Next Stage Progressive Christianity

Union-Christless

You simply can’t make up “Christian” theological satire that stays ahead of reality.

Statements by Union Theological Seminary (New York, NY)

Union-Plants“Today in chapel, we confessed to plants,” the nation’s oldest independent seminary declared Tuesday on Twitter. “Together, we held our grief, joy, regret, hope, guilt and sorrow in prayer; offering them to the beings who sustain us but whose gift we too often fail to honor. What do you confess to the plants in your life?”  …

“We’ve had many questions about yesterday’s chapel” … “In worship, our community confessed the harm we’ve done to plants, speaking directly in repentance. This is a beautiful ritual.”  …

“We are in the throes of a climate emergency, a crisis created by humanity’s arrogance, our disregard for Creation” … “Far too often, we see the natural world only as resources to be extracted for our use, not divinely created in their own right—worthy of honor, thanks and care. We need to unlearn habits of sin and death. And part of that work must be building new bridges to the natural world. And that means creating new spiritual and intellectual frameworks by which we understand and relate to the plants and animals with whom we share the planet.”  …

“No one would have blinked if our chapel featured students apologizing to each other” … “What’s different (and the source of so much derision) is that we’re treating plants as fully created beings, divine Creation in its own right—not just something to be consumed. Because plants aren’t capable of verbal response, does that mean we shouldn’t engage with them? So, if you’re poking fun, we’d ask only that you also spend a couple moments asking: Do I treat plants and animals as divinely created beings?” …

“Union Theological Seminary is grounded in the Christian tradition, and at the same time deeply committed to inter-religious engagement. Union’s daily chapel is, by design, a place where people from all the wondrous faith traditions at Union can express their beliefs. And, given the incredible diversity of our community, that means worship looks different every day!”

The Good:

Affiliated with neighboring Columbia University in Upper Manhattan, Union became the nation’s first independent seminary in 1893 when it sundered from the Presbyterian Church …

Whew! Not Presbyterian!

The Bad:

Union Theological Seminary is very influential in Progressive Christianity, the theology that dominates the PCUSA’s leadership.

The Ugly:

Progressive theology ends up with a “Christless” Christianity regardless of if it is at an independent seminary of at the top leadership level of the PCUSA.

Advertisements

Occasional Confirmations (3)

gnd-communistThe Green New Deal is about Socialism, Not Climate Change

You may recall a recent post in which I pointed out that the Green New Deal (GND) could only be implemented by turning the United States into a hard core Socialist nation (i.e., Communism).  I’m not claiming this conclusion as an intellectual feat because it’s obvious if only you (1) actually read the entire thing and (2) are willing to consider the implications with a mind unclouded by climate change hysteria.

But I had no idea that the Justice Progressives would be careless enough to let this obvious truth slip out into the open.  This happened when Saikat Chakrabarti, Chief of Staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) met Sam Ricketts, Climate Director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).  The curtain was raised in the truth in a Washington Post article that covered this meeting.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Wow,  Thanks for the confirmation Comrade Chakrabarti!

 

The Passing Progressive Parade (3)

climate-insanity

Only a small sample of the fraudulent “climate change will end the world in X years” predictions.

Endless Climate Hysteria Insanity Edition

Here’s a vignette that captures the insanity of the climate change true believers.

My family and I were visiting the Milwaukee Art Museum at least a decade ago.  We took an elevator and were joined by two employees of the museum.  One was speaking to the other in the most highbrow, pompous way imaginable about the certainty that the world was going to end if we didn’t do something soon about global warming.  The other employee listened in a posture of deep respect and concern.

It’s safe to say that the speaker wouldn’t know the scientific method if it hit him in the head.  It’s absolutely certain that he knew zero about the intricacies and problems associated with use of computer models to predict complex, chaotic physical phenomena.   But none of that prevented this man from presuming a position of intellectual and moral superiority on “climate change.”  He is my personal poster-child for all the know-it-alls who repeatedly go into hysterics over serially false predictions that “climate change will end the world in X years!”

Oh, I know, “97% of all scientists agree about climate change.”*  In the first place, this statement utterly contradicts the scientific method.  Science is not decided by vote, but rather by evidence and successful prediction of future events (more on this later).  In 1633 know-it-alls could have said “97% of all scientists believe that the earth is the center of the universe.”  In the early 1900s they could have said “97% of all scientists believe the the Newtonian theory of physics is completely accurate.”  Pardon me if I’m less than impressed.

Let’s now return to the issue of the predictive power of a scientific theory.  Here’s how one source describes this concept.

If a theory explains available data, then it should be able to predict what currently unavailable data should look like. … These responses suggest that, at any level in the scientific hierarchy, from a hypothesis to a fully formed theory, the ability to make testable predictions is absolutely essential to science. What constitutes a prediction, and how readily testable they are may vary from field to field, but this quality appears central.

So, I’m compelled to ask: “What is the track record of predictive power for climate science?”  The answer is “pathetically failed!”

And yet, so powerful is the social compulsion to belong to the in-group, so pleasurable is the experience of emotional posturing, that people cast off any semblance of critical thinking even after dozens of failed predictions over decades.

This is indeed the definition of insanity.  But, hey, if it feels good it must be a valid scientific theory!©**



* Note: This claim has been shown to be based on studies that use imprecise, even deceptive methodologies.  The percentage of scientists who believe in the catastrophic climate change theory is likely far lower than the 97% claimed.

** Copyright 1692, Salem Massachusetts.

Lemmings at the cliff

Yes, we must “fundamentally transform” our nation into a Socialist cesspool based on a fraudulent scientific theory to ensure that the planet survives!

 

The Passing Progressive Parade (2a)

Screen Shot 2019-07-14 at 4.50.07 AM

Not a Good Look, Wealthy Progressives!

In a recent post I satirically proposed that our wealthy Progressive betters “can convince the deplorable masses through leadership by example” on immigration policy.  Little did I know that a mere day later an article would be published titled “San Francisco: wealthy opponents of new shelter claim homeless are bad for environment.”  This article adds more proof (as if more were needed) that in this time of Progressive dominance reality is making satire obsolete.

I mean really, even the Babylon Bee couldn’t make this stuff up.  From the article in question (emphasis added):

The wealthy San Francisco residents who launched a crowdfunding campaign to block construction of a new homeless shelter in their waterfront neighborhood are employing a new tactic: arguing that homeless people are bad for the environment.

In a lawsuit filed against the city of San Francisco and the California State Lands Commission, the residents called for the project to undergo an environmental review before breaking ground.

“This project will have a significant effect on the environment due to these unusual circumstances, including by attracting additional homeless persons, open drug and alcohol use, crime, daily emergency calls, public urination and defecation, and other nuisances,” the lawsuit states.

San-Fran-general-poop-map-FINAL

San Francisco human poop map.

But, BUT, these are the exact conditions that residents of and visitors to San Francisco are forced to endure when they walk the streets of this previously beautiful city!  And, AND, the policies that have led to this appalling state are those demanded by the very same wealthy, virtue signaling people who are trying to keep their neighborhood free from these same conditions.

I guess leading by example isn’t in the cards.

Their position is: “Our superior virtue is proved by the extent of suffering that we are willing to impose on the less fortunate in pursuit of our utopia!”

Decoding Progressivism (12)

don-t-keep-calm-the-end-is-near

Do you really want to bet your future on the “Democratic Socialists” who, as Senator Mike Lee said, “want Americans to trust them to reorganize our entire society and economy … when they couldn’t even figure out how to send out the right press release.”

Climate Catastrophe 😱 Edition

Representative Ocasio-Cortez tells us that “the world is gonna end in 12 years” because of climate change:

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us, are looking up, and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change, and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?”

And, aside from turning the United States of America into the Union of Socialist States of America, it has been credibly estimated that the Green New Deal (GND) will cost at least 93 trillion dollars over ten years.  That’s one-half of the United States’ 2017 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) every year for ten years!  In other words add the current $4.7 trillion annual Federal spending (this excludes state and local government spending) to the $9.3 trillion GND to get an annual Federal budget of 14 trillion dollars, or 70% of our annual GDP.

Now, for all you Progressives who would rather  be “morally” correct than “factually” correct, please consider that GDP is not just all the personal income generated by the U.S. economy in a year.  Rather it is:

… the monies spent by the different groups that participate in the economy. For instance, consumers spend money to buy various goods and services, and businesses spend money as they invest in their business activities, by buying machinery, for instance. Governments also spend money. All these activities contribute to the GDP of a country.

Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 7.48.14 AM

Total Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) data for 1980 – 2015 from the IRS. For you Progressives and Democratic Socialists (but I repeat myself) this is the basis for a “factual” argument.  But don’t worry, your “moral” correctness will magically create the wealth to pull this off!

In 2015 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated that the total reported personal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) in the United States was $10.1 trillion.  Thus, were the Green New Deal and current federal government commitments funded by the income tax then every single cent of all AGI (i.e., from every taxpayer in the U.S., not just the top 1%) would have to be taken.  The only additional source for the over $4 trillion annual revenue shortfall  would be to seize vast sectors of the U.S. economy, which would amount to Communist-style collectivization.

But don’t worry “Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us,” nothing consequential to your personal freedom or standard of living will change.  Just look to the case of Venezuela to see a recent example of how well this will all work out (i.e., total civilizational collapse).

And so, given the imminent end, surely our woke Democratic Party will spring into action to save the world “for the children!” Well, not exactly.

DefProg-GND

The Gen Z group at least has the credible excuse of having been educated by a cadre of credentialed ideological know-nothings.  What’s the excuse for these much older Democratic Presidential candidates?  Oh yea, it’s that total Socialist power thing.

Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense (6)

North Korea Edition

The promised Progressive future is (NOT) bright!

IMG_0040

This is not satire, it’s making a serious point.  Progressives, please try to think about it.

It’s almost impossible to believe, but Representative Ocasio-Cortez is celebrating the loss of 25,000 direct Amazon jobs and all of the ancillary jobs that its headquarter would have created.  Note: “worker exploitation” to a Democratic Socialist is defined as a “private sector job.”

9829254-6705629-Newly_elected_Congresswoman_Alexandria_Ocasio_Cortez_was_estatic-a-40_1550224328528

The following was almost inevitable.

IMG_0041

O.K., I’m willing to still call this satire.  It’s not quite dead yet!

 

Making Sense of Progressive Nonsense (5)

Green-Deal-Great-Leap

This in meant as satire, but is it really?

Environmental Death Cult meets Satire Killed by Reality meets Questions for Socialists meets Intentions vs. Results in the Green New Deal

Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez_official_high-resolution

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

This an embarrassing, pathetic and dangerous time for our republic.  We have reached the point at which a 29 year-old know-nothing/wrongthing can be elected to Congress who believes that her ideological purity literally enables the fundamental physical transformation of the United States from fossil fuel based to green energy based within 12 years.  The Green New Deal document, released and then pulled yesterday, was pre-supported by most of the Democrat presidential candidates.

Others have provided the necessary assessment of this dingbattery. Following are comments on just a few of the too many cringe-inducing ideas in this document.

  • Ban cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

My personal favorite for absurdity is this (emphasis added):

We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.

Strassel-Green-DealBur for sheer infuriation this item may be the tops (emphasis added).

  • Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing: …
    • Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work

The fact that this bizarre screed was received with almost universal mockery and disbelief gives me cold comfort.  Yes, I understand that the Green New Deal has exactly zero chance to become law.  However, the following facts bode ill for our future.

  1. Our educational system has delivered people who are simultaneously so ignorant and so confident.
  2. There were enough people in a Congressional district to elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to the U.S. House of Representatives.
  3. As stated in the Los Angeles Times: “Equally notable, however, was the list of who signed on — most of the major Democratic presidential candidates in the race so far.”  Thus the supposedly most seasoned and serious Democrat politicians, either by cowardly submission or true-belief, supported this proposal.
  4. Ocasio-Cortez and company wrote and released this document based on their ideological fantasies that by simply believing so completely and having such good intentions they were sure to be right in all that was contained therein.

mazie_hirono_hawaii_aoc_green_new_deal_2_7-19-1-800x489They must have been shocked by the response.  Even a natural ally like Senator Mazie Hirono couldn’t help but point out an obvious logical flaw.  For these reasons Representative Ocasio-Cortez took down the web page that had previously held the Green New Deal FAQ document.

So how do I justify my title?  Here’s how.

Environmental Death Cult

While I’m absolutely sure that it isn’t intended (see below), were the Green New Deal ever actually implemented it would make the Ukrainian Famine caused by the Russian Communists look like a minor event.  Who can doubt that, as reliable, plentiful and affordable fossil fuels are ripped away and “replaced” by unreliable, scarce and prohibitively expensive “green energy,” tens, even hundreds of millions of Americans would die from cold/heat, starvation and social  chaos as the nation’s economy collapsed?

