Presenting in Olympia, Washington

My tour along the coasts of Oregon and Washington was an unqualified success, and I was able to interact directly with several hundred people. Thanks to the eclectic combination of generous people who provided local transportation, housing, food, venues, interviews, and fiat currency for air fare, and especially to Holly for organizing the trip on my behalf.

I delivered a presentation at Traditions Cafe in Olympia, Washington on Friday, 28 February 2014. Video is embedded below.


From the ether comes a series of messages. I’ve summarized them into this single, short essay. My responses to the questions are shown in italics.

I’ve shared your presentations/material with a few people and it did not get through to them. This is what they told me:

1. He mentions studies but does not explain the studies or how they were conducted. How do we know the studies he quotes are more legitimate than other studies that show climate change is far in the future?

Please read my essay, “Picking cherries.” It’s here.

2. He mentions 3.5 C by the 2030’s means extinction but does not explain very well why or by what manner. People want to know exactly (and specifically) what events will cause extinction, not just that humans have not been around at those temperatures in the past. That is not sufficient explanation. They feel we’re more advanced so we could develop technologies to survive higher temperatures than our ancestors.

It’s about habitat for humans, not about temperature per se. As I’ve explained frequently, we need food. Our food comes from two sources: oceans and land. We’ve lost half the phytoplankton in the ocean at 0.85 C above baseline. At 3.5 C above baseline, we’ll lose all or nearly all the phytoplankton, the base of the marine food web. Also at 3.5 C, we’ll lose habitat for all or nearly all land plants because of temperature fluctuations and denaturing of proteins.

3. To most people 3.5 C (or even 6 C) does not sound like a big deal. They may live in the mountains or a place where average temperatures are 50 to 60 F. Something that could raise their temperatures to 70 or 80 F should be no big deal. They feel it could make it easier to grow food, not harder. I’ve heard people say Canada will thrive with climate change and become a wine growing region. You should adequately explain why this is not so.

See above, or starters. And then consider the particular combination of soils and climate required to grow food. When temperatures increase in non-linear fashion in Canada, there’ll be no opportunity for plants to migrate. And the soils that dominate Canada do not support growth of food crops for very many humans.

4. People who live on the coasts want to know when they will see significant sea level rise. They hear it could be 50 meters if Greenland goes but there has been major melting already and everyone on the coast is more or less fine. If the arctic and glaciers have melted so much why have no coastal cities been lost under the sea? On the 2030’s timeline you mention, when would major coastal cities need to be evacuated (not due to storms) but to actual overall sea level rise? Could it happen fast and if so, how fast?

I doubt sea-level rise will kill many people. Unless Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Shelf collapse very quickly, we’ll run out of habitat for humans long before seas rise sufficiently to remove habitat. A few exceptions are already evident, particularly in small island nations and the coastal Arctic.

5. They were not convinced because they wanted the dots to be connected in a linear fashion. They wanted to know what the temperatures were before this started, what they are now, where they are going and why (and how fast). They want to know why it does not feel warmer and why just 1 C could set all this in motion. They want to know more about how the ocean is absorbing the heat because they’ve read that there has been no warming for the last 12-15 years.

Your acquaintances should get in touch with an internet search engine. Global-average temperature before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was slightly greater than 14 C. We’re at about 15 C now, a rise in temperature that has triggered (1) methane release from the Arctic and permafrost, (2) rapid decomposition of peat, (3) death and decomposition of woody plants (i.e., trees and shrubs), and (4) numerous other self-reinforcing feedback loops about which I speak and write.

Contrary to the contrarian myth, which matches what people actually want to hear, warming has not paused. It’s paused on land, but the heat is still ratcheting up. Again, visit my oft-updated essay for details and links.

6. On a personal level, they want to know more about what the “powers that be” know. You mentioned all politicians know that extinction is near but that was hard for them to believe. They were dubious that a large group of people could keep a secret of that magnitude. You mentioned a rich and famous individual. If it’s true that billionaires are buying land in South America they want to know more about it so they could possibly make the move themselves if it buys another decade of life for their children.

I mention many politicians know, not all of them. Surely the Obama administration knows what I know. Ditto for the many people in the world who make a lot of money because they have access to information, and profit from that information. Please check out the following article: “According to Daniel Ellsburg, ‘Secrets … Can Be Kept Reliably … For Decades … Even Though They Are Known to THOUSANDS of Insiders.'”


I’m mentioned in this essay at Huffington Post.

Comments 138

  • Well I see quite a bit of conversation has gone on today while I was composing thoughts on recent and not so recent posts. I wonder if my response is superfluous.

    Interesting choice of Superman panels you chose over on the forum. Curt Swan and Stan Kaye on one and Al Plastino on the other. I’m more of a Swan – Boring – Shuster man myself.

    @Martin Says:
    March 7th, 2014 at 9:06 am


    “Scott has done what Michael Tobis said he would do, which is “fisk” Guy; that is, deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of Guy’s position.”

    Hey it’s great that Scott made this effort only I’m not inclined to be that appreciative of his effort given that his proclivity towards positivism may not make him objective enough to understand the entire picture. I’m not sure Scott’s critical thinking skills are hones fine enough for my tastes. I’m still wading through Scott’s piece on my own time.

