Simple.
It fits in perfectly with their core psychosis of self-hate, and allows them to externalize it as hatred against others.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Robertvd on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- roaddog on Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- Bob G on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Disillusioned on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- Ulric Lyons on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- William on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- William on 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- czechlist on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- arn on Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
They don’t believe in “global warming” per se.
They believe in “causes”
Global warming is something widely embraced by the “innocent people” which just happens to feed the broader liberal “cause.”
And then of course there is the money.
Self-hate?
I always though it was their hatred of others and their innate desire to control people.
Consensus, or comradeship as it is known in the wider world, negates the need to participate in intellectual argument. Liberals are threatened by intellectualism, hence the need to stymie debate, that is why the “denier” label is their single line of attack.
Basically what we are seeing is a liberal led dumbing down of the entire western world. But I suppose it doesn’t matter now anyway as rising countries like India, China and Russia will never fall for the liberal crap from the West.
That’s true.
When the Chinese and/or the Russians pick up the pieces from the smouldering ashes, they will round up any remaining delusionals and send them off to Siberia or Inner Mongolia where they can have as much freezing cold weather as their hearts desire, and they can all party-party-party!
They don’t “believe in” global warming at all, at least not the ones at the top. They know full well that the whole reason for “global warming” is to get people to buy into redistribution of wealth on a global scale. I will break it down: You can equate BTU of energy per dollar of GDP. If I want to increase my production of apples, I need to pick more, wash more, ship more, store more in cold storage. In other words, to increase my production of anything, I need to consume more energy. If I can throttle the CO2 production by a country, I am actually throttling the energy production by proxy and if I can throttle the energy production, I can throttle the economy. If I place tight restrictions on some countries yet place no restrictions on others, I can force industry to move to the places that have no such restrictions. When you start hearing things like “climate justice”, what you are actually hearing is the global socialist chanting from the UN. What they are doing is stealing money from our children to give to those children and using “global warming” as a boogeyman so you will buy into it out of fear.
This isn’t REALLY about CO2. If this were REALLY about CO2 and if things were so dire, they would embark on a multi-hundred billion dollar international engineering effort to put out coal seam fires which produce more CO2 than all the automotive traffic in the US. If this were REALLY about CO2, they would have used the money spent on setting up the European carbon exchange to modernize their generation infrastructure reducing CO2 emissions by some 40%. This has nothing really to do about CO2, it is about money and using CO2 and the fear of it to get people to go along with the distribution of that money.
All the more reason abortion should be legal for liberals ad-infinitum
There is also a strategic military angle here, too. Without steel mills and coal mines, the US can never engage in real combat on the scale we were prepared for during the Cold War. Our military equipment, the M1 tanks and the Bradley Fighting Vehicles were built during the Cold War. The factories that built them no longer exist. The FMC plant in San Jose, California is currently a flat vacant tract slated for multi-tennent housing. The plant in Long Beach, CA that built the C-17 is a park. If we were ever in a real combat situation with a *real* opponent capable of doing significant damage, we would not be able to replace combat losses. First of all we don’t have the steel. We would have to buy it from China. We don’t have the steel mills to make the steel anymore. If we found ourselves in a scrape with China, we are pretty much stuck. If we wanted to place an order for 100 ships, it would take us at least 5 years to build the infrastructure required to start production on any serious scale. We would need to reopen miles, repair railroads, build power plants, build steel mills, build shipyards from scratch, etc.
There is a lot more to this than just “CO2”. This is about neutering the military powers of the West while Russia and China go about their business unmolested.
All part of the plan.
Helloooooooooooooooo?
Anyone paying attention?
People point to our numbers of military gear and say we have so much more. True, we do. But we can’t sustain losses. You need to look at how much you have left after 6 months of combat and what your replacement rate is. How many tanks, ships, planes, and rifles are coming off the assembly line. I would be willing to guess that 6 months into combat, Russia and China could produce a lot more per day than we could. We wouldn’t have the steel to even begin production and no mills to make it. Our initial steel production would need to go into building more mills and factories before it could be put into actual war materiel.
Book recommendation:
Keep from all thoughtful men: How economists won World War II
It will never get that far again, the great steel clashes of WWII. Nukes put an end to that. As a former tank gunner who faced a lifespan of about 5 minutes on a real battlefield, I am pleased in a way.
Really? I don’t think so. Scenario: Russia invades Georgia, Iran invades the Southern provinces of Iraq, China invades Taiwan or simply takes one of the disputed islands. All three of these actions happen on the same day. I don’t think we would go nuclear over any one of those three scenarios.
Never could do anything for Georgia. Iran invasion will be met with…other means. And be welcomed, as it would give an excuse to depose the mullahs. China invade Taiwan? Risk the huge gaping wounds Taiwan could inflict? Risk the upheaval of it’s citizens? We would risk a nuclear exchange very quickly, should we be foolish enough to interfere.
