A Dangerous Silence, Breaking

Misanthropy is a major driving force within the Prog movement. While it is not a certainty that it was there from the start (19th Century), there is no doubt it is there now. The Sustainability sub-movement of the Prog's has demonstrated that in many ways, and its most open fanatics explicitly deride humanity's numbers as the root of the problem.

Their success at hiding their intentions has taken our elite to a terrible new frontier. While organ transplant demand certainly risks making potential commodities of us all, the unspoken nightmare is that you'd be supremely lucky if your life is ended quickly.

I apologize to readers for repeating that opening paragraph one more time, but I’ve spent at least 30 years (Ca. 1992 a death cultist "doctor" got me banned from Prodigy) exposing at nearly every opportunity how the Prog movement hates humanity other than themselves. Oh, I’m sure independent psychologists would declare that their fanaticism reveals their self-hatred as well, but I think that aspect is not worth pursuing even if those so afflicted could pay heed.

What has changed is that over the last few decades organ transplants have become a big business with many seeking to benefit from it. The silence that is breaking is the awareness that confronting the common man is a danger like none before it. Not only will the DNA database make many more people targets for abduction for "donation," but those targets are going to be subject to much more torture.

Why subject to torture? Because those who can pay to get their new heart on demand will want that heart stress-tested so they will not need to undergo a new surgery too soon. I leave it to readers to consider how much they are looking forward to the many ways they might be “stress tested.”

Maybe I'm wrong. I pray that I am. So I'd love to hear sound objections.

So many believe that organ transplants are here to stay that the very notion of challenging them as a threat is a threat itself.

Or if you or a loved one has obtained one or are seeking one, you may hate me for troubling your conscience, and you'd prefer to see me as engaging in hysterics and delusions. Show me how?

Objections will come from all comers about how organ transplants are here to stay: from Right and Left and anywhere in between. Let's hear it if you have some clear counter-arguments other than common stupid and foreseeable ad hominems.

The point is that from my conversations both on the web and in meat space, the silence is breaking. It is clear that I am not the only one who sees the threat for abduction and murder. But I appear to be the first who has broken the news to people of the torture likelihood.

"Where did you hear that?"
"Nowhere. It is a logical follow on once human life is reduced to a mere commodity."

So lets formerly break the silence. Bring your arguments and let us spread the results. That's the least we can do. It is futile to wait for corporate media and associates to speak of it first. Power has worked to keep this sub rosa for too long already.

First it is fair that you ask:

"What silence? There have been fictions that have explored unwilling donors for decades."

Yes, but I don't know of any popular one that mentions torture. You should view that threat as inevitable. Furthermore, we do not know how painful because the possible ways are far more broad than merely being aware that you or a loved one are to be murdered for the sake or at the whim of some high ranking bastard.

Another objection is:

"Surely we've been told that there are safety measures installed in the industry. Why doubt it?"

Who cannot doubt? The willful naif? After only a few undercover videos revealed the glee and greed of the Planned Parenthood officials in their collecting of body parts from surely pain-feeling near newborns, who is so naive that anybody is safe from powers that can bribe or threaten those installed to keep the practice from being abused? And what I have just written doesn't even mention that the practice is nearly cannibalism. It certainly is cannibalization. And who knows how many Lecters are out there willing to pay for their dinner too?

Ugh.

Well, there I have provided you with a couple of strong objections I've encountered and given you my responses. What else have you got?

Oh, one more thing. Let's point out that there now is added meaning, and perhaps reinforcement to our commitment, to a very old challenge, vividly:

𝚳𝛀𝚲𝛀𝚴 𝚲𝚨𝚩𝚬

Cross posted at Crusader Rabbit.

Jordan Peterson 'Hatred For Being Itself'

Since I posted Jordan Peterson on Root of Evil  I have been going over many more of his lectures. JBP constantly repeats various aspects of his insights as they intersect with his latest discussion.  So that led me to listen again to Biblical Series II to see if there were inconsistencies. There were none that I spotted. However that led to correcting several portions of the transcriptions. I think it is now 100% but with stammers excluded.

Then after absorbing many of the cross-references, it occurred to me that there was more to say about how his view in this area -- exploring existence -- intersects with my own.

What JBP left out and what he instilled in me to express more clearly is what has prompted this essay. I pray that some of you might gain something -- comfort? -- from reading it.

First of all there is his conclusion that the hatred of being is at the root of malevolence. See, the desire to cause pain, suffering and destruction for the joy of inflicting it is only a symptom of the subject: the hatred.  

In order to comprehend the depths of that hatred, one must answer the question "what is being?"

Well, the ultimate form of being is existence itself. There could be no greater evil committed by anyone -- if they could - than to end existence itself. Such a villain has placed his will above the rights of every other creature alive.


One need not be religious to accept philosophically that existence itself is fundamental to the book of Genesis, which opens

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth." 

That's the beginning of existence as we perceive it on a macro scale as told in many a myth and tale.

What I find amazing is so few have concluded what I've long noted about the foundational grammatical parallel in John. For God's sake thinkers, it talks about The Word!

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 Why is it not clear to every religious man and philosopher what Word that is?

