Doomberg (artificial scarcity, Malthusians, imaginary communism and socialism, Western education and indoctrination, and the culture of woke)

Funny, I just discovered DOOMBERG recently. He knows a lot about energy markets and energy in general. I posted his video recently.

Trump’s Master Plan to ‘Cripple’ Putin: What Happens to the Economy and Oil | Doomberg (Energy, AI, and My Not-Too-Optimistic Predictions)

In this post, I described how artificial scarcity is used to reduce the human population. Doomberg himself didn’t mention this directly—it’s a conclusion I reached on my own because, like him, I understood that artificial scarcity is being created, which serves as evidence of efforts to reduce the human population. Since he seems very knowledgeable, I decided to research him further and found the video I posted, in which he essentially arrived at the same conclusions as I did.

42:27

“I guess in a sense, if we are the global superpower and a leader in nuclear energy, why aren't we leaning into that more? Has it just been neglected? Why is Trump essentially the first one to come out and start promoting it?

There’s a powerful force of aging Malthusians who oppose the development of abundant energy for the masses. They believe there are too many people on the planet and would prefer a reduction in population. They don't explicitly state it that way, but that’s their core belief. These ideas emerged during a time when concerns about overpopulation were widespread in the 1960s and 70s. Frankly, it stems from an unpleasant history of eugenics. If you look deeply enough, you’ll find books from the 1960s with titles like Too Many Asians, which were even reviewed positively by major outlets like The New York Times. It’s astounding because you couldn’t make or publish such statements today, but back then, they did.

It's important to revisit that history to understand the mindset of the founders and early leaders of major environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. Although they deny or downplay that history today, if you dig deeper, their underlying perspective remains. They believe there are too many people on the planet. Their rationale is that if people have access to abundant, cheap energy, they will consume vast amounts of other resources, leading to depletion of essential materials and making it impossible to sustain the global population at high standards of living.

We believe that this view is not only deeply unethical but also a pessimistic bet against human ingenuity. Nevertheless, this belief has been a significant factor in slowing the progress of nuclear energy in the U.S. The prospect of cheap, plentiful energy represents a nightmare scenario for Malthusians who think the world’s population should be limited.

So, it's more of a depopulation-oriented movement — the idea being that there are too many people, so we don't need more energy. Is that accurate?

Yes, in short, that's the idea. If there's not enough energy for the rest of the world to develop, more of the world's resources will remain preserved for "us," from their perspective. That’s not a controversial statement—just look up Thomas Malthus, read about the history of the Sierra Club, and the "limits to growth" crowd. This school of thought is literally aging out and becoming a smaller minority.

To Biden’s credit, however, he has been pushing for nuclear energy. Jennifer Granholm has also been advocating for it. They led and negotiated a deal at COP28 last year to triple global nuclear installations by 2050. There’s now bipartisan consensus on nuclear energy, though the most vocal advocates to Biden’s left tend to hold more traditional anti-nuclear views. Meanwhile, Trump, being unencumbered by such ideological factions, has taken a more overt stance in favor of nuclear energy.”

46:34

“How did they not understand that, historically, whenever a society has been able to accumulate or harness more energy for its benefit, it has advanced? There are countless historical examples of this. So, how are they able to flip the narrative? Is it just a misunderstanding of basic physics, where energy can neither be created nor destroyed? Why is there so much focus on the idea of "wasting energy"?

It’s not so much about wasting energy—it’s about exhausting the Earth's other resources beyond what they consider sustainable. While Earth isn’t a closed system since we receive constant energy from the Sun, their perspective goes deeper. They come from a worldview where humans are seen as distinct from nature, and nature must be protected from humans. This contrasts with another school of thought that prioritizes human flourishing and believes we can thrive on the planet while preserving as much of nature as necessary for human well-being.

The foundational difference lies in the way each worldview perceives humanity’s relationship with nature. One side views nature as something to be preserved, with humans seen almost as a harmful intrusion — like a cancer. The other side, which includes us, believes that the seven billion people in the global South have just as much right to a better standard of living as we do. They live on a fraction of the energy we consume, and they will do whatever is necessary to improve their lives. Eventually, they may reach a point where they can afford to worry about carbon emissions, but that’s not their current priority.

This difference in worldview is fundamental. If you read the writings of the environmental left, as we do to understand all sides of the debate, this perspective becomes clear. Their narrative often focuses on degrowth—why can’t we live with less? They argue that Western consumerism is greedy and destructive to the planet. These contrasting starting points explain why there is so little overlap in the Venn diagram of people who hold these differing views.”

While he is knowledgeable regarding energy, if it comes to monetary stuff I would argue Whitney Webb knows more. On the other hand I don’t know if Whitney Webb knows of artificial scarcity they create for population control about which Doomberg knows.

I would like to point out about this imaginary Communism and Socialism among elites, which was also pointed out in Jimmy Dore episode:

21:36

“If she’s some kind of expert on bird flu or any virus at the DOD, and she’s a fellow there, doesn’t it comfort you as an American to know that someone like that is directly involved in your Department of Defense? These screenshots speak louder than a thousand words. This woman has nothing good in mind—she despises us. She’s a communist globalist who wants us diminished.

I wonder what people mean when they say "communist." Do they mean Fabian socialist? Fabian socialism is different from Marxist socialism—it’s a gradual form of socialism. Interestingly, the symbol of Fabian socialism is literally a wolf in sheep’s clothing. What they truly aim for is something closer to technofeudalism, if you’re looking for a precise term. So, it’s not Marxist communism; it’s Fabian socialism, which originated in England.”

This is the imaginary Communism and Socialism, which is their biggest achievement. Now, for those who believe in this, let me remind you that we live in a capitalist world. The people who rule and control the planet, and even influence the human population, gained their power through capital—capital they were able to accumulate thanks to capitalism. Their greatest nightmare is real socialism, or what you might call class consciousness. This is their kryptonite. So, put yourself in their position — what would be the best strategy for them? How about convincing people that they rose to power because of their supposed biggest nightmare? In this way, people will fight their perceived enemy, while unknowingly supporting the capitalist system that enabled the rulers to gain power in the first place.

Isn’t it convenient for them if people believe they are communists and socialists, while in reality, they are capitalist oligarchs? This way, people fight against communism and socialism, while promoting capitalism—the very system that the capitalist oligarchy desires.

Doomberg is right when he says:
“There’s a powerful force of aging Malthusians who oppose the development of abundant energy for the masses. They believe there are too many people on the planet and would prefer a reduction in population.”
And yes, maybe they lean politically left, but they are not communists or real socialists. They are simply capitalists disguised under leftist ideology, without any genuine socialism.

There is almost no real Left in the West—only capitalism cloaked in the rhetoric of socialism. The last remnants of the Left are in Europe, and even they are being dismantled to increase profits for global capitalists, not for any so-called Communism.

In the West, we have what I like to call fascism—the final stage of capitalism. However, I have an educated friend who refuses to accept this, so I have to refer to it as corporatism rather than fascism. Similarly, his educated (but brainwashed) mindset forces him to equate socialism with nationalism because, according to him, “Socialism, Marxism, and Communism are created by the devil and can’t have anything good in them.” He literally told me this once. He’s a smart, knowledgeable, and intelligent man, but also highly educated—in other words, brainwashed. I told him, “You’re educated as a historian, a scientist. How can you claim that something 'can’t have anything good in it'? That’s not a scientific, objective stance—that’s religious dogma, indoctrination, and brainwashing, not science.” He even mentioned the devil, despite not being religious. That’s how deeply ingrained this indoctrination is. It reminded me of a lecture by Michael Parenti that I posted.

“…you realise that you’re not doing politics, you’re doing religion. It’s religion you’re dealing with, because you’re dealing with belief and it’s hard” -Michael Parenti

12:33

“When people cannot challenge the validity of the evidence you present, they resort to fallback positions. I remember the Moscow intellectuals back when the Soviet Union still existed in the 1980s. There was an interesting article in National Review, a conservative right-wing magazine, where the author described Moscow intellectuals as loving Ronald Reagan, Marlboro cigarettes, and the Confederacy during the Civil War. I found that description quite accurate, based on my encounters with them. They despised socialism.

A friend of mine had a similar experience. She was in Leningrad with Soviet intellectuals, and one of them said to her, “The poorest people in your country live better than I do.” Here was a man who had attended Moscow University, spoke fluent English, had a small but comfortable apartment, and owned a bookshelf filled with books. He had never missed a meal in his life, yet he believed that the poorest in America lived better than he did. Whenever they spoke of America, their eyes would light up—“America! America!”

She tried to explain that it wasn’t true, saying, “We have people in our country who sleep in doorways and rummage through garbage cans.” Their response? “You don’t have to lie to us anymore.” She insisted, citing statistics. Their first fallback position was, “Where did you get those figures?” She answered, “From the federal government—Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Census Bureau—it’s public information.”

Their second fallback position was, “Oh, those are just the Blacks—they’re lazy and stupid, so of course they’re poor.” That’s a rhetorical fallback position, which I have a descriptive term for: racism.

As it happened, she had a copy of Mother Jones with her, which featured a special photo essay on poverty in Appalachia. Thirty years after Kennedy’s war on poverty, the region remained as destitute as ever. The photos showed the reality of their plight. She pointed to them and said, “Look, these are white people—Appalachia is 97–99% white.” They examined the photos and resorted to another fallback position: “Oh, so there are a few poor white people out in the countryside, and it’s so rare that they wrote an article about them.”

This illustrates how beliefs are often impervious to evidence. The Soviet intellectuals genuinely believed that America was a capitalist paradise. Interestingly, when I spoke to them in Moscow, they knew far more about America than I did. I was handicapped by experience and reality, which, as you know, is a messy, multi-dimensional thing. They, on the other hand, had the certainty of inexperience. The believers in the capitalist paradise were a mirror image of those who believed the Soviet Union was a workers' paradise.

Many people I knew in the Communist Party or among fellow travelers had been bombarded with so much negative propaganda—every single thing about communist countries was portrayed as bad. Their reaction was to reject every criticism. I remember a girlfriend I had back in the '80s who was a party member. When I raised concerns—not out of hostility but out of a desire for the system to improve—we often ended up in heated arguments. It was nearly impossible to have a rational discussion.

I recall another woman I knew in New York, a third-generation Communist Party member. She once said to me, “There’s no prostitution in the Soviet Union.” I was stunned. “What are you talking about?” I asked. “It’s a country of 340 million people, with wars, scarcity, and all the imperfections of human nature. Are you telling me there’s no prostitution at all?” She insisted, “There’s no prostitution.”

A year later, I led a delegation of economists and political scientists to the Soviet Union. Our guide in Moscow, a woman in her late 40s or early 50s, confidently repeated the same claim: “There is no prostitution in my country.” I found this fascinating—an example of how deeply rooted beliefs can be. I said to her, “Maybe there’s no prostitution in your country, but there sure seems to be a lot of it in our hotel downstairs.” Without missing a beat, she replied, “Yes, but I want you to know that all those girls have full-time jobs during the day.” Talk about a fallback position!

This illustrates a fundamental truth: when engaging in political discourse and communication, you’re not really dealing with politics—you’re dealing with religion. It’s about belief, and belief is difficult to challenge. It’s no coincidence that we use terms like political dogma and sectarianism—these are religious terms.”

I tried to explain to my friend that he was behaving like those "Moscow intellectuals who loved Ronald Reagan, Marlboro cigarettes, and the Confederacy during the Civil War." My friend mentioning the devil and claiming that something is absolutely bad and cannot have any good in it reflects a Western distortion of what a scientific, objective view should be.

Don’t be misled by leftist socialist ideology, which merely serves as a cover for capitalism. Michael Parenti's son, Christian Parenti, is an excellent source of insight on the corruption of the Left. Western capitalists use a façade of leftist socialist ideology devoid of any real socialism. This was created as a tool to control opposition and undermine genuine leftist ideology and real socialism. They promote and fund socialist rhetoric, but without the substance of actual socialism, presenting it as if it were real socialism. If you want to understand how this came about, I highly recommend Christian Parenti’s work. Here is an example:

3:02

“How did the left become the cargo cult of woke, and what do you mean by safety-oriented rituals and political etiquette? Wokeness is not just synonymous with identity politics. Some people think that’s all it is, but reductive identity politics are only a part of it. Woke subculture is a self-conscious left oppositional culture that has, oddly, spread even into corporate America. If you’re woke, you see yourself as changing the world, but its methodology is not a vertical struggle against political and economic elites. Instead, it often takes the form of a horizontal struggle against co-workers or people of the same class who violate certain cultural norms, such as etiquette or the use of politically correct pronouns and land acknowledgments. The belief is that these practices will transform social reality.

Wokeness is also deeply concerned with psychological well-being, rooted in the post–World War II psychological turn that became pervasive in the 1960s and 1970s. Fundamentally, wokeness divides the working class and obscures the real power relations in society, which are those of a super-rich owning class that calls the shots, allied with a powerful state apparatus dominated by unaccountable secret intelligence services. These services are involved not only in foreign intelligence but also in shaping domestic political culture. Philanthropic foundations play a crucial role in this, as they allow the ultra-rich to convert their wealth into political power through cultural influence, rather than direct wealth redistribution.

The US left has increasingly been shaped by and beholden to these foundations, though this relationship isn't new. While foundations existed before World War II, their role in politics was smaller, focusing on public works like libraries and orchestras. However, after the war, foundations began to collaborate with intelligence agencies to manage the left. In Europe, for example, where socialist and communist parties were strong, the American policy elite realized they couldn’t eliminate the left entirely, so they sought to nurture a "non-communist left," often referred to as the compatible left. This approach was so common in the 1950s and 1960s that they simply called it the NCL, the non-communist left.

Katherine Ferguson’s book Top Down documents how, during the 1960s, the Ford Foundation became very political under McGeorge Bundy, a former National Security Adviser. This was in response to the momentum of the Black Power movement, which had a strong class politics component. The foundation’s strategy was to steer discontent into cultural avenues, such as theater, rather than addressing material concerns like slumlords or unemployment. The goal was to acknowledge suffering while diverting attention from demands for wealth redistribution.

This is not to say that racial politics and representation are unimportant, but they were often used as a diversion from addressing economic inequalities. For example, instead of focusing on the redistribution of wealth or improving services, elites promoted cultural programs aimed at fostering pride and representation.

This practice continued, with major foundations such as Rockefeller and Ford playing a significant role in shaping left-wing politics. The resulting cultural emphasis replaced traditional class politics, leading to the rise of what we now call woke culture. It may seem like a modern invention, but its roots go back to the post–World War II era, when intelligence agencies and foundations began decoupling the left from economic and class issues, focusing instead on cultural and identity issues.

James Madison's Federalist No. 10 offers an early example of this divide-and-rule logic. Madison argued that the key to maintaining elite control in a democracy was to encourage factionalism. By fostering divisions, elites could prevent the majority—those without property—from uniting and threatening their wealth. This logic persists in modern times. After the late 1970s, when government overreach by agencies like the CIA was exposed through committees such as the Church Committee, more political influence operations went off-book. This led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, allowing these activities to continue under a more benign guise.

Wokeness, therefore, emerged not as a pre-planned initiative but as a series of responses to manage discontent in a class society. The goal has always been to channel legitimate grievances into safe, non-threatening avenues, ensuring that structural inequalities remain unchallenged.”

This is how this imaginary Communism and Socialism were created. If you want to learn more, I recommend exploring more of Christian Parenti's work.

“One thing linked to the triumph of wokeness over the left is the decline of class consciousness. When we talk about the decline of class consciousness, part of it involves questions like: Who am I? Who are we? What are we? But it also includes a critical element—identifying who the enemy is. The enemy is the ruling class, the wealthy. But who exactly are we talking about? What defines "rich"? These questions about the enemy get erased by the kind of horizontalism that wokeness brings. There’s a certain maximalism and horizontalism that comes with wokeness.

I believe that the American people are primed and completely open to that aspect of class consciousness, which involves identifying the enemy. In terms of political strategy, people should be as ruthless and unbounded as necessary. They should feel free to read anything, think anything, without restriction. Politically, while we need a strategy, it should never dictate what you’re allowed to think or read. Intellectual freedom must remain absolute.”

No Title

No Description