    “I have read through Scott’s account of Guy’s errors, and if even one of them is a valid criticism, then Guy is being sloppy or is deliberately fudging the data.”

    Are you saying that you read through Scott’s piece and have found all his points 100% valid and able to stand close scrutiny? Are you saying that Scott made no errors?

    For myself one of Scott’s comments gave me some insight as why I am concerned about the conclusions Scott comes to. It was stunning to see Scott criticism Guy, yet he was touting that we were moving in a positive direction and listed a number of areas where he believed we were doing so: population, efficiency, China, coal, etc., etc?

    So, it seems that Scott is driven to overly positive even when the facts don’t warrant it. Scott is prone to be positive in the face of such dire facts and I find that extremely worrisome. It means that this is the filter through which he is critiquing the Climate Summary and it concerns me that others are giving Scott a free pass on his analysis without considering how he sees the entire picture.

    Martin, it seems you are asking for Guy to be 100% perfect in order to avoid having errors caught. Is this truly what you are expecting? Why does this have to be so for Guy in order for the Climate Summary or any of Guy’s work to have value? If Guy has to be 100% perfect then shouldn’t the same apply to Scott? Guy has demonstrated he would adjust the summary if presented with evidence. I’ll assume he’d do so again. Why do you believe the only two conclusions we can come to must be that Guy is sloppy or deliberately fudging the data? This is an indication of your thinking process.

    Example: –GM writes “And never mind that warming in the interior of large continents in the northern hemisphere has outstripped model predictions in racing to 6-7 C already, according to a paper that tallies temperature rise in China’s interior in the 15 May 2013 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” What does that study really say? “Here, we show central China is a region that experienced a much larger temperature change since the Last Glacial Maximum than typically simulated by climate models… We find a summertime temperature change of 6–7 °C that is reproduced by climate model simulations presented here.” The Last Glacial Maximum, remember, is the peak of the last “ice age” around 20,000 years ago. Why is GM pretending that parts of China have experienced 6-7C of anthropogenic warming, and that this shows projections of future warming to be too conservative?

    “It’s perfectly clear to me what the error is here: Guy is arguing, falsely, that the last glacial maximum is when anthropogenic warming commenced.”

    I’m completely confused by the quoted paragraph and your conclusion. Help me out here. What is perfectly clear to you about the error Guy is making is not perfectly clear to me. Where in the section you included is there anything that leads to the conclusion that the last glacial maximum is when anthropogenic warming commenced?

    – Guy says “racing to 6-7 C already” which reads to me as if we are heading in that direction, not that parts of China have already experienced that degree of temperature already. However haven’t we been reading more and more reports and articles saying the projections have been too conservative? If the report has been so conservative and those researches seem not to have been “punished” why can’t Guy be permitted to make what may seem more radical at first, but may turn out not to be? As long as Guy is willing to acknowledge he’s made a mistake in his interpretation that says a great deal. It’s a trait I’m not aware of with Scott.

    Why do you think Guy is stating that the last glacial maximum is when anthropogenic warming commenced? I don’t read anything like that in the above paragraph. Please let me know where exactly that is being communicated I’d appreciate any aid in helping increase my comprehension of the above quote.

    “If you listen to Guy’s presentation in Olympia, you can hear infants crying in the background. I think we can all agree that Guy owes it to his audience to be standing on solid ground, given the import of his message.”

    I’m sorry. Please explain to me the importance of the infants crying? Is Guy supposed to adjust the talk for infants? He’s stated previously he gives a different talk when addressing young people. This was an adult audience so why should the baby be of concern?

    Guy usually gives people a warning at the beginning of the talk that they may want to leave. In this instance he forgot to mention this, so who was giving anyone the impression they couldn’t leave? The ghost of Stanley Millgram.

    I’m assuming that whoever brought that baby with them wanted to hear the talk and fully understood the responsibility of taking a baby to such an event as this lay with them. The person with the baby could have left any time, so perhaps you shouldn’t concern yourself with that.

    Regarding Guy being on solid ground it’s at this point I’d like to bring Scott into the conversation. Scott is a teacher just as Guy was. Scott is telling students things are moving in a positive direction. Isn’t that an outright lie? Scott reminds me of Kantorek, the teacher of Paul Baumer in “All Quiet on the Western Front” when he glorified the wonders of war to his students prodding them to go off to the horrific experiences of war. Scott is in the same position of trust and is leading his students down the primrose path regarding the future they will be facing.

    “A robust point-by-point rebuttal of Scott’s critique is needed here. Not pompous statements about having “moved on” or 12-step crap about the river Nile.”

    Hey, great idea Martin. I know I’m reading through it and I’ll come to my own conclusions and hope to post them here on occasion. Hope you will do the same.


    I’ve got a question. A while back someone named Martin left the comment; I thought it this was you, Martin, I’d respond now.

    Martin Says:
    January 10th, 2014 at 7:25 am
    @ PMB
    again I’ll use the Jew getting out of Germany example

    “Why? It’s a poor example. Organised Jewry went on the offensive against Germany in 1933. Perfectly reasonable to declare a boycott under the circumstances, and rather silly to describe it as a declaration of war, as Britain’s Daily Express did, but if you were a Jew living behind enemy lines, as it were, and you could read, the decision would have been clear-cut.”

