In ten years time, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, historians will ponder over a phenomena that became a global orthodoxy<\/em> 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?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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”.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> movement and the orthodoxy<\/em>.<\/p>\n By Orthodoxy<\/em> I mean all forms of conformity without challenge <\/em> 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<\/em>. It sometimes referred to the period from Newton to Jefferson.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> (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).<\/p>\n Orthodoxy<\/em> 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 <\/em> a political term which means different things in different countries.<\/p>\n In America a liberal<\/em> is often used as synonym to socialist<\/em> whilst in Australia the Liberal party is the conservative side pf politics, for this reason I prefer the use of Leftist<\/em> or socialist<\/em> to describe the non conservative part of politics.<\/p>\n 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 <\/em> 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.<\/p>\n The different between Neo-Orthodoxy<\/em> and the traditional one is that the very same philosophies that opposed the (traditional) orthodoxy in favour of reason and proof<\/em> are those who stifle discussion about reason and proof by using the very same tactics of the old orthodoxy<\/em>; 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.<\/p>\n In case of global warming the neo-orthodox<\/em> 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).<\/p>\n However, if you are a scientist and wish to validate, let alone disprove the global warming hypothesis, you will quickly be labelled denier<\/em> or skeptic<\/em>, 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<\/em>. Middle ages stuff.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The neo-orthodoxy<\/em> 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<\/em>.<\/p>\n You are not permitted to question multiculturalism without being labelled “racist”<\/p>\n 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 (!?)<\/em>.<\/p>\n I define the multicultural equation as:<\/p>\n To criticise the majority is a human right but to criticise a minority is vilification (or racism).<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n According to her web site<\/a>:<\/p>\n 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.<\/em><\/p>\n 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<\/em> in the media who are convinced that they know better. Watch one such attempt by one Avi Lewis who must be the greatest dickhead<\/a><\/em> (oops) in Western media:<\/p>\nNew Orthodoxy<\/h3>\n