The Irish Government’s mooted plan to slaughter some 200,000 cattle has been getting a great deal of attention this week. It is said, implausibly, that doing so will help save the planet from global warming, although prominent commentators, such as Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk, have been quick to point out that, as policy measures go, it looks, well, quite mad.
Sudden urges to slaughter herds of cattle are, however, not without historical precedent. In 19th-century South Africa, a child prophetess named Nongqawuse persuaded her people, the Xhosa, that if they slaughtered all their livestock and burnt down their granaries everything would be miraculously replaced. Of course, when they tested her claims out, the reality was very different and, cattle being the basis of their economy, the policy resulted in the utter destruction of their society. Ireland beware!
The story of the cattle killings is told in The Grip of Culture, a new book that will soon be published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (full disclosure: I am the book’s editor). Its central theme is that, like the Xhosa, our society is now being directed by what is known as a ‘cultural entity’ (or ‘a culture’ for short); the term covers both religions and extreme political movements – secular religions, if you like. The culture we are facing is, of course, climate catastrophism.
The book explains that cultures are a function of our subconscious and evolved alongside our genes as a way to bind groups of human beings together. They are an entirely natural feature of the human condition; they affect all of us. At the centre of each is a narrative of doom and redemption. Remarkably, this is always false, and indeed it is often scarcely even plausible. However, most adherents have never even read the core texts around which their culture has formed: this is as true of Extinction Rebellion supporters’ suppositions about the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as it was of a medieval peasant’s trust in the truth of the Latin Bible, or a Red Guard’s faith in the Das Kapital. A statement of belief in the climate catastrophe narrative is therefore not a rational, considered opinion; it is simply a way of signalling to other people that you are a member of the climate ‘club’.
The behaviours that make cultures so effective are seen across history. Demonisation of opponents is one obvious example; accusations of heresy have done their work from time immemorial. Those within the culture are warned not to stray from orthodoxy, and those outside it are invited to join up and win the group benefits (or to face the consequences). The terminology may have changed – ‘denier’ is the current term of art – but the intent, to silence dissent and to prevent questioning of the narrative, is the same.
Similarly, cultures have always sought to get at children, to infect them with the mind virus while their parents’ backs are turned; a glance at the curriculum shows that climate catastrophism is now dominant in schools, although jostling for position with some of the other new cultures that are on the scene. Children, and particularly girls, also turn up in cultures in the role of prophets, their perceived innocence helping to protect them from criticism; Greta Thunberg is only the latest in a long line that stretches back far beyond Nongqawuse.
Perhaps the most important feature of cultures is that they operate subconsciously, and therefore entirely irrationally. Once we understand this, the apparent madness of the last 20 years starts to make a kind of sense. So yes, those who merely question the wisdom of Net Zero are demonised and cancelled; as we have seen, that’s what cultures do. And when we see politicians fawning over the scatterbrained utterances of a teenage truant, we can now understand why. Similarly, if rationality ruled, we would not be closing down nuclear power, or importing (high-emissions) fossil fuels rather than getting them from the North Sea. But rationality is in retreat, so that is what we are doing.
Because they bind societies so tightly together, cultures are extraordinarily powerful forces. They have been responsible for the rise of great civilisations and the construction of great monuments, from the waterworks of Ur and Babylon to the pyramids and beyond. But because they are irrational, they can just as often be a force for societal self-destruction, as the 19th-century Xhosa and the 20th-century Germans found out to their cost. It’s hard to say whether a culture will take a constructive or a destructive path, but it’s fair to say that a disastrous end is more likely when you have a millenarian culture – one that aims to tear down the fabric of society and start again. Unfortunately, that’s what we appear to be facing today. Gripped by the culture of climate catastrophism, society seems hell-bent on ripping up the energy system that is the foundation of our civilisation with only the vaguest idea of what might replace it. The Xhosa would recognise the tendency.
To that end, we have embarked on a process of decarbonisation, but – and extraordinarily – without knowing what we will do when the wind is not blowing. This can in no way be rational, but is perfectly comprehensible when you recognise that we are being driven by a culture. At the centre of the book is a remarkable series of measurements showing that national religiosity is an excellent predictor of otherwise incomprehensible public attitudes to climate change, including enthusiasm for renewables. Similarly, pursuing this course when the costs are known to be much higher than the benefits looks like insanity. But, once more, it’s the kind of thing that happens when a cultural entity is at work. The culture does what is good for the culture, not what is good for mankind.
There is no end of crazy climate policies: electric cars, travel restrictions, 15-minute cities, veganism and insect-based diets are just a few off the top of my head. Climate catastrophists’ calls for such measures are only statements of faith, a signal to others. They are not meant to be taken literally – that’s why so many Extinction Rebellion supporters are frequent flyers and enjoy their holidays in the sun just as much as the rest of us. But society responds to the calls for ever more windfarms as if they were, and we are left worrying whether the lights will stay on this winter.
A cultural analysis, of the kind set out in The Grip of Culture, can explain the suicidal course taken by Western societies. Its message, that the true threat to our civilisation comes, not from the weather or the climate, but from the culture of catastrophism that has weaponised those issues is profoundly disturbing. Those of us who are fond of living in a free and rational society need to understand what we are facing, and soon.
Andrew Montford is Director of Net Zero Watch.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The Irish Government’s plan to slaughter some 200,000 cattle
This is just a Daily Telegraph story (whatever happened to scepticism about MSM?). If you follow it up you will find it was a “modelling document” in a “deliberative process” i.e. they were just examining what would happen to emissions if the number of cattle in Ireland were reduced by 10%.
Yes vaccine passports and digital health ID were at the “modelling” and investigation stage until suddenly they weren’t.
That’s exactly what politicians always say when they want to get something done. They want to minimise questions and scrutiny until it’s too late to do anything about it.
Some (perhaps most?) plans are preceded by some kind of modelling that doesn’t mean all or even most modelling is followed by a plan.
Totally agree
It seems like Andrew Montfort could’ve written pretty much the same book if he’d focused on the cult of lockdowns and vaccines rather than climate.
Yes but first comes the nudge then comes the push.— If you want to think that stupid braindead easily manipulated politicians wouldn’t do almost anything to get a little gold star from the UN on their lapel for pretending to save the planet then you are deluded. Their allegiance is to Sustainable Development and the UN. Not to the people who vote for them and their own citizens.
MTF are you saying nobody should discuss or criticise this proposal until the Irish government decides to implement it?
No. What made you think that? I am just saying that is misleading to describe it as a plan which implies intent to do it.
It’s misleading to say it’s “misleading to describe it as a plan which implies intent to do it”, because it was described as a “mooted plan” which implies a plan to be discussed and debated rather than intent to do it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-okays-161-bln-dutch-govt-buy-out-farmers-reduce-nitrogen-2023-05-02/
I’d be a lot more relaxed about such stories were it not for the row going on in the Netherlands over closing dairy farms. That is more than just a modelling exercise. There, it is mixed up with the laudable aim of cutting nitrate pollution, but it is being done in a really authoritarian and stupid way and the only farmers who are going to win are the large corporate farming businesses, not the small holders.
Someone influential will see this Irish study, realise that they can benefit financially from it and push its implementation as it will ‘reduce emissions’. After all, if you cull all those cows, then the price of milk, which is pretty low atm, will rise significantly. In order to prevent farmers coming back into the more profitable industry, quotas would have to be introduced. Once quotas are introduced, all the big corporations need to do is to patiently pick them up one by one and before you know where you are, big companies control the Irish dairy industry, all in the name of reducing emissions.
Closing farms has nothing to do with reducing nitrate “pollution,” that is just a cover story.
If the second largest producer of food – Dutch farmers – are removed from the industry there will be a significant worsening of the world food supply which could have serious negative effects worldwide.
Add to the removal of Dutch farmers the destruction of cattle farms in Ireland and the picture starts to look decidedly bleak albeit coordinated.
Now why would the Davos Deviants want to severely reduce the world’s food supply?
And Ukraines food production is seriously stunted too!
Very much so Dinger. If bread prices start to increase at the end of the year we will be told it is all because of the war.
Actually this country is virtually self-sufficient in bread flour.
“Actually this country is virtually self-sufficient in bread flour.”
Not surprised judging by the number of fields of wheat I see on my bike rides and walking the dogs.
Bless, and long may that be the case!
Why is the human race so intent on destroying its own food source??? F-ing twists my melon!
“If you follow it up you will find it was a “modelling document” in a “deliberative process””
Not quite. From what I can see the Irish govt CLAIM it was a “modelling document” in a “deliberative process”. Not sure why we should believe them.
I dont believe any of them ! Puppets made by Brussels!
Why would anybody experiencing good mental health and with a 3-figure IQ even ask that question?
Are they going to model the effect on “emissions” of banning private jets?
What question exactly?
“What would happen to emissions if we reduced our cattle numbers by 10%?”
And adding to that, what would be the effect on humans if we reduce our own food supply?
The Dutch farming emissions “modelling document” becomes reality. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-okays-161-bln-dutch-govt-buy-out-farmers-reduce-nitrogen-2023-05-02/
You are correct, but , politicians can’t lie in bed straight let alone be honest! when they say they are”looking into the possible outcomes” its code for “we’re going to do it wether you like it or not” as other post have said.
No downticks are mine, I’d sooner hear the debate than tick and run!
Not sure I wholly agree this analysis is that insightful. Culture is too imprecise a word. There is a distinct cultural Marxist movement within it that is infecting and colouring the culture and that IMO is the nub of the issue. The cultural commentator James Lindsay does a very good job of laying out why “woke” really is accurately described as cultural Marxism (because in very fast summary, Marxism is superficially about economics, but in careful factual reading, about culture and once that is understood the objectives of Marxism and woke can be seen to cohere to a remarkable degree – both are about demolishing established cultural structures in the name of equity). And it is the same mode of operation driving the climate lobby. Cultural Marxism is the lynch pin and there is nothing “unconscious” within that set about what they are trying to do. But other than that I agree wholeheartedly.
Hi TheBasicMind. A culture in the context of the book means ‘a cultural entity’, which has very specific characteristics, and hence is much more precise than for instance, say, a description of Catholicism or Marxism, and in fact this means that its presence can be measured, if there is sufficient social data available. For for climate catastrophism, there is (measurement is briefly mentioned in the article, and when the book comes out, you’ll be able to see how this is done).
Traditional Marxism or neo Marxism are just other brands of cultural entities, and ‘Woke’ is in principle not a cultural entity but a loose association of different cultural entities (for instance, extreme trans rights culture has a largely independent arisal and existence to the so called anti-racist culture that sprang mainly from critical race theory, despite they may share some input factors [common memes]). However, I don’t believe there’s any way to measure the latter two, because there’s nothing like the immense amount of social data that there is on climate catastrophism (partly because it has been around for so long, and also because it is global and heavyweight, whereas say extreme trans rights culture is far newer and is still I think largely a feature of a subset of Western nations, and even there is not yet impacting society at anything like the same level (for instance, dismantling the energy infra-structure!)
Here we go again. ‘People say, “Believe some of what your see son, and none of what you hear.”‘—-Heard it Through The Grapevine. Marvin Gaye. 1969.
“we have embarked on a process of decarbonisation”. Yes, but we can’t get away from carbon, it’s the nucleus of our biology, in fact it is our biology.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834420-100-the-uncomfortable-reality-of-life-on-earth-after-we-breach-1-5c/
“Spiking worldwide temperatures, boosted by a transition to an El Niño climate pattern, could make 2024 the year that global warming exceeds 1.5°C for the first time.”
You gotta laugh.
Global warming to exceed 1.5 °c for the first time. Measured against what exactly?
The journalist wants her arse kicking and the Editor should be fired.
I thought this magazine was aimed at sort of intelligent people.
Today the news is that the temperature on Brighton beach reached 28C yesterday. Where I live on top of the Downs close by it was about 22C and a cold wind.
https://off-guardian.org/2023/06/08/how-canadian-wildfires-are-turning-climate-change-into-a-public-health-emergency/
As usual Kit Knightly at Off-G takes apart the nonsense being spewd from Canada.
Climate change isn’t working so Climate change has to become primarily a health issue.
As Mattias Desmet observed in his presentation on Mass Formation Psychosis, excessive belief in the power of human reason can lead to societies becoming deeply irrational. Today, a blind faith in Science, which should be the critical application of reason to empirical observations of the world around us, has long since given way to blind faith that approved scientific theories are ‘proved’ and not to be questioned – the very anti-thesis of rationality and the scientific method. It is a train of thought promoted by demagogues of the last century and risen to fanatical proportion in recent years. And it’s not the first time this has happened. The same thing happened with the Cult of Reason in the French Revolution, as Madame Guillotine and the Committee of Public Health did their work keeping everybody ‘safe’ from dissenting views. And in the supposedly rational Communist utopias of the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia. And in those famous rocks in Georgia that pronounced ‘Let these be guidestones to an Age of Reason,’ whilst stating that the world’s population should be less than a tenth of its current size.
