The Environmental Protection Agency, the last time I checked a regulatory body charged only with enforcing legislation, is “deliberating” on expanding its own powers through the Rio Conference scheduled to be held in June 2011. That’s right, a government agency filled with unelected bureaucrats is effectively deciding whether or not it wants to make law and expand its own powers, all in the name of promoting “sustainability.”
Eventually, the inconvenient truth catches up with the lies. And when it does, the truly ugly faces of the liars often become unmasked.
And the ugly face of politically contrived climate science is what we saw when high climate priest and seminary school flunk-out Al Gore unleashed an R-rated tirade against anyone who dared question the “science” behind manmade global warming. In ManBearPig‘s several minute-long, expletive-laden rant, the non-scientist condemns his opponents for using pseudo-scientists to refute his specious claims.
“Pseudo-scientists”? Really, Al? Like the more than three thousand climate “experts” lumped in with the approximately sixty lead authors of the infamous IPCC report who firmly supported the claim that humans are having a significant impact on the earth’s climate? Including several whose fields are not directly connected to climate science – like mathematics, engineering, and law?
What we should all be asking ourselves now: Is it merely coincidence that the IPCC first assessment report was issued in 1990, the same year the Soviet Union legally dissolved? That Al Gore was one of the three chief liaisons to the former Soviet Union during the Clinton years, along with his international politics adviser, the highly suspected KGB-FSB contact Strobe Talbott? And that Clinton national security adviser Leon Fuerth was also highly suspected of having KGB-FSB contact?
So, why exactly didn’t Al Gore inform the United States of Russia’s ties to Iran’s nuclear program in 1995, after the connection was revealed to him by Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin during the heavily criticized Gore-Chernomyrdin commission?
The picture becomes a bit clearer when one recognizes that Al’s pop Al Gore Sr. was patronized by oil magnate Armand Hammer, according to the latter’s biographer Neil Lyndon. Why is this significant? Hammer was a known financier of Soviet espionage in the United States. According to Jay Epstein’s work Dossier: The Secret History of Armand Hammer, Al Gore Sr. helped make political ties for Armand Hammer and even kept investigators off Hammer’s back.
What are we to make then of Al Gore’s connections with his self-proclaimed socialist mentor Maurice Strong, the mastermind behind the insidious UN Agenda 21? And what should we think about the fact that Gore has made millions, standing to even make a billion dollars, off of hyping global warming? That his investments in manmade global warming lies brought him not only wealth but also fame, even though his jet-setting and luxuriating lifestyle belies that he doesn’t even take his own lies seriously?
Why should we be surprised then when a man who has associated himself with big lies his whole life has a meltdown just as his lies continue to melt under the hot light of public scrutiny?
It turns out that manmade global warming has been nothing more than a manmade global hoax, and radical environmentalism is nothing less than a secular religion intended to brainwash our kids into sacrificing themselves for the benefit of would-be global oligarchs like Al Gore.
Looks like the “shared reality” that manmade global warming is “bullshit!” is starting to get to the Chief Carbon Charlatan. Gore’s tirade reinforces my conclusion that destroying environmentalist myths is the single greatest thing we Americans can do to stop leftism.
While cultural marxists seek to destroy Judao-Christian culture and capitalism, they are betting that “greenism” will fill the evacuated void. But if radical environmentalism becomes endangered, the moral legitimacy of the left will largely go with it. This is because the crypto-commies have no readily available “secular religion” like Marxism or radical environmentalism to tap for the left’s braindead zombies to follow.
This gives me the occasion to share a passage written by social scientist John Harsanyi in 1960:
One of the reasons why explanation of social phenomena in terms of economic forces is often so fruitful lies in the fact that the economic system is one of the main channels through which the natural environment [emphasis mine] (in particular, the presence or absence of natural resources and of natural routes of communication) acts upon the social system.
Surely, some compact flourescent lightbulbs went off in the statists’ heads who read that passage.