Satire Killed by Reality

I may have to give this topic up.  I simply don’t see how anything else could occur in reality that is so far beyond what could be imagined by the greatest satirical minds (oh please let this be true).  Progressivism has now surely killed satire.

Questions for Socialists

In my series of this name I attempted to force our Socialists to address obvious but unasked questions.  In order to implement the Green New Deal the United States would have to succumb to totalitarian Socialism.  So, here’s my question based on the Green New Deal:

How is it that a political movement that claims to be the vanguard of intellectual and moral thought could generate such an absurd proposal that is so widely supported within the Progressive movement?

Intentions vs. Results

The Green New Deal is a pinnacle of “good intentions” replacing “good results” (see all of the above).  This is the end result of the “participation trophy,” “self-esteem,” and “education by ideology” culture that we have allowed to grow over the past thirty years.  Yes, I blame those among us who have successfully pushed these ideas into our educational system and mass media.

However those of us who knew better but chose to remain silent and passive in the face of this onslaught must also accept responsibility for this situation.  The day is growing late, we must decide if it’s more important to ruffle the feathers of people pushing destructive ideas or protect our nation from the chaos that they would cause.

be-back2

A political movement that knows nothing and forgets nothing is highly unlikely to be deterred by an abject failure.  They are true believers in their intellectual and moral superiority, so they can’t ultimately be proven wrong by actual events (e.g., most recently, Socialism in Venezuela).

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (8)

culture+shock+deathwishClosing Thoughts

How did we go from a movement that sought to create a cleaner, safer environment for human beings to one that fantasizes about their extinction?  A starting point for understanding is the observation that the trajectory of environmentalism fits a pattern.  That is, many of the the people (perhaps a plurality) who inhabit Western Civilization have been convinced in general that their civilization’s sins are so heinous that it deserves to die.  And, that they, as beneficiaries of that civilization bear those sins in their persons as unearned, even stolen privilege.  Therefore their very lives and those of their fellows are not worth valuing or defending.

Look, for example, at the Open Borders movement.  What these people are literally saying is that the seven-billion people who live outside of the United States and European Union have the innate, absolute right to not only immigrate here, but also to be socially and financially supported by those already here.  This position is nothing other than a civilizational death wish made practical by immigration policies.

screen shot 2019-01-29 at 4.51.02 am

The Progressive Left’s attitude about the lives of their fellow citizens on display.

Of course this idea doesn’t envision our actual deaths, but rather our nation’s and culture’s death.  However, there is plenty of the murderous that will occur as our nation collapses into chaos.  This certainty causes not the slightest concern in our moral betters who demand this path be taken, as they imagine that they will sit atop this new world, thus living as well or better than they do now.  For those who suffer the consequences, well, they’re just finally getting what they richly deserve.

The underlying psychological cause of this guilt in the general population was brilliantly summarized in an essay titled “The Strange Persistence of Guilt,” by Dr. Wilfred M. McClay in The Hedgehog Review.

art-sd_guiltWhat makes the situation dangerous for us, as Fredriksen observes, is not only the fact that we have lost the ability to make conscious use of the concept of sin but that we have also lost any semblance of a “coherent idea of redemption,” the idea that has always been required to accompany the concept of sin in the past and tame its harsh and punitive potential. The presence of vast amounts of unacknowledged sin in a culture, a culture full to the brim with its own hubristic sense of world-conquering power and agency but lacking any effectual means of achieving redemption for all the unacknowledged sin that accompanies such power: This is surely a moral crisis in the making—a kind of moral-transactional analogue to the debt crisis that threatens the world’s fiscal and monetary health. The rituals of scapegoating, of public humiliation and shaming, of multiplying morally impermissible utterances and sentiments and punishing them with disproportionate severity, are visibly on the increase in our public life. They are not merely signs of intolerance or incivility, but of a deeper moral disorder, an Unbehagen that cannot be willed away by the psychoanalytic trick of pretending that it does not exist.

This is the description of a culture in which the affected members feel guilt-ridden about every possible ill that exists in this fallen world because they have been convinced that it all can somehow be traced back to them as the prime cause.  Therefore, they have no right to defend their right to exist.

But we can’t leave uncommented upon the misanthropy of the elite Progressive class that uses these ideologies of self-destruction to obtain and hold power.  Victor Davis Hanson, in an article titled “A License to Hate,” provided a dozen specific examples of elite hatred of and invective against a plurality of their fellow citizens.  He concluded with these thoughts.

screen shot 2019-01-29 at 7.08.21 am

Rick Wilson characterized Donald Trump’s supporters as his “credulous rube ten-toothed base” on CNN

What does all this hate speech signify?

One, there is terrible frustration among both the progressive Left (and the Never Trump Right whose luminaries have mused about replacing a supposed spent white working class with purportedly more energetic immigrants). So far Trump has not been stopped. His foreign and domestic agendas often find success and resonate with about 40-45 percent of the American people. Much of the uncouthness, then, reflects their own frustrations and sense of alienation that millions of Americans have tuned them out.

Second, most of the slurs are voiced by elites, especially politicos, journalists, and celebrities. Perhaps their angst is driven by class—as in how can their own superior logic and reasoning fail to resonate with 63 million voters? Answer: Trump voters are hopelessly obtuse to the point that they cannot even take care of their own personal hygiene or are now descending into simian status.

jim-carrey-ape-tweet

Jim Carey tweeted a picture of Trump supporters as apes who have devolved from MAGA hat wearing humans

Third, cowardice plays a role. Those who slander the deplorables and irredeemables assume that they can say almost anything and expect no pushback, given the white working classes lack the romance of the poor and the supposed panache of the elite. A race to the bottom develops in which the more the hatred, the more the clicks and the media exposure. Minority critics expect their own identity politics affiliations to shield them from criticism. Wealthy white elites virtue-signal their disgust for those without privilege as a way of ensuring that those like themselves, who most certainly enjoy privilege, are rewarded with ideological exemptions for it.

Finally, we are learning that the entire idea of political correctness was never much about universal ideas of tolerance of the other, or insistence that language and protocols must not stigmatize individuals by lumping them into stereotyped and dehumanized collective groups.  What we are witnessing, instead, is that it is fine to demonize millions, from their appearance to their purported hygiene and smell to affinities with feces and apes—if it serves political or cultural agendas.

In sum, cultural progressivism is about raw power, not principle.

How large of a step is it between visceral, dehumanizing hatred of fellow Americans and concluding that the world would be a much better place without their evil influence?  Let’s hope that we are not on our way to finding out.

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (7)

death-cult

Taking Responsibility

An all too common response to this line of discussion is what in another context has been called “willful blindness.”  That is, we so desire for our lives to be comfortable and safe that we purposely avoid engagement with information that threatens our sense of security. eyes-coveredWere the descent of environmentalism into genocidal madness the only event of this kind perhaps it could possibly be written off.

But, it is not.  In fact, the entire project of seeking an unearned position of moral superiority has led to similar evil outcomes.  I’ve previously discussed this aspect of the “animal rights” movement among many others.  Were we to create a generalized statement for how to rise to the very top of faux-moral superiority in Western Civilization it might be something like this.

Ultimate moral superiority can only be obtained by taking the position that your civilization, nation, religion, economy, culture and self are so irredeemably evil that they should all cease to exist.

This is the place that we have been willingly, even enthusiastically led by those who hate everything that we hold dear.  And, one of the primary reasons that they have been so successful is that we who know better have chosen to remain silent.  After all, why bother to speak up when those seeking our destruction wield so much social, economic and emotional power?

arnoldjtoynbee1-2xIt has been observed that “civilizations die by suicide, not by murder.”  If we seek the ideological thread that ties together environmentalism, pacifism, animal rights, open borders, abortion, multiculturalism, intersectionality and many other radical movements it is a carefully cultivated civilizational, national and personal self-hatred and consequent suicidal impulse.

Thus, we have been effectively cut off from the Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity (Genesis 1:26-31) …

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

valor-and-cowardice

Valour and Cowardice by
Alfred Stevens (1817-75)

… as well as the Christian assessment of human worth (Romans 5:8):

but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

There are many people in our nation to whom these Biblical passages are falsified by the human ideologies into which they have placed their allegiance.  They work incessantly to convince Christians to abandon their faith so as to align themselves with the misanthropic human ideologies at large in our culture.

So, regardless of the cost, those of us who know better must find the courage to speak up against this rising tide of destruction.  Otherwise our cowardice will testify against us when the time of accounting arrives.

Environmentalism Becomes a Death Cult (6)

cropped-collapseofindustrialcivilizationCrossing the Line

How can you determine that a cult has crossed the line into a death cult?  Surely there are subtle “canary in the mine” ideas and incidents that could predict that such a transformation is occurring.  We’re long past that point.

nyt-human-extinctionNo, there’s no doubt that we’ve entered death cult territory when the most prestigious newspaper in the United States publishes an op-ed titled Would Human Extinction Be a Tragedy?  The author is Todd May, a professor of philosophy at Clemson University.  His case rests on the ideas discussed in the previous post.

It is humanity that is committing a wrong, a wrong whose elimination would likely require the elimination of the species, but with whom we might be sympathetic nonetheless for reasons I discuss in a moment.

To make that case, let me start with a claim that I think will be at once depressing and, upon reflection, uncontroversial. Human beings are destroying large parts of the inhabitable earth and causing unimaginable suffering to many of the animals that inhabit it.

end_of_civilization_chart_5

Human extinction fantasy of a blessed, healed earth

This paragon of morality, this wise and kind man continues to make his case for human extinction.

Unless we believe there is such a profound moral gap between the status of human and nonhuman animals, whatever reasonable answer we come up with will be well surpassed by the harm and suffering we inflict upon animals. There is just too much torment wreaked upon too many animals and too certain a prospect that this is going to continue and probably increase; it would overwhelm anything we might place on the other side of the ledger. Moreover, those among us who believe that there is such a gap should perhaps become more familiar with the richness of lives of many of our conscious fellow creatures. Our own science is revealing that richness to us, ironically giving us a reason to eliminate it along with our own continued existence.

Oh yes, he admits that, as a biased human he has qualms about this conclusion.

It may well be, then, that the extinction of humanity would make the world better off and yet would be a tragedy. I don’t want to say this for sure, since the issue is quite complex. But it certainly seems a live possibility, and that by itself disturbs me.

nuclear-explosion

Oh blessed instrument of human cleansing, rain down upon us!

Well then, given this superior man’s reasoning and conclusions how can we but hope for and support the means necessary to deliver the planet from our evil grip?  Hey, we have the means at hand to pretty completely do the job.  Why not use our nuclear weapons to wipe out humanity?  Ridiculous you say … why, not at all.  Here’s a report on one man’s human genocide fantasy for saving the earth from humans.

… Samuel Miller-McDonald, who writes at The Trouble today that perhaps the only hope for avoiding catastrophic global warming is for a nuclear war to reduce human population and consumption. You need to read the whole thing to appreciate its full dementia, but here is the climax of the argument:

One wrench that could slow climate disruption may be a large-scale conflict that halts the global economy, destroys fossil fuel infrastructure, and throws particulates in the air. At this point, with insane people like Trump, Putin, Xi, May, and Macron leading the world’s biggest nuclear powers, large-scale conflagration between them would probably lead to a nuclear exchange. . .

A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science.  …

It is a stark reflection of how homicidal our economy is—and our collective adherence to its whims—that nuclear war could be a rational course of action.

Note that this evil-minded man doesn’t necessarily want to kill all humans.  Rather he hopes that:

It could provide justification for nationalizing energy industries with the interest of shuttering fossil fuel plants and transitioning to renewables and, uh, nuclear energy. It could shock us into reimagining a less suicidal civilization, one that dethrones the death-cult zealots who are currently in power. And it may toss particulates into the atmosphere sufficient to block out some of the solar heat helping to drive global warming. Or it may have the opposite effects. Who knows?

the-apocalypse11

Environmentalism’s fondest fantasy

But what if this “best case” fantasy begins to seem unlikely?  At that point the earth might be better off if the nuclear war was designed to trigger total human extinction.  Surely with enough and properly targeted bombs we could trigger a “nuclear winter” that eventually kills every single human.

This is not just a death cult, this is a cult that imagines and hopes for the death of most or all human beings, and does so under the pretense of a superior morality.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that environmentalism has become a genocide cult.

Is there any point where those of you who thoughtlessly regurgitate whatever environmental talking point is passed down by our politicians and media decide that things have gone too far?  Is there any point where your pursuit of unearned moral superiority is undermined by the gross immorality of your ideology’s conclusions?  I’m seriously asking.

afterearth

One instance of human extinction pornography from a myriad.