11 August, 2008
In ten years time, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, historians will ponder over a phenomena that became a global orthodoxy in the 1990′s known as “Global Warming” or in its more “correct” term “Climate Change”. What was it that made so many people believe in such a lie?
The world has known doomsday prophecy going back to biblical times, but nothing ever got close to the current global warming phenomena that invades every aspect of our life in a futile attempt to stop some imaginary calamity with as much probability as somehow stopping mother Earth rotating around the sun, or even slowing her down.
What are the underlining dynamics that lead to vast acceptance of the largest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind? A question that may well be a subject of a PhD thesis in History, Psychology, Political Science if those disciplines would ever develop the moral courage to say “we were wrong”.
It seems that there are elements in our times that wish to take us back to the eighteenth century, back to the squabble between the enlightenment movement and the orthodoxy.
By Orthodoxy I mean all forms of conformity without challenge including, but not limited to, religion and politics. The enlightenment movement refers the eighteen and nineteen centuries philosophical approach using observation, reason and/or proof. It sometimes referred to the period from Newton to Jefferson.
Earlier enlightenment brought philosophy and science together, Spinoza, Pascal and Leibniz did not distinguished between philosophy and mathematics. In fact mathematic theories are based on “logical assumptions” known as axioms (or postulates) that cannot be proven, for example if A=B and B=C then A=C (in fact the axiom is about all relations not only equality).
Orthodoxy is not necessarily negative as enlightenment is not inevitably positive, although enlightenment brought us Voltaire, Rousseau and Jefferson, it also brought us Karl Marx and subsequently Stalin. The Enlightenment era also brought us Liberalism a political term which means different things in different countries.
In America a liberal is often used as synonym to socialist whilst in Australia the Liberal party is the conservative side pf politics, for this reason I prefer the use of Leftist or socialist to describe the non conservative part of politics.
In recent times we are called to forget all about reason and proof and to accept dogmas put before us as truths. I refer particularly to issues that are shoved down our throats without reason or proof. We suppose to accept theories such as anthropogenic (human caused) global warming and damage to the ozone layer, other alleged human induced damage to the environment from shopping plastic bags, plastic bottles, fertilisers etc etc etc.
The different between Neo-Orthodoxy and the traditional one is that the very same philosophies that opposed the (traditional) orthodoxy in favour of reason and proof are those who stifle discussion about reason and proof by using the very same tactics of the old orthodoxy; calling names and excommunication. Back in the nineteen century the church label you as sinner or a deviant and bar you from community activities by a decree, or by hanging, burning, stoning or beheading you depending on your religion.
In case of global warming the neo-orthodox will have you believe that the science is settled, that there is a scientific consensus and that their modelling represents a scientific proof that global warming is a result of human activities. (I have already dealt with those lies in past blogs).
However, if you are a scientist and wish to validate, let alone disprove the global warming hypothesis, you will quickly be labelled denier or skeptic, accuse of being funded by the oil companies, be effectively excommunicated from the scientific community and research funding. Some of the proponent of global warming have gone even further calling for silencing any dissention to global warming by legislation. Middle ages stuff.
Far fetched? Not at all. If you present radio or TV In Australia you will be taken of the air with a large fine for your station if you broadcast or allow the broadcast of any information questioning the harm from smoking (active or passive) or broadcast any information on possible beneficial qualities of smoking, e.g. that smoking seems to be beneficial in combating Parkinson Disease. The Global warming Nazis are pushing for a similar laws for their issue.
The neo-orthodoxy is not limited to global warming. Multiculturalism is often confused with multi-racism, extols the diversity of cultures within one community for the sake of diversity and opposes assimilation of cultures. Again you are asked to accept multiculturalism as if it was part of the Tables of the Covenant, no discussions, just (neo) orthodoxy.
You are not permitted to question multiculturalism without being labelled “racist”
Again there are anti-vilification laws in the (people’s republic of the) State of Victoria in Australia that will ensure your imprisonment if you are convicted of vilification against Islam but you mat vilify Christianity or Judaism all you like. You will still be convicted of vilifying Islam even if you quote the Koran’s inconvenient (to Muslims) bits, in other words, the truth is not a defence (!?).
I define the multicultural equation as:
To criticise the majority is a human right but to criticise a minority is vilification (or racism).
