The Global Warming Scam

 

Hysteria.  The COVID hysteria.  The climate change hysteria.  It’s not about COVID or climate.  It’s about control.  Jack Hellner’s column at American Thinker concludes:

When Trump and others said we should consider the lab-leak theory, the media, bureaucrats, and others sought to silence them by saying that was a disproven conspiracy. They had to shut that down because Dr Fauci, the National Institute of Health and others would be implicated. 

We were told that all the government edicts were based on science — but that was a lie.

There was never any scientific data that said masks, Plexiglass, or six-foot social distancing would block the disease. There was no scientific data that supported closing schools and businesses. They downplayed the true science of natural immunity, which as it turns out, is far superior to the “vaccine.” The destruction of America, due to government edicts based on lies, is immeasurable.

People who so willingly lied continuously about COVID, and who can’t define the difference between men and women, would seemingly have no qualms lying about climate change in order to push their radical agenda: to remake, or destroy America. Every solution for them is a bigger and more powerful government, with less freedom and prosperity for the people.

Saying that humans and natural resources cause warming or climate change is the biggest fraud ever. It greatly harms the poor and middle classes, but it makes perpetrators of the theory, like Al Gore, extremely rich. 

People should stop pretending that Democrats are the party of science. Science has nothing to do with their policies. All they want is power.

Mr. Hellner’s column is here.

# # #

Dennis Prager on “leftism” and “meaning”

image credit: drray.com

Starting off 2020 on a philosophical note. . .  Dennis Prager recently published “Greta Thunberg: A Living Explanation of the Left” at Real Clear Politics. His article considers the difference between a “liberal” and a “leftist,” and why conservative and leftists are unable to communicate with each other.  He begins:

It is not easy to understand what the left -- as opposed to liberals -- stands for. If you ask a Christian what to read to learn the basics of Christianity, you will be told the Bible. If you ask a (religious) Jew, you will be told the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. If you ask a Mormon, you will be told the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Ask a Muslim and you will be told the Quran.

But if you ask a leftist what one or two books you should read to understand leftism, every leftist will give you a different answer -- or need some time to think it over. Few, if any, will suggest Marx's "Das Kapital" because almost no leftists have read it and because you will either not finish the book or reject it as incoherent.

So, then, how is one to understand what leftism stands for?

The truth is -- it is almost impossible. What leftist in history would have ever imagined that to be a leftist, one would have to believe that men give birth or men have periods, or that it is fair to women to have to compete in sports with biological males who identify as females?

There are two primary reasons it is so difficult, if not impossible, to define leftism. One is that it ultimately stands for chaos:

-- Open borders.

-- "Non-binary" genders.

-- Nonsensical and scatological "art."

-- "Music" without tonality, melody or harmony.

-- Drag Queen Story Hour for 5-year-olds.

-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse civilizations.

-- Rejection of the concept of better or worse art.

-- Removal of Shakespeare's picture from a university English department because he was a white male.

-- The end of all use of fossil fuels -- even in transportation (as per the recent recommendation by the head of the U.N. World Meteorological Organization).

-- The dismantling of capitalism, the economic engine that has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty.

And much more.

The other major reason it is impossible to define leftism is that it is emotion-based. Leftism consists of causes that give those who otherwise lack meaning something to cling to for meaning.

Two things about Greta Thunberg, Time magazine's 2019 person of the year, embody these explanations.

Mr. Prager goes on to illustrate the emotional need for “meaning” by examining the strange case of St. Greta.  It explains why those who employ facts and logic have little chance of persuading those whose grasp of facts and logic are subordinate to their emotional needs.  But is also helps those who employ logic and facts to understand the rantings of Robert De Niro, Bette Midler, Cher, mainstream media hosts such as Don Lemon and Joy Reid, etc.  Read the rest here.

# # #