    It eluded me as to why you felt it was a poor example. I’d like some clarification. I’m not sure what “organized Jewry” you refer to back in 1933. Obviously the group who promoted the boycott didn’t accomplish very much did they as we can see in hindsight. Are you familiar with writer Ben Hecht and others with who he worked as they made many attempts to bring a conscious awareness here in the USA regarding the events in Germany only to face resistance from the government and other Jewish groups. Even getting Roosevelt to agree to bomb the crematoriums in 1943 – 1944 never occurred, due to anti-Semitism, leading to many more deaths (that are on the allies heads) than were necessary.

    Was this the organized Jewry, who in 1939, had no impact on the governments of the US, Britain, Canada to allow the nearly 1000 people on the St. Louis to leave the ship for a safe haven? This same organized Jewry had no impact on stopping the collaboration between the Hollywood moguls (nearly all Jews) from puttig their bottom line above the lives of their fellow Jews. Any organized Jewry had little to no power in any area (that was why more Jews assimilated and closeted themselves in non-Jew identities; read Laura Hobson’s Gentlemen’s Agreement). |

    You conclude that being able to read would have been enough for someone to make a decision to leave enemy territories. If only it was as simple as all that. Maybe it would be for you. For many it would have been a challenging and anxiety ridden decision to make.

    If I understand your logic than today if someone reads about Climate Change they would be able to make some real drastic life changes to avoid where we are heading. Only this hasn’t been the case so being able to read is not the catalyst you seem to believe it is.


    I recently came across this 1 hour documentary called “The College Conspiracy” on youtube: and was rather surprised to find Guy in a couple of scenes. It appears this video produced by the National Inflation Institute, which seems to have a Libertarian agenda, first appeared about 2 years ago so many on this site may have seen it.

    The focus of the film was about the exorbitant amount of debt incurred by students trying to gain the promise that was shoved down their throats all through their lives that going to collage will lead to a successful life (making lots and lots of money).

    Wondered when the scenes with Guy were shot. Can’t imagine there was ever a time Guy would have been supportive of the Gold/Silver message that is the thread of the film. That if young people would not go to college they would be able to be wage earners earlier and create new businesses.

    At no time in the film was reference ever made to such mavericks as John Taylor Gatto, Alfie Kohn, or John Holt which would have given it more credibility regarding what education could be. Having Gerald Celente screeching throughout the hour didn’t make it any more palatable. And promoting the future as stay at home on line learning gives the technophiles the Jetsonian future we’re still being promised.

  • @ ilinda

    Yes. I’ll put you with the 1% of humans who are not disgusting, self-serving, depraved idiots then. I think we should fight on behalf of the Orcas, just to retain a little self-respect before we become extinct.

    There is only one species that is a the problem, that’s us. We, each one of us, refuse to take responsibility for our own conduct.

    I wish to disassociate myself from the rest of the 7 billion. That includes those who think like RE, because, as I see it, wanting to survive at all costs, is just part of the same insanity, that infects everyone else.

    Not only are humans willing to kill everything else, so that they survive, they are willing to kill everyone else so that they survive, and the whole biosphere, so that they will survive.

    Which, obviously, ensures that they do not and will not survive.

    But they cannot even understand this very simple thing…and hate you and get angry, if you try to explain it to them.

    It’s actually much worse even than that. Lidia thinks a man is a loon for loving a pigeon as much as a woman. I am someone who has loved many animals and birds, in the course of my life, just as much as some of the women in my life, some more, some less, it’s ridiculous scale to use as a measure, of course, but if that makes me a loon, then I am proud to be called such. Of course, Lidia comes from the culture that killed all the Passenger Pigeons, and most of the Buffalo and tries to eradicate all the Prairie Dogs and wolves and pretty much anything and everything else…

    @ Ozman

    As I recall Kathy C left because Artleads and others who did not understand what this blog is about, flooded it with hopium, and some WOMEN called some other WOMEN the weird sisters, whatever.

  • PMB, check out my comments about the documentary film here. I expressed my disappointment in the message shortly after the film was released in May 2011.

  • @ Henry

    Martin is not a troll, he’s been here for years, I respect his contributions, I’m happy to support him. I’m not quite clear what this dispute is about, and perhaps he could put it into a precis form so I could grasp it.

    I have very little respect for Scott or Tobis, or any of that sort, I think they are concerned primarily with self-serving and status and don’t care about Earth or wildlife, and the points they make can be easily refuted, but I can’t be bothered to waste my time.

    @ PMB

    I’m not sure what your point is re Martin.

    I thought it was a fascinating insight. As we see today from Ukraine, situations are very complex, jewish zionists are quite happy to co-operate with neo-nazi fascists in their schemes to seize power and manipulate the perception of the broad masses of useful idiots. Neither group has any care or compassion for well being of ordinary people, I think they are absolutely loathsome.

    Ordinary men, women and children are expendable and get slaughtered by those in power, or used as cannon fodder, all down through the centuries.

    It’s obvious that, as this NTE thing we are facing unfolds, we are going to witness magnitudes of horror which will dwarf those of the last century, so we may as well be prepared.