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Somali born, a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a young girl, who escaped from an arrange marriage by seeking and receiving refugee status in the Netherlands. She became a member of the Dutch Parliament and come into the forefront of the news when her partner in production of anti Islam movie, Theo Van Gough, was murdered in mid daylight Amsterdam Street by a Muslim. Her name was found on a note pinned to Van Gough’s body by a knife. She now lives in The USA.
According to her web site:
She has since [the murder of van Gough] become an active critic of Islam, an advocate for women’s rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence and threat of death by Islamic extremists.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali has 24/7 protection from Muslims that declared her a target, one would expect that she know something about being frighten by Muslims, yet there are still neo-orthodox in the media who are convinced that they know better. Watch one such attempt by one Avi Lewis who must be the greatest dickhead (oops) in Western media:
Here you have it, super arrogant neo-orthodox moron, who incidentally now works for Al-Jazeera. Yes, there are people in position of influence that despite all evidence to the contrary protray Islam is just another religion (of peace).
The Science Of Marxism
No inverted commas! No, this is neither a joke nor a sarcasm. This is what true Marxists believe even as we speak. Marxism is a science no different from mathematics physics and astronomy hmmmmm hahahha (sorry I could not stop myself)
According to The History Guide dot org:
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history”
And if you think that this is a oncer here another one; someone named David North gave a series of speeches to the Social Equity Party (SEP), an American Marxist organisation, in August 2005 and among other thing he said:
But whether Marxism is a science depends, to a great extent, upon 1) whether the laws which it claims to have discovered reveal the real objective mechanisms of socio-economic development; 2) whether the discovery of those laws can adequately explain the preceding historical evolution of mankind; and 3) whether the understanding of these laws makes possible significant predictions about the future development of human society.
[Emphasis & highlight provided]
(In fact if you Google the term “Marxism as science” you will get some 2.7 million hits an indication that at least some people take the possibility seriously.)
We are all aware of the Marxist explanation of preceding evolutions and their ability for “significant predictions” in what they called Five years plans that were published at the expiration of the five years “proving” the soviet “success”. Well comrade, please tell me how come that the science of Marxism did not “significantly predicted” the fall of the Soviet Union?
It is no accident that the so-called science of global warming has been taken up by the Marxism “scientists” albeit they often deny their past.
The Anti-Smoking Neo-Orthodoxy
Try to debate the global warming deception and before long you will be reminded of the anti-smoking campaign as a parallel. By some twisted logic if you accept the “science” that smoking is harmful, you must accept the global warming “science”.
In fact the only larger deception ever perpetrated on mankind, is that of the anti-smoking lobby. Before you jump at me I will say this; smoking is addictive and smoking may be harmful to smokers in certain circumstances – how harmful and what circumstances we don’t know or are not told.
The allege health damage from passive smoking is a fraud!!! But more about it later (By the way, I don’t smoke).
We have legal limit for alcohol consumption, we are even told that consumption of red wine, within reason, is beneficial to our health. We have many safe intake limits on intake of all sorts of chemicals (we call medicines), including arsenic, but we have no such limits on cigarettes.
Why? Because cigarettes and smokers have been demonised by the neo-orthodoxy. Hey, they have never established, to my knowledge, what is the harmful substance in cigarettes, is it nicotine, is the tar or perhaps the (cigarettes’) paper.
Fact: Most of conclusions on the harm of cigarettes comes from statistical observations – NOT CLINICAL ONES!
(You do remember that I sleep on the floor because 95% of people die in bed, don’t you?)
In recent TV ads it transpired that a featured terrible looking woman with what was described as mouth cancer from smoking is in fact a (non smoking) actress and her mouth cancer was pure makeup! I would have thought that if indeed smoking causes moth cancer they would have found a real candidate with no trouble.
The is true for some terrible looking muck that comes out an artery of a smoker, EXCEPT that the photo on packets of cigarettes is of an artery of a non smoking …. Pig!
But to the neo orthodox you are denier and anti social if you dare questioning their “science”.
Next time when someone comments on your smoking and its harm ask him/her what proof do they have (“everybody knows that” is not a proof).
Amazing, the very people who regard themselves as enlightened behave exactly as the middle ages Church did.
Have a fag.