1. Introduction 2. The typical British nationalist does not believe in climate change 3. There is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it 4. Why is the nationalist view on climate change so at odds with the scientific consensus? 5. It is highly unlikely that climate change is a scientific hoax 6. Which human activities cause climate change and what are its potential consequences? 7. The political establishment has been at best apathetic about climate change 8. Nationalism would do much more against climate change than the establishment has 9. We can use these facts to our advantage if we accept climate change as a reality 10. Why this issue might have greater importance
This article is about climate change and its relation to nationalism. I will first show that the typical attitude in nationalism towards climate change is one of skepticism and how that attitude is at odds with the scientific consensus, and then I will discuss the probable reasons for this discrepancy, including misunderstanding of the scientific consensus and common misconceptions about climate change. Perhaps the strongest foundation of nationalist skepticism towards climate change – the belief that it is a hoax created by the political establishment for various purposes – will be dealt with as I argue that climate change is actually a potentially grave threat to the establishment.
In doing so, I will briefly explain what climate change is, how human activity contributes to it, what problems and damage will potentially be caused by it and how the international political establishments have been consistently apathetic about taking action against such an enormous problem to the detriment of our people. It will then be shown that climate change, far from being a weapon made to be used against us, is potentially one of the most effective weapons in the arsenal of nationalist propaganda and perhaps even one we cannot afford to disarm by refusing to accept the phenomenon as a reality. We will then finally discuss how this weapon can be deployed.
Those of you who are old enough to remember the television show The Two Ronnies will recognise the title as Ronnie Barker’s catchphrase. This site is about to be closed to new material, and the editor will doubtless head off for pastures new.
I will continue to write my blog, which for the time being I am updating about once every two days. You may also see me on Western Spring from time to time.
Thus far my blog has tackled such diverse topics as crime, housing, welfare reforms, inflation, deflation, and debt. I have even coined a new word, which is mortocracy. You can read about it here.
The latest unemployment statistics are interesting because they appear to show that the government’s austerity programme and welfare reforms are working.
First some background detail: there are two measures of unemployment. One is the Labour Force Survey, which is a quarterly survey of 100,000 households to find out how many people are actually out of work and looking for work. It could be carried out monthly, but that would be more expensive.
It is only an estimate, but probably a fairly accurate estimate. The main criticism is that it excludes people who are out of work but not actively seeking work – those deemed economically inactive. Whether or not it is fair to exclude them is another matter.
Russia and Ukraine are not countries which you might expect to see getting on well together.After all, Ukraine was the victim of Russian oppression during the era of the Soviet Union, and was forced to take the brunt of combat between Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War.Such was their hatred of their Russian masters that many Ukrainian soldiers surrendered as soon as they caught sight of German soldiers.
Following independence in 1991, the country had to endure a period of hyper-inflation, but the economy eventually began to flourish.Prosperity came at a price, however, and a new breed of politician emerged – one that was dedicated to protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of the poorest.
First, the area in question has a very large Muslim population. If I’ve got it right, the area is traditionally known as Spitalfields, which reflects the fact that this area was once an entirely Christian area. The word spital is an archaic form of the word hospital, and is often found in placenames and street names in places where hospitals stood in the middle ages. Hospitals in those days were religious institutions, usually being run by either monks or nuns.
I had planned to write something about how we should all agree to boycott these two companies (not that I ever buy from them anyway). Of course I am sure that many other companies back the rights of immigrants to work here, and I am not sure we can boycott all of them, but maybe we could at least boycott the worst offenders – by which I suppose I really mean the most vocal offenders.