  • @ Martin

    I see. Get well soon.

    There’s no thrust to my argument. I don’t have an argument. I am in no end of trouble for polluting this blog with stuff about Scott.

    Hahaha, well, I missed this, it must have appeared some time in the night, and I seem to recall I wrote one that is till in the pipes, or perhaps I dreamed it… perhaps it will appear later.

    Look, if it was someone else, I would respond to the ‘Get well soon’ with ‘Fuck off and die’, because there is no ‘getting well’ to this.

    It is what, if you want to frame it in a Biblical Paradigm, the Good Lord Himself has chosen to allot to me, as ‘a blessing’, that upon the appointed hour, nine pm and 9 am, my head shall be thrust into a bucket of molten metal, and I shall be reduced to a whimpering sobbing nothingness.

    And no drugs or sympathetic words or prayers can change this. And after half an hour, I am back, into some sort of recovery stage…


    Do you understand me, dear Martin ? This has gone on since Christmas. They gave me liquid morphine to see if it would help. Now they have stopped because they are afraid I will be addicted. Fucking stuff didn’t make any difference anyway.

    There is no end, there is no getting better, no ‘getting well’.

    That’s why they call it suicide headache. But I am ulvfugl. I have fought this fabulous adversary for sixty years. It’s like something out of the ancient myths. It always wins. It always destroys me. No human can bear such suffering.

    I learned the buddhist technique that the burning monks use so they can sit still as they die. I can do that. But they only have to do it once. It demands intense concentration. After so many days, I no longer have the energy and resources, I become exhausted and weakened.

    What this means, to change the subject, is that I have no need to cling to my existence. I am free to explore where no one else dares to go. I command the heights. Sometimes I have a clear panorama in my mind’s eye, of the whole thing, but I am unable to put it into words or find anyone who is capable of receiving even parts of what I see. Yes, as you said, my head is too big :-)


    …most places currently used for agriculture have a long way to go before they are above 45ºC on a regular basis.

    Oh, yes, for sure. But what Mcpherson is saying is correct, then isn’t it, because we WILL get to 3.5 deg C, sooner or later, and then we WILL keep on climbing, 4,5,6,7, which will mean that mid continent extreme short term highs will be way way above those averages, and none of the plants will survive exposure, and it’s not just the agriculture, it’s all the natural ecosystems that the whole fucking planet needs to exist, as a viable entity for human habitation.

    So really, Schmidt, with his narrow reductionist view, is saying well, we’ll be okay in the short term, but fuck the grand children who’ll inherit this mess.

    I mean, it’s simply insane to think that these massive temperature changes over such short time scales are not going devastate farming and natural systems, on all levels. And they are not going to be gentle and even are they, they’ll be totally erratic and chaotic.

    There’s the accusation that Mcpherson is alarmist, and I’ve been reading RC for years now, and it’s always the same ‘Nothing to worry about folks, go back to sleep’, and Schmidt is STILL on that message.
    Well, okay, fair enough, that’s what he’s paid to say, no ?

  • @guy,

    Thanks for the link to that piece. I hadn’t read it while going through the history of the blog. Your succinct conclusions pretty much hit what I came out of the piece with. It was surreal to say the least having those vignettes of you pop up. If I hadn’t been reading you for a year I wonder how i would have seen those segments. Once again it confirmed why film can be a dangerous and complex tool to manipulate people.


    Which of my points to Martin were unclear to you? Which of Martin’s points did you find fascinating and insightful? Quite a few were made. Was it my response regarding Scott’s blog or my readdressing a comment Martin made in January?

    I’ll try to clarify. I tried in my post to stay focused on the points that were raised and quotes provided. Hope I was successful with that.

    My current concern with Martin is he seems to be holding Guy to a higher standard of proof and critical thinking skills than he is Scott. I find this unfair and unacceptable especially when looking at the whole of Scott’s analytical skills regarding the larger issues facing us such as: population, China, coal, etc. etc.

    From the paragraph Martin quoted my comprehension does not lead me same conclusions Martin has come. It’s a bad example to me of Guy not reporting the facts. I didn’t draw the conclusion that Scott did. I’m not chained to my interpretation. I’ve asked for help in pointing me to what I’m not understanding about the quote which brings me to a different conclusion from the one that Martin and Scott have come to. So, far no one has provided me with this.

    His January comment was too easy, too pat to me back then and still does.
    At that time Martin said, ” if you were a Jew living behind enemy lines, as it were, and you could read, the decision would have been clear-cut.”

    I found this comment by Martin to be simplistic, a simple if-then statement that he was applying across the board to anyone who could read. It disregards the complexity of each individual having nothing else to deal with other than reading to make the decision to leave. What if they had a wife who isn’t able to process the information and refuses to leave? What if they couldn’t get the necessary visas, etc. etc? There is a whole list of things that each person must deal with to actually get to the point where they could leave.

    If – then statements can be complex and can drill down for many levels before finally getting to the “then” portion of the statement.

    In this case Martin’s conclusion that if Jews could read then a clear cut decision could be made. I disagree that it is as simple as that as life, for most, is more complex than that. I believe you are communicating a similar idea when you write that things are more complex.

    From my previous posts when I wrote of the collaboration of the Hollywood Moguls with the Nazi regime I too see situations where Jews were working against the best interest of their fellow Jews for almost the entire decade of the 30’s.

    On the Israel front I find my views much along the lines of Michael Ratner. Actually the current interview with him on the Real News Network was a fascinating reveal of his process in moving from being pro-Israel to Anti-Occupation and parallels my own struggle with the issue. I had to face some pretty harsh facts about my own culture.

    I am curious regarding the points you raise in your last three paragraphs. Has anything I’ve written given you the impression that these are ideas I disagree with or were unfamiliar with? You’ll get no disagreement from me on points that pretty much overlap my own.

    Hope this serves to clarify my views.

  • PMB,

    About the Jew getting out of Germany example, I am reproducing below what you said:

    The point raised by Judith is one that has been my experience. It’s similar to what happens in a class room. It’s usually that one brave person who asks a question that is speaking for the many who (for whatever reason) isn’t willing to do so. Says a great deal about our system of compliance in school. I’m sure there are others who haven’t found this site and don’t know how to talk about the topic.

    Also the observation made by Foss also is one I’ve seen repeated before my eyes.

    There is a small window and again I’ll use the Jew getting out of Germany example (once again let’s not go into whether I believe in Zyklon gas, etc, etc). Let’s just use the example of the boat load of Jews who were turned away from America (thanks, FDR and others) and returned to Germany.

    If you were able to understand and act on what was happening you had to do that before you could no longer get out of the country. You had to fight against your relatives and friends and believe in what you were concluding. So you left and many would suffer from survivor’s guilt.

    You speak of a window, which I took to mean a window of opportunity to alert German Jewry to danger. My comment was aimed at this. I was being a bit glib about being able to read, because I was wearing my Dmitry Orlov hat, and he likes to get unsparingly at the nub of the matter, as do I. German Jews had plenty of warning. It doesn’t matter if some German Jews were illiterate or never read newspapers.

    I don’t know why you then segue on to the boat load of Jews who were turned away. What is this an example of? I thought the wider point you were making was about the difficulty of speaking out (about NTE), that it takes courage, but that many, perhaps most, people will turn a deaf ear because, then as now, people filter out bad news.

    But it doesn’t matter because I was not commenting about the specific example you cite. If you meant, but didn’t say, that the return of the boat to Germany made people despair about leaving, then I can understand why you chose it. Otherwise I am quite at a loss.

    You again: You conclude that being able to read would have been enough for someone to make a decision to leave enemy territories. If only it was as simple as all that. Maybe it would be for you.

    I’m glad you mentioned it. Because I have had to make that very calculation, because the country of my birth, South Africa, has become enemy territory for white-skinned people like me, or do I exaggerate? No, I don’t think, as some do, that there will be what is called in SA, not very originally, “the night of the long knives,” when black South Africans are supposed to rise up and kill white people in their beds.

    It’s a paranoid fantasy born of insufficient contact with black people. But, and this is the essential thing, will blacks protest much if some black people decide to make good on their longstanding threat to drive whites into the sea? No. They won’t. Not by my reckoning. You see, let’s just say certain things happened to me, and leave it at that. I have made my decision.

    Which brings me to my next point, which I wanted to make at the time back in January, but didn’t. I thought your example was a poor one because that period of history is so heavily contested and there are examples to be found that are more recent, such as concerning Coptic Christians in Egypt or religious minorities in Iraq and Syria.

  • PMB,

    On further reflection, I have realised that you are right that the boycott matter I raised is irrelevant to the quandary German Jews found themselves in. It might have been a factor in some people’s decision to leave, but it is not decisive.

  • @ PMB

    Thanks for the response.

    What I meant was interesting was the newspaper re ‘Jewry declare war on Hitler’. That’s all.

    Re all the other stuff. Well, I’ve met a great many people in my life whose lives were wrecked by WW2, and been told first hand accounts of the most ghastly events. I don’t feel up to getting into analysing blame for what happened then, but I’m absolutely certain that blame for what happens NOW resides in one place and that’s the US State Dept and associated agencies. They don’t give a shit if they start WW3, it’ll be good for business.

    I understand that Ukraine’s gold reserves have been loaded onto a plane and flown to USA, ffs. It’s all straightforward Shock Doctrine, Disaster Capitalism, as explained by John Perkins. Seems the only people on the planet who don’t understand this are the American, British, Canadian, Australian, public who believe the lies and bullshit fed to them by MSM.

  • PMB,

    I have just seen your 5.12am comment. I trust my two comments above cover your points.

  • Other voices missing or diminished:
    BCNurseProf, BadlandsAK… there may be some I missed. I do miss their presence, maybe some of the men like Martin don’t.

    @Martin, and ulvfugl, I don’t care whether you are offended or not. I assumed people here were interested in truth.

    I’m in contact with the majority of the ladies I listed and some have explicitly said they left NBL because of the aggressively argumentative quality of the comment threads. It just got to be too much. I’m still around because I sometimes find arguing to be fun and I don’t take it personally.

    Martin, I’m still wondering what you mean by “what girls are inclined to do”. Please do elaborate as to where we have failed you.

  • What girls are inclined to do is not look at you if you are a man. They are so good at this that it is positively eerie. If you are a man and you are walking behind a girl, the girl (or woman, if you prefer, and I expect you do) is inclined to pretend to find something of interest in a shop window, so that the man will pass by. If you should be walking behind a woman, she is inclined to cross the road so that she can dodge being looked at from behind.

    You see? It is possible to be Neanderthal and be right.

    Speaking as a man, I find it adds to my alienation, which has become full-blown now that I live the double life of a doomer-citizen.

    I have told my wife all this, and she said, “Well, what do you expect?”

    I protested, “Isn’t it a bit overdone? I have seen women give themselves neck strain in trying to not meet my gaze. I feel like blowing a raspberry at them to try to retrieve some of my dignity.”

    “That wouldn’t be fair,” said my wife.

  • @Martin, what does walking and shop windows have to do with participatory discussions here on NBL? It sounds like you have other “issues”. Far from straining not to see men, I see them everywhere, and I do not avert my eyes from their gaze. In fact, not averting my eyes seems to infuriate some of them. They don’t like having to answer for how they are/act. They don’t like to be “seen”= seen through. (Maybe that is true of some women; I’m sure it is…)

    It’s possible that you don’t understand the extent to which women are victims of sexual predators, which makes women’s desire not to be followed on the street somewhat understandable. It’s not personal, Martin, it’s a survival instinct. Women are prey, and that is hardly the fault of the women, is it? We’re told how to avoid rape, but I don’t see any work in the community telling men “hey, don’t rape women.” See what I mean? This is getting off topic, but it needs to be said. Anger and pressure and aggression and need to gain control and have the upper hand is only going to increase among a male population which has had control over their lives eaten away. Many polite areas have the potential to become war zones. KathyC has been particularly perceptive in this regard, counselling women to sterilize themselves so that at least they won’t have to bear their rapists’ children. I never talk, think, or write about these things unless someone else brings up the topic. I’m not one of those “femi-nazis”. ;-)

  • @ulvfugl — yes, that’s why I put the “-ish” on the word. I value contrarian thinkers, which is the essence of what we are presenting here to the world. There are good ways to go about doing it, and butting heads over personalities is not one of them.

    But I do vaguely recall our friend jumping in with some valuable commentary over a year ago, and I should read the thread more carefully. (It’s just seeing back and forths like some Twitter discussion that wears me down.)

  • P.S. to add the obvious: many men take female eye contact as a sign of sexual interest and availability. They’ll convince themselves of it, if other signs are ambiguous. Hence women straining not to have an inadvertent, unintended, “conversation” of this nature.

  • Irrelevant examples.

    Has issues.

    Experience not valid.

    Doesn’t understand.


  • @ Lidia

    BCNurseProf, BadlandsAK… there may be some I missed. I do miss their presence, maybe some of the men like Martin don’t.

    BCNurseProf was Erin, whom you mentioned already.

    @Martin, and ulvfugl, I don’t care whether you are offended or not. I assumed people here were interested in truth.

    Then why should we care if you are offended or not. I do find your attempt to cast Martin as some sort of woman hater on the strength of that one comment as somewhat strained. I tend to see women behaving in all kinds of individual ways, some are bold, some are shy.

    As for you being an arbiter of ‘truth’. Hmmm.

    I know that American culture is ‘rape culture’ and paranoia and sexism and hatred rule, but over here, it is very different. I have never in my entire life encountered any case of rape, other than those reported in the news, there just doesn’t seem to be the same degree of stress between the sexes. Not that I socialise any more. Perhaps it’s different now, but I don’t believe so. But this is rural. Different in cities.

  • O.k. Martin
    From here on out I’m going to call you boy, though I’m sure you would prefer to be called a man, but since you continue to reveal you’ve the emotional maturity of a child in making ridiculously asinine generalizations about……let me see, I don’t know……oh yeah, the better half of the human race, I think ‘boy’ is apropos.
    In others word, please shut the fuck up before your latent misogyny embarrasses you any further.

  • @ D

    Hahahaha, so you think there is a better half and a worse half ?

    I’m here on behalf of the Orcas, and I think 99%, they are ALL equally depraved and disgusting and if you want to take ME on please feel free to do so.

    There’s free speech on this blog. I don’t suppose Martin gives a shit what YOU call him. He asked ME for support. I LIKE him. He has a unique voice here.

    Your own spite and rancour does nothing to raise the tone, does it.

    As for ‘latent misogyny’. Jeez. Both men and women exhibit all kinds of behaviour, which is incredibly complex. Even the specialists who study it have trouble figuring out what’s really going on. Your judgementalism is ill-advised, imo.

  • ulvfugl- I know you have researched your condition as deeply as possible, still on the outside chance, here’s a link to an article from the Entheogen Journal on possible treatment:

  • @ Wren

    Thank you so much.

    Yes, I know about all that. I won’t go into a long reply, there’s too much to say. A certain American individual, said to have been doubling as a spy for the US drugs enforcement agency got his colleagues busted, patented the fucking word Entheogen, patented the version of the chemical that is good for the CH without the hallucinations, and fucked up the whole thing because he wants all the money and does not care about the sufferers.

