For the First Time in Forty-seven Years

I did not fall asleep in a movie that had Michael Caine in its cast. Although it was a fantasy, the plot even made sense. First time in 47 years. Wow.

Ripping Off the Blinders Is Rarely Easy

A friendly comment meant to alleviate my worries over the advance of the Statists was offered me by Towering Barbarian at Belmont Club's The Seven Second Solution:

“The pettiness with which his colleagues [Joe Scarborough et al.] betrayed him [Mark Halperin] is mixed news. It bothers me that they’ve become the sort of people who would do this thing to one another, I consider it more worthy of a reality show like “Survivor” than real life, but on the other hand the fact that their infighting has become that vicious suggests not only a house divided but a house divided beyond the point of repair. I don’t think many of the “Survivor” casts would do very well in the real world so that does say interesting things about the future of the Left. ^_^” 

This triggered in me what I hope is a good explication of the Sustainability movement's new morality and its threat to human civilization as we, truly on the right, wish to countervail.

Once you understand the Sustainability mindset, believing that the Left will simply go off and disappear is not a good thing. If the meaning of a scorched earth doctrine does not mean much to you now, it will; they are not planning on going alone.

Stalin hunted down the leftest of the Left, Trotsky, because he outlived his usefulness. The Left is so unthinking each figures it can’t be them. They remind me of those in the gulag who went to their deaths muttering “if Stalin only knew.” So what if the Left is filled with innumerable useful idiots, maybe even in greater percentage that we witness on MSNBC. They have been the squeaky wheels and shock troops who provided motive for the Statists to ratchet up their power, but become dead weight and a threat once that power is achieved. That kind will never learn.

But the Left still has its nihilists, misanthropes, and variety of others that are too obscure to include here and now. It is they who would aim to take you out with them. And that all is in the planning of the Sustainability nuts whose morality is not the live and let live of the rest of us.

Towering Barbarian, once one recognizes that there are people in power who really do believe themselves superhuman, and that all the rest of humanity is worth less than them, one undergoes a paradigm shift in understanding how big the threat really is. Because the moral code of these supermen most likely evaluates you less than the latest strain of antibiotic resistant strep.

The Left is not the whole or even the primary threat. And I think you even see that in that you think they are on the wane. Yes they are, but for the Stalin/Trotsky reason. The primary threat is the Statists for whom the Left has been extremely useful. See: they are neither Left nor Right, but for themselves. Sure they proclaim themselves Left or Right, but it really only provides them a facade, in a wolf in sheep's clothing way. Like the Progressives chose their label to hide their regressive intentions for the rest of humanity.

The rest of us are merely raw material with which they wish to play until they’re done with us. We cannot fight them if we refuse to see them for what they really are.

Are You a Target of the Susnuts?

Or are you one of their mindless bots who believes you are somehow special?

At Liberty's Torch, Weetabix asked me a question whose answer is too long to put into a small comment.

Pascal - I must admit up front that a surfeit of current projects has undermined my normal willingness to research - have you any links to further explain the "Malthusian Sustainability nuts?" 

The answer is even too long for a single post, but I need try at least this once.

For my recent thoughts, the Sustainability label at my blog will provide you many examples of news that spurred me to note the connection.

Our host, Fran, beginning in 2004, ran an exhaustive series called "The Death Cults."  The participation of mainstream elected leaders were much less brazen then. But they did permit non-profit status to be bestowed upon a load of Malthusian extremists. The same IRS that blocked TEA Party groups from (c4) status lets those guys thrive under (c3).

I've a not too complex theory that has withstood my tests over time. It is time to let others take some shots at it. If it only needs some adaptations and it can be refined, maybe there is hope that can be snatched from the knowledge. Know thy enemy and know thyself, and you will win every war said Sun Tsu.

Thomas Malthus' theories arose about 50 years after Pascal's death. The Age of Reason was beginning to undermine the Ancien Régimes. Many rulers saw and welcomed the benefits of liberty. But two kinds, both powerful, hated it. Those who hate the common man, and those who love concentrated power. Sometimes they're the same, and sometimes not. Malthus provided a "moral" cloak to hide both the explicit and implicit hatred of humanity -- even from themselves. By being able to convince even themselves that their vision is righteous, they can remain calm and seemingly benign as they convince large numbers

"Leave it to us boys. We know what needs be done. Really."

(The ancient Sophists understood power and how to get and keep it. One of their chief ways of keeping it was through fostering ideas that attract casuists -- men who sought the moral path based on studying cases of conduct -- and let them do the heavy lifting, often with little expense or risk to the Sophists' masters, spurred by a few demagogues, and fueled considerably by the zeal of the useful idiots. Eric Hoffer, by popularizing the more easily understood term of "true believer,"  did us a disservice by disconnecting the Greek designation for them, and thus their historically implied connection to the power seeking schemers. The humanity haters may believe they now have sufficient armies of those who are enthralled by the indirect means  to achieving a new (old) religion (see below). It is one that will provide them moral authority to achieve their goals. The real powers only have to support the activists when things get tough. Mostly they have historically chosen to be silent partners. Today -- not so silent.) 

A tactical note. What I'd like to make popular is the term Susnuts (or something like it), for the worshipers of Sustainability. (It really does fit the open ones. What I'd like is for the term to affect those who remain hidden. Some, who retain some of their humanity, will feel tainted by it). They believe their goal is righteous: to save us all from the one thing (they believe) that the planet has too much of -- human beings. They know that targets will not appreciate it, so they can't easily announce it. But they could not help leaving mountains of evidence as they progress.

