest going forward. Human extinction and the topic of eschatology, or the end of the world, is something that has been discussed in various academic disciplines, as you might expect. In theology it has been widely discussed, while it also appears in literary theory as an interesting element to creative writing and in psychology during the 1980s as a phenomenon related to the threat of nuclear war. The field of psychology seems to be particularly relevant going forward.

Whatever we choose to work on in future will not be a simple calculation. It will be shaped by the emotional or psychological implications of this new awareness of a societal collapse being likely in our own lifetimes.

I have explored some of these emotional issues and how they have been affecting my work choices, in a reflective essay on the spiritual implications of climate despair (Bendell, 2018).

There are winners and losers on the path of climate change and although this is not a zero sum game, we must admit that it will be the work of our lifetimes.

And although the climate extremes will be felt by all, in some cases they will be welcomed as they “open up” areas in the extremes of the latitude graph, for human development and exploitation.

Yet this process is not going to be short and sweet, but rather a bit of a struggle to adjust and adapt — yet for some it will be manifest as a technological boon, for a few others, it will be a blessing in disguise, and hell on earth for the ones left behind…

And even if Cloud Seeding is not a panacea for what ails our planet — it surely answers the prayers of all those tens of millions of climate refugees who due to drought and the resultant famines, have to leave their ancestral homes in order to find greener pastures.

For many thousands of years humans understood themselves to be part of an animate earth governed by gods and spirits some of whom brought about the seeding of the skies. They recognised their survival and the survival of the plants and animals they eat is dependent on external forces. Their spirit-workers were skilled in divining the weather. Cloud and weather inducing spirit rites exist through which communities participate in shaping the weather, calling on the gods to bring rain and to avert storms, as they still do many peoples amongst the indigenous people in North & especially in South America, in all of Africa, in most of Asia, amongst the indigenous folk of the Antipodes of Southern Pacific Australasia, in the Eastern European Slavic lands, in all of Mongolia & the Tatar lands, and amongst the aborigines of the Arctic circle, and elsewhere where humans still maintain their reverence for the Earth.

And it is a short time since some of us lost that connection with the Earth spirit, because it was not until almost two thousand years ago, when Christianity began establishing its authority, that humanity’s link with the spirits of the weather-gods was severed, and the demonization and rationalistic dismissal of animistic and polytheistic world-views laid the groundwork for the hegemony of Messianic views, followed by the strengthening of modern science, and of the new mechanistic ways of controlling the weather.

So today, the artificial seeding of clouds with salt, dry ice, or silver iodide (Agl) is used across the world to create rain and prevent hail storms in one area, or to do the same in another, or even cause the opposite effect for the purposes of war & defense, but not so much for the purposes of agriculture and human endurance. The shooting of aerosols into the skies with hail cannons or dropping them from planes like bombs provides a disturbing image of war with the sky and our all too human anthropomorphic gods, that runs contrary to the great principle of respectful relationship.

And as of now, we have laid the grounds for the further development of the technology of cloud seeding — yet we need to share it widely — as an Open Source initiative to reach all the agriculturalists across the globe, and to allow the means of invoking the rains to become a technological exercise, performed with reverence, shared with equanimity amongst the Peoples of this Earth, and assisted the magical powers of prayer and hope in the ancient tongues of anyone and of all spiritual beings, praying stoutly and devoutly in that universal language of Spirit, Grace and Gratefulness.

Thanks be to God.

“To you alone it is given to know the gods and spirits of the sky, or perhaps not at all.”
–Lucan

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Climate Change is Real and evidence of it exists when you look at the transitional long weather records and the meteorological reports of the last century and a half, since record keeping began in 1850, because seventeen of the eighteen hottest years have occurred since 2000.

And although important steps on climate mitigation and adaptation have been taken over the past decade — these steps could now be regarded as equivalent to walking uphill, on a landslide area. Now, if the landslide had not already begun, then quicker and bigger steps would have gotten us to the top of where we want to be, yet sadly, according to the latest climate data, emissions data and data on the spread of carbon-intensive lifestyles, all show that the landslide has already begun.

And since the point of “No Return” can’t be fully known until after the event horizon — all ambitious technological work on reducing carbon emissions and extracting more CO2 from the atmosphere becomes even more critical than ever before. And that activity must involve a new front of action on methane and further cloud seeding and rain contacts that drive plant life to flourish and thus absorb CO2 from the air so that trees and plants can grow up again and reconstitute once more the living green skin of our planet…

And for those who say that disruptive impacts from climate change are now inevitable — I am sorry to report that Geoengineering once seen as likely to be ineffective or counter-productive, has now been verified as the most advanced technological solution we have mastered so far. Therefore, the mainstream climate policy community now recognizes the need to work much more on technological improvements alongside the adaptation efforts in order to counteract the effects of climate change on people, planet & profits.

That technological and certainly rational view of the world, must now rapidly permeate the broader field of people engaged in sustainable development and environmental affairs, as well, as on climate change policy advocacy and delivery as politicians, practitioners, researchers and educators, because in assessing how our approaches could evolve, we need to appreciate what kind of technology & adaptation is possible and within our means.

And because recent research suggests that human societies will experience massive disruptions to their basic functioning within less than ten years due to climate stress — with such disruptions as increased levels of malnutrition, famine, drought, starvation, disease, civil conflict and war that will also visit all o affluent nations, this situation makes redundant the reformist approach to sustainable development and related fields of corporate sustainability that has underpinned the approach of many professionals (Bendell et al, 2017), and instead, a new approach which explores how to reduce harm and not make matters worse, is important to develop.

