The Purpose of Relentless Hysteria (1)

Introduction

Looking back on this blog’s content one obvious theme is the seemingly purposeful deployment of hysteria to advance social-political goals.  I suppose it’s natural for this theme to rise up into view given the current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic.  While I may cover this particular contemporary issue in detail later, the following excerpt provides a good summary of our current situation.

While we should be concerned and diligent, the situation has dramatically elevated to a mob-like fear spreading faster than COVID-19 itself. When 13% of Americans believe they are currently infected with COVID-19 (mathematically impossible), full-on panic is blocking our ability to think clearly and determine how to deploy our resources to stop this virus.

don-t-keep-calm-the-end-is-nearCertainly the “climate change” community has sought to induce a sense of hysterical doom in the general public for the past 50 years at least.  Although I’ve blogged extensively on this issue, recent explicit statements by this community’s designated leaders have confirmed my point.

‘The planet is burning’, they lie, in relation to climate change, … ‘I want you to panic’, instructs the newest mouthpiece of green apocalypticism, Greta Thunberg

Screen Shot 2019-12-18 at 7.37.37 AM

Progressive hysteria

However the most posts by far have been devoted to the elite Progressive freak-out caused by the election of Donald trump to the Presidency.  In fact, so numerous and wide ranging were these posts that I organized them into my latest eBook, titled The Progressive Riot.  What but hysteria does the cover to this book seek to convey?

But this hysteria isn’t randomly deployed.  No, it has a definite purpose in pursuit of a specific goal, that being to convince the American public that they allowed a man of ultimate evil to attain the highest office in the nation.  It is this sin from which they must repent by throwing him out of office or the beatings will continue.

Perhaps the best summary of my thoughts can be found in a post titled Progressive Insanity (2).

What we are witnessing is a collective nervous breakdown by a group that viewed themselves as the perfect-righteous; confronting the cataclysmic reality that over sixty-million citizens disagreed enough to elect their polar opposite to the Presidency.  In fact, enough citizens in states that had for decades voted reliably for the “righteous” politicians turned traitor to righteousness and voted for an “unrighteous bigot.”  This outcome has launched the elite perfect-righteous into a state of mind-shattering cognitive dissonance from which escape will be at the very least painful and difficult.

What has emerged is a group of people who occupy powerful positions in our nation whose personalities have disintegrated and been reconstituted as seemingly undifferentiated components of a massive social justice mob.  They will believe anything, say anything and do anything, in collectivist unison, to destroy the source of this atrocity committed against their sense of perfect-righteousness.

I contend that there is a consistent purpose to all of these examples (and so many more) of hysteria-mongering.  It is this thesis that I will explore in the following posts.

The Mainstream Media’s Bias Exposed (2)

EDITpoll_030617-640x360

Investors Business Daily: The mainstream media’s open hostility to President Trump may be starting to backfire, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll.

Yet the mainstream media remains a potent force, for they still control the primary channels through which information flows.  Thus there are many people in the nation who, though not hardcore Progressives themselves, receive only the perspective of that cohort when they watch CBS, NBC or ABC or read the New York Times, the Washington Post or the LA times.

This dynamic creates an information discontinuity.  For while consumers of more conservative news sources are well aware of both sides of the debate (because conservative media is built on responding to the Progressive position), mainstream media consumers don’t know the conservative (or libertarian, etc.) positions because they are ignored.  By this means the opinions of millions of otherwise reasonable people can be manipulated to the clear benefit of the elite Progressives.

In spite of this powerful advantage there remains a large segment of the population who ultimately will not support the Progressive positions on climate change, gun control and abortion, among others.  This fact is infuriating to an industry that is built on the ability to influence, if not direct, public opinion.

Much of the depraved psychodrama that we see and read in the mainstream media can be traced back to this fact.  What we are witnessing is the public face of a private crisis of confidence.  The fact that Donald Trump (or any Republican) could have been elected President in spite of the full force determination by the mainstream media to drag Hillary Clinton across the finish line is a shattering blow to their perceived position and prestige.

maddow-squirrel2Unfortunately for them, the more that they expose their hateful bias and deranged behavior the less they are respected by millions of citizens.  It’s even likely that many people who believed the absurd lie of Russian collusion for the three years prior to issuance of the Mueller Report have lost confidence in the mainstream press.  And finally, even the Progressive true believers likely now have less respect for the press given their failure (to date at least) to destroy and remove President Trump from office.

We can hope and pray that the mainstream media comes to their senses and reforms their industry.  We should encourage them towards this end by rejecting their deceitful narratives and convincing more Americans to do the same.  For this soulless cadre apparently knows only the motivations of power and prestige.  As they hurtle towards the absence of both perhaps a miracle will occur.