It has all the earmarks of a religion. Ancient pagan ones. The ones that flung live babies into holocausts and virgins to the wolves. Its "priests" are instigating wars with the competition; that is, with  all people who still adhere to the Judeo-Christian ethos whether or not they are religious.

For instance, you are seeing today with the witch hunts to rid the military of people who dare stand by their religion. Any religion that has in its books the promise "God will provide" -- the contrary idea to their conviction that we will run out of sustainable items -- is anathema to them. The phrase linked to Hitler "the Jewish disease" expresses the major cultural foundational obstacle to the earliest Susnuts (eugenics embracing Progressives such as H.G. Wells and Margaret Sanger) long before Hitler was born.

One more thing. The old labels do not apply here. Even those who call themselves religious or conservative will say "but there are too many people." They might be reachable. If even 50% reading this blog don't say that, then that would be wonderful news. But, if Armageddon really is imminent, forget about large numbers. Then, as Revelation predicts, the majority are already deluded. What can I say? The ones who seek to save their souls will be reached.

I say that as an agnostic. I literally do not know. But the evidence is hard to deny. Believing the world is overpopulated has to be deluded, because it leads inevitably to world-wide wipe-outs. This goes back to "Progressive" thought of the late 1800s. Those who most want children cannot be tolerated by the Progs lest they over-populate with all "the wrong" types. HG Wells' eugenic euphemism of "people of the abyss" is what they do not want as survivors.

If we are stoked into a civil war, it will be between peoples who have been set upon each other by these schemers seeking to obliterate the current population of the planet. I used the term 1/13 as a guess for their target number, because it fits their vision so well. A normal deck of 52 playing cards has only 4 aces; 4/52 = 1/13. Only Aces will be permitted to survive. Ace rocket scientists down to ace housekeepers and gardeners I guess.  Don't ask me how they plan on living well if they do manage somehow to survive their man-made cataclysm. They're the whiz-kids. Ask them.

I look at this pessimistic thought process of the Susnuts, their craven misanthropic backers and their foolish followers and I see a clear demarcation between them and people who I'd say are filled with common human decency. That is a charitable streak which shows itself most nobly in times of crisis often in stark contrast to the less than noble behaviors that occur then too. In short its captured by the phrase "we are all in the same boat; let's make the best of it."

The Susnut creed, with its religious like belief in the inevitability of Malthusian catastrophes, and which has created a moral imperative derived from the specious Precautionary Principle, has to hide its intentions from its victims.

• The boat we call Earth has limited resources, so we enlightened geniuses must decide who stays and what useless souls must be thrown overboard. 
• We love humanity so much we must cull it properly in order to save it. 
• Our morality (live and let die) trumps yours (live and let live) so much that we can't even speak of it openly because the majority are benighted souls who simply do not understand us.

Are you with them or are you against them?

And if you agree with them, then "are you useful?"
Enough?

For how long?

Well?  Are you a target of the Susnuts?

Fighting the Growth of Theocracy in America -- Part 2

I was going to follow up by adding some of the details I had removed from the draft in Part 1.  For now it should be sufficient for you to read what Og posted at Neanderpundit » The new priesthood of junk science, where he included much from that draft.

Instead I will provide you with some words that help reveal the nasty side of those seeking to establish Sustainability as this new state religion in America specifically; but ultimately all over the globe.

The alternate title for this post could be "Knowing Neither Morals, Nor What is High Ground"

Those working hard to make our society function like [Prince] Charlie's favorite slum aren't moving to their own collective farms. Instead they are transforming our society into the collective farm while pretending that their calculated destruction of our prosperity is smart and modern.

These words are from Daniel Greenfield's The Environmental Apocalypse published in April.

Five months later an anonymous convert to Sus worship felt compelled to contribute the following:

Fighting the destructive side of capitalist economies is not easy. So maybe the practices employed cause odd side-effects or don't pay as well as mining ores whose side effect is poisoning a town's water supply, but wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution for the sake of your kids and theirs when you're gone?

I'm often shocked by the attitudes conservatives have about the unknowns of global warming when they are so adamantly sure of the unknown of the afterlife. If you are good in this life with the aim of securing a place in heaven, why would you jeopardize the ability of those who come after you to have a good life when it is their turn? Whether there is a heaven or not, you will be good in the chance of going there when your time has come. Whether fossil fuels, CO2 emissions, etc. cause global warming, wouldn't you rather reduce this risk than to find out it is the cause and that you attributed to it? It seems so insignificant that people would lose money when it's weighed against your grandchildren living without food when severe droughts and lack of clean water or power sources could threaten the food supply. It seems that doubting global warming is like playing Russian roulette because the odds are in your favor, never mind that pointing a gun at your head is a stupid idea. 

This has very many incredibly off observations, so it would not be hard to fisk it merely for amusement.

For instance, since not all conservatives are religious it proves he's flat wrong about conservative certainty about afterlife.

Another example, more to the point, is how he sees caring for the environment as a liberal/conservative divide. That's a typical presumption of the indoctrinated Left. But it is over means where the divide appears. The Sus worshiper presumes any people who do not fall in line with his methods are -- when not cast as evil -- benighted at best; beneath him in understanding. His tone throughout his remonstration is bigoted: resistors are immoral by default; they can employ no reason in their defense.

That's only a small indication of the kind of danger inherent from a Sustainability state religion whose priests would help draft law. Much like Imans do with Sharia Law for IS.

Disagree only with his religion, he declares you a heretic.

Give him influence over laws, he makes you an outlaw.

Here is my response to anonymous, published on the same day his comment appeared. He was probably a troll as he did not respond.

"Whether fossil fuels, CO2 emissions, etc. cause global warming, wouldn't you rather reduce this risk than to find out it is the cause and that you attributed [sic] to it? "

Your argument relies too much on the Precautionary Principle. Using it, you have chosen fear of shortages as your religion. As such, you see it trumping all other considerations, including the most essential of America's promises to its posterity: defending individual liberties.

Not that you'd acknowledge it, but conservatives and libertarians wish to protect individuals from all religious zealots, including such as yourself who "knows" what's good for everyone else and their posterity.

Yours is a throwback to tyrannies that had all the rest of humanity in servitude of one form or another as symbolized by the broken chains at the feet of the Statue of Liberty.

Indeed, your fears of shortages are even more primitive than that. It's tied to ancient human sacrificing Pagan religions, the successful rebellion from which was endowed by  the Judeo-Christian ethos which your priests wish to eliminate and supplant.

Your views are uninformed because those who taught you your dogma need you to stay ignorant.

No poor anonymous: yours is NOT the moral high ground your priests pretend to stand upon. You are speaking from the pit of despair that Daniel, above, says that they've convinced you to accept for you and yours. And the actions you promote would throw the whole world back into chains so as to keep you company.

Do yourself the favor and break the chains on your mind before you find yourself thrown in the new gulags by those who trained you to be their useful idiot.

Part 3 "Those Forced to Pass a Religious Test Have Standing in Court."

"Better Red Than Dead?..."

"Better Red Than Dead?...There You Go Again!"See the video below.

There's your new slogan America*. How could I have been so blind?

In a comment of mine, inspired by Mark Alger's ruminations, I lamented of coming up with a new slogan that encapsulates the intentions of the Greens. To preserve humanity they will see to it that we sacrifice to their new god, Sustainability.

• They will demand you must sacrifice your way of life to Sus. 
• You must sacrifice your old and lame to Sus. 
• You must sacrifice your posterity to Sus not yet in a manner reminiscent of pagan Moloch worship (but who knows?). 
• You may even be called to sacrifice yourself to Sus. 
• But most of all, Sus is a nervous god. You must cashier your Judeo-Christian ethic. Given the secular war against Christianity, it's clear they hold a view identical to what their megalomaniacal predecessor called "that Jewish disease."

It's really quite simple. Since the greens are apopletic about the "carbon footprint" each of us human beings imprints upon the earth, and since they have invested in themselves the moral superiority to speak for all of us on the matter of our "sustainability" as a species on this planet, they have essentially begun singing to the old Marxist tune of "The Internationale" but with lyrics changed from defending the worker from exploitation to protecting us all from overburdening the earth with ourselves.



Understand this you red flag waving fools:

Rule by Reds Means Your Death

[The above video may not appear on my main blog page. You will need to click the "Read more" below to see it]
Hat-tip to Breitbart for the above video. Marxism: The Ideology That Systematically Murdered 100 Million Human Beings. You know how they would save our planet, right?

*For those needing further explanation,

Postmodernism's Paradigm

My comment at Belmont Club to:

Konyok @ 10:53AM

It’s a new paradigm…. Now, we have a perverse inversion in which the heirs of humanism seek to sacrifice the human being to a faceless god of nature.

Yes. However it is not new except to those who have only begun to notice. About those who remain silent after they notice — well — I ribbed Wretchard after he posted Meeting Engagement with Awakening to Fight Oblivion.

Human sacrifice:
“Sustainability” is now the most common code word for battling human populations, though it is voiced quietly. It seems far too many are resignedly welcoming this “meeting engagement.”

Sustainability is newspeak for a pessimism at least as old as paganism with its ritual deaths.

I think the disease is clear. Traditional conservatives have let their loathing to fight what has slowly become common practice trump their fundamental (now ancient) moral view that the sole reason for government is its legal authority to protect the weak.

It is THAT paradigm which has shifted. I’ve stated this new world paradigm as “The strong must protect the useful from the _____.” What's in the blank? You know as assuredly as Winston Smith knew what was in Room 101.

I’d say you are a moral man reflexively rebelling from the effects of Malthusianism blended with Utilitarianism to create the replacement, Godless morality of a “humanist” elite.

Aug 15, 2008 - 12:46 pm

I followed the above comment with this one. (It was published promptly).

Konyok; I’m not sure what else to tell you.

Here is what one dame whispered to me about my concerns: “You are not alone Pascal; but you may as well be.”

Aug 15, 2008 - 12:51 pm

Denying Human Life Its Holy Imprimatur

When men think of themselves as gods, they invariably treat the common man as an animal. Hence the life of the majority is degraded and the individual is stripped of any rights not bestowed to them temporarily by the demigod. On good days they view as quaint our traditional Judeo-Christian ethics that sees innocent human life as something sacred and deserving of societal protection.The good days are growing fewer as the following stories suggest.

I've been warning of this for ages, but now Drudge headlines the advancing avalanche that has been mockingly called a slippery slope.

Belgium looks at euthanasia for minors, Alzheimer's sufferers...

France considers 'accelerated deaths'...

What more need I say at this point? You know this is where ObamaCare is headed. I have spoken with physicians who approve. I've read books that promoted this line of thinking while our leaders stood off on the sidelines and either said nothing or appointed the authors to higher office positions (at the CDC for instance.) There they have been establishing policies that has been quietly but detrimentally affecting what medical choices are available to us for decades. They are proponents of treating human beings as commodities and not as God's children, and -- in particular under Obama -- they are ever increasing in number and power.

You are either on the side of the ethics that gave birth to all of our modern advances -- the code derived from the variety of religions generally known as Judeo-Christianity branches -- or you've permitted yourself to be swayed into joining the camp of the new pagans (not progressives as they say, but regressives), the Sustainability worshipers. And it is sad to say that many of the heads of those religious institutions are among the Sus worshipers even as they play plausible deniability games with those who challenge them. "Sustainability? I thought that was only about conservation."

So many of you think the Statist demagogues are bad now. You have another think coming. For those who have never seen it, here is the scene in the 1939 classic, Gunga Din, where the Kali worshiping guru indoctrinates his thuggees* with a boiling, maniacal hatred: "Kill for the love of killing. Kill for the love of Kalee. Kill! Kill! KILL!"

Click here to run clip. This scene starts at 60 seconds.

As you see more and more of these stories there will still be friends and relatives who think what I'm saying is overly dramatic. If you are God revering, I think it is especially true that you try and awaken comprehension that this is the real face that is behind the Progressive mask.  Don't fear the fictional zombie hoards, fear that the Progs have so destroyed our culture that virtually all societal members have become desensitized. Consequent to their incremental cultural attacks, all of us have been stripped of some basic decent human sentiments, while some of us have been stripped of all. Fear that should you fail to provide sufficient countermeasures that your children may wind up looking at you with a face such as this and neither realize it nor care.


_____
*Thuggee (Tug-ee') were a large gang of highwaymen that infested the mid 19th Century British Raj. They delighted in murdering whomever they plundered. It is from them that our term thug derives.The new movie "The Innocent Prophet" suggests that Mohammed set the standard for the Thuggee to copy.

Fighting the Growth of Theocracy in America -- Part 1

There are two fitting alternate titles for this topic.

1. Fighting the Establishment of a State Religion in America. 

It is important to this discussion that individuals who might be subjugated by such an influence established in law understand the wider definition of religion. Religion requires no supernatural supreme entity for its existence:

Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

As will be discussed later, the new religion of the time is the supreme need of preventing world catastrophes such as CAGW er CACC. And pursuing what is known as Sustainability.

But first, let us examine the opponents of existing legitimate and currently peace-loving religions: militant atheists and anti-theists.

While extreme atheists and anti-theists are well known for haranguing those who think of themselves as theists, and even those who merely are tolerant of theists, they never utter a word about pursuits or interests of supreme importance to other groups that are used to drive the growth of government.

Indeed, one of the most visible of these anti-theists, the late Christopher Hitchens, was an admitted communist. Funny -- isn't it? -- how a media-renown and eloquent man such as Hitchens never acknowledged how his views on a "just" society constituted a religion for him.

Ah, but so it goes with all supermen who bemoan the obstacle of individualists. It must be upsetting for them to watch "lesser" men "foolishly" seek guidance from concepts outside themselves rather than accept guidance from men who know themselves to be superior.

Establishing a state religion, where heretics may be punished by law, surely seems like the kind of  solution of which supermen would approve for ruling the hoi polloi.

And just as surely, this is what America's founding generation was trying to prevent when they added the opening phrase to the 1st Amendment to the constitution. 

-- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; --

2. Our Need to Reclaim the Age of Reason from Scientism


Scientism: Belief that science has all the answers. Once a favored theory is accepted it is treated as if it were sacred. Any who disagree are to be stripped of their science credentials and cast out.

Scientism provides a wonderful tactic, when promulgated by a soviet-style media and Leftist bent academics, to move forward with unpopular policies "in the pursuit of truth as proven by science."


Of course no part of this charade is remotely scientific. Its purpose is to bestow the prestige of the science label on rationales for unpopular or unconstitutional government policies while simultaneously scaring most critics into silence and marginalizing the rest. When critics persist, then out comes an enforcement arm that seeks to stem unfavorable discussions of those policies not only by labeling them illegitimate, but by publicly discussing how prosecutions are being considered.

How the implications of this trend to establishing a state run religion in America threatens the onslaught of a new Dark Age will be discussed in subsequent posts.

Part 2: “Knowing Neither Morals, Nor What is High Ground”

*****
Updated to include links (because Blooger eventually forgets.)
Neanderpundit » The new priesthood of junk science

Fighting the Growth of a Theocracy in America. Pascal first sent a link to this post to me many days ago, and I have been looking forward to seeing him post it. Tired of waiting, let me cut to the chase on this. In Crichton's “State of fear” he posits ...
Posted by Og on September 8, 2014 at 3:00 AM

***Update two, proof from their own lips:

Rajendra Pachauri, former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

“For me, the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” -- source

Part 3: "Those Forced to Pass a Religious Test Have Standing in Court."

BELIEF In Sustainability: Sneakily Violating Our Constitution

About two weeks ago I expanded my subheading. I have decided to spend more time addressing the problem as I see it. My former interrogative subheading "If our "leaders" are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases? " was less precise than I felt it should be, so I changed it to the four sentences you see now.

Today I am going to address the first sentence: "Despite the alleged separation of church and state, belief in Sustainability is widely held in American secular government."


I would like to see a law suit brought against agents and agencies in our Federal Government for gross violation of the first Amendment. Charging our secular authorities with establishing a state religion will be difficult because they will steadfastly deny it is a religion. More to the point: they dare not declare it a religion yet. But their refusal does not make this impossible. See, there is precedent for defeating their denials. It simply will be a harder task than was that of the precedent.

First of all, let us call it a nascent secular religion for now. That allows even those who favor the beliefs to be able to deny that a religion based on those beliefs is not really in formation.

The precedent I am referring to is desegregation.  The tactic used to defeat denials of segregation was establishing that defacto segregation existed. Our task will be harder because the world has changed and the soviet-style media (SSM) is uniformly against us.

To date I do not know if I have any allies in this fight. Almost all writers simply will not touch the topic.  The few of whom I am aware to have done so have ceased. Unless I begin to group the facts and make the case where evidence can be labeled exhibit 1, exhibit 2, and so on, I fear no one else will. 

The case must first be brought into the court of public opinion. I sure could use your help. If you see as I see that secular forces are determined to finally obliterate all Judeo-Christian religions (which is the competition of the nascent state religion, or possibly with Sharia where there might be special set-aside agreements at least temporarily) by various and sundry means, by hook or by crook, and you would like to do something legally about it, then maybe you should consider helping.

More anon.

Beyond Brazen

You all know it's true that the "Progressives" have moved beyond brazen.

They know you know, and are waiting for you "Reactionaries" to, er, react.

But did you realize that they've been practicing being openly brazen for years? It's just that nobody noticed?

Well, I'm sure you're going to love this one. It's from the Society for Philosophy and Technology, Spring-Summer 1997, Volume 2, Number 3-4

CAN THERE BE A BEST ETHIC OF SUSTAINABILITY? by Paul T. Durbin, University of Delaware

His conclusion:

If this were not being addressed to a philosophy audience, I could probably stop here. The guidelines and framework [proposed here] are likely to be useful only if we recognize that each real-world implementation is going to be radically different, peculiar to its own region. In principle, there may be a general framework for ethical sustainability, but in practice there are only local democratic attempts to bring about some approximation of it.

(shortened and in my words) --

"No. There can be no best ethic because it's a matter of what we can get away with in each locality."

You see, people don't like being blocked in their efforts to provide a living for themselves and their families. And they really get pissed when they find their very lives being written off. So any open efforts to eliminate large numbers of human beings needs to be done surreptitiously. If the Sus worshippers can get us to kill each other, and their hands are not directly implicated, they have a win-win situation.

Now read again my second paragraph above.

Is that right, Ms. Ann Thrope?

The Genius of Blaise Pascal

Over the years I've provided bits and pieces of the history of Pascal. At my old website I had several links that were frequently used by visitors to find out more about the man. When I moved my activities here, I overlooked transferring them over. But I never really laid out what I've learned about him over the years.

For a starter, view The peerless Genius - Blaise Pascal (sorry, its author does not permit embeds). The video is pretty good. Beware that the score near the end gets a bit too intense.

Now I'll add a few notable accomplishments that were left out.

Goal In Sight...

...so "Progressives" are telling us what has REALLY been on their minds all along (h/t Katabasis 10:10 - The best response yet):
By the way -- what follows is only 24 seconds long (and so is probably not what you first thought it was).

[NOTE: If you are on my main blog page, there is supposed to be a video below that may not display here. Click the title of this blog-post above to see it. ] 





"The Final Solution"? You betcha.


Regular readers of these blatherings  will recall I've been publishing an on-going analysis as "Progressives" incrementally unmask and reveal their true selves.

Progress-of "Progressives"

Altruistic ==► Casuistic ==► Craven ==► Shameless ==► Brazen ==► Sneer at US ==► Contempt for US ==► The Final Solution


So, there we have it: For sustainability,  the Final Solution.


Of all the stages listed above, for the most part "Progressives" have been craven well in excess of 90 years.

Charming image of the grasping, disingenuous "Progressive"

Oh. Speaking of craven cowards. How exactly does that magic red button work?

Partials

1. Republicans Now Evenly Divided on Whether Afghanistan War Has Been Worth Fighting  -- Given from the start the enemy-favoring rules of engagement (thanks to W and made worse by the Bummer), it is gratifying to know that there still are many sane people in the Republican Party. Not that the party deserves such decent people as would say "What sort of rat bastards would put our young people into a no-win situation like that?" Were God to intervene on their behalf, He would take out the whole rotten bunch of those under the "Progressive" regressive thumb so that conservatives could be free to choose afresh real representatives.
2. The race is homo sapiens. There is no race called homo sexuals. We are top heavy with people who, in the interest of Sustainability worship, have been promoting lifestyles that lead to less procreation and shorter life spans. If the few radical homo sexual Leftists want to label anyone as racists accurately, it is the leaders in the ever-growing and insatiable Statist leviathan that claims to be their friend but is using their unhappiness as a tool to aid them incrementally decimate the race of which the gay are but a subculture.

Ingenuity by Common Humans: Discounted by Our Demigods

Late today I encountered a frank new commenter at Belmont Club. It was on Wretchard's latest exploration of the AGW fraudulence.

Here is the comment "Bear" posted:

We should all be aware of who wants to pick the winners and losers.

Civilization as we know it is confronted with serious issues. It just so happens some think they can determine the outcome. These are not ignorant people, and carbon is a vehicle to the solution in their eyes. The problem is that they equate survival as a species with a socialist (we all know where that ends) state.
relentless growth is unsustainable.

Climate change propanganda is the vehicle to get there, since stating the obvious issues would generate even more populist resistance.

The myth that technology can solve everything is patently false.

this will end badly.

Bear, I’ve been battling with this concept a very long time. Few are willing to state it as you have.

There is redundancy in your assertion “The myth that technology can solve everything is patently false.” It sounds like you want to believe your line so much that you had to call technological solutions both a myth and patently false.

Dare you battle with me over it?

He responded:

Fatally Naive Americans

The Nov 3 WSJ has an op ed

You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor

I had great cancer doctors and health insurance. My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.

(h/t JWF)

It has as its closing lines

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point. --emphasis added

Perhaps?  This bespeaks the fatal naivety of all Americans constrained by PC from stating obvious truths. 

What could pass as the Obamacare theme song is now 4 decades old. It has in its frankest of renditions the closing lines: 

"Won't you give it a try? 

 [Boom] 

Live and let die!"

For several decades I have witnessed and reported upon the fear in so many to speak of the dark side of the Sustainability movement. It is doubly upsetting to see it in those who claim to be God fearing. God fearing implies you accept the premise that all human life is sacred. Turning a blind eye to reports of a mounting threat to that premise (most unsettling to me when I've witnessed it in clergy) is more understandable when the threat seems hypothetical, but not from someone like Ms. Sundby while suffering the repercussions.

Ms Sundby still wants to believe that the machinations to which she is victim are only her imagination. So she writes "perhaps." I guess it makes her feel better. [Or perhaps the addition of perhaps it was required by the WSJ editor. In a world where damned consensus rules are expected to be understood, I doubt the editor needed to make a direct request.]

In a way, this makes Ms Sundby a martyr to Political Correctness. That she in her present circumstances is found still kowtowing to the consensus (to not speak of the Susnuts) ought to be eye opening for the rest of us.  The souls of people who martyred themselves in defense of innocent human life would not be amused.

Please enlighten me how to open the eyes of more while there is still time.

Lead: Promote Human Life

There's a new story that recalls the question in the masthead of this blog. "If our "leaders" are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?"

Lilith: the barren, sex-crazed, child-killing mascot of the abortion movement

Every once in a while, one stumbles upon a terrifying level of honesty among abortion supporters....
a moderately successful group dedicated solely to providing low-income women with abortion money, called the Lilith Fund. 

The Texas-based group explains its name on its website as follows: “Lilith was the first woman created by God, as Adam’s wife and equal. Because Lilith refused to be subservient or submissive, she was sent away from Eden.” 

This is a somewhat accurate presentation of Lilith’s bio; however, it’s certainly not the whole story. 

Here’s how the Hebrew legend, as first described in the Alphabet of Ben Sira of the 8th-10th century, ends: after Lilith flew away (and was not sent) from Eden, God punished her by dictating that one hundred of her own demon children would be killed each day. She responds by asserting her perpetual desire to sicken and kill newborn infants. 

The abortion industry’s poster girl if ever there was one.

In fact, the primordial population control expert bears a significance far beyond Hebrew culture....

...Other pro-abortion feminist organizations have snapped up the name as well. (One of several such blogs, The Lilith Plan, helps women self-abort and even provides gruesome instructions for an illegal do-it-yourself D&C abortion.) It seems some abortioneers are at least honest enough to openly associate with the child-killing demon who is even more well-fed in our modern world than she was 6000 years ago.

I was asked at Thanksgiving last week by a liberal male member of the family: "Are you against abortion?"
I answered: "I am firmly against the promotion of abortion."
He: "Who's promoting it?"
Me: "If you haven't yet noticed on your own the whole industry built around it, how it seeks customers, how it has rigged the legal system to help it, and how little you hear in mainstream media that promotes human life, please tell me what could I possibly tell you now that you'd believe?"

So when I saw this commentary on Lilith this morning, I felt I needed to highlight it here. The fact that promotion of death has become so acceptable is boldly highlighted by our "leaders" blithe silence on abortion promoting organizations such as this one.

The promotion of human life is another of those voids that have grown large in the public sphere. Green parties are nowhere near a large faction in any western government of which I am aware. Yet their policy preferences have clearly gained acceptance in the high-level political scene where AGW and its related legalities are advancing. Similarly, as pointed out in the reference article about abortionists, among the Greens the mostly unspoken but sometimes candid solution to humanity's taxing of the planet is "less humans means increased sustainability." IOW: "Yeah -- All Hail Sus."

It is clear that those who favor human life as I do have pretty much been ignored (at best) by top "leaders." I put the word leaders in scorn quotes because a leader, unlike a manager or ruler, tends to take seriously and sincerely the interests of the individuals who follow him.


If you wish to see an end to the acceptance-by-silence of such abortion promoters as the openly anti-human Lilith Fund, you will have not only to openly oppose such groups, you will need to speak out in favor of human life too, and strongly.

Related posts: 

• Who Exactly Are the Retards?

On the Road to America's End

In Obama’s Henchmen, Selwyn Duke has analyzed the workings of Obama and his administration in a way I'd not seen before. I find it intriguing even if I'm not sure I accept some of his premises. (For instance, when the Sustainability angle is not considered in the mix of premises, what seems bizarre isn't really, and that is due to the misanthropic morality that the Sus crowd has embraced.)

But it is well composed, so I thought I should pass it along to my readers who are upset with the decline of America.

Why do I recommend reading it? I direct your eyes to the troubling if accurate closing paragraph of his analysis.

While it’s clear that he [Obama] doesn’t have traditional America’s best interests at heart, the reality is that his corrupted judgment ensures he couldn’t choose good appointees even if he wanted to. But the real problem is a people that, clearly, couldn’t choose a good president even if they wanted to.  This intellectual and moral decay is the real scandal in America — and it ensures political scandal till the end of the republic. [emphasis added]

Dear reader, even if that dire prediction is inevitable whatever the ultimate reason for it, is the reason he gives entirely outside of our control? Have we simply given up because we are frustrated by all the idiocy we see around us? I hate giving up, accepting that our nation's fate is sealed. So what might we do to help remedy this people problem?

Too Late?

Why do I bother? Better known blogs and talk show hosts are beginning to speak as yours truly. But what of it?

Tonight, Wretchard writes in Downstream of Green,

Although “environmentalists” are often happy to see oil prices rise because it prices “carbon” out of the reach of consumers, its greatest effect on the Third World has been to raise food prices. The unrest in the Middle East are directly the result of unaffordable food.

But that’s OK. The Voluntary Human Extinction Project believes  “the biosphere of the planet Earth would be better off without humans. In VHEMT’s view, the human race is akin to an “exotic invader”, whose population is out of control and threatens other species with extinction, and only removal of the human race can restore the natural ecological order.”

And if there’s trouble in the Middle East, why just get America to bombing the living s**t out of the unrestful natives with B-2 bombers and the sophisticates can thereafter take the lead. Where extinction is concerned, why not just get the natives and the bitter clingers to kill each other. Extinction can wait a little, put off till the next glorious sunset.

Whether or not the Sustainability worshipers have wrenched control, they sure seem to have triggered helter skelter world wide.

Where are the optimistic adults? Are they too late?

I really like Wretchard, and supported him with cash early on. So I asked: "how come I could not get your discussion going on this several years before it came to this Wretchard? You’ve crossed its path many times, but I do not recall you calling out on their agenda the various architects like the VHEMT you cited today, and The Church of Euthanasia or the Georgia Guidestones, or the political leadership who never uttered a harsh word towards any of these."

And then there's another latecomer finally acknowledging the influence of Malthus and the Neo-Malthusians of the 1960s on public policy makers: William McGurn, Vice President of News Corporation (parent to Fox News Channel to the unknowing), writing in this month’s Imprimis newsletter (hat tip to the Dennis Prager Show).  But could you tell by his title? The Not So Dismal Science: Humanitarians v. Economists. [Beware -- The Hillsdale folks did not provide a permalink, so copy it if you want to keep it for reference.]

I guess he’s decided it’s now “timely” to relate to us the overly pessimistic influence of the Neo-Malthusians such as Ehrlich and McNamara.

Why is this so late, and written so obscurely? Are we to assume that the Establishment Right also harbors this death wish? Does the sun rise in the East?

Poorer people will be starved to death, or murdered for what little they have, as fuel prices soar, food is converted to fuel, and dollars get printed to keep pace.

Our “Intelligentsia” has a confrontational date with the Almighty, and I think they believe they’ll win. Theirs is the ultimate crime against humanity. DAMNED SKUNCs to my loyal readers.

Oh, for those who don’t know, as Mr. McGurn is now doing, I’ve long questioned the humanitarianism of the “humanitarians.” See up there, under my masthead?

If our "leaders" are so humanitarian, how is it that we never hear them direct a harsh word at the Malthusian, Utilitarian and Green nutcases?

The Need to Place Political Correctness in the Crosshairs

There are many others who comment much more diligently than I upon the many instances how Western culture in general, and American culture in particular, are relentlessly under attack by the Left and its shockingly complicit Establishment media. Particularly I have been impressed with how well S.T. Karnick makes that his regular concern.

A few days ago Mr. Karnick wrote of the criticism misdirected at MLB for the drinking and driving death of Josh Hancock, a St. Louis Cardinals pitcher. In comments to it, I made a quick point about how PC's intrusion into our culture has a bloody hand in making personal disasters of this sort more rather than less common.

Mr. Karnick concurred: "Until a sufficient number of people summon up the courage to speak out against this point of view, its ugly consequences will continue to plague us."

Now I'd like to make what I believe is a unique observation about PC. That is, I've not seen it mentioned even if its been noticed before, and I doubt it. PC's acceptance and certainly its persistence came into the forefront after much of Western thought turned in the 1960s to accept the notions of Thomas Malthus as revitalized by Paul Ehrlich et al. Merely fifteen years time after the unprecedented carnage of the Second World War, our intelligentsia seemed all too swift to accept the pessimistic notion that the number of humans on the planet was still unsustainable. In short, this is what is meant in high-minded parlance as the challenge of sustainability. (Considerable thought before WWII was moving in this direction. Indeed it appears to be a major feature in NAZI thought. In a world with diminishing resources, Hitler was moving to establish his race as the sole survivors. I plan to look into this further at a later date.)

It does not take a rocket scientist to notice the conflict between this concern and that of society's previously stated predominant concern of protecting human life in many different ways. In fact, by gum, there is assuredly a radical reversal in the way those who've risen to the top of society's institutions has gone about, ostensibly, protecting its members.

Of significant note is that which used to be called constructive criticism wound up in the cross-hairs of the heads of our institutions.

Instead of welcoming various sources of wisdom access to those who need the guidance, the PC crowd constantly concerns itself with how the feelings of the foolhardy might be hurt by those who wish to warn them. Rather than permit unrestricted passage of hard-earned lessons-learned, these "watchdogs" prefer that those whose feelings they claim to be protecting are better off with having their thinking (or unthinking) unfettered. "Let them learn the hard way where naive or ignorant or misguided choices will lead them" would seem to be their slogan.

Certainly, I don't think in history there was ever a group, so well entrenched in positions of authority, who -- wittingly or unwittingly -- were ever such an ally to predators as is our PC crowd.

Now surely there are many useful idiots in that crowd. But it is hard to imagine how they got there and how they manage to remain there unless there are significant numbers of the moneyed and influential class who believe that they are doing animal-husbandry-like work in letting the foolish kill themselves off. Kill themselves along with how many other handfuls of innocents who have the misfortune to be in their path on the way to their personal destruction.

So, for those who still retain an optimism for the potential of the human mind to meet any future shortages (be it for belief in The Creator's promise or simply from gaging how high we have risen in the face of all kinds of disasters), I bet you also have entertained the following question about how society is failing at its assigned task even as its leaders clamor for more control over our lives. Is it not a natural inclination, an imperative really, to look askance at how society has altered its approach to law enforcement?

Strict law enforcement being the principle means to protect innocents from predators was long established thinking in the West. Based significantly on the writings of Thomas Hobbes I believe, that was the be all and end all of the modern state: its raison d' ètre.

Heh, Heh. That is, that was before postmodernism turned up.

In response to my commentary about how, given the state of advances by radical Islam in the war on Terror, the currently disfavored view towards capital punishment is in need of review, reader RobC happened to opine with the ages old comment that those who harm innocents deserve only a little more consideration than that they gave their victims.

Within the confines of this essay, here is what I observe in response.

I used to know many like you, RobC. All of you have been marginalized out of hearing because Political Correctness has painted your views as beyond acceptable discussion.

Many blogs, as you suggest, will grant a hearing to your words. But more is needed to make the jump to where you will be heard in live public forums so that you may affect public policy.

My long term plan for this site (and my premier site should I get it working well again) will come up with ideas that will open up minds now trained (at best) to ignore you. I welcome suggestions and criticisms from readers to aid me in my quest. What doesn't ring bells, what has potential, and what will make good soundbites?


Also, I have had some success in the past at conceiving useful variations on how the political spectrum can be redrawn. However, that was during the Cold War so, although it still accurately reflects how power seekers game the system, it has less immediate use today in the War On Terror.

I have been brewing again a new way to redraw the political spectrum with soundbites that essentially say The Right loves life and The Left loves death. A preview can be read at comment #6 here.

More to follow.

Precautionary Principle Tyranny

Understanding the Implacable Enemy Within the West -- part 4.

Christinewjc: I apologize if I am not "getting" your point regarding the "precautionary principle." I read your recent blog post about it and have concluded that perhaps I need an example?#

Someone charges that your ideas are a threat to humanity. Your normal defense is that they must prove it. They counter that IF they are right, the danger is so bad that the burden of proof shifts to you. They, under color of authority, go on and ban your normal operations, demanding that you first prove that your efforts are not a danger before they allow you to proceed. Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution, "freedom of speech and assembly and of religion" and "innocent until proven guilty," have been discarded wherever the Precautionary Principle has been recognized.

Judeo-Christian ethics and the Western tradition views innocent human life with sanctity. Human life is holy. Under the cover of the Precautionary Principle, Greens insist that Malthusianism has to be given the upper hand; that a human's usefulness must be weighed in order to determine their innocence; and that old line moralists are a threat to those who seek to supersede Judeo-Christian morality with morality founded upon those who worship Sustainability.

Thanks for that explanation, Pascal. #

I must say that it is kind of ironic that some leftist secular progressives (especially the celebrity types) might use such an idea against Christian Conservative viewpoints, but ignore the dangers of Islam and label it "the religion of peace" when, for the most part, it has been quite the opposite for centuries.

Kind of ironic, yes. There is little true irony when it comes to the implementation of renewed authoritarianism. When each new bar to individual freedom is preceded by the implementers claiming to be achieving the opposite of what you are witnessing, the only irony (unless it's duplicity) is to be found in those who sincerely believe they are watchdogs as those consequences unfold right before their eyes.

Want a new approach to fight each attempted new breech of individual rights? Discover how your adversaries have employed the Precautionary Principle, then go on to reveal how their plans are a greater threat to humanity than anything you might do. Defeating the tactic and turning the tables becomes easier when more people comprehend how they're under attack because you've stripped the facade away from the attackers.

Cross-Posted at Crusader Rabbit.