Who’s Behind the NatCon Network?
The Nat C conference in Belgium had great coverage yesterday, the media slavishly regurgitating the narrative that the gathering was ‘shut down’ as part of a terrible ‘cancel culture’ (blah blah blah). The event wasn’t shut down.
But as the climate catastrophe begins this summers big reveal – it’s worth noting two things about the far-right’s new networks. The first is that they are sharpening their ire on a new target – ‘Net Zero’ as the battle to save the earth intensifies. The second is that the backers of these gatherings are not some rag-tag of Edgelords and firey libertarians, they are a deeply ideological clandestine network that has been operating in the UK for many years.
The front-man is Nigel Farage who used his speech at NatCon yesterday to complain about “big politics, big business, and big banks”. But he left out the bit about the fact that the whole conference was organised by a group directly funded by a massive oil company.
The National Conservatism (NatCon) conference was sponsored by Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), a Hungarian think tank. MCC received more than £1.3 billion in Hungarian state funding in 2020, and awarded a 10 percent stake in the country’s oil and gas giant MOL.
In his speech, which was live-streamed on GB News, Nigel Farage atook aim at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for its first climate verdict last week, which found that insufficient action to tackle climate change is a violation of human rights. The ECHR is “telling us we have no option but to implement net zero policies” Farage said.
We are witnessing a pincer-movement of the right and far-right to focus on the ECHR, not just because it protects you and I’s human rights, and those of immigrants, but because it protects our fragile ecology. It’s telling that our unelected and entirely unaccountable Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron warned the European Court of Human Rights that it is “planting the seeds of its own destruction” by “overreaching”.
Asked about the UK’s future relations with the Strasbourg court in the Lords, Lord Cameron said: “There are occasions, in my view, when this court overreaches itself and we saw one last week with respect to climate change, where it took a judgment against Switzerland.
“And I think it’s dangerous when these courts overreach themselves, because ultimately we’re going to solve climate change through political will, through legislation in this House and the Commons, by the actions we take as politicians, by the arguments we put to the electorate – and so I do think there’s a danger of overreach.”
*
As Sam Bright of DeSmog has written (‘‘Hard-Right’ NatCon Event Was Organised by Oil Funded Group‘): “MCC is chaired by Balázs Orbán, who is the Viktor Orbán’s political director. The think tank’s board also includes Hungary’s Minister of Culture and Innovation, János Csák. According to the investigative outlet Follow The Money, MCC is conservative, nationalist and Eurosceptic, and “plays a key role in spreading the ideology of the Hungarian government”. Balázs Orbán has said: “It is our goal for Hungary to become an intellectual powerhouse, in which MCC plays a key role.”
The NatCon organising committee also featured sociologist Frank Furedi, the executive director of MCC Brussels. Furedi delivered the 2020 annual lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK’s leading climate science denial group, on the subject “eco hysteria”. During the lecture, he promoted the fringe claim that politicians and corporations are trying to push civilisation into a “climate lockdown” by reducing individual freedoms.”
It’s worth witnessing the descent of the former de facto leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, Frank Furedi to the far-right. The spectacle will add fuel to the speculation that all is not as it seems with the LM Network and Furedi’s former colleagues. In 2018 I revealed the dark money behind Spiked! Furedi’s former comrades who were in receipt of $300,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation (‘Revealed: US Oil Billionaire Charles Koch Funds UK Anti-Environment Spiked Network’).
In 2022, the writer Ravi Bali noted (‘Ex-Marxist Furedi Joins Racist Authoritarians at CPAC Hungary‘): “Frank Furedi––who was the foremost intellectual of UK radical-left group, the Revolutionary Communist Party, for more than 25 years––has made the transition from revolutionary Marxism into the fold of white-nationalist authoritarianism. Furedi spoke last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Budapest, Hungary. CPAC is organised by the American Conservative Union (ACU), the foremost right-wing Republican organisation in the United States.”
What does this all mean? I mean, who cares if a marginal figure like Furedi goes to a conference of crackpots in Belgium?
Well, it’s a revival of climate denialism in a new form and given the fervid nature of England’s post-Brexit politics, and the rise of a populist anti-ecological narrative (check Blade Runners etc etc) it means that this network is positioning itself for a post-Sunak Conservative party (or some other entity that will emerge out of the wreckage of the current party’s death-spiral. Furedi’s LM Network has already succeeded in infiltrating and influencing the highest echelons of power in Britain*, and now it is highly financed and networked into both the American far-right and the emerging proto-fascist, and sometimes just fascist-fascist European right.
