I’ve found it necessary due to the inability to have these comments be published anywhere else (and many other comments I’ve made), to make another blog entry. So here I am, breaking my preferred silence.
At the core of the Guy McPherson message is “near-term extinction”. He spends a lot of time spreading this particular gospel.
His advocacy is to accept the inevitable. A few scientist believe that climate effects will be so extreme that our survival as a species, and indeed, the whole of the biosphere, will fail. Because of this, we are encouraged to accept the inevitable. He’s partnered up with Carolyn Baker to do this with as much “grace” as possible.
After much study, and as previously published, I find myself in disagreement with the core message that both of these speakers are now advocating. I have an entirely different view of what will happen – what actually is happening – and how humanity will respond.
Civilization will collapse for any or all of the following reasons: Resource exhaustion, pollution, population, environmental degradation and climate. Maybe even another idiotic world war. I’ve documented collapse for over twenty years and anyone that would like to know more about the topic can read the archives or just use Google – there is a ton of information now published on the topic.
Collapse is not where I take issue. My disagreement is what humanity will do – and how humanity will respond. The reason why this is important is because any advocacy, however well-intentioned (or not), can enable or disable its adherents and followers and how they act now and into the future. The defeatism in McPherson’s message is ultimately disabling and this will becoming increasingly apparent. It is nihilistic, “we’re all going to die” sort of message, that is supposed to have a imagined soft-landing because we’re also being encouraged to do this with as much grace and meaning as possible.
Hogwash. For those that choose to give up, this works for a while, an exercise in mental-masturbation that convinces the believer that “acceptance” of their death is the only answer, but then it fails, when the rubber meets the road (and the food runs out) or they’re dying of thirst or heat exhaustion and then desperation (and effort) finally begins.
Humanity does not accept defeat. In countless survival situations, the effort to survive (the “try”) can sometimes – but not always – prevail. But whether it prevails or not is actually irrelevant – in all cases, the “try” occurs, until it can’t (indicated by death usually).
By advocating “we’re defeated” without sincerely trying – this is the same message used by various cult groups all over the world. It’s a religion. It abdicates a responsibility to self, family, future, humanity and the biosphere – which is still here (for the moment at least) and “gives it all up” to the unknown, a future that has not happened yet. This is exactly what religion does. I could spend a ton of time on this last point – but won’t because it’s a digression.
No human chooses death if there are other options, especially untried ones available. No human will choose “acceptance” to suffering and death either. This can only be done now – when it’s still easy to stay alive and both body and mind are not threatened or being physically challenged. But when this changes, the struggle to survive will overwhelm the message to quit and “accept” the inevitable.
Try it yourself – or just read some human history. Try going without water or food. Or leave yourself out in the baking heat of the summer sun, day after day. Or make yourself homeless and live on the streets or in the woods. What do you find yourself actually doing, other then suffering?
You try to survive. You’re looking for water, thinking about water or food, looking for shelter, trying to stay warm at night, struggling to survive. Do this long enough and you will try. Your willpower to “accept” the situation despite any of the propaganda once believed vaporizes as your body rebels against your willpower to go on self-punishing.
But what happens when it’s all for real? When the crops fail? Or you lose your job? Or the droughts come and the aquifers dry up? Or the temperature is so hot that it’s impossible to maintain respiration? Or the plant life withers away? Will you then lie down and accept death, telling yourself “it’s time to quit”? Unlikely. Long before then (just like you are doing right now, every single day) – you will have kept trying to stay alive, stay fed, stay cool or stay warm. Not one person on the planet will just “quit” because it’s deemed hopeless. They’re going to make some effort, at least for a while. And it would be far, far better to make that effort now. This should be the primary message – try now while each of us still can.
The McPherson message is not just for us either – it is also the message we’re supposed to be teaching to our children. They’re being told to give up also – on life, on hope, on future, on existence. Holy shit! What kind of message is that? Moreover, what is the point? It’s not the least bit helpful.
Stand back and deeply consider this. Ponder the staggering incongruity of what this means. You are alive right now. You’re being told to accept death – and not just your death, but everyone’s death, even the death of your children. You’re also being told to accept the death of virtually everything. The whole biosophere!
As a message of advocacy, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to go around telling anyone who will listen that it’s “over”. It’s not even relevant that the future will be difficult or even impossible, the message is simply wrong. It’s a disabling advocacy, and disempowers it’s adherents.
I’m rather surprised that some have accepted this false doctrine, but I find myself completely unable to. It’s a false gospel. It refutes common sense and the human experience and the whole of human history.
I cannot even explain why it’s taking hold with some people – and won’t even try. Perhaps escapism is simply easier. But it makes no sense at all. Do these people get out of bed each day and try? Do they go out shopping, or play with their kids, or go to work? Do they take care of themselves by exercising and eating right? Do they drive carefully? Do they plant gardens, go to the beach or buy insurance?
Why even bother then if it’s “hopeless”? Why live another day? Why go on living at all? Doesn’t the fact that this is actually what they are doing, still trying to live, indicate that life is always chosen over death given opportunity (discounting mental illness and other medical reasons)? Why go on trying then?