Thoughts About “Questions for Socialists” (2)

Greta Thunberg

Greta Thunberg speaking at the United Nations

I’m happy to report that there is at least one adult alive who dares to correct Greta Thunberg’s ignorant presumption.  Jason D. Hill is professor of philosophy at DePaul University in Chicago.  In an open letter to Greta Thunberg he provides a scathing rebuke to this girl and to her enablers.  The following short excerpt provides a sampling of his position.

You proclaim that we need to live within the planetary boundaries, to focus on equity and “take a few steps back” for the sake of all living species. You resent the hierarchical distinctions between human and animals and entertain no qualitative distinction between a monkey, a malaria-infested mosquito and a snarling hyena. You mouth slogans such as: “We have set in motion an irreversible chain reaction beyond control,” and you advocate for universal veganism on the Ellen DeGeneres show. You do not buy new clothes, and you don’t want the rest of us to either. You want us all to stop flying in jet planes without giving us an alternative as to how we would re-transform our financial and trading systems—to say nothing of our personal enjoyment of the world—without regression to a primeval era. Few can afford to cross the Atlantic in a $6M zero carbon yacht financed by rich people who made their wealth by the very means you condemn as loathsome.

There are a few things that we, the rational adults of the world who are not bowing to you like guilt-ridden obsequious Babbitts need to say to you, Greta.

First, we did not rob you of your childhood or of your dreams. You are the legatee of a magnificent technological civilization which my generation and the one before it and several others preceding it all the way to the Industrial Revolution and the Renaissance, bequeathed to you. 

I contend that this response is not only appropriate, but also absolutely necessary.  For it is by our willingness to silently suffer fools that the ideology of fools is legitimized and advanced.  Were I to meet a young person spouting the opinions of Greta in normal life I would not respond in the scathing manned of Dr. Hill.  However, I would politely but firmly make it clear that I disagree and explain the reasons why.  And, if they responded with angry attacks on my character for having accosted the fragile feelings of a youngster I would explain that they’s better grow thicker skin if they hope to succeed in this world.

On the other hand, when the United Nations gives an international platform to a young child from which she spews contempt and idiotic bromides we are operating at another level entirely.  Here the consequences of gentleness or even embarrassed silence are great.  For Greta at the U.N. assaulted the very foundations of civilization.  What young person observing adult cowardice in the face of this assault did not respond with increased contempt for their elders?  What obsequious Socialist wouldn’t interpret our craven silence as an admission of guilt?  And what power hungry Progressive wouldn’t conclude that we don’t have the courage to oppose their project of power accumulation by any means necessary?

So, regardless of who is pushing Socialist ideas it is long past time that we respond appropriately; sometimes with gentle but firm disagreement and others with the aggressive questions and answers necessary to turn back this latest assault by a wicked, stupid and failed ideology.

Thoughts About “Questions for Socialists” (1)

churchell-socialism

One of the great mysteries of life is why the supporters of Socialism continue to be afforded the presumption of moral and intellectual superiority while supporters of Fascism are uniformly condemned as carriers of utter evil.  While the latter conclusion is certainly true and just, the former is a great and wicked lie.

This question has become increasingly relevant as we observe the Millennial Generation embracing Socialism as a means of social advancement, and the Democrat Party increasingly presenting itself as the vehicle by which this end can be accomplished.  It is therefore long past time that a few pointed questions be posed to these people who pose as our betters.

Once we pierce the wafer-thin, fragile shell of presumption that protects Socialists from objective scrutiny it’s shocking to discover how pathetically weak are their claims.  As my previous four posts on this topic demonstrate it is only by the force-field of presumed moral and intellectual superiority that these ignoramuses (and far worse) avoid the fate of the few remaining Fascists.  That is, they are enabled by the power of intimidation through use of social power due to Progressive domination of most of our key institutions.

But there is also a secondary though still potent defense against criticism, that being pity and/or good manners.  Here I have in mind the sweet aged church lady or the earnest young man who spouts Socialist ideas in obvious and embarrassing ignorance.  It would certainly be cruel for those of us who know better to publicly accost such people with the purpose of causing them embarrassment.  And yet it also would be cruel to allow their ignorance to continue by false affirmation or studied silence.