What is emerging is a new form of libertarian populism, and the further collapse of the Tory party will give way to something bolder and more dynamic and toxic.
Sam Bright again:
“The conference also hosted a panel “in defence of farmers, food, and energy security” featuring several figures who have attacked net zero policies. Farmers’ protests across Europe have been appropriated by right-wing politicians who claim that measures to cut agricultural emissions are devastating rural economies – even though a range of complex factors are motivating the protests.
Chaired by MCC’s Jacob Reynolds, the panel featured Mike Hume and Ralph Schöllhammer, both of whom have close ties to British publication Spiked, which regularly publishes climate science denial.
Hume is the former editor of Spiked, and is now a columnist. He has argued that farmers are united by an “opposition to the way that the EU elites are subordinating agricultural policy to their green agenda and net zero obsession, leading to more hardship for farmers and higher food prices for other Europeans.”
Schöllhammer is a regular commentator for Spiked, writing frequently on energy and net zero. He has claimed that “climate extremists” are trying to create a world that would be “devastating for the poorest people on the planet”, and that net zero is a “threat to human civilisation”.
During the panel, Schöllhammer claimed that left-wing leaders are “at war with modern life: industry, energy, and anything that makes Western life possible.”
As the Tory party faces electoral disaster it will be keen to reinvent itself, and these are the circles that it is operating in and the ideas they are prepping. This is the dregs of the Brexit activists shifting and slithering into the culture wars, morphing into new entities and mixing openly with European fascists. For Furedi and his acolytes this rubbing shoulders with the people of the far-right makes sense. Writing in his own, very revealing Substack column, Furedi openly explains his political new home:
“Invariably the term far-right has become detached from its specific historical context and has become a free-floating expression of abuse that can be casually attached to any target. Historically, this designation referred to violent anti-democratic, authoritarian and xenophobic movements. In recent times the term has become subject to a form of concept creep so that viewpoints that were previously not considered far-right are now associated with it. The Encyclopedia of Politics: The Left and the Right asserts that far-right politics include ‘persons or groups who hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic, racist, religious fundamentalist, or other reactionary views1’. The reference to ‘religious fundamentalist or other reactionary views’ is significant for in principle it can refer to a wide variety of anti-modernist sentiments. Equating far right with reactionary means that anyone with strong conservative views can be re-invented as a violent extremist.”
The emerging politics of these new networks have all the hallmarks of the LM Networks decades-long obsessions: complete opposition to ecological ideas and policies, extreme libertarianism, advocacy and alliances with far-right causes, and now a co-ordinated attempt to scupper any (even the most cursory) climate plans.
* Munira Mirza is married to Dougie Smith – Dougie who had been a senior figure in the far-right Federation of Conservative Students, while she herself was part of the LM network and is widely thought to have arranged Claire Fox’s ascent to the House of Lords.
We are raising funds to support our ongoing work – support us HERE.
We are supported only by our readers. We don't have corporate backers and we don't take advertising, so we rely entirely on your support.
Help to support independent Scottish journalism
I’d like to see more along these lines about us – about right wing forces in Scotland. Does the trajectory of the RCP hold a clue? Claiming to be one thing and yet many could see early on that wasnt the whole truth.
The Right Wing forces in Scotland can be observed in the reactions to the Hate Crime Law.
Toxic is right; the politics of Will attempts to poison the politics of Health.
I think our entire language is being destroyed in this Orwellian world. Words now seem to mean whatever those in power want. ‘Right wing’ and ‘left wing’ have become meaningless. It seems to me that the super-rich and those addicted to absolute power are playing two sides in a manufactured culture war. On the one side, the oil industry, desperate to exploit its assets before they are stranded, attacks climate change. On the other, Big Tech and Big Pharma use the climate crisis as an excuse to promote a horrific totalitarianism of their own. But the oligarchs and masters of war stand back, invest in whatever they think will make the most money, and watch both sides destroy each other. They all aim to control, possess, divide and rule. ‘Net Zero’ is a lie, an accounting trick based on what you put on each side of the scale. But saying that does not make me a climate change denier.
If you don’t like one kind of totalitarianism, you are assumed to support the other. But in reality each just sets up the other as a target, and both always tell the exact opposite of the truth. Neither cares in the slightest about anything but possession and control – of everything snd everyone. And this cannot ‘save the planet’ or provide a future for anyone, even themselves.
I reject technocratic totalitarianism altogether – whether supposedly ‘pro-planet’ or ‘pro-freedom’ it’s a lie from start to finish. It’s all desperate attempts by the super rich to save themselves. Whether they deny climate change or use it as a weapon against us, they are now redundant. The planet only needs saving from them.
Small is beautiful. Remember that? The future is decentralised and democratic.
‘Big Pharma and Big Tech are using climate change to enforce their horrific totalitarianism’ ????
Care to explain how you have come to this conclusion?
” ‘Big Pharma and Big Tech are using climate change to enforce their horrific totalitarianism’ ????
Care to explain how you have come to this conclusion? ”
Of course. I come to this conclusion because after observing and studying the situation as it has developed over the last four years, it is (for me at least) increasingly difficult to come to any other conclusion. I have sought out scientific papers and submitted FoI requests to a range of public bodies and officials. I have done the footwork and drawn my own conclusions. I have put these back to the authorities who hav been completely unable to engage at all except to assert that they are right. They have no evidence to support their denials at all.
Big Oil, Big Tech, Big Pharma and those who own them are completely ethics-free. They have a nihilistic philosophy that developed rapidly with the decline of Christianity and the rise of industrialisation, and which underpinned both Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany. It holds that absolute wealth and power are their own reward and the struggle to achieve them ‘justifies’ any action whatsoever. Including lying, manipulation, deceit, even genocide.
There’s nothing like enough space here to set out all the details, so I’ll just look at one example here.
The Great Reset of the world’s economy was announced by ‘Prince’ Charles in 2020. He said that the pandemic provided a great ‘opportunity’ to transform the world’s economy. The accompanying video suggested that this would be necessary because of climate change. This programme was not open to consultation or debate, it was simply decreed by the technocrats of the World Economic Forum, an exclusive group of the world’s richest and most powerful. Their slogan is: “The World Economic Forum brings together government, businesses and civil society to improve the state of the world” (for themselves, naturally; as for the rest of us, ‘You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy’).
Now we are triangulated, so that if we disagree with the WEF’s totalitarian ‘solution’ to climate change we must be climate change deniers, perhaps even Trump supporters! It’s all just behavioural psychology, what NATO call ‘cognitive warfare’.
Charles E. Wilson, the former president of General Motors, told a 1953 congressional hearing, “for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.” The WEF think exactly the same way, but on a planetary scale. ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy’ – means (I assume) that they will own everything and sacrifice their own happiness for our sake – selfless martyrs to their beneficence. The post-Covid ‘new normal’ would be one in which our privacy, freedoms, employment, and even our health (but not of course theirs) would exist solely for their benefit. Like factory farmed animals. Like concentration camp inmates. It’s the same philosophy, 21st c style. Like Nietzsche, they regard ‘morality’ as for slaves. They are above all that.
The idea that the living planet is merely some sort of computer that can be ‘reset’ should surely raise eyebrows in itself. It is classic technocracy, developed in America since the 1930s. But let’s look at what the Great Reset announced. It was, and still is, a global coup d’état. They were simply taking possession and control. By ‘eminent domain’, ‘force majeure’, by ‘shock and awe’. In other words, by violence.
So here’s the prospectus. Klaus Schwab told us that the Great Reset has the following elements:
1. A new ‘social contract’.
This is a euphemism for the ’social credit’ system, more or less as developed in China.. It is merely a ‘deemed’ contract that requires no agreement from us. They dictate the terms, and we comply, whether we like it or not. It has been called the ‘new feudalism’ but at least in feudalism kings and lords were supposed to have duties and responsibilities to ‘justify’ their power. These plutocrats will do as they please.
Programmable digital currencies, vaccine passports, 15 minute cities, digital ID, we already have a financial credit score and banks that can simply deny you access to your money for no apparent reason (it happened to me: fortunately I still believe in cash) . These things are everyday reality.
2. ‘Decarbonisation’ .
This is a euphemism for building the Internet of Things (and indeed the Internet of Bodies), a vast infrastructure of monitoring and control which harvests and analyses every possible type of data about all of us – and so destroys our human rights. Decarbonisation assumes this will be built and powered somehow in a carbon-neutral way, but in reality it has massive energy demands which require huge – and undeliverable – increases in generation and transmission capacity. The construction of this infrastructure massively increases the destruction of the planetary ecosystem. It also emits growing amounts of electro-magnetic radiation which damages both human health and biodiversity. All this actually adds to climate change. It is also used to justify the attacks on farming. The WEF aim to monopolise the food supply using industrial production. The ’30:30 agenda’ aims to reserve 30% of the planet for ‘nature’ with the people removed and kept out. It’s really a land grab releasing 30% of the planet for the plutocrats’ exclusive use and exploitation. And the Highlands, where I live are part of it. We are being deliberately de-funded to become a new ‘Wild West’, where the WEF’s oligarch members can extract resources, run pipelines or electricity lines across, or use as exclusive, trophy hunting areas, as they please, without opposition.
The so-called Net Zero agenda claims that planting a few trees in Scotland that will take decades to store much carbon allows them to continue pumping oil, and destroying the biosphere. Feeding old growth North American forest into the Drax power station, or building nuclear power stations is the opposite of ‘green’. And let’s not even mention the growth in private helicopter and jet travel. It’s all lies.
3. The ‘4th Industrial Revolution’
This is a euphemism for colonising and controlling people and planet with technology. ‘Transhumanism’ is about defeating old age and death and creating a digital ‘Master Race’ and semi-robotic slaves to serve them. We are supposedly ‘hackable animals’. Well, those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. The trouble is that they are destroying us all and the life support system we all depend on too. They are the new Masters of War, only their weapons are now biological, chemical, electronic, psychological. Monitoring us all will also, as Boris Johnson said, enable them to ‘tell us we’ve got cancer before we know it ourselves’. But whether we’ll get any choice about treatment is another matter. We do not need or want another industrial revolution. We – and the planet – need a completely different approach based on mutual aid, power with, rather than power over.
5 ‘Stakeholder capitalism’.
The oligarchs and plutocrats are the only stakeholders. Shareholders are being bought out and WEF members are taking even big corporations private. More and more brands are now merely labels owned and controlled by oligarchs through private equity funds like Blackrock or Vanguard. We will own nothing – but will we really be happy with no ‘stake’ in the future at all? Goodbye to any pension funds or other investments. Our very lives will be ‘rented’ from them and at their command. Vandana Shiva goes into some detail on this in her book ‘Oneness vs the 1%’.
6. ‘Global co-operation’
This uses ‘co-operation’ in the sense it might be used by organised crime. You ‘co-operate’, or else. Life becomes a legalised protection racket. And that includes governments themselves (and opposition parties too), bought and sold by people with more money than many countries. The WEF prefers to work with cities rather than nation states because it likes the idea of a single world government (itself). (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/idea-of-a-nation-state-past-its-sell-by-date/) ‘Co-operation’ is not actually sustainable on such a basis. The whole philosophy that the survival of the fittest means the survival of the most ruthless means that oligarchs cannot help but fight each other.
But to question anything would brand you a dangerous ‘conspiracy theorist’ (whatever that is). It’s Orwellian. I challenge anyone to present some actual evidence (not assertions) to prove me wrong.
So what Big Oil has done is to take peoples’ understandable fears abut all this and championed them. It wants to carry on selling oil regardless of the consequences. But they conveniently omit to say that that Big Tech / Big Pharma approach cannot stop climate change, only make the situation worse. Rather than question the effectiveness of technocratic totalitarianism, (which they actually are quite happy with) they deny climate change itself. But all this is classic psyops. Confuse people, make them despair and isolate them from each other. Then divide and rule. But one way or another, in these dying days of capitalism, we must be forced to consume somehow.
I love some of the language used both in the article and in the comments.
Calling anyone “right wing”, “hard right”, far right” because you and the critical social justice groupthink gang think you have the moral high ground just doesn’t work anymore.
Any ordinary apolitical citizen who even asks an uncomfortable question is treated as someone vile and not worthy of being heard.
Its the lack of free speech that has led to some of the worse events in recent history. Take Chernobyl for instance. Take the GIDs and trans-activist scandal that’s finally coming to light. Let’s look how DEI has proven to be ineffective, and indeed divisive. All it has done is to wake a sleeping giant, whom the organised right are now courting.
The real problem is that our society has been increasingly dominated by a class of people who think they know what is best for everyone else. We live in a “top-down” or technocratic society. It has done is empowered the greedy, ambitious and the ideologically extreme.
The people who run our institutions hide a multitude of sins. Big companies, banks, special interest groups have gained privilege and wealth that increases their power daily, and threatens us now and in the future.
The EU, WTO, IMF, etc are nothing more than cartels to benefit the oligarchs and technocrats. The EU snd other Western governments have created a money tree that enables governments to spend like drunken sailors; banks to sell credit and money now debased by the technocrats. The world is awash with government bonds. They are borrowing from future generations.
Trade deals are nothing more than protectionist rackets, which suit the big corporations and their mates in the banks, elected governments, civil service etc. An army of lobbyists outspend and outgun any smaller competition.
Excessive restrictive rules and legislation are piled on to suit the very rich and those who rule us. They are parasites.
So, when the Marxists take over everything will be all right? Tax the rich, seize all property, control speech and punish the reactionaries. Then, having screwed everything up, causing famines and plagues, just punish and kill those who object. Just another bunch if tyrants.
“Philanthropists” like Soros pump huge amounts of money into so-called “social-justice” causes and organizations. But all it does is promote division. Who benefits from this? The oligarchs and the Davos set, of course, and so it continues.
The reality is the elites, whether right or left or far-woke are in it for themselves for greed or ambition or for ideological reasons.
Minorities and identity group ideological beliefs are used to shut the working classes us. When the Far Woke are close to being found out, they change the language.
Humanities academics write far-woke rubbish and support each other with over citation. It becomes circular. The academy has been debased. Plagiarism is rife, but then a Marxist academic has little they can say or write without straying from the party line or dogma.
True, you also need to be careful about those on the right. No matter how noble their intentions, they can be corrupted also. But the truth is they are appealing to the masses because the technocrats stopped listening to ordinary people a long time ago. The elites only have themselves to blame.
Neither a (centrist) far-left or an Orban right wing government is what we need.
We need new politics, where real power is distributed and everyone’s voices are heard, not just those of the self-appointed social justice warriors.
We need to ultimately get rid of political parties, and invite talented people to serve as leaders but not allow them to become established and all powerful. We need to have strong safeguards.
We need true free trade, not the cartel set-up we currently have.
We need free speech enshrined in a constitution.
We need blind justice and a colour-blind society.
We need accountability at every level of society and a media that is challenged openly for their biases, with an automatic right of reply.
We need to stop intellectuals who feel it is their right to amend the literature and history books to suit their idea of a just society.
The lefty-like technocracy and the rich oligarchs are now in the spotlight, and will be held to account.
Those you call the “right” will continue to challenge the current established elites; but maybe, just maybe, a true democratic “centre” will actually come about? We can only hope.
Aw Stevie, the ‘Marxists’ aren’t ‘taking over’ any time soon mate
Aw Stevie, the ‘Marxists’ aren’t ‘taking over’ any time soon mate
That’s one long, dark rabbit hole you’ve disappeared down Stevie. You would feel well at home in the company of Liz, Nigel, Suella and all the other conspiracist grifters.
This is really worth watching
On the whole I think I agree with the general drift although I’d avoid words like ‘right’, left’ ‘woke’ etc which Have no meaning for me at all.
Melanie Phillips was also very much on the left, writing for New Society, The Guardian, The Observer for many years. She moved decisively to the right in the 1990s.
Please define ‘left’ and ‘right’. I grew up thinking that ‘left’ meant communitarian, co-operative etc, while ‘right’ meant authoritarian, individualistic, ‘Thatcher’s ‘no such thing as society’. Both state communism and fascism were forms of dictatorship – the difference being that communism pretended it was on behalf of the ‘masses’, while fascism was just dictatorship on behalf of private profit. The nationalism associated with fascism was really just a front. So when people claim ‘libertarianism’ is ‘right wing’ I don’t get it. And what are ‘leftists’ supposed to want? It seems our language is becoming almost meaningless in this Orwellian world we now inhabit.
Do you know anything about New Society? I suspect not. But you do know about the Daily Mail who she now writes for.
But let’s keep it simple.
When she was writing, New Society was a journal that supported Labour politically and was regarded as being on the liberal left. Labour in the 70s believed in a mixed economy which still included most basic services being nationalised, in upholding a fully funded the welfare state, the re-distribution of wealth, high enough taxes to pay for and allow for that, the abolition of public schools, workers rights to defend themselves against exploitative employers and thus support for a strong trade union movement. The Mail supports the The Conservatives, a right wing party, believed in a reduced if not minimal welfares state, a free and unregulated market economy where as little as possible was nationalised, wealth sharing happening via the very wealthy who ‘trickle down’ excess to the rest, public schools are if great value as they provide the privileged, educated elite to run the country, unions need to be heavily neutered to allow employers free reign to do what they need for their business.
That’s enough I think.
How libertarian someone was, is in fact tangential because you can be more or less on both right and left. The further left and right you go the more dictatorial you become. Fascists and communists are not into freedom of speech but it is possible to have strong right wing views about the economy and smallness of the state, the reliance on individual responsibility and also be very libertarian about what people can say and do. This is Phillips now.
Some sections of today’s so-called progressive left are the opposite of the older liberal left as they mix a far left dictatorial approach with some very radical views about social matters.
Personally I have no truck with the the ultra libertarian right wing model any more than I do the illiberal (un)progressive left (who also btw have to some extent literally rejected rationality for ideological imperatives).
But the answer to this is not to turn away and say right and left don’t mean anything any more because that is nonsense and a cop out. Just look at what people actually believe in when it comes to the economy, the welfare state, redistribution of wealth etc. I do not think matters in the social sphere (the culture war stuff), or even about climate change are the key, but we have been sidetracked into thinking they are by all who indulge in them (coming from both left and right economic perspective). It has also led to people who have certain views on some societal matters being labelled left or more likely, right or even far right like someone up thread who said if you want to find the right wing in Scotland, just look at all those who oppose the hate crime bill, which is a straight-up falsehood.
The goal posts have moved and also multiplied since the 70s but that does not mean there is no such thing as left and right but it is, as it has always been, mostly about how you run an economy to ensure equality of wealth distribution, state support for all citizens in their hour of need and that power (wealth) is not centred on an elite few.
Niemand – your last paragraph nails. All the culture wars nonsense is spouted out to distract from this truth.
The biggest restriction on an individual’s freedom in Scotland and UK today continues to be poverty.
Yes, the problem is with the use of the terms or labels to mean different things. It’s important that we are at least clear about what we are talking about and don’t just use words as a lazy way to dismiss people. Life isn’t that simple. It is surely a mistake (as I think you suggest) to assume that anyone in favour of free speech is ‘right wing’, or that being ‘left’ means being ‘woke’ (whatever that is). Perhaps we need new ways of describing political views that are more nuanced?
@John Wood, I missed out on the ideology module in my formal political studies, but I have encountered multidimensional models in contexts such as gaming.
Here are some proposed dimensions:
authoritarian vs libertarian
communitarianism vs individualism
clericalism vs anti-clericalism
interventionism/multilateralism vs non-interventionism/isolationism
doves vs hawks
globalisation vs autarky
centralised vs distributed power
open vs closed society
etc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum#Other_proposed_dimensions
I could add others, like ego-dominance vs universalism.
Sometimes primarily economic systems such as capitalism and communism, which are antagonistic, are confused with political party ideologies, which often leads to confusion. In the Marxist sense, communism is supposed to be achieved by the state withering away, so there cannot be state communist parties in practice (the Bolsheviks were supposed to be vanguardist, although they actually hijacked an ongoing mass popular socialist revolution in Russia, according to a range of histories), only in untested future intent. Capitalism in practice is similarly impure, markets are rigged, oligarchies are often based on old feudal models etc.
There are theocratic ideologies which may be similarly impure, serving vested interests, covering up clerical crimes (as party cadres and corporate bosses are protected in the previous systems).
None of these are planetary realistic. Even the theocratic ones tend to be humanistic in practice (there are exceptions at least in theory). Older, indigenous and some newer ideologies may reject humanocentrism, but to be planetary realistic, you need (global) science, which is why I support a biocratic model, which gives political representation to real non-humans.
Incidentally, in Ken Burns’ The Great American Buffalo, the Native Americans ask a simple question: what do the buffalo want? This kind of question remains outside our mainstream politics at the moment, to our great shame. When we can answer those kinds of questions, a new form of politics will emerge.
Thanks for that. Yes indeed.
Bams.