In the Middle Ages, it wasn’t necessarily the peasant’s (or anyone else’s) belief in the accuracy in the Latin Vulgate that held back genuine scientific enquiry, but the belief in Aristole’s writings – which had been ‘settled science’ for over 1,500 years, far longer than any of today’s theories have been around. The Roman Inquisition, like church and secular powers today, aligned themselves with this ‘settled science’ and political interests of the day and thereafter ensured they would be remembered as brutal tyrants. Ironically, today Graham Hancock, despite not openly supporting any religious views, incurs the wrath of the Science Inquisition for daring to suggest that the Vulgate (and other ancient documents) may be correct in its description of the Great Flood and Ark of The Covenant. Similarly, the treatments of those who question the narratives of Climate Change, Lockdowns are COVID jabs have incurred the new Inquisition’s wrath as has been excellently documented on this site. Self-proclaimed guardians (and Guardian) of truth would do well not to sneer, but rather to reflect on Christ’s words in the Vulgate about how true and false prophets are treated.
People are not applying reason and they are believing lies about the laws of physics and the empirical evidence. The “climate scientists” have created new laws to match their ideology which are more or less the exact opposite of known physics. There is a book by David Craig “There is no climate crisis” that explains it all and Tony Heller regularly posts videos specifically about the USA on empirical evidence.
But even common sense has deserted us. Does the earth’s atmosphere really keep us warmer? Look at the moon with the same energy from the sun and no atmosphere and the temperature reaches 106C. Without the atmosphere we would burn to a crisp. The atmosphere keeps us cooler and together with the oceans creates the weather.
People often get mixed up between “Science” and “Official Science”. One is the genuine search for truth about the real world and the other is the exploitation of science for political purposes. The political purposes were made clear going back the last 50 years and now with “Sustainable Development” and “ESG” (Environmental and Social Governance) which is about a world run by technocrats controlling the world’s wealth and resources. Without the fear of climate change which almost entirely emanates from speculative models full of assumptions, the whole political agenda would collapse.
With an eco-loon Monarch and the eco-loons in Government, we’re screwed. Look at power costs in most of the world then look at ours. Because of all the UK parties having bonkers environmental laws, we are near the top of the table for power costs. If we had the same electricity generation policies as the USA, our bills would plummet and our lives would become immeasurably easier. We’re being deliberately impoverished.
Excellent article makes total sense (unusual nowadays in this crazy world) if a tad (well actually more than a tad) frightening. Let us know when the book’s published I for one will be the first to order.
Great article.
would be nice to get a follow up article on how societies got out of this groupthink.
what would it take? What was effective?
But why does science fail to penetrate the minds of the people who follow these beliefs? We have fires in Canada supposedly caused by high temperatures, but we know that paper has to be in a temperature of 451F to spontaneously burst into flames and wood is higher. It is hardly a difficult concept and an experiment can be conducted at home with a domestic oven to prove that the temperatures we experience are not going to cause fires.
I can understand some of the past beliefs but why are they happening now when we have so much knowledge? Has it become too much for many people and they have just given up?
People are just as susceptible to cultural beliefs as they always were, because that susceptibility is built into the genes of all of us (having for a long era been a tremendous evolutionary advantage). And at a deep level, these cultural beliefs bypass rationality, so logic and knowledge does not rule where they blossom; it is not a case of giving up, it is a case of swathes of publics being *emotively* convinced that these beliefs are rational and are also on the right side of future history. And, as older cultural beliefs (the mainstream religions and especially Christianity in the West) have faded, newer secular beliefs have arisen to fill-in the vacuum. People are not anti-science, generally speaking, they are anti the science that conflicts with their prior cherished cultural values, and pro the science that aligns with these values.
We do have “so much knowledge”, but much of the general public busy with work and family life don’t have the time to thoroughly investigate every issue. They will often rely on Mainstream News to be doing that for them. They are probably under the impression that they are listening to Investigative Journalism that is impartially reporting on issues. But in this respect Mainstream News has failed and have simply become mouthpieces and activists for political agenda’s which is what climate change really is. A political agenda called “Sustainable Development”, which I suspect most ordinary people with other things on their mind have no clue about or what it really means. ——-They better find out soon though before their freedom and prosperity is removed.
Groupthink emerges in our culture because of two human characteristics 1) gullibility and 2) fearfulness of the unknown. It’s a lethal combination and results in a complete breakdown in rational thinking. The ‘groupthink’ or culture provides a refuge in an uncertain and threatening world. It absolves people from having to think for themselves because other people have done all their thinking for them.
Well said Andrew, unfortunately the net-zero madness seems indestructible. Hopefully at some point the fools supporting it will discover their stupidity.