The next Great War will be fought with viruses, both computer and biological. And EMP blasts. But I do agree with all of your points, otherwise. Progressives are misanthropes. The very idea of just anyone breeding and consuming without their leave is painful to them.
Replace the raison d’être of Dialectical materialism with the raison d’être of anthropogenic global climate forcing and there’s not much else different between marxism and the climate movement. Basically the climate con is everything that a leftard could ever dream for and then some.
As far as if the libz really believe in the climate con I believe the Kool-Ade drunk followers do want to believe, but the movers and shakers don’t. If you work on a lib and beat them down with the obvious they will eventually fall back to the position that even if the climate con is false it’s the right thing for the pwanet. A sort of libtard Pascal’s wager albeit false.
For over a half century most of the environmental leaders have been secular, not religious. And most of the elitist leftists subscribe to an environmental movement that is underscored by a kind of self-loathing. Eco-alarmism has taken many forms (as global cooling, overpopulation, etc), but, and way before there was any alarm about AGW, every form of eco-alarmism has had the same solution: cut industrial production. Sometimes they talk about increasing efficiency or developing energy alternatives, but those are fig leafs meant to camouflage their abiding desire to cut back industrial civilization, back to the bone if they could.
I tend to agree with those that ascribe the feelings of the radical environmentalists (and commited warmists!) to secular guilt, similar in feeling to the religious counterpart of that, and often similar in feeling to the religious penitent that may wear scratchy hair shirts or flog himself. They look about and they see consumption, bountiful consumption, way beyond what would be needed to simply live and procreate, and they feel guilt. This is the reason for attacking… our consumption of resources. When global warming has been fully debunked in the public’s eye, there will arise a new form of environmental alarmism, and the cure for our plight will then as now be the same… cut back, dramatically, on our resource use. We can bet the house on that.
You mentioned a lot of things that I have noticed as well. I have heard of the hair shirt thing but I had no idea that it was designed to assuage guilt through a form of self torture. Wow. Lol!
Most religions are based on feelings of guilt, that humans are born sinners, that humanity’s behavior is bad, that somehow humans are unnatural on this earth. So we go to church to get some relief from this guilt. But at the same time I know few men who feel this guilt, I’ve found that its mainly women who feel this guilt. And when you look at the congregations of most churches and synagogs, the congregation is almost always around 70% female (And I’ll wager 50% of the men don’t want to be there).
Are religions and environmentalism both driven by a belief that humanity is evil, are they both supported primarily by women? I think it might be yes.
If women finally rid themselves of these feelings of guilt, will environmentalism and religion almost disappear? I believe it might be yes.
Just sayin’.
Liberals like global warming, because even if it is intangible, they can blame it on evil rich capitalists and greedy corporations, who are profiting at “our” expense. Demogogary at its finest!
I believe there are three main factions to that group and two of them have basically taken over academia and the distribution of information by the various media and they work in a sort of synergistic (or maybe even symbiotic) way with each other. There is the narcissistic self-loather which might sound like an oxymoron but it isn’t. They hate themselves but they don’t cast the blame on THEMSELVES. They hate everything that they are but don’t focus that hate on themselves personally. For example, they are American so they hate American nationalism. They came from a Judeo-Christian background so they despise Judeo-Christian values and any institution that exposes those values and champion any cause that mocks or is in any way in conflict with those values and institutions. They are white so they are all for discrimination against whites because whites are evil. And it goes on to basically every aspect of their being but they hate their attributes, not their self. These people have a serious personality disorder, in my opinion, but tend to gravitate to the political left because they find validation there for these feelings.
Then there are the non-judgementalists. These are the ones who can not bring themselves to say that one economic system or one value system or one government or one religion is actually better than another. “They aren’t better than one another, they are different from one another” is their mantra. This is absolute complete and total baloney and it needs to be confronted whenever it is seen. I am sorry but a religion that preaches that it is ok to kill people of a different religion and burns little girls alive for going to school IS WORSE than out religion. An economic system such as socialism that can only exist by force which has killed tens of millions of people over the years IS WORSE than capitalism. We have just had a terrorist take the workers of a gas facility in Algeria captive, announce that he has arrived to show what Islam is about and proceeds to kill five workers immediately after making that statement. I’m sorry, they do have a bad religion. It is evil. It has been taken over by Satan or something. This is a religion where it is perfectly acceptable to not only kill anyone who doesn’t share their religion but to also kill different sects of their own religion? What kind of crap is that? Why are we allowing that evil to exist on this planet? We have a religion that has basically allowed individuals to take it upon themselves to play the role of God. No. It isn’t “different”. It is freaking WRONG. And yet these same fools in academia who call mankind a plague on the planet and would want to see us all exterminated have a problem with us killing them? Those people should be rejoicing with each death because that “plague” has been somewhat diminished but no, they expose their hypocrisy and it becomes obvious that their self-loathing holds sway and it is only US who must die as they align themselves with any cause that is against Western values and the non-judgementalists look on and say “well, at least they aren’t touting our side as being ‘better’ so I guess that’s ok with me”.