In support of that challenging, and ultimately personal process, understanding a deep adaptation agenda may be useful, because when someone finds themselves at the bottom of a deep hole — it is prudent to stop all further digging…

References

Aaron-Morrison et. al. (2017), “State of the climate in 2016”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 98, No. 8, p.Si-S280
Ahmed, N. (2013), “Seven facts you need to know about the Arctic methane timebomb,” The Guardian, 5 August. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts- need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb (accessed 24 March 2018)
American Psychology Association (2018), “The Road to Resilience.” Available at: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx (accessed 24 March 2018)
Arctic News (2018), “Warning Signs,” 3 March. Available at: https://arctic- news.blogspot.co.id/2018/03/warning-signs.html (accessed 24 March 2018)
Asay, M. (2013), “Americans Losing Faith In Technology, But Can’t Break The Addiction,” Readwrite.com, 12 September. Available at: https://readwrite.com/2013/09/12/americans-losing-faith-in-technology-but-cant- break-the-addiction/ (accessed 24 March 2018)
Banos Ruiz, I. (2017) “This apocalyptic is how kids are imagining our climate future,” DW.com. Available at: http://www.dw.com/en/this-apocalyptic-is-how-kids-are- imagining-our-climate-future/a-40847610 (accessed 24 March 2018)
Becker, E. (1973), The Denial of Death, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY.
Becker, R. (2017), “Why scare tactics won’t stop climate change: Doomsday scenarios don’t inspire action,” The Verge, 11 July. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/11/15954106/doomsday-climate-science- apocalypse-new-york-magazine-response (accessed 24 March 2018)
Bendell, J. (2018) “Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy” published at the IFLAS Occasional (www.iflas.info)
Bendell, J. (2018), “After Climate Despair – One Tale Of What Can Emerge,” Jembendell.com, 14 January. Available at: https://jembendell.wordpress.com/2018/01/14/after-climate-despair-one-tale-of- what-can-emerge/ (accessed 24 March 2018)
Bendell, J. and Lopatin, M. (2016), “Democracy Demands a Richer Britain,” Huffington Post, 2 December. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jem- bendell/democracy-demands-a-riche_b_13348586.html (accessed 24 March 2018)
Bendell, J., Sutherland, N. and Little, R. (2017), “Beyond unsustainable leadership: critical social theory for sustainable leadership”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 8 Issue: 4, pp.418-444. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2016-0048 (accessed 24 March 2018)
Benson, M. and Craig, R. (2014), “The End of Sustainability,” Society and Natural Resources, vol.27, pp.777-782
Bernhardt, A. (2018), “Bonds: How To Finance Climate Adaptation,” Brinknews.com, 19 February. Available at: http://www.brinknews.com/bonds-how- to-finance-climate-adaptation/ (accessed 24 March 2018)
Brand, F. S., and Jax, K. (2007), “Focusing the meaning(s) of resilience: resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundary object.” Ecology and Society, vol.12, issue 1, p.23. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/art23/ (accessed 24 March 2018)
Brand, U., Blarney, N., Garbelli, C., et al. (2016), “Methane Hydrate: Killer cause of Earth’s greatest mass extinction.” Palaeoworld, vol.25, issue 4, pp.496-507.
Britten, G. L., Dowd, M. and Worm, B. (2015), “Changing recruitment capacity in global fish stocks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published ahead of print December 14, 2015. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/09/1504709112 (accessed 24 March 2018)
Brysse, K., Reskes, N., O’Reilly, J. and Oppenheimer, M. (2013), “Climate change prediction: Erring on the side of least drama?” Global Environmental Change, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp.327-337. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215 (accessed 24 March 2018).
Canadell, P., Le Quéré, C., Peters, G., Andrew, R., Jackson, R. and Haverd, V. (2017), “Global Carbon Budget 2017”, Globalcarbonproject.org. Available at: http:// http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/index.htm (accessed 24 March 2018).
Clément, V. and J. Rivera (2016) From Adaptation to Transformation: An Extended Research Agenda for Organizational Resilience to Adversity in the Natural Environment, Organisation and Environment, Volume: 30 issue: 4, page(s): 346- 365
Climate Action Programme (2018), “$1 billion of new funding announced for climate adaptation projects,” Climateactionprogramme.org, 2 March. Available at: http://www.climateactionprogramme.org/news/1-billion-of-new-funding-announced- for-climate-adaptation-projects (accessed 24 March 2018).
Cohen, D. A. (2017), “The Power and Peril of ‘Climate Disaster Porn’,” New Republic, 11 July. Available at: https://newrepublic.com/article/143788/power-peril- climate-disaster-porn (accessed 24 March 2018).
de Sousa Fragoso, R.M., C.J. de Almeida Noéme (2018) Economic effects of climate change on the Mediterranean’s irrigated agriculture, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 2018
European Commission Joint Research Centre (2018), “Climate change promotes the spread of mosquito and tick-borne viruses.” ScienceDaily, 16 March. Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180316111311.htm (accessed 24 March 2018).
Eisenstein, C. (2013), The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California.
Eisenstein, C. (2018 forthcoming), Climate – A New Story, North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California.

Older Posts »

Categories

%d bloggers like this: