In my interview above with Rogue News- roguenews.com, I explain why COP 27 demands for African nations not to exploit their own natural resources, is beyond hypocritical; it is evil. African nations should have the right to utilize every bit of their fossil fuels to generate energy while providing a transition to a nuclear energy platform. African nations must have abundant and accessible energy to power industrialized economies. Failure is not an option, if we are to prevent unnecessary deaths from hunger, poverty, and disease.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton
Western nations and their institutions are attempting to dictate that African nations do not exploit their own valuable energy resources of oil, gas, and coal. They are hysterically disseminating an unfounded fear that development of Africa’s energy will lead to catastrophic consequences for civilization. However, more African leaders are speaking out on the necessity and sovereign obligation for African nations to consume their natural resources to develop their economies.
Mo Ibrahim has added his voice to other African leaders who object to denying African nations the right to utilize their natural hydro-carbon resources for the benefit of their people. Sub-Saharan Africa is resource rich and energy poor, which is the leading cause of poverty and hunger for hundreds of millions of Africans. Unless and until and African nations install a density of energy to power the creation of industrialized economies, their people will continue to suffer.
In a recent interview in The Guardian, entitled, Billionaire Mo Ibrahim Attacks Hypocrisy Over Africa Gas, the philanthropist and Sudanese businessman, bluntly criticized the obscene and unfair policy to prevent African nations from exploiting their gas reserves.
“We have 600 million people without electricity. How can we even think of development if people don’t have power?…Development is a major issue for us, and power is essential.
“Nine hundred million people in Africa suffer from unclean cooking – mainly women. What about the pollution effect of that? It’s a serious problem, a health disaster, and an environmental disaster. That’s why we need gas.
Mo Ibrahim courtesy of mo.ibrahim.foundation
Contrasting the dictates from the U.S. and EU, for Africans increasingly rely on so called renewables, Mr. Ibrahim appropriately objected: “If [renewable energy] is valid, why don’t those guys jump immediately and stop using gas? They’re not doing that – they’re building [LNG infrastructure], they’re actually even reopening coalmines. So, you’re giving me advice which you’re not following yourself.”
The hypocrisy of the West is blatantly obvious. Europe is in overdrive to obtain fossil fuels in Africa now that energy flows from Russia are in jeopardy. Last month, reporters from the New York Times wrote, “European leaders have been converging on Africa’s capital cities, eager to find alternatives to Russian natural gas.”NYT-Europe turns to Africa for natural gas.
What the West is demanding of African nations goes beyond hypocrisy; it is immoral and wicked.
Every competent leader, as well as any honest economist, knows from the history of the development of modern society, that abundant, and accessible forms of power have been essential for nations to progress. That is why all advanced sector nations have exploited fossil fuels in the past and continue to depend on them in the present, even as they demand that African nations do not.
It is scientifically known, that forcing African nations to rely on wind and solar as primary sources of energy will guarantee that these nations will not develop, will not become industrialized, will not be able to feed their populations. Resulting in endless poverty.Hence, is this not a new, modern form of imperialism?
African Leaders Speak Out
Mineral Resources and Energy Minister, Gwede Mantashe
Speaking in December 2021, South African Minister of Energy, Gwede Mantashe, said:
“Africa deserves an equal chance to develop its economies on the strength of her natural resources.
“Several countries on the African continent have announced their oil and gas finds which present massive opportunities for economic growth, industrialization, and job creation. As these developments unfold, we have noted with interest, the pushback, and objections from environmental lobby groups against the development of these resources.
“I cannot help but ask myself, are these objections meant to ensure the status quo remains in Africa, in general, and South Africa, in particular? That is, the status quo with regards to energy poverty, high unemployment, high debt to GDP ratio at country level and economies that are not growing and, in some cases, jobless economic growth. Could it be possible that this is an extreme pure love for the environment or an unrelenting campaign to ensure that Africa and South Africa do not see the investment inflows they need?“
He concluded:
“South Africa deserves the opportunity to capitalize on its natural resources including oil and gas, as these resources have been proven to be game changers elsewhere. We consider the objections to these developments as apartheid and colonialism of a special type, masqueraded as a great interest for environmental protection.”Nigerian VP: Osinbajo “Climate Justice Must Include Ending Energy Poverty” Especially for Sub-Saharan Africa
Speaking in October of this year, Minister Mantashe got to the heart of the matter:
“I see the protests outside this venue that said, ‘fossil fuels a killer’, but I can tell you that hunger kills faster”.
“We have seen the increase of coal purchasing from us to EU growing eightfold, 780%. As they take our coal, they at the same time tell us to move out of it quickly. That is a contradiction that Africa must look at.
Yemi Osinbajo, Nigeria’s Vice-President, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine in August 2021:
“But limiting the development of fossil fuel projects and, in particular, natural gas projects would have a profoundly negative impact on Africa. Natural gas doesn’t make sense in every African market. But in many, it is a crucial tool for lifting people out of poverty. It is used not only for power but for industry and fertilizer and for cleaner cooking. Liquified petroleum gas is already replacing huge amounts of hazardous charcoal and kerosene that were most widely used for cooking, saving millions of lives that were previously lost to indoor air pollution. The role of gas as a transition fuel for developing countries, especially in Africa, cannot be overemphasized.