Speaking of which, there was a comical anecdote about the House Republicans actually doing something productive for a change and rebuking Madame Pelosi’s new “greening the capital” initiative. The Wicked Witch of the West Coast was looking to spend hundreds of thousands more in tax payer dollars making Washington D.C. “greener,” which last year saved the emissions equivalent of taking one American car off the road.
So for $450,000 in savings, we could have just made some hapless bureaucrat car pool and attained the same results? Classic clueless leftism.
Leave it to lefties to take one of three naturally maneating species on earth and expect us to shed a tear over its potential extinction due to manmade global warming. Of course, while it has been exposed before that polar bears aren’t “drowning,” because they actually can swim up to sixty miles, the whole thing may have been a sham anyway. From FirstThings blog (sigh):
In an age in which emotional narratives often trump facts, the polar bear became the icon of global warming hysteria. After a report about four drowned polar bears seen far out at sea, they were put on the USA threatened list–even though there has been no demonstrated diminution in population. Al Gore put the polar bears in his propaganda movie, and even though he, infamously, could only sputter in response to a question by journalist Phelim McAleer that involved the polar bear issue–children are still being warned to cut their carbon or the polar bears will drown.
But now, the original study that warned is apparently under a cloud. From the AP:
A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
If true, is it any wonder that the credibility of the entire global warming sector is eroding like a sand castle in a rising tide? [Continued]
No, it’s only a wonder why it has taken so long. The whole cockamamie theory was absurd from the get-go. But I would be remiss not to point out the over-the-top fear-mongering of the left, which is a substitute for facts and reason nowadays. You know, cause us bear food doesn’t really know how to reason.
Et tu, NASA? How could they have gotten to you, too? Did they promise you a new space station even cooler than Soyuz? Maybe a manned trip to Mars? Someone got to NASA – those damned Big Space bastards!
From Remote Sensing via Forbes:
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). [Continued]
But everyone knows that NASA doesn’t have real scientists like the IPCC panel…
The crusader for social justice perceives it as his specially appointed role in life to remedy the injustices of life, springing from an existential angst at the “unfairness of it all.” The leftist doesn’t seem to recognize that though we are all born into the world in different circumstances of wealth and health, we are also born helpless; the person we ultimately turn out to be depends on our own volition, and our own doing.
As such, the conservative wants all men to become as great as they can possibly become, namely, through individual drive and voluntary association. This attitude belies that most men are capable of becoming great, as measured against their own diverse capabilities.
But the leftist, through seemingly good intentions to “help” others using the state, commits a treble injury. First, he injures those productive members of society made less capable of their productivity through confiscation. Indeed, those goods and services they produce are made more expensive in the process, hurting all, including the poor. Second, the poor are prevented from striving to better themselves, and are made more comfortable in their poverty. Third, he exalts himself above the poor, assuming his virtue of helping “the little guy” makes himself superior, entrenching his place in society while keeping the poor comfortably below him. Leftism is thus a crypto-aristocratic ethic.
This argument seem to contradict the left’s presumed ideological economic basis, viz., socialism. But it is hardly an accident of history that control of the economy by “the workers” actually never materializes in practice. The elite planners who endorse and effect socialism never relinquish control to those who supposedly know less than them how to “run the economy.” That the economy is infinitely complex, as it is made up of an infinite number of personal valuations and interpersonal transactions, is beyond their narcissistic imaginations, since it deflates their arrogant self-evaluations.
Thus, a socialist can never tell you how in practice a socialist economy would be controlled by workers on a voluntaristic basis. This is because it would not be run by the workers at all. The void in explication is filled up by dreams, well-wishes, good feelings, and hope – all based on the transcendental and ethereal ethic of “equality.” This ethic of “equality,” of means, or alternatively, results, is extremely destructive when put into practice. While the leftist thinks he is combating “hierarchy” in society through wealth redistribution, he is actually penalizing creativity and productivity.
The leftist through his actions thus ignores human nature, which is fine with him, for he hates human nature as it is. In his view, humanity has been a failure since the dawn of history, and thus must be radically transformed to keep the world from destroying itself; through war, environmental destruction, disease, and so forth.