Many do not seem to know, but this is what Michael Ruppert did. By killing himself, he “quit”, obviously “choosing” death instead of life (he clearly had a choice), having completely given up. This is escapism. I’ve read all the reasons why he committed suicide, but the reality is he gave up on everything and everybody, including himself. And this is the advocacy that you are being encouraged to do too – quit. Enjoy what’s left, but realize it’s all over. And like Ruppert’s example, the gospel being preached here is actually suicide. But on a larger scale then any of us can truly imagine.
I reject this false gospel categorically and offer something else instead. We go on trying, despite the “evidence” or the gospel. It’s not relevant to life and living.
I am aware that McPherson say’s “we should try” – but considering that he’s never offered anything in that realm and spends nearly all of his time presenting the defeat of the biosphere, this part of his gospel is meaningless and carries no persuasion of any kind. It is the other part that is so deadly, because it falsely embraces defeat that refutes the human experience. Whether we are defeated already or not is irrelevant. But advocating defeat is relevant. And it is this point that makes the message false.
The NTE movement is now a message now watched by thousands, and it will be watched by thousands more around the world as collapse unfolds.
The message is nihilistic, self-defeating and in defiance of the present reality (where we all actually live and experience life). To live “as if that day were here” as advocated defeats any efforts to try to forestall that day (despite the meager claims we should try). It implants a “give up” worldview to the adherents of NTE that eats away at any effort and diminishes the day to day experience of sincerely “trying”.
It also suggests that living in the knowledge of certain extinction is somehow a part of the human experience and is to be embraced. It is not a part of the human experience – and neither should it be embraced (it should be resisted). But the message is not about resistance, it’s all about acceptance.
Nobody can “live as if the day were here” because this would mean extreme widespread suffering and pain would be occurring (including in the believer) in order to be true and to be fully experienced and know what it was really like for that day to be here. You cannot “imagine” your way to this experience now as advocated – unless you are already suffering and in pain and actually experiencing this. This is a primary message by McPherson – and it is completely false.
This is what religion tries to do, create a false worldview / false experience among believers, which governs and influences their day-to-day existence and activities, and to proclaim a future “fulfillment” of their message “one day”, encouraging a non-involvement in the actual, unfolding future and abdicating any responsibility in the actual future unfolding each day.
The McPherson / Baker message is actually a religion. It promotes an abdication of responsibility to the now, and abandonment of other alternatives to a future “vision” that is now “ordained” (immutable, unstoppable), even the whole of the future to a belief system and events that have not even happened yet. Acceptance to this proclaimed future reality as envisioned by them and a few others (such as the mythical Sam Carana) is voluntary, but it’s still harmful. The message encourages believers it to act as if it were “already here” (a factual impossibility).
The entire narrative is unreal, disabling and suicidal (recent example is Ruppert’s suicide, who simply gave up). He clearly believed the message as evidenced in his own words – and then he quit, seeing no reason or purpose to exist because the future was “hopeless”. He is the first victim of the McPherson message (and his own) and an example of it’s danger. There will be others.
Escapism is a way out for those who cannot cope – but it is not the least bit helpful to anyone else and is clearly an abandonment of all responsibility and effort at participation in the future. The core of their message is escapism from effort, responsibility and the unfolding future and this is what religion also does.
Endlessly proclaiming that we should live according to this worldview week after week is the “insecurity” of the speaker (and adherents) who are actively engaged in its promotion, not the one who is pointing out the false narrative.
The growing cult following of the near-term extinction movement is harmful because the message is disabling and contains many elements of unreality and the unknown and even the mythical. It will lead to self-fulfillment of its own prophecies if left unchecked and unrecognized as a false narrative. It does remind me of Jim Jones however and we all know how that turned out.
It is not rocket science to see that they are not actually helping people to cope as alleged. Just the opposite is true, they are helping people to abandon effort, and to give up and become a growing part of the acceptance of defeat. That is a terrifying future that should not be promoted.
In between the defeatism of McPherson and the delusional techno-salvation of the technologists and the psycho-babble of Baker (it’s tainted by the same false gospel) and many, many others – there is a message that lies in between the collapse of civilization and the biosphere and human extinction. In this message is the true human experience and what will actually happen. It won’t be the defeatism of McPherson or Baker, it will be what has made the human race distinct from all other species. Whether it works or not is not even relevant. It will still be done. This is an absolute certainty (usually a dangerous thing to say for any author, but valid in this case because it rests on at least 40,000 generations of human experience – ample “proof”).
You can choose to be a part of this or not. It’s entirely up to you. We’re still going to try. No matter what the gainsayers may say or claim, we’re going to try. Just like we’ve always done. And it’s not relevant whether or not we are going to succeed, we’re still going to try – even if there is absolute, certain, concrete knowledge that we will fail. It doesn’t matter. It will not stop the try. We’re still going to do it.
I’ve got some interesting ideas cooking regarding this. But I don’t expect to receive any attention or interest from anyone on this (I’m going back to my silence and projects). Others with notoriety and fans will discover the same ideas, no doubt. It’s inevitable.