Nigerian President, Muhammadu Buhari wrote in Newsweek magazine, (10/31/21):
“It is an inconvenient truth, but energy solutions proposed by those most eager to address the climate crisis are fuel for the instability of which they warn. No more clearly can this be seen than in Africa.
“For today’s 1.3 billion Africans, access to low-cost and reliable energy is the highest of all possible concerns. Estimated to rise to 2.5 billion by 2050—by 2100 Nigeria alone is projected to have the second largest population on the planet—this “great doubling” (for Nigeria, quadrupling) has the right to more dependable electricity than their forebears.
“Without extra and stable power, we cannot build the factories that will transform Africa from a low-job, extractives-led economy to a high employment middle-income continent. Children cannot learn for longer and better by battery light any more than by candlelight. No more than the Africa of today, the Africa of tomorrow cannot advance using energy production that intermittently delivers.” President Buhari of Nigeria, Demands More and Reliable Energy for Africa from COP26
Part II:Climate Change Is Complex
Hysterical claims that human generated carbon dioxide (CO2), will destroy civilization, is simply not true. Civilization is not facing a cataclysmic future from “Anthropogenic Global Warming.” Destruction of civilization by nuclear war is a far more likely possibility if we do not pull back from the brink of confrontation with Russia.
Even the term “climate change” is a misnomer and completely misleading. Our planet, since its creation, estimated to be over four billion years old, has undergone constant climate change, driven by geological, solar, astronomical, and galactic forces.
One cannot determine the causes for climate change in days, months, or even years. Serious thinkers seek to understand changes in climate by examining data from hundreds, thousands, and millions of years ago.
Our Solar System not only rotates around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy every 230 million years, but also bobs above and below the elliptic plane of the Milky Way every 60 million years. Both of these long cycle movements affect weather. The intensity and density of the 11-year cycle of Sunspots also affects our climate.
Over millions of years, there have been huge temperature swings. Our planet has experienced many ice ages followed by warming periods. The Sahara Desert only came into existence a few million years ago, as the African tectonic plate crashed into what is today known as Europe. However, even the Sahara, which is the largest, driest, hottest desert in the world is constantly undergoing change from wet to dry. This is the result of a 22,500-25,000-year cycle caused by the wobble of the earth due to its tilted axis, as it rotates around the Sun. This wobble causes dramatic changes in temperature and rainfall.
C02 Is Not Our Enemy
The theory, if you can call it that, falsely predicts that civilization will die from rising temperatures as a result of industrial societies producing too much CO2. It is based on the simplistic assumption that if you pump CO2 into a sealed container, it will heat up. This heat-death scenario for the human race relies on the erroneous theory that our universe is entropic. In fact, our universe is not marching towards ultimate heat-death. Our biosphere is a developing organism, which does not function as a closed system, but exists in a growing living universe.
Anthropogenic contributions to CO2 emissions are minuscule and have no impact on our climate. Examine the facts from In Defense of co2 and Astro Climatology listed below.
Today, large amounts of carbon dioxide are regularly generated by biotic and abiotic activity from living animals, decaying biomass as well as volcanos which constantly emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A surprisingly small portion of that naturally occurring CO2 is caused by human economic activity.
Taking the entire composition of greenhouse gases together, water vapor makes up 95% of the bulk, carbon dioxide makes up 3.6%, nitrous oxide (0.9%), methane (0.3%), and aerosols about 0.07%.
Of the sum total of the 3.6% carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, approximately 0.9% is caused by human activity. To restate this statistic: Human CO2 makes up less than 1% of the 3.6% of the total greenhouse gases influencing our climate. (Emphasis added)
Causation between CO2 and rising temperatures has not been proven. During the ice ages, thousands of years ago, CO2 levels were magnitudes higher. More recently, from 1000-1350 A.D., during the age of the Vikings, global mean temperatures were also elevated. This was followed by the Little Ice Age that lasted from (1450-1850). Both these periods of history existed before human industrialized activity, which is falsely claimed to be the cause of global warming.
Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and former Chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, has written: “Another interesting observation, which is regularly overlooked, is that there are clear indications that atmospheric temperature increase precedes CO2 concentration, and not the other way around…if even a shallow depth of the oceans warms by a small amount, huge amounts of CO2 would be expected to be released. So, CO2 atmospheric concentration lagging behind temperature change strikes one as extremely logical.” Climate Change ebb and flow of the tide
Dr Kemm’s point is corroborated by scientific data. If one looks a temperatures and levels of C02 going back hundreds of thousands of years, one observes that rising temperatures proceeded higher concentrations of CO2.
The Promethean Principle
It is scientifically known that any short term drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels as an energy source will lead to more poverty, and an increase in the death rate. So-called renewables are a poor substitute for 24×7 abundant reliable energy. More dangerously for civilization is the neo-Malthusian ideology of the extreme environmentalists. This anti-scientific belief asserts that humankind’s existence is in a fundamental antagonistic relationship to the physical universe, and to the environment. The followers of this dogma have a not so hidden prejudice against the human race, who they see as malignant disrupters of so called pristine nature. They believe that humankind is inherently evil, thus it must have its behavior modified.
Like Thomas Malthus, they falsely claim that we live in a fixed universe, with fixed resources, and therefore the human race must be controlled and curtailed. Sadly, a substantial portion of the world’s population has imbibed their anti-scientific propaganda. To wit: that too many people will use up the planet’s resources, thus we must limit population growth. To this end they intend to use the hysteria of climate change to prevent African nations from ever becoming industrialized. This same ideology will contribute to the deindustrialization of the West, serving the same goal; population reduction and decreasing people’s standard of living.
Prometheus binging fire (light, energy) from Mount Olympus to human beings (courtesy of containerjournal.com)
Enter Prometheus and his successful battle for the soul and mind of humankind against Zeus, the tyrant of the all-powerful Gods of Olympus. According to the Greek myth, Prometheus accepted to be tortured for centuries for his crime of giving fire-energy to the human species. Prometheus brought light, science, and knowledge to the “mud-people,” as Zeus referred to them. In so doing, Prometheus fashioned the human race uniquely endowed with the power of creative imagination, the power to discover the embedded principles of our physical universe. Millions of years of history, provide unmistakable evidence that we humans are not mere care takers or stewards of the universe. Rather, humankind are transmitters of change. We lawfully transform the universe for the perpetuation of our species.
Recent images from NASA’s Webb telescope reveal a highly structured and living universe. Our universe is governed by a creative principle, which corresponds to humankind’s potential of willful creativity. As the great philosopher Gottfried Leibniz understood and eloquently wrote, humankind lives in an “pre-established harmony” with the universe. Humans are not outsiders intruding on a predetermined ecosystem. Quite the opposite. The Promethean human race was created to uniquely intervene through the power of reason to advance the universe to a higher manifold of existence.
Africa’s Energy Future
Governments are obligated to act with speed and determination to produce as much energy as possible from every resources available to address the massive energy deficit that is killing Africans throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Immediately, nuclear fission energy should proliferate across the African continent to power industrialized economies. A fission energy centered economic platform will prepare the transition to a fusion powered economy. Nuclear fusion energy, which replicates the power of the Sun here on earth, will generate energy at magnitudes greater than what we produce from fossil fuels and fission.
Some may object to my optimism that Africa will be powered by fission and fusion energy in the future. Better to be proud Prometheans, than accept today’s diktats from the would be “Gods of Olympus” to remain economically underdeveloped, plagued with hunger, poverty, and death.
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, and consultant on Africa. He is also the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton
The article below by my colleague, Nancy Spannaus, creator of the website americansystemnow.com provides a useful up-date on momentum for expanding the world’s production of nuclear energy. This is of vital importance for the future of the African continent, and its growing population. Almost one third of African nations are involved in some stage of acquiring nuclear energy. A growing number of African leaders are pushing back against the Western dictates, that Africa nations must forgo the use of their own natural energy resources in order to “save the planet” from climate change. These demands are dripping with a racist-colonial mentality that demands Africans cannot use their natural hydrocarbon resources to generate electricity for their people. On a continent with over 600 million without access to electricity and over 450 million Africans living in poverty; this is criminal and immoral.
Nuclear energy must become an increasing portion of energy consumption for African nations. It provides abundant long term energy, it is ideal for desalination, and produces important medical isotopes. On a continent starved for energy, nuclear fission and ultimately fusion, are essential. As importantly, African nations that embrace nuclear energy will lift their economic mode of production to a more advanced energy infrastructure platform. This will prepare these economies to operate an even higher level of technology in the future; fusion power. The application of nuclear technologies, along with space exploration, will force an upshift in the skill level of the labor force, requiring more scientists, engineers, and training centers.
This concept was understood by the great Senegalese scholar, Cheikh Anta Diop more than six decades ago. He optimistically wrote in his renowned book, Black Africa: The Economic and Cultural Basis for a Federated State:
“If we wish to see the African Nation everyone is talking about these days adapt itself to the needs of a modern technical world, we have from its very beginnings to provide those technical institutions that guarantee the life of a modern nation . We should forthwith create the following institutions:
A) an institute of nuclear chemistry and physics;
B) an electronic institute;
C) an aeronautics and astronautics institute;
D) an institute of applied chemistry for industry and agriculture;
E) an institute of tropical agronomy and biochemistry
F) an institute of health, specialized in the study tropical diseases.”
Diop strongly believed it was important for African nations to be engaged in the development of thermonuclear (fusion) energy, which is orders of magnitude more powerful than fission. He wrote, “…Africa should be following: first, to bank on the triumph of thermonuclear energy and immediately create a pilot fusion center in an appropriate African country open to all African researchers willing to follow this line of pursuit…”
President John Kennedy also reflected the same technological optimism of Diop. He supported the right of African nations to developing their economies by utilizing their natural resources and having access to technology. Speaking in 1960, Kennedy said:
“Call it nationalism, call it anti-colonialism, Africa is going through a revolution…Africans want a higher standard of living. Seventy-five percent of the population now lives by subsistence agriculture. They want an opportunity to manage and benefit directly from their resources in, on, and under the land…The African peoples believe that the science, technology, and education available in the modern world can overcome their struggle for existence, that their poverty, squalor, and disease can be conquered.” (Emphasis added)
Should we do less than emulate the thinking of Kennedy and Diop, today?
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton.
Many years ago, I reached the same conclusions as Mr. Moore; without abundant affordable energy, Africa will not develop, it will not eliminate poverty. African nations need energy, lots of energy, at least 1,000 gigawatts more energy to advance their agricultural sector and industrialize their economies. Shutting down existing fossil fueled energy or limiting future energy production to “green energy” will not only retard economic growth; it will increase poverty and kill Africans. If I may be granted a poetic license, I would say, a green energy policy for Africa will lead to a black death.
Let me interpolate my perspective on so called green energy, which goes beyond Mr. Moore’s excellent analysis. I find no convincing evidence that human activity is causing climate change. Rather, it is geological and astronomical cycles pertaining to our Sun and our solar system that is the primary cause of changes in our climate. Just ask yourself, how many ice ages and warming periods has our planet experienced over the last one million years before anthropomorphic activity emerged?
Unfortunately, our culture has adopted a false belief system about the nature of human beings that was revived in the 1960s under the slogan of “limits to growth.” This belief structure advocates the necessity of limiting the number of human beings and reducing human activity, guided by a false conviction that the planet is running out of resources.
This is a warmed over version of the population reduction theory espoused by the wicked Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834). Even though the Malthusian dogma proclaims that human population growth will exceed the resources of the planet, has been proven wrong, again, and again, Malthusianism never seems to die.
There are two principal fallacies of this view. First, there are no fixed resources. As humankind discovers new scientific principles of the physical universe, new resources of energy are discovered, such as coal, gas, oil, nuclear, and of course electricity itself. Second, the physical universe, which is a growing organism, is well-ordered to respond to the creative mental powers of the human mind. In scientific terms, both the universe, and the human creative mind, intrinsically cooperate in anti-entropic growth, i.e., continual expanding development. As the great philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote, there is a pre-established harmony of causality between the mind and physical substance. When we humans exercise our creative potential, we are in harmony with universe, not antithetical to its environment.
Sadly, for civilization, western culture, has adopted a prejudicial view of the human race itself, viewing it as an inherently evil monster wantonly destroying the environment. The folly of the “New Green Deal” as it is called, will hurt the United States, Europe, and the entirety of the advanced sector. However, for African nations and other developing nations, it will have deadly effects sooner.
Nuclear energy for Africa: Fulfilling Eisenhower’s dream. Atoms for Peace. (Courtesy of cfact.org)
The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) is needed to come into operation post-haste for Africa to progress. The GERD has the capacity to generate over 6,000 megawatts of electricity, which could be added to the East African grid in the coming two to three years . There are other hydro-electric dams being constructed in Africa. There should be no holding back on constructing as many new power plants of all types, as quickly as possible to expand African’s access to electricity. Over 600 million Africans have no access to their nation’s electrical grid. Plus, for African nations to build their manufacturing sectors, industrial consumption of electricity will have to dramatically increase. Nuclear energy, presently fission, and in the future fusion, is the most efficient source of power for Africa. Almost one third of the continent’s nations are presently involved in various stages of acquiring nuclear energy plants. African nations should give the highest priority to securing production of nuclear energy.
(See link below for presentation of nuclear solution)
Excerpts from Gyude Moore:
“Africa has many of the poorest people in the world. For most African countries, the priority is economic growth — first in agriculture, where much of the population still works, and then in industry and services. Worries of an increased carbon footprint generated from economic growth are second to worries that growth may not happen at all…
“But people in poverty don’t just need to power a single lightbulb at home; they need abundant, affordable energy at work too. Energy is essential to creating productive agriculture systems, as well as to the expansion of economic opportunity in cities, factories, and modern industries. African countries need energy to grow, and to eliminate poverty — and they can’t do it with small-scale green power projects alone.
“Africa’s first priority is to grow more food. Composting and recycling can only go so far — farmers need synthetic fertilizer to raise yields, and natural gas is the most efficient energy source for fertilizer production…
“Poor farmers in Africa need much better access to irrigation… Large scale, energy-intensive water control projects that rely on fossil fuels must be in the mix — just as they are in wealthy countries.
Domestic food supply chains provide the vast majority of food across Sub-Saharan Africa, but they’re hampered by poor roads and the unreliable fuel supplies. Construction of much-needed roads requires energy and the transportation sector as a whole remains almost entirely dependent on oil and gas.
“Beyond agriculture, a continuous supply of power from the grid is critical for expanding factory production. Countries like Ethiopia, which have ambitions to become manufacturing powerhouses, are increasingly looking to China for the construction and operation of large-scale power projects that will provide reliable electricity. Off-grid technologies are useful for extending basic energy services but cannot power the industrial activity needed to create millions of jobs and drive economic diversification. There is no world in which Africa can meet its energy needs with carbon-neutral power plants and off-grid solutions…
“The continent’s needs are too great to be met solely with current energy technologies…” (all emphasis is added)
Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com
Do not succumb to the political correct dictatorship that is hysterically telling you every day that the civilization will come to and end an the planet will be destroyed if mankind doesn’t eliminate C02 emissions. This extremist view would end the progress mankind has made through industrialization. The less developed nations, especially Africa nations, are being being targeted to stop producing energy by coal. While nuclear is the preferred form of energy production, it we stop using existing power plants the death rate will increase. If, we adhere to the mantra against industrialization, African economies will never develop, and their mortality rate will increase. Below you can view the video and letter by 500 scenarists calling for an honest scientific debate on climate change.
One climate researcher put it this way: “Could an increase in CO2 levels affect the climate? Sure, that is possible, but evidence indicates it wouldn’t be much of an effect, (if any). Is there any reason to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to bring the world climate systems to the verge of some catastrophic change, requiring costly, and drastic efforts to slash emissions? Absolutely not!”
Sadly, the so called environmentalist movement believes in the anti-scientific mantra by Thomas Malthus that the world is over populated and we can only survive by reducing the world’s population. It is not surprising that Africans are targeted for such population reduction. See video of Al Gore below. Each human being is born with a “creative spark” that allows the mind to make discoveries through its creative imagination. More human beings can never be a problem for civilization. And there are no limited amount of fixed resources. History has proven that through creativity of the mind, human beings have continually made new discoveries that have created new resources. It is unclear how many tens of billions of human beings can inhabit the earth, if we proceed with with unlimited scientifically driven economic growth.
LETTER TO UN SECRETARY GENERAL From Prominent Scientists and Professionals to UN:
‘There Is No Climate Emergency’
Sept. 30—“Your Excellencies, There is no climate emergency.” So opens a Sept. 23 letter sent by Prof. Guus Berkhout—on behalf of a global network of 500 leading scientists and professionals in climate and related fields—to UN Secretary-General António Guterres and to the Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Patricia
Espinosa Cantellano.
It is a cover letter for an enclosed European Climate Declaration, that grew from the Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming delivered to Italian government agencies by leading Italian scientists in June 2019, which then circulated throughout Europe, the United States, and some other nations.
The cover letter—signed by Berkhout and the designated national ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration—urges the Secretary-General “to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.” The official presentation of the Declaration—including the release of the full list of signers—will take place in Oslo, Norway on October 18 at the Climate Realists’ “Natural Variability and Tolerance” conference. More press conferences will follow in Brussels and Rome.
Mankind looking at the beautifully, well ordered spiral formation of the galaxy. (courtesy of dreamstime.com)
Below is an article whose central polemic I concur with. Today’s culture-society is being bombarded with propaganda that all stems from the Malthusian mantra, that the world has limited resources and therefore we must reduce the number of people living on this planet. Malthus’ ideological driven, anti-scientific ideas were wrong when he presented them over 200 years ago, they are wrong today, and they will always be wrong. The most powerful force that the human species possesses is; the mind. More explicitly, the power of the creative imagination to hypothesize previously unknown principles of the universe. There are no fixed resources. Human beings, the only creative species, is the source of all new discoveries that create new resources, as the history of our species demonstrate over millions of years on this planet earth. Do not succumb to “group think” and do not submit to so called authorities. The pathetic level of discussion in our society today, reflected in the 2020 US election for example, indicates how much the dialogue of profound ideas has deteriorated over the last half century. The most effective way to inspire humans beings and excite their imagination is to explore our solar system, and the universe with all its galaxies. By looking up to the stars in the sky to discover the laws of our universe, we can eliminate human suffering on earth.
The Age of Reason Is in the Stars!
There is really good news: Man is capable of reason and therefore of limitless intellectual and moral perfectibility! We can do something that neither the donkeys nor the monkeys can do: We can discover new scientific principles of the universe in which we live, without limits! And these qualitative discoveries mean that, unlike donkeys and monkeys, we are constantly able to redefine even what we consider to be resources, therefore making resources unlimited. We can continue to improve the livelihoods of humanity!
We are experiencing unprecedented, fascinating scientific revolutions: the Chinese are exploring the far side of the Moon with their Chang’e Moon missions, planning to mine helium-3 as fuel for the coming fusion economy on Earth, and next year a Mars mission will investigate the conditions for terraforming the red planet. With their Chandrayaan 2 mission to the south pole of the Moon, Indians will explore the ice in the craters there, which are always in the shade—water is one of the essential prerequisites for life on the Moon. The European Space Agency is working on concrete plans for international cooperation on a permanent Moon village! The U.S. is building upon the Kennedy Apollo program with its Artemis program, and Russia, the U.S., and China all see nuclear-powered spaceships as the right choice for future flights to Mars and deep into space!
The great thing about space travel is that it proves that we are not living in a closed system in which raw materials are limited and the murderous views of Thomas Malthus, Julian Huxley, Bertrand Russell, and Prince Philip would be correct, but on the contrary, we live in an anti-entropic universe. Space travel is the irrefutable proof that the universe “obeys” an adequate hypothesis of the human mind, and that there is therefore absolute coherence between the immaterial ideas produced by reason, and the physical laws of this universe, and that these ideas are the spearhead of the anti-entropic dynamics of the universe.
There have been groundbreaking proofs recently: about 100 years after Einstein’s theses on the existence of gravitational waves and black holes, the change in space-time has now been proven, and shortly thereafter, with the help of eight radio telescopes distributed all over the world, images were made of the area around a black hole whose mass is 6.5 billion times larger than that of the Sun, 53.5 million light years away at the center of the M87 galaxy. There is still so much to discover in our universe, where, according to the Hubble Space Telescope, there are at least two trillion galaxies! Space exploration opens up a deeper insight into how the laws of our universe work, and what role we humans play in it!
This is the life-affirming cultural optimism that comes with the idea of humanity as a space-faring species, in complete contrast to the contrived doomsday atmosphere which is spread by the apostles of a coming apocalypse—such as Prince Charles and the hedge-fund cover girl Greta Thunberg. Behind the Greta hype are quite vile interests: the trans-Atlantic financial system is facing a more serious crash than in 2008, and the financial sharks and locusts of the City of London and Wall Street are trying one final big deal, to steer as much investment into “green” technology as possible, before the systemic crisis hits.
A closer look at the various sponsors of Greta’s extremely ambitious and well-funded agenda; of the Extinction Rebellion (XR); and of FridaysforFuture (F4F), reveals that this movement is funded by some of the richest people on Earth, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Ted Turner. The fact is that the beneficiaries of the climate hype and the Green New Deal are the banks and hedge funds.
A ‘Rebellion’ Funded by the Most Privileged
The target of this unprecedented manipulation is you, the young adults, the children and teenagers of this world! Shouldn’t it make you stop and think, when your alleged “rebellion” is supported by the whole spectrum of mainstream media and the entire liberal establishment? Yet the vile idea that manipulating the paradigm-shift of an entire society must begin with the indoctrination of children is nothing new. As early as 1951, Lord Bertrand Russell wrote in his book, The Impact of Science on Society:
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. . . . Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. . . . It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. . . . not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten.”
The goal of the apocalyptic scaremongering by people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (“We have only 12 years left!”) or the head of the British Commonwealth, Prince Charles (“We only have 18 months left!”), is an induced radical change in the way of life of mankind. Everything that we have understood as progress during the last 250 years should be abandoned, and we should return to the technological level that existed before the Industrial Revolution. But this also means that then the number of people who can be sustained at that level will drop to about a billion or less.
It would mean that developing countries would have no prospects for ever escaping poverty, hunger, epidemics and a shortened lifespan; it would be a genocide of an unimaginably large number of people! If “climate scientist” Mojib Latif thinks that the Western lifestyle can not be transmitted to all people in the world, and if Barack Obama is outraged that many young people in Africa want a car, air conditioning and a big house, then behind that lurks the inhuman arrogance of members of the totally privileged upper class. It is precisely this view by the colonial rulers that is responsible for the fact that Africa and much of Latin America are still underdeveloped, and many hundreds of millions of people have died early unnecessarily.
For the developing world, the pseudo-religion of anthropogenic climate change means genocide. For the souls of the young people of the world, the cultural pessimism it induces is a poison that destroys confidence in human creativity. When every activity becomes a problem and is suddenly laden with guilt—eating meat, or eating at all, driving a car, flying, home heating, clothing, and indeed life itself—it destroys any enthusiasm for discovery, any enthusiasm for that which is beautiful, and all hope for the future. And if every human being is just another parasite that destroys the environment, then quite a few come to the misanthropic conclusions of the mass shooters of Christchurch and El Paso who, in their “manifestos,” cited environmental reasons for their actions.
Conversely, the scientific and technological advances associated with space travel are the key to overcoming all apparent limitations of our present existence on Earth. “Terraforming”—the creation of human conditions—then becomes possible not only on the Moon and Mars, but also here on Earth, and in the future on many heavenly bodies in our Solar system and perhaps beyond.
In his “Anthropology of Astronautics,” the German-American space pioneer Krafft Ehricke writes:
“The concept of space travel carries with it enormous impact, because it challenges man on practically all fronts of his physical and spiritual existence. The idea of traveling to other celestial bodies reflects to the highest degree the independence and agility of the human mind. It lends ultimate dignity to man’s technical and scientific endeavors. Above all, it touches on the philosophy of his very existence. As a result, the concept of space travel disregards national borders, refuses to recognize differences of historical or ethnological origin, and penetrates the fiber of one sociological or political creed as fast as that of the next.”
Today, we need this culturally optimistic image of mankind, and the passionate love for humanity associated with it as the only creative species known to date! The fact that we can venture into space means that we can overcome the narrow, earth-bound mindset. “There, in the stars, lies mankind’s entry into the long-awaited Age of Reason, when our species sheds at last the cultural residue of the beast,” as Lyndon LaRouche put it.
It is an incredible privilege to be young now, to reach for the stars and help shape an epoch of humanity that, for the first time in history, can unleash the unlimited potential of our species!
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Founder and President of the Schiller Institute
Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was wrong then, and his followers are wrong today. Our planet is not suffering from over over population, but from under development. (courtesy of nyaowritingmy.yy.angel.com)
The progress of mankind, from millions of years ago when human beings became tool designers and makers, and especially since the Neolithic period of the revolution in agriculture, is now under full scale attack. The latest offensive from the extremist wing of the environmentalist’s movement, the Extinction Rebellion-XR, is the resurrection of the discredited ideology of Thomas Malthus, advocating extreme levels of population reduction. By frightening an uninformed population that so-called man-made CO2 will destroy the planet, they hope to convince our advanced civilization to reduce our standard of living, and to stop procreating. In particular, less developed nations are being propagandized to forgo industrialization of their economies and drastically reduce their fertility rates. As has been the case for decades, Africa and its growing population are in the cross-hairs of this offensive against development and growth. Without the industrialization of the African continent, there will be no possibility that Africa’s projected population of 2.5 billion people will be able to survive. Contrary to the viscous (anti-human) ideology of XR et al, there are no limits to economic growth. Mankind has surmounted every apparent crisis by superseding it with new discoveries that led to utilization of previously undiscovered natural resources, (e.g. oil 150 years ago), and new technologies that transformed our economies by increasing productivity. Human beings with our innate power of creativity are the most precious resource in the universe. Our civilization suffers not from too many people, but not enough thinking people, who should recognize the latest XR movement as scientifically incompetent; a fraud aimed at the progress of the human race.
Below is a provocative article on the subject that is worth reading.
“Frontal Assault on Our Living Standard: Multi-billionaires Are Financing the ‘Climate Protectors’”
“The news is out. According to the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the state of the Earth is catastrophic, but we still have a chance. All we have to do is listen to 16-year-old climate figurehead Greta Thunberg of Sweden, the “Extinction Rebellion,” and Dennis Meadows. Not only do we need to be ashamed to fly; we also need to be ashamed to eat meat, or food generally, to drive cars, travel, heat our homes, and, to get right down to it, we should be ashamed that we exist, because it were better for the climate if we didn’t! And, of course, if you haven’t noticed yet: Snow is black!
“Anyone who thinks the trans-Atlantic establishment and its science and media PR lobbyists have gone crazy, has a point. But the madness has a method: The apocalyptic theses of this so-called Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on the alleged vicious cycle of unsustainable agriculture, global warming, and extreme weather, are supposed to indoctrinate the population into voluntarily giving up consumption, accepting higher taxes to subsidize the steering of financial flows into so-called “green” investments, accepting dictatorial forms of government and—this is now frankly expressed—accepting a massive reduction of the world population.”
News Update: {Washington Post} Compelled To Admit Mass Killers Are Ecofascists
The {Washington Post} newspaper, which dominates the capital area, commented in a front-page article, August 18, on the environmentalist ideology of the mass killers in Christchurch, New Zealand, and El Paso, Texas. The article, “Two Mass Killings a World Apart Share a Common Theme: ‘Ecofascism'” by Joel Achenback is excerpted below.
“Before the slaughter of dozens of people in Christchurch, New Zealand, and El Paso this year, the accused gunmen took pains to explain their fury, including their hatred of immigrants. The statements that authorities think the men posted online share another obsession: overpopulation and environmental degradation.
“The alleged Christchurch shooter, who is charged with targeting Muslims and killing 51 people in March, declared himself an “eco-fascist” and railed about immigrants’ birthrates. The statement linked to the El Paso shooter, who is charged with killing 22 people in a shopping area this month, bemoans water pollution, plastic waste and an American consumer culture that is “creating a massive burden for future generations.”
“The two mass shootings appear to be extreme examples of ecofascism — what Hampshire College professor emerita Betsy Hartmann calls “the greening of hate.”
“Ecofascism has deep roots. There is a strong element of it in the Nazi emphasis on “blood and soil,” and the fatherland, and the need for a living space purified of alien and undesirable elements.
“Meanwhile, leaders of mainstream environmental groups are quick to acknowledge that their movement has an imperfect history when it comes to race, immigration and inclusiveness. Some early conservationists embraced the eugenics movement that saw “social Darwinism” as a way of improving the human race by limiting the birthrates of people considered inferior.
I am posting a provocative article that challenges our society’s accepted cultural beliefs about climate change. Admittedly more analysis and discussion is required, but let me convey a few concepts that should provide food for thought.
The current hysteria about that the planet is facing impending doom is strongly reminiscent of the old discredited Malthusian theory that too many couples having too many children would over run the capacity of our planet to produce food. We now have over 7 billion people, and we know that our planet can feed billions more, if we properly developed its potential. In the 20th century, Malthus’ unscientific babbling was further extended by the Club of Rome and World Wildlife Fund to assert that the our planet had limited-fixed resources that could only maintain a fixed number of human beings. Of course, none of this is true, nor was it ever scientifically proven, but it became part of the popular culture. I am now approaching 68 years of age, and know how this propaganda spread from the late 1960s on. I was there and organized against it!
Tragically, our culture today has accepted the new mantra of climate change, without a healthy scientific debate and analysis. For example CO2 is not deadly, it is one of the building blocks of life. If you look at weather events over time, a century or more, you will find that there is not an increase in hurricanes, and tornadoes. If you go back hundreds of thousands of years you’ll find several ice ages and warming periods.
Also, why assume the planet has one fixed condition? Tens of millions of years ago there was no Sahara desert; it was caused by the Africa plate banging into southern Europe. Since then, the Sahara becomes moist and dry following a 22,000-25,000 year cycle based on the wobble of the earth’s axis.
If we study our planet and universe over long periods of time, we will discover all kinds on patterns and anomalies. However, they all indicate a self developing universe. Mankind is not an antagonist to our planet and its environment, but rather, a co-contributor to its growth and development, which is not finite.
The principles of our physical universe are coherent with the principle of creativity that all human being posses. This leads to another discussion for a future time.
A special note to my African friends. Beware of propaganda that tells Africans they should have less children and forego industrialization, because it will destroy the planet.
Our planet is about 4.6 billion years old. Separate continents began to form approximately 200 million years ago-(mya). Early stages of mankind emerged only 3-4 mya. Homo sapiens sapiens emerged only a few hundred thousand years ago. Our universe is constantly developing and changing.
The complete article follows the excerpts below:
“The question is not whether, but to what extent human-caused changes in the atmosphere drive climate variations, and whether such changes are good or bad. Meaningful statistics (but ones that do not exist) would include responses to the following questions:
• What would be the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2?
• To what extent does water vapor cause a feedback effect?
• To what extent must we take into account the solar magnetic field’s effect on the creation of clouds via cosmic radiation?
• What is the certainty range on these predictions?
• How well have climate models of the last two decades fared at predicting the global climate during the past 5 to 10 years?
• Will the specific, foreseen changes in climate be beneficial or harmful, or a mixture of the two?
“The climate of the Earth, as it exists in the solar system, is much more complex than a foolishly simple, yes-no question about “believing in” or “denying” climate change.
“How can any such changes be determined? An individual cannot possibly notice that the climate is changing through their personal experience, which is necessarily limited in location and time. And it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that anyone could know, through their personal experience of weather, the cause of any such changes.
“Science is not fashion. It is not decided by taking a poll or by seeing what is most popular…
“A cultural paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, transforming the understanding of the relation of human beings to nature, and transforming the meaning of “progressive” from supporting progress to preventing it!
“From this paradigm shift arise the unstated assumptions that underlie the emotional responses that many people have to these issues. One such assumption is a definition of “natural,” which excludes human activity, implicitly creating a goal—humans should simply not exist. This goes along with the shift from global warming (a specific change that could cause problems) to climate change, taking the assumption that any change to the climate would be bad, simply by virtue of its being change. Is this really true?…”
Mr. Kelvin Kemm, in this in-depth interview, excerpted below, discusses the realm of energy choices for South Africa as well for other African nations. More are considering nuclear energy as a safe and reliable power source for their economies. Mr. Kemm also discusses the anti-nuclear lobby and the causes for climate change. I recommend you spend the time to read through the entire interview.
“South Africa Builds on Its Nuclear Success”
Interview With Kelvin Kemm, who is chairman of the board of the government-owned South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, known as NECSA,
Kemm: “The current situation is that nuclear is still on the agenda exactly as it was; it’s unchanged. There’s been somewhat of a delay because of various issues—we have a new President now, as of a couple of months ago, and a new Minister of Energy. But nothing has changed with the plan to add 9,600 MW of nuclear—to the existing total from all sources of 45,000-plus MW of electric power.
“However, the wind and solar people have been making a lot noise and made quite a few inroads, in that they’ve influenced the public thinking a lot. In doing this, they’ve done quite a bit of sabotage of nuclear, in the sense that they spread false stories that nuclear power will kill your children, and that there’s an unsolved waste problem, and that South African workers will not be able to meet exacting nuclear standards.
“In contrast…We say that you’re not going to run electric trains across the country on solar and wind, you’re not going run the gold mines; but we have no objection to solar and wind where they can work—in rural areas and in small applications, dedicated applications, which is in stark contrast to the anti-nuclear people, who condemn anything that has the word “nuclear” associated with it.
“I’d like to branch into something else, that there’s a lot of nuclear technology which is not nuclear power. So while the extreme greens are attacking the nuclear concept, they’re doing a lot of other damage. For example, South Africa is currently the second biggest supplier in the world of nuclear medicine; we’re major suppliers to the United States. In Pretoria we’ve got the only nuclear reactor in the world that runs 24 hours a day, seven days a week, producing nuclear medicine for the world, with deliveries taking place three or four times a day, every day of the year, including weekends and public holidays. We send this nuclear medicine around the world. It is a great life-saver for cancer patients, for example, and in diagnosing other diseases.
“Last year, in 2017, I was invited to speak at the inaugural African Union Economic Platform meeting in Mauritius. One of the things I mentioned in my presentation was nuclear power for other African countries, and I was inundated with reaction.
“Half-a-dozen-plus countries, now, have already spoken to us directly, asking if we can supply nuclear power to them. Now, that is in the form of the pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR), which South Africa developed a number of years ago. That reactor got to the point where we were ready to start constructing the first prototype, when the government of the day then put the project on ice. They didn’t actually close it down, but they put it into such low gear that it eventually stumbled to an effective standstill.
“Golly, how can you have an African country dependent on rainfall to keep the lights on? You just can’t do that. And numbers of them said they had no coal, oil, or gas.
“They said, what’s next? The anti-nuclear lobby has been going on with their hand-waving and demonstrating, to get solar and wind, but many of them have been very senseless. Hey, wait a minute—you don’t get solar at night. And so hopefully the wind blows. What happens when the wind doesn’t blow? Now, you’ve got nothing. And the
green just say, well, that’s the way Mother Nature designed it: Live with it.
“And so, many African countries have gotten wise about it, saying, wait a minute, we’re about to get suckered here into this thing. And they’ve realized now that the only solution they’ve got is to go for PBMR-type nuclear. because with nuclear, you can stockpile fuel very easily, for a very long period of time. It’s very easy to keep a year or two, or three, or four of nuclear fuel supply in a couple of bunkers, because the volume is so small; whereas you could never keep two or three years’ worth of coal in a pile around a power station. Here in South Africa, we try to keep a two-week emergency supply of coal at power stations, and even that is a mountain of coal “the size of an Egyptian pyramid.” And they go through that very quickly”