But necessarily the left’s big dreams of saving the world from itself involves entrusting it in the hands of some elite planners. And this is where one source of his self-deception lies. While the leftist thinks that he is making humanity “peace-loving” and harmonious by eroding the concept of right and wrong- thus removing objects of contention – he is actually making people docile and passive, and ripe for exploitation by a corrupt, power-seeking oligarchy.
This inability to contemplate and apprehend the danger of entrusting relative power in the hands of an elite, due largely to his preoccupation with supposed “good intentions,” is why the leftist outside of the inner power elites is considered by conservatives to be extremely naive and gullible. With no respect for history, and with no clear conceptual basis by which to evaluate ideas, the leftist’s mind is thus colonized by power-hungry manipulators and turned against humanity itself. For in the leftist’s mind, destruction must precede creation, immorality must lead to superior morality, and the problem with civilization is civilization itself. The leftist is thus a great leveller; that is to say, a great destroyer.
But yet the leftist’s imagination is filled with hopes and dreams of an infinitely brighter future, and that light shines over all shadows of reality in his way. But if all it took were hopes and dreams to improve the world, wouldn’t it be a utopia by now? If all it took were hopes and dreams to run an economy, wouldn’t the most impoverished peoples on the planet would be the most prosperous? For who hopes and dreams more than the poor, nourishing their minds on flights of fancy, instead of their bellies with food they have been afforded the opportunity to work for?
The conservative therefore is inherently different in thought process than the leftist, as the former focuses on promoting what works, and shunning what is destructive. The latter, in turn, perceives this attitude as excusing the unacceptable status quo.
The leftist errs in ascribing callousness to the conservative, for the former does not understand that the latter has actually personalized and internalized his cares, instead of outsourcing them to government. The conservative takes personal responsibility for helping others, as he believes the person or situation merits. This is because the conservative is cognizant of the risks of accumulating power in one political body; which, through its necessarily coercive acts, has only the power to destroy in an economy and in society.
After an ideological slumber of nearly half a century, an international fascist alliance has formed under the green banner of environmentalism and like a swarm of locusts threatens to devour everything in sight. Professional looters of all stripes have suddenly and miraculously appeared upon the scene unveiling an objectively pointless carbon tax, as well as mendicants for the swelling coffers taken up for the new religion of manmade global warming.
Like nature, history can be cyclical.
All religions have their prophets, and the environmentalist left surely has theirs. But unlike prophets of non-secular religions, these charlatans preach asceticism while luxuriating in the bounties of capitalist-industrial society. When you are the latest Jesus Christ Superstar on the scene, words and deeds are besides the point.
These state-sponsored televangelists are not adherents to their own dogma. They mouth the words at the public pulpits, but their actions are best predicted by the old homage, “follow the money.”
Just like scheming street magicians, these pontificating prestidigitators are gifted at making cash evaporate from our wallets, like the carbon gas they claim is the contaminant of our earthly paradise. As we fork over the cash, all the while we are supposed to believe that although carbon dioxide supposedly fed the lush vegetation of Eden, apparently it is now Eden’s destroyer?
But let us not be fooled by these grifters’ rhetorical sleight of hand, as clumsy as it may appear to the well-trained eye: these people are deadly serious. It is not just money these moneychangers are after, as adept as they are at changing our money into thin air. No, these new fools are all about power. To borrow from the old canonical language, their motives can be found by asking the simple question, “Cui bono?”
So far, the millenarians have been content to ask politely for our contribution to the cause, and embarrassed, we have dug into our pockets for a few spare nickels while drinking our styrofoam container of Dunkin Donuts coffee on the way to the factory. And at least they have had the common courtesy of hiding their taxes in fuel prices, so as not to bother us with the Jehovah’s witness-like persistence of their shakedowns.
