Monday, February 29, 2016

Doomers and Doomer Watchers

Doomer Duke
To my way of thinking, "doomers" are those who, down through time, engage in activities that bring doom to civilizations.

"Doomer watchers" are those who have the ability to identify the activities of those groups that are bringing doom upon civilization.

The fundamental nature of doomers is murderous activity of the depraved-heart-murder type (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, 2, 3).

But remember, I am writing about murder and murder-suicide  on a civilization-wide scale (MOMCOM's Mass Suicide & Murder Pact, 2, 3, 4, 5),

According to the historian who was the most-often-quoted at one time, murderous policy is the "norm" for civilizations:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." - A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee
Others in our culture have somehow also picked up on this peculiar and counter-intuitive dynamic:
The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of civilization.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this --hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension." - Sigmund Freud

Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

"In fact, unless that time of calamity is shortened, not a single person will survive." - Jesus Christ @ Mat. 24:22
Prescience is a mysterious dynamic isn't it (What Kind of Intelligence Is Prescience?, 2) !

There seems to be a general consensus among doomer watchers that there are currently two main ways for the doom of current civilization to take place (The Right Is Wrong - 3).

The doomers can destroy us via either environmental catastrophe or by nuclear catastrophe.

I have commented on the former quite a bit lately, so I thought that today I would bring up the dangers building up on the nuclear side of doom:
When President Barack Obama took questions from reporters on Tuesday, the one that needed to be asked – but wasn’t – was whether he had forbidden Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.

If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria.

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught. Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.
(Consortium News, emphasis added). Here is some of the scoop on Parry @ Consortium News.

Putin was talking about "tactical" nuclear weapons in the possession of the 20,000 some-odd Russian military folks now in Syria.

But, since the U.S. Military has forged and fashioned a faith-based policy believing that a nuclear war can be "won" (Paul Craig Roberts), thereby joining other clueless military mental midgets around the snoozing global civilization, let's consider who is most likely to provoke the dynamics involved in that fantasy.

Historically the most equipped and manned militarized nations are the most likely to use military power, so here is a look at the navies of those gangs:
"[#1] United States

First place on the list is no surprise: the United States Navy. The U.S. Navy has the most ships by far of any navy worldwide. It also has the greatest diversity of missions and the largest area of responsibility.

No other navy has the global reach of the U.S. Navy, which regularly operates in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa. The U.S. Navy also forward deploys ships to Japan, Europe and the Persian Gulf."
[#2] China

The People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has come a long way in the last 25 years. The spectacular growth of the Chinese economy, which fueled a tenfold defense-budget increase since 1989, has funded a modern navy. From a green-water navy consisting of obsolete destroyers and fast attack boats, the PLAN has grown into a true blue-water fleet.
[#3] Russia

Third on our list is the Russian Navy. Although traditionally a land power, Russia inherited the bulk of the Soviet Navy at the end of the Cold War. This aging force is at the core of the current Russian Navy, with more ships and fleet-wide improvements slowly being introduced. The Russian Navy has proven useful to show the flag and shore up flagging Russian power worldwide.
[#4] The United Kingdom

This list catches the Royal Navy at a historic ebb in firepower. Like much of the British Armed Forces, the Royal Navy has seen successive waves of equipment and personnel cuts. The recent retirement of two Invincible-class aircraft carriers and the Sea Harriers of the Fleet Air Arm have greatly reduced the Royal Navy’s abilities. Nuclear firepower, as well as future aircraft-carrier plans earn it fourth place on the list.
[#5] Japan

The fifth navy on this list is unusual, because technically, it is not really a navy. Japan’s Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) is not a military force; its personnel are civil servants, not sailors. Largely under the radar, Japan has built up one of the largest, most-advanced and professionally manned naval forces in the world.
(Five largest navies). Note that the U.S. alone has the nuclear "capability" to destroy the entire population of current civilization tens of times over.

In terms of military adventurism, the U.S. military has about a century of history of military adventurism (The Pentagon's Planet of Bases, Enduring Bases, Enduring War in the Middle East, Our Base Nation).

This is the essence of feudalism (American Feudalism, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11).

Behind closed doors policy is degenerating into advocacy for nuclear war, but it is not only advocated by government officials behind closed doors, some advocate it openly
Rep. Duncan Hunter Jr., R-Calif., appearing on C-SPAN, encouraged Washington to get ready for war, arguing that "if you have to hit Iran … you do it with tactical nuclear devices and you set them back a decade or two or three. I think that's the way to do it, with a massive aerial bombardment campaign."

This war-mongering is not new for Hunter. Using nukes is merely the latest in his saber-rattling. When Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Secretary of State John Kerry asked Congress for an authorization for the use of military force to bomb Syria earlier this year, Rep. Hunter pressed the administration officials to, instead, support "a resolution of force to bomb the hell out of Iran."
(US News & World Report, emphasis added). There is a rising tide of madness along these lines: “Mr. President,” she spat, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke” (Politicus USA).

War as a way of national life is an essence that our forefathers strongly warned us against:
Our founders were well aware of the question and the answer hundreds of years ago.

They spoke the answer with unmistakable words and with certain clarity:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.
(James Madison, emphasis added). The visionary who made that statement was the 4th President of the United States, Bill of Rights author, Congressman, Cabinet Member, and who was also called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution".
(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?, emphasis in original). We are now on track to find out if they too were prescient.

The use of 1% of the nuclear arsenals will doom civilization ... (Hmmm the 1% problem is everywhere)


  1. "Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has resigned her position as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to endorse Bernie Sanders."

    On the "Morning Joe" program @ MSNBC this morning she said it was because Hillary Clinton is too much of a war hawk on interventionist wars.

  2. They both play for the same team, so no matter who gets the nod, we get the same ol' same ol.'

    and now, from our Dept of the Blindingly Obvious

    As sea levels rise, economic damage piles up even faster: study


    1. Tom,

      I noticed that the article you linked to did not mention the word "seaport."

      Yes, political ignorance is not far removed from ecological ignorance.

      It's like asking someone where their heart is, and they reply that they don't know.

      The Extinction of Robust Sea Ports

  3. "... Fukushima ... will continue to contaminate the Pacific Ocean for at least 300 years." (link)