Quote of the day—James Lovelock

We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it.

But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

James Lovelock
March 2010
James Lovelock: ‘Fudging data is a sin against science’
[A pretty good case can be made that one of the main motivators for the whole global cooling/warming/change fraud is to give more power to governments. That this guy, a global warming fire and brimstone prophet, embraces the government acquisition of power should come as no surprise.

And just who do you think will have the authority? You can be pretty certain he thinks he will have a lot of it. But historically, from China and the USSR, people like him were the first to get a bullet to the back of the head or sent to the gulag.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—James Lovelock

  1. Sometimes it isn’t about them being in control of the peasants (there are some people with an overdeveloped sense of self-importance but most aren’t under the impression that they’ll be a commissar) instead they are in love with the idea that *other people* will be under the control of someone.

    They understand that they’ll be bossed around but that’s a small price to pay to know that everyone else will be bossed around too.

    In the Population Bomb, Paul Ehrlich made a similar case for emergency control for the sake of control. Lovelock mentioned war, the Soviets said they needed control for the sake of the economy, African dictators claim they need control for the sake of development, other dictators need control for the sake of stability, etc… Totalitarians will use any excuse.

    • I suppose it’s possible that these cretins want to be the subjects of some dictator. If so, they are masochists. But I tend to doubt it. Real masochists aren’t that common, and it’s far more plausible to assume they are planning to be in charge. Not necessarily the guy with the flashy gold braid, but the power behind the throne.
      They tend to forget that the people who support the creation of dictatorship with the plan of being the power behind the scenes always end up with a bullet in the head instead. It was that way in the days of Stalin and Hitler, and it continues to be that way today.

      • No, not masochists. Envious.

        They want to make sure other people cannot have more, be happier, etc. To that end, they will destroy their own liberty. Think of it as the parable of the crab bucket.

  2. It isn’t that they specifically want to be subjects; it is that they want everyone to be subjects. A lot of statists look at the power to organize resources and they are impressed. Thousands of people from cattlemen to oil workers to miners to engineers to machinists to assemblers all over the world are, in effect, organized to produce a car. A single person can’t do it all as well or as efficiently as those who specialize in their task. Then they walk into a store and see duplication (aka choice) and dumb trinkets (aka stuff someone somewhere wants) and think that if only everything were planned out “rationally” then more and bigger things could be done and done more efficiently.

    One problem is that they tend to think that if a little organization is good (can make a car) then a lot of organization will be better (can make a perfect car). But organization has a point of diminishing returns. When planning and organizing makes things rigid with rules and less efficient and the plans crumble then they say “ah, we just need more organization” and call anyone who disagrees a wrecker or a kulak. Their second problem is often not realizing that organization is not an end unto itself but the means to an end.

    I think it is important to recognize these types of people as they won’t be won over by asking “what if you aren’t the Caudillo?” or “what if you aren’t a nomenklatura? or “what if someone bosses you around?” They want everyone to be told what to do and what they can’t do because they have blind faith that centralizing more and more control will make things better and better.

    A real life example : I used to work at a place where everyone was assigned to teams. I worked in a different building across town and my work was simply in support of the main building. The team I was assigned with included no one from my building, 1 person I routinely dealt with over the phone and 3 people I had never met. I was expected to drive over to attend monthly team meetings that were a complete waste of time. Why? For teamwork! Everyone knows teamwork is a good thing so some idiot figured that you can’t have teamwork without teams so therefore everyone had to be on a team. During a meeting about the meetings, I was relieved of having to attend the monthly meetings after I pointed out that we never have any issues to discuss at the meetings because we deal with any problems as they come up instead of waiting until the end of the month.

      • milq; I once belonged to a “downtown association” – an offshoot of our Chamber of Commerce, and nearly everyone in it was of that mindset.

  3. Right before Mussolini came to power, people were calling for a “Strong Man” to set things right. It’s a story that seems to repeat itself.

    Whatever the personal reasons, I’ve had several people tell me some version of “It’s time that Americans found out what it’s like…” Which is to say that we are too comfortable, and to suggest that somehow our comfort is a cause of suffering elsewhere. As such it is an adaptation of Critical Theory and/or Anticolonialism. Take away the race angle and it’s Rev. Wright, and note how little problem the country as a whole seemed to have with Rev. Wright. The use of the word “Consume” or “Consumption” or “Consumerism” with the usual, spitting sarcasm and eye rolling, when describing America, is an excellent example of a “default comminist” talking.

    They’re just pissed off, frustrated, and want “something done” to gratify their anger. Raise a child in Rev Wright’s “church” or in any of several universities and you’ll get a default communist. You’ll get an Obama or a Pelosi.

Comments are closed.