    It’s available in Europe, I tried to get it, but have to be a licensed research establishment. Not approved in UK (yet).

    I was on methysergide for a few years, that worked quite well but is very dangerous, I just got used to the idea I might die anytime, and they will not prescribe it any more, the one Dr says he’d be struck off, and the pharmacist refused to supply it when the other Dr approved it. It gives trips, not quite as much as LSD. Amazing how incredibly boring it gets to be tripping. :-)

  • Ulv,

    You may tell me to fuck off any time.

    At some point, I can’t say when, I looked in the mirror and realised I was a skin-encapsulated meme-complex, with the “higher-order” memes turning out to be Axial Age bullshit I was fed when I was too young to know better.

    But if I am a sausage-skin full to bursting of bullshit, and the bullshit is removed somehow, then what is left?

    Perhaps not what I think should be there. What if individuation is a mistake? Here we are, thoroughly individuated, and we can barely stand one another.

    If I take up the task of trying to find what might have been before I was bred, botched and bungled, what would I be doing? What would it look like?

  • @ Martin

    What if individuation is a mistake?

    Indeed. So many ‘what if’s’, so little time. I did the Jungian road map.

    Doesn’t help me. Absolute acceptance is good. Live from the tanden. Amazing. No need to think.

    In the midst of the attack, I went between my shoulder blades. Beautiful glowing chakra, but I could not name the colours, although they were distinct and clear. The centre was dark black-green, and then wings went out of my back, as in Blake’s angels, and curved around my arms, and I had no pain at all, so long as I remained in that place. I returned to my head, to see what happened. Yes, it was all still on fire, so I went back to my safe haven to wait until it was over. But I cannot always do this.

    I have decided to turn to theatrical therapy. As soon as an attack is ended, without a moment’s hesitation, I dedicate myself to learning to copy Ustinov’s beautiful rendition of Bach. I intend to make a perfect mimicry, including hand gestures and facial expressions, within a month. If that has not cured me, I shall behead myself with my electric hedge cutter. Perhaps.

  • @ ulv,

    Thank you. You are a treasure. I never tire of looking at this place, a place detached from thinking.

  • @ Martin

    This might interest you. I used to live in a house on the beach at Borth and visit the sunken forest on walks, and I have a roll of birch bark that is like new, but is more than 4000 years old. The date is scientifically authenticated.

    So, this land is mentioned in the (supposedly) mythological tales in the Mabinogion and elsewhere, Cantre’r Gwaelod, which were written down maybe 8th C or something. So that means the stories were passed on word of mouth for maybe at minimum 2,500-3000 years.

    There’s another mention in Mabinogion, of the time when Wales and Ireland were only separated by two rivers, which would be very much earlier. 8000 years plus. Although that could just be an imaginary invention, by why should it be ?

    Earlier scholars regarded ALL of those stories as imaginary inventions.
    Perhaps that is just modern hubris again, underestimating our ancestors, ‘they are dead, so they must have been stupid, they didn’t have computers, they couldn’t even write…’

    If one looks at the stories as ‘muddled history’, then they can be ‘unmuddled’ and read in a new light.

    It says there was a time when one could walk to Ireland… that was the time of hunting and gathering…

  • Please U, contort yourself in defense of this small sample of ridiculously offensive statements from your little buddy:

    “Whenever there is what is euphemistically called a frank exchange of views, someone has to go and parade with their nose in the air. Usually it’s a girl.”

    “I knew the “girl” thing would grate. Political correctness is a campaign against noticing. I notice what girls are inclined to do, and I say what I see.”

    “I have seen women give themselves neck strain in trying to not meet my gaze. I feel like blowing a raspberry at them to try to retrieve some of my dignity.”

    No point in adding any more fuel to the fire, “little boy” seems perfectly capable of roasting himself just by opening his fucking mouth.

    “Usually it’s a girl”? And you consider my judgemental-ism ill-advised? Now that IS something to laugh at, and coming from you no less.

    But what would I know, I might just be a woman who was followed by a man many years ago as I walked home and was brutally raped in my apartment.

    Go ahead sully yourself in his defense. Whatever gets you hard.

  • I might just be a woman who was followed by a man many years ago as I walked home and was brutally raped in my apartment.

    Except you’re a bloke in Houston formerly known as Morocco Bama who sometimes pretends to be a woman called Carol. Who has online conversations with herself under the name Carol Newquist. Who is a male character from an obscure play titled Little Murders noted for his paranoia about his name, and who overcompensates by claiming to be able to “spot a queer from a mile away.”

    Welcome back.

    Did you know you’ve been outdone by a beautician in Blackpool, Lancashire? :)

  • @ D

    I might just be a woman who was followed by a man..

    And I might just be fucking Tutankhamun. Your not a woman who whatever, you’re a troll, and Whatever gets you hard. reveals what a sordid little shit stirrer you are. Too boring to bother with.

  • You bubble boys can tell yourselves whatever makes you feel better, but little boys misogynist comments haven’t gone anywhere now have they? There they are for the world to see, offensive to probably every woman who would read them, but unfortunately there aren’t any women left here to notice, or call you out other than Lidia.

    NBL once was an amazing space, because of the quality of female voices, but that’s a nuance that is obviously beyond either of your maturity to comprehend.

    If only you two could have seen the look on my partners face–the one who was followed home–when I read your comments to her, and you would instantly know that you had seriously crossed a line of human decency in equating a woman’s sense of security in a world awash in violence towards them, as somehow impugning your pathetic sense of predatory dignity.

    “…blow a raspberry at them”. What a sad little man child you must be Martin.

    Shame on you, U, for rising to such lowly heights. You don’t have the time because you don’t have a fucking leg to stand on in attempting to defend your little buddy. Go ahead, please tell those of us who are still reading this, why women shouldn’t take what Martin said to be absurdly offensive, especially given how deliberate he was being.

    That’s all this is about, nothing more, nothing less. Just a boy being called out because he consciously chose to denigrate women in a public forum. That is what Martin did, that is the side you’re now standing.

    You can smear, obfuscate, deny or retreat, but at the end of the day, Martin’s comments are no less offensive to our mothers, sisters, daughters, wives, lovers and best friends.

    Keep digging boys.

  • I don’t know if NBL was ever a great place. I’ve never found the quality of commentary here to be that high, in the vital sense of thoughtful back-and-forth. Mostly what happens is someone makes a comment and it goes uncommented on. They might as well have laid an egg.

    @ Morocco Bama (“D”)
    My own contributions here have been highly variable, to say the least, and I am rather ashamed of some of it. But not the answer I gave to Lidia. She invited me to say in what way I think women are inclined to behave that I wish they didn’t, so I thought about it and decided to venture an example that is seldom spoken about, because I am interested in the things that aren’t spoken about, and the reactions people have when they are spoken about.

    It’s observation of what women do. No blame was attached to it. But I have become interested in the different forms of violence, and especially of what forms are noticed or ignored, and what are tolerated or reviled. I regard blanking people you know in the street as a form of violence. And, perhaps (though I again risk being ridiculed for suggesting this), women’s way of treating men as though they don’t exist is a form of violence.

    Of course, people, such as you, are quite right to call it childish, because it is a rather childish longing for a world much less fucked up than this one is. The exchange at the end with my wife is fairly typical of our exchanges. She immediately suggested I read Schrodinger’s Rapist.

    Lidia’s response was lacklustre. She was right, I now see, that my example was irrelevant; she wanted me to say something about what I haven’t liked about the women commenting on NBL — to which I have nothing to say, incidentally — but the rest of what she said was patronising boilerplate.

    But, and this matters terribly, she sought to deny the validity of my experience, which I understand men do to women a lot.

    I don’t think you can reasonably show that I denigrated women. I am sorry about something I once said to Kathy C, but I have no idea if I am one of the “aggressive” commenters that have persuaded other women to leave.

  • Re women on NBL – I am one who’s still here, having taken no offense at what? was said.
    But then I’m not at all focused on human gender issues. At this point it seems diversionary. I saw the same tactic used to render environmental groups useless, suddenly being told that All human inequality and gender issues must be addressed first, before moving on to save the planet. Okay yes it’s a problem, but it seemed like plenty of other groups had it as their main focus already. Sigh. But that was back when there was ‘the thing with feathers’.

    In my life, I usually look to the animal kingdom for answers. Evolutionary biologists talk about female preference being the driver of natural selection in terms of male coloring, song, and behavior. Just saying.

    And yes, Martin, shunning is a form a violence. In tribal days it was a death sentence.

  • Well.Well.Well.

    So D is Morocco Bama, alias Carol Newquist and all the rest, then D – you filthy parasitic worm – YOU long ago forfeited the right to take the moral high ground on ANY issue, or to criticise the words or conduct of ANY other human being on this planet, because YOU have no integrity or morals of your own.

    D is a deceitful lying individual who never engages in any exchange with an honest intention. The only reason that D has begun this is to cause as much disruption as possible.

    You being paid to do this ?

    @ Wren


    Why is this issue being pushed into NBL NOW ? It’s because it’s an excellent way to wreck Mcpherson’s blog, just as it wrecked DGR.

  • (Trying again, vs the Captcha Monsta that eats my posts when I take over a minute to write)

    @ulvfugl —

    You were right — you and Martin both, brilliant!

    And yes, best way to break up an online forum: seed it with extraneous controversies. Pick any from the list.

    E.g., suppose DGR really was our lifeline to a future, but no, it or its enemies have blanketed it with a controversy remote from the project of ending IndCiv.

    Thanks you both for keepin’ on keepin’ on — listening in on intelligent conversation makes it worth checking in even when very busy (and thanks for the Speciesism video — I’ve passed it on.)

  • This is hilarious, although I’ve been coming to NTE related stuff for months now, I’m still very easily depressed by this stuff. So much so today in fact that I feel physically ill. But god almighty all this talk about grief counselling huxters and milky way energy hoovers has got me smiling again. As James Howard Kunstler said in one video I saw, the human being really is quite a comical creature.

  • It is effectively immaterial anyway whether or not we go extinct because the last human left will have no way of knowing that she is in fact the last human left.

    It is, unfortunately, an unprovable hypothesis.

    One thing’s for sure though, and that is that sh!t is gonna get medieval around here. Soon like!