But with a proposed global carbon tax of upwards of $76 trillion on the table (always a good rule of thumb to presume the elites are lowballing us), we must be feeling a bit like the homeowner who has let the pest controller in to ‘bomb the house’ while we’re away at the beach for the weekend, only to realize that the terminator actually bombed the house.
Excuse me sir, the total comes to $420,000. Would you like us to acquaint you with our budget billing?
But we shouldn’t really be shaking our heads in disbelief at the left’s absurd clamoring for ever more. Once one can read the philosophical subtext of the left’s arguments, it is quite easy to grasp the implications. Once we understand that leftists are by their nature crusaders, we are not caught unguarded when they steadily push their views to the extreme.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and the lack of a principled moral defense of free market capitalism is an ideological vacuum that invites left-wing extremism. If we do not push back on the right terrain, the philosophical terrain, then the millenarianism of the left will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. We must ask ourselves, what good are arguments with leftists about climate data, when they view our current politico-economic system as fundamentally immoral?
The problem presents itself, how do you argue with the indoctrinated green zombie when he considers capitalist-industrial society to be immoral, and does so because that is what statists have taught him to believe through massive propaganda campaigns propagated throughout our schools and universities?
The complicating matter is that the leftist views his ideological associations in social terms. The universities he associates with intellectual elites, and he implicitly places himself in that social caste. Arguing with a leftist entails forcing him to forgo his tacit inclusion in the club of the intellectual elites, which he paid for with hard-earned government grants and loans, and to join the ranks of the unwashed lumpenproletariat.
We thus need to try to get through to the enviroleftist not only using reason and logic, but using psycho-analysis and social persuasion. If a lefty views himself as a crusader, we must necessarily frame our arguments to him as though he is a bully, and we are the oppressed.
The question I thus propose to such an environmentalist acolyte: Isn’t it a bit convenient when power-hungry millionaire politicians in government and their backers, who in no wise evidently take seriously their own propaganda, as clearly demonstrated by their personal actions, start advocating for a cause that will accrue to them vast new powers over the economy, and stands to make them all incredibly rich?
If those who stand opposed to the environmentalists on the left do not begin making principled, moral arguments that address the Marxian roots of their opponents’ views, couched in the social and economic terms they currently can comprehend, we may somehow win this battle against the enviroleftists, but we will not win the war against the left. Like thirteen year locusts, the looters will come back, in a new guise and with a new program to accomplish their ultimate agenda: to wrest control of the economy from the people and exploit us in the most brutally direct manner they can get away with.
Like nature, history can be a bitch.
I encountered a blog post “Global Warming: A Growing Woe” and felt compelled to respond, because the author is obviously well-intentioned, but might benefit as well as I from a vigorous argument regarding the social merits of free-market capitalism. The well-intentioned, intellectually honest left should be engaged on economic matters, but perhaps arguments might be more effective if framed in the social terms they have come to value. At least in this way, the well-intentioned leftist gets an accurate depiction of capitalism that she is free to accept or reject on principle.
The paragraph in question is as follows:
I am also of the opinion that the capitalist system as we know it is long overdue for a makeover. The fact that the living-wage gap (rich vs. poor) is getting larger by the moment, is enough of an indication that all is not well in the land of finances.
While my execution of the blog post is imperfect, perhaps it might give others ideas on how to engage the left. I might have also pointed out The Fed’s malicious effects on capitalist economy, as they tend to the gross accumulation of wealth; this is because the introduction of new money into the economy benefits those with first access to such money, as the capital is worth more before “knowledge” of the money is made felt in the system.
But my general sense from the tone of the whole article is that the author feels that capitalism is an unkind system. So this being said, there are other associated arguments on the beneficial social effects of capitalist systems, beyond the scope of a blog post reply, and even beyond that of an exhaustive essay. Perhaps others might have some suggestions for me that I have missed and which conservatives can draw on in their arguments with the well-intentioned left. (The duplicitous left we will put aside, for now.)
This topic could be the subject of a future blog post, after I have time to research it. (I want to leave aside the obvious Kantian “perpetual peace”-type, internationalist free trade arguments and concentrate on domestic effects.) So the blog reply I have re-posted below, for scrutiny, improvement, or general comment.