This situation could be reasonably designated the “Greta Thunberg Effect.”  You likely already know that she is the young Swedish girl (born in 2003) who became a famous activist on climate change.  In 2019 she crossed the Atlantic Ocean (from Plymouth, U.K., to New York, U.S.) in a 60 foot racing yacht equipped with solar panels and underwater turbines, thus making it “zero carbon emissions.”  Once in the United States she addressed the United Nations in a scathing speech.  This young girl presumed to be the final judge of all living adults and all human civilizations, and, the font of ultimate wisdom by which the planet could be saved.  And, in spite of her appalling ignorance and presumption most adults  shirked any responsibility to push back.  For to do so would embarrass her and open the criticizer to accusations of child cruelty.

However an unavoidable consequence of this silence is the assumption that we accept the legitimacy of this little girl’s moral and intellectual claims.  Thus we become complicit in the advance of ideas with which we don’t agree and, if implemented, would drive us back to the stone age where human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”

I’ll complete my commentary on this situation in the next post.

Occasional Confirmations (5)

extinction-rebellion-800x480

The environmentalist death cult demonstrates near King’s Cross station in the United Kingdom.

Yes, A Death Cult

greenI bet that, though it was carefully argued and built on evidence, my recent series of posts claiming that environmentalism had become a “death cult” seemed like satire to many readers.  However, I was dead serious.

A recent article by Brendan O’Neill titled “The madness of Extinction Rebellion” described an actual, organized death cult demonstration in the United Kingdom (emphasis added).

Yesterday, in London, I witnessed an eerie, chilling sight: I saw a death cult holding a ceremony in public.

The men and women gathered outside King’s Cross station and formed a circle. They swayed and chanted. They preached about End Times. ‘What will you do when the world gets hot, what, what?’, they intoned, conjuring up images of the hellfire they believe will shortly consume mankind. They sang hymns to their god – science. ‘We’ve got all the science / All that we need / To change the world / Hallelujah’, they sang, rocking side to side as they did so.

They demanded repentance. ‘Buy less, fly less, fry less’, said one placard. Catholics only demand the non-consumption of meat on Fridays, as an act of penance to mark the day of Christ’s death. This new religion demands an end to meat-consumption entirely, as penance for mankind’s sins of growth and progress.

And like all death cultists, they handed out leaflets that contained within them ‘THE TRUTH’. The leaflets foretell floods and fire: ‘We are in trouble. Sea levels are rising… Africa and the Amazon are on fire.’ The only word that was missing was locusts. They can’t be far behind these other ghastly visitations to sinful mankind.

These pathetic environmentalists are just the visible tip of an ice berg of self-loathing and misanthropy that now permeates Western Civilization.

Occasional Confirmations (4)

greenClimate Computer Models

Earlier this year I discussed the overwhelming complexity and uncertainties associated with climate computer models.  This is an important issue because it is only by these computer models that the practitioners of “climate science” can make their terrorizing predictions about “climate change.”  

Recently the Economist Magazine published a “climate change” edition.  One of the articles provided valuable detail about these models, which is excerpted below.  Perhaps those people who lord it over their peers on their “knowledge” about “climate science” should pay special attention.

[Modeling] is a complicated process. A model’s code has to represent everything from the laws of thermodynamics to the intricacies of how air molecules interact with one another. Running it means performing quadrillions of mathematical operations a second—hence the need for supercomputers. And using it to make predictions means doing this thousands of times, with slightly different inputs on each run, to get a sense of which outcomes are likely, which unlikely but possible, and which implausible in the extreme.

Even so, such models are crude. Millions of grid cells might sound a lot, but it means that an individual cell’s area, seen from above, is about 10,000 square kilometres, while an air or ocean cell may have a volume of as much as 100,000km3. Treating these enormous areas and volumes as points misses much detail. Clouds, for instance, present a particular challenge to modellers. Depending on how they form and where, they can either warm or cool the climate. But a cloud is far smaller than even the smallest grid-cells, so its individual effect cannot be captured. The same is true of regional effects caused by things like topographic features or islands.

Building models is also made hard by lack of knowledge about the ways that carbon—the central atom in molecules of carbon dioxide and methane, the main heat-capturing greenhouse gases other than water vapour—moves through the environment. Understanding Earth’s carbon cycles is crucial to understanding climate change. But much of that element’s movement is facilitated by living organisms, and these are even more difficult to understand than physical processes.

Of course, if the associated climate computer models are found to be accurate then the above issues can be said to have been mastered.  The problem is that when compared to actual measured temperature they are rather found absurdly overestimate temperature. The testimony of John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville, to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology provided damning evidence of these models’ utter inaccuracy.  A key comparative figure is shown below.

Screen Shot 2019-09-24 at 5.53.14 AM

Note the significant deviation of the computer model predicted temperature to the actual measured temperature.

And yet, based only on these defective computer models we are told to give over all power to the credulous and/or dishonest people pushing the “climate change” death cult’s message.

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.

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!