For there to be existence, there had to be some action taken for it to come to being. That is a verb.
Basic grammar, the infinite variations of any verb begins with its infinitive.

1. Thus The Word in the beginning, standing all alone, must be the infinitive "To Be."
2. The next step would be The Potential Prime Mover -- God if you will allow the substitution -- pondering the Word and thus turning the infinitive into the interrogative "To be?" This would be the where the Word was with God.
3. The final step is The Potential Prime Mover turns the interrogative to the Imperative. "Be!" And the Word was God.

This is further supported as related in Exodus by the answer given to Moses when he asked "What is your name." Answer: "I Am that I am."

That is the first person singular of Being. What Professor Peterson has gotten very close to but has not stated outright that I know is demonstrated below.

When Peterson concluded the portion on the root of malevolence he said:

"It wasn't unconscious. [The Columbine killers,] they'd been dwelling on this for months, plotting their revenge. And it was against for being itself, for the crime of being. "

What Professor Peterson could have said, but perhaps left for us students to realize is this

"It was against Being Himself."

Oh how I wish JBP would explore more deeply along these lines. He has a short transition to make because, as I recounted in the link above, he said this in the video that inspired my last two posts:

2:10:15.8 the root for malevolence is the desire for revenge against God for creation itself.

Conclusions
For those for whom this is merely a philosophical consideration, can you see the danger posed by those for whom existence itself is hated? Most especially if, in a moment of laxity, you fail to consider the existential threat of humanity permitting one of its own concentrated power for any stated and possibly fabricated crisis? Such as Sustainability. Should you fail to explore the downside in full measure you are failing philosophers. Unquestioned love of sophs that lead to ultimate destruction is hardly philo.

For those who have faith in Him, you really need to consider this view. The hatred of being is the hatred for Being. Failing to call out the haters for that hatred sure seems sinful. Allow the philosophers their lack of faith, and try to recruit them on their level so that they can lay the groundwork on secular grounds to awaken the misled seated near the rotten in high places. That would surely be a virtuous calling.

Erasing the Concept that Human Life is Sacred -- A Recap

After republishing Malevolent Misleadership yesterday, it would be a good idea to recap some other essays that will help readers who want to understand why the Progs believe they are doing good -- at the core of their religion -- as they actively set up conditions for unprecedentedly deadly conflicts worldwide.


The first of these was a republication of another 2006 essay which explains why Judeochristian ethics need to be destroyed. It laid out how civilization only began to grow when ethics began to eliminate human sacrifice as a state sponsored religion.  The last paragraphs read as follows.

Our secular world has been indoctrinating the whole globe with the notion that the world is endangered by it being burdened by too many people. It does not see that human intelligence is our greatest resource. It sees greater and lesser lights. It decides who is better and who is worse. Its influence has redirected society's concerns: from discouraging people from harming themselves and others into encouraging the human to explore wherever he feels inclined; it tries to belittle or obscure histories that warn of consequences from poor or risky choices. It shrugs at NAMBLA and is angered by the Boy Scouts. It decides who should be saved and who should not be. It decides whom to come to the aid of and whom should be abandoned. [The question of] who is innocent and who is not becomes one of being deemed so by those who play god, not by anything nonthreatening the subjugated creature chooses to do or not do. Those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [and thus Jesus Christ] clearly pose an obstacle to those who don't believe that such a God exists. “Since no such God exists, who will do the providing? No. NO. Stand aside. Let us brilliant ones, unencumbered by an outdated morality, take on the role of God. Someone must!”

These two messages are incompatible.

There will be conflict over this. It has already begun. [emphasis altered Aug 2017]

  As usual with their commandeering the meanings of words, the "Progressives" are really Regressives. Read the whole thing to gain a grasp of why the religions which are not dangerous have been made the target while the religions that are dangerous have been embraced by the Progs. There are a couple of follow-on links published a number of years after 2006 that helped tie in new developments.

The second old essay is from 2013. It provides a personal warning of the dangers once Sustainability becomes an unofficial state religion. The following excerpt is emphasized where two important aspects of what the common man faces were written.

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 [of rulers], 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.)

What this exposes is that only some of the rulers are themselves religious zealots. This provides the patriot with the possibility that the ones who want only power could be persuaded to turn against their current allies.

But it's the second kind, the seemingly benign but odd casuist, the common man type zealot who poses the most danger to the common man. Because they are the natural local double agent to aid global authorities who, with every passing day, gain ever more ability to track who poses danger to its hegemony.

What this last essay lays out for you is what the first essay only only hinted at: how the globalist has the means by which to find and persecute all who still abide even a little to Judeochristian ethics. It has the latest ethics and it thinks it is in total control. Hence my repeated request that you pray. A lot.

BTW, this situation is what the antiabortionists warned about from the start. Back then the pro-abortionists had to argue that the baby, renamed fetus, was not yet human, so not entitled to protection.

Now that we've gone well past that -- the "prevention" of over 50 million new Americans from reaching the human stage -- the idea of human of worth and worth how much is now the next hurdle. Hardly a hurdle at all when the body parts of recently "departed" have a value that exceeds the perceived value of the whole human.  My advice -- become an avid smoker. Take your chances with death from cigarettes versus being bumped off because of the value of