I commend you for acknowledging that environmentalists have no real-world solutions capable of fixing “climate change,” manmade or otherwise.
I take friendly issue with your assessment that the ‘capitalist system’ needs a makeover. On the contrary, it is precisely because the market system has been made over through state domination and institutionalized corruption that there are so many flaws in the system.
Just to clarify, I don’t believe free market capitalism is perfect, because I believe no system of human relations is perfect. But the bedrock principle of capitalism, the mutual exchange of value for value, when observed, leads to civility in human affairs, honesty and fairness in economic dealings, and stability in the political system.
The reason free market capitalism leads to civility in human affairs is because, first of all, individuals are respected as individuals. By this I mean, they are not seen as means to an end. By extension, individuals need consent before they engage in labor or give up the fruits of their labor.
While Kant might deride this state of human affairs as “social unsociability,” it is greatly more to be desired for the majority of people than a state of affairs where mobs are being whipped up into unreasonable fervors, which are usually steered by demagogues to achieve the ends of dictators. While the social aesthetic of reasonability, self-control, and ‘calmness’ in human affairs might not satisfy passionate minds who yearn for transcendancy, over reality, perhaps over metaphysical death, the truth is that most men find value in intimate family relations, having a successful and prosperous career, and enjoying modest pleasures.
Secondly, capitalism is an honest form of economy. While it is often argued by the left that work in the capitalist system is tantamount to exploitation of the working class, in fact, the wages for labor are dictated by the market value of someone’s labor. The market thus directs and redirects individuals, in the absence of statist intervention, to pursue employment avenues most valued by other individuals, as demonstrated by the willingness of others to pay for their services. In other words, people are incentivized, but not dictated, by the values of society, as opposed to under socialistic economies, nominally democratic or otherwise, where a cadre of elites determine the economy in accordance with their preferences.
One might ask oneself a question: Under what state-dominated economy has the means of production been used to increase the general happiness of the people by innovating new conveniences on their behalf? On the contrary, statist economies are parasitical on capitalist economies for technological innovations that tangibly improve people’s lives. The modus operandi of statist economies is to preserve the status quo, so that elites are not challenged from below.
Capitalism is predicated on volunteerism, and not on any actual coercion, beyond the coercion of having to work in order to live. Work itself is not coercion, but is as necessary to sustaining human life, as hunting is for any carnivore, or grazing is for any herbivore.
Finally, capitalism, through its reverence for private property, all but dead in present-day America, and esteem for mutual exchange, forestalls tyranny to a ruling class. It is the only known economic system compatible with social spontaneity and freedom of expression. That is hasn’t been observed by the state is the reason for so much instability, and why the economy is such a rancorous issue between both parties. Neither should have control of the economy. We should have control of it, and that necessarily means private property and mutual exchange of value for value.
James Board’s outstanding blog focusing on Aussie politics highlights Lord Christopher Monckton’s upcoming appearance at the National Press Club in Canberra, Australia. Monckton is a fierce and persuasive advocate of the use of the actual scientific method in making arguments in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) debate. For those on the left otherwise unschooled, this includes data transparency, intellectual honesty, the allowance for dissent without eliciting fallacies such as ad hominem attacks, and the use of empirical data to establish trends, rather than inferring AGW and assuming it a priori in computer models.
It was once my honor to question Lord Monckton on The Dennis Miller show of the philosophical nature of modern environmentalism. Monckton gave a truly remarkable answer, and essentially agreed with my characterization of the movement as ‘totalitarian’ in nature, while giving a bit of the historical backstory of why this is the case. Monckton relates how environmentalism started out as a coalition of those who were legitimately concerned about the health and safety of citizens in industrial society, but was hijacked by Marxists and other totalitarians as a shell in which to smuggle their discredited ideology.