Then finally there are the parrot-chameleons. These are the ones who wish to be seen as aligned with the various celebrities of the left and so they spout all the right shibboleths and repeat the talking point of the day or week. They explain their position word for word as they read it when it was spoon fed to them by Daily Kos or Huffington Post or Daily Beast or MSNBC. Why do we tolerate these brainless idiots? Why do WE hold our tongues when they spout off with their chapter and verse from the book of Krugman? These people are brainless mushminded zombies who haven’t had an original thought in ages and are engaging in nothing more than groupthink. The political left has taken George Orwell and applied his writings to the point where we are all living in his 1984. It’s just insane, these people are insane, why are we allowing them to make important decisions? They’re nuts.
Another book suggestion: Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans — Ben Shapiro
THEY are the bullies. THEY are the ones who are the “Uncle Toms” in political office rising to high office while passing programs and regulations that keep their people trapped in dependence and close off every possible avenue of escaping poverty and yet they have managed to turn it completely around 180 degrees with the rhetoric. They are mean. They are vile, they are evil. People are in poverty because the political left KEEPS them impoverished across generations. If they want school choice, NO! They must not have school choice. They might “leak” out of the cycle of dependence that way.
The whole thing is just crazy. We need to stop putting up with it. We need to stop holding our tongues in public and very calmly, very politely, explain to them that they are full of crap. Read Shapiro’s book.
Your “non-judgementalists” are traditionally referred to as “relativists”.
Great comments, crosspatch. In line with your points about Islam is a comment of mine in reference to the growing menace of radical Muslims in North Africa:
Greybeard, we’ve got to start taking this more seriously, and taking out these radical nutcase muslims — en masse. Oh wait, that’s not politically correct to say they’re nutcase muslims. Instead they’re just a wonderful part of the natural diversity of this happy planet — they are just nice folks that like sawing off the hands and heads of people, that will whip and brand a women for the crime of having been raped, that will take a 9 year old girl and her parents and shoot them all in the head for having sought medical treatment for the girl. “Islam is a great religion, a religion of peace.” -Hillary Clinton, 2012
It isn’t just CO2. How much state and federal money have we poured into Detroit schools? For what?
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/report-nearly-half-of-detroiters-cant-read/
Education is the only industry in America where you have a direct financial incentive to fail. The worse you do, the more money they pour in. The teachers can not be fired, the kids can not choose a different school. The ONLY program we had that addressed that very problem was No Child Left Behind which has been completely demonized by the left because it stops funding bad schools and forces them to compete for funding based on merit, not “feelings”.
If a school is performing poorly, the first reaction of the political class is to throw more money at it. This approach has NEVER worked in history but we keep doing it. It is as if the entire system is set up to subsidize failure and inefficiency to the maximum possible extent. It is cultural sabotage.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
Meanwhile a new cold war starting between the US and Russia? John Batchelor show audio from tonight (my favorite radio show, period). http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcasts/2013/01/22/third-hour
crosspatch – thanks for all the above – I have cut & pasted and saved all your comments
@ crosspatch “Education is the only industry in America where you have a direct financial incentive to fail.”
While I agree with you about education, I would say that it is not the only such industry. Just as free markets and private transactions based on voluntary action have built in incentives to succeed (i.e. to make both parties better off), markets based on coercion and theft-by-taxes generally have the opposite incentives. Public education, as you point out, is a good example, but not the sole example. War On Drugs? Hey, the bureaucrats can’t keep their jobs without illegal drug trafficking; maybe we ought to arm some Mexican drug gangs and give them a pass on some of their shipments into the US. War On Poverty? Lot’s of jobs for clerks and managers there… maybe we should encourage single mother families; that’ll make a lot of poverty! Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Good science will show there isn’t such a thing; maybe I’ll just adjust those fifty year old readings and get a nice grant in the process!
Any time you see a program touted as for your own good (compulsory education, compulsory Social Security, compulsory income redistribution, etc.) but where non-compliance means men with uniforms and guns will come to kidnap you and put you in a cage, you know that that program is a scam. Like all scams it will be perpetuated as long as the scammers can use it to suck money from you.
They don’t care if it is real or not, it is massive feel good vehicle with which they can move their agendas forward.
The AGW con is a vehicle for global economic & social engineering on a scale that the left previously could only dream. If AGW didn’t exist then the left would have to invent it. Well In fact it didn’t exist and they did invent it.
My guess is that if the assumed cure for supposed global warming was more and bigger SUV’s, stronger corporations, a more dominant United States, and less taxes there would be decidedly less zeal on the part of the libs for addressing the bogus “climate change” issue, lol.