The Supreme Court has ruled on the suit brought by a number of states protesting the EPA‘s enforcement of carbon emissions regulations. The ruling is that the court did not rule, effectively, upholding the EPA’s authority 8-0 (Sotomayor stepped out on this one due to her “Latina wisdom”), explaining that such a suit must be brought in argument against the Clean Air Act. Since the court is not authorized to act as a legislator and regulator, it does not have the power to act in such capacity and instruct the EPA how to proceed. Technically, this is true. The proper course of action for those who oppose carbon emission regulations is to repeal the Clean Air Act, defund the EPA, and/or to pass new legislation that effectively neuters the rogue agency.
Good thing climate change fearmongering is dying out, and climate change alarmists have got the blues, due to ‘‘inexplicable’ winter cold snaps, and data that show that manmade global warming is neither manmade, nor global, nor warming.
Bonus: Blond girl explains her solution to manmade global warming. (Video)
The anthropogenic climate change debate has centered around the question of whether or not man contributes to climate change. To answer this question shortly: Yes, man does. But the debate really needs to center around three interrelated questions: How much does man contributes to the greenhouse effect; if the answer is ‘significantly,’ what if anything can man do to offset the ostensible centennial trend of rising temperatures; and more fundamentally, would it be wise or far-sighted for man to attempt to change the climate (thereby changing the climate once again)?
To address the first debate, man contributes insignificantly to global greenhouse gases, particularly so in the case of carbon dioxide emissions. First of all, water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse effect, and 99.999% of water vapor in the atmosphere is naturally occurring. Secondly, carbon dioxide contributes .117% of the greenhouse effect. Thirdly, man contributes about 3.207% of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Thus, the scientific answer is that man does not contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, purported to be the cause of the centennial trend of global warming.
In regards to the question if man should attempt to halt global warming, there are two things to bear in mind. First of all, if mobilizing for action requires rendering control to a central economic body, which would determine the allocation and use of natural resources, not only have we established that its actions would be unlikely to have a significant effect on the climate, in all likelihood, it’s results compared to the status quo would be worse. Central command economies are notorious for their misuse of resources and their disregard for human health; this is a direct consequence of the inherently anti-humanistic philosophy that animates them and their inability to account for resource scarcity.
Secondly, markets are better at stewarding the environment because firms are interested in efficiency, long-term investment and profits, milking natural resource supplies, and replenishing stores of renewable resources. The price competitiveness of alternative goods, including alternative resources, virtually guarantees maximum economic efficiency; while the openness of the market system gives rise to new technologies; both make the adaptation of societies to external variables like climate change much more smooth, incremental, and stable over the long term.
Thirdly, in regards to the wisdom of acting to halt climate change, people tend to forget that civilization rose with global warming since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. The idea that man can single-handedly reverse the course of “climate change” is not only Sysiphean in its absurdity, it is possibly self-defeating.
Who is to say the moment we take action in the name of affecting the climate, for example, stripping our industrial base and inhibiting development in third world nations, that the world will not be hit by another ice age the likes of the Little Ice Age that began in the sixteenth century and we will be set that much further back in terms of advancing civilization?
Should the sheer fact that man contributes to climate change give the government carte blanche to regulate all aspects of the economy, by appeal to the “dirty hands” argument? Only in the mind of a totalitarian politician or a cloistered bureaucrat, neither of which tend to have any appreciable respect for individual rights or the market, is the answer an indisputable yes.
As Copenhagen descends into frosty Abaddon for the irrational climate crazies, a carnivalesque side show of bipedal polar bears and hemp-wearing harbingers of climatic doom, the veil is slowly being lifted on the ringmasters of the carbon-centric global warming charade: World communism.
At this worldwide festivus of colossal frauds, an unholy alliance of lab-coated scientists, eco-fanatics, globalist oligarchs, and political frontmen have congregated and are being chauffeured to quixotic colloquiums like, “The Coming Climate Apocalypse: How Windmills Can Save the World,” and “Polar Bears and Penguins – How Cuteness Can Overcome Rational Argument.” Yet such bon-bons of buffoonery should not lead us to commit the fatal error of complacency.
The multi-faceted nature of the coalition of freaks, creeps, and geeks gathered at their mecca of environmental madness has distracted attention away from the socialistic nature of their agenda. This is ostensibly because the spectacle of leftist moonbats demanding “environmental justice” for manmade global warming while huddling in a blizzard provides some weight to the “not evil, just wrong” (or more fittingly, “not evil, just stupid”) narrative. (As a side note, perhaps the mad geniuses intent on running the industrial economies of the world might want to re-schedule their pagan sacrifice until after the winter solstice.) We might therefore falsely conclude that the acolytes of the manmade religion of Al-truism may be gullible, but certainly they aren’t nefarious.
But then a tinpot dictator from the Third World was greeted with all the fanfare of a saviour, and as he spoke, the masque of the red death was lifted. Here is the cheeky chinchilla lookalike in all his kitschy glory:
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.
If that wasn’t enough to give suburban soda-pop recyclers pause, the cavalcade of communists was punctuated by a visit from the head honcho of hyper-inflation, the mass murdering madman from Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe:
“I have been reading some of the slogans painted in the streets [outside the conference venue]. One said, ‘Don’t change the climate, change the system.’ And I bring that on board for us – let’s not change the climate, let’s change the system. And as a consequence, we will begin to save the planet. Capitalism is a destructive model that is eradicating life, that threatens to put a definitive end to the human species.”
Thus it is apparent that behind the green door of environmentally friendly initiatives like carbon credits and “green jobs” is a red marxist plot of strangling capitalism and sowing the seeds of dictatorship. This comes as no revelation for those of us somehow able to retain the faculty of reason despite the pontification of professors and prophets intent on baptizing the uninitiated in whirlwinds of tempestuous fire. Miraculously, some of us have been able to escape the insanity relatively unscathed; most saliently by engaging our minds and asking the simple question, “Cui bono?” or “Who benefits?”
It can therefore on economic grounds be disputed that the cockamamie climate change hoax is perpetrated by idealistic communists, and instead is being pushed by fascistic oligarchs in the interest of forcing open a new “market” with government-induced theft. After all, this is a fair description of the current debacle of a healthcare “reform” bill in the U.S. senate, which makes it a crime not to purchase government-approved health insurance.
But the relationship of communism to fascism is symbiotic; communism is the window dressing for the unabashed power grab that results from the implementation of marxian principles. Since marxism is detached from reality, no “withering away of the state” ever ensues or can ensue from a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Politically, chaos is the midwife of dictatorship.
The particular manifestation of the doctrine of economic and political madness is therefore irrelevant to the left. An Inconvenient Truth can easily be renamed The Climatologic Manifesto. What is important to the myth-makers on the nihilistic left is that the narrative is believable. This is where the manmade global warming theory falls apart under scrutiny; and why Climategate deals an almost mortal blow to a peaceful eco-fascist movement.
The numerous examples of communism leading to fascism in practice (meaning the control of property by the state and the integration of all spheres of life, including the social, political, and the private) blows to pieces any plausible deniability that the warm-mongers in Copenhagen might make claim to, such as the cover that they are simply misguided miscreants. Wealth redistribution of the kind proposed in Denmark is just another way for the state (or world government as the case may be) to decree that we are going to control who gets what, when, where, why and how, and of course, we’re going to get ours.
We must be aware that neomarxism is the tacit rubric for dozens of fringe “critical theory” movements, including radical environmentalism. While we must take the lesson of eco-fascism deadly seriously, if Climategate and the actual climate data are somehow able to kill this totalitarian movement, we must certainly count that there will be another leftist movement that will take its place. We must be vigilant and armed with the knowledge that the neomarxist hydra has many heads, and at the heart is critical theory.
So while the communist chameleon will go to war wielding many chimeras, it is the job of real men of science and reason to be right there to expose each and every one. But until we get ideological in our reading of altruistic justifications for enhanced state power, ours will be a perpetual pitched battle with collectivist totalitarianism in various guises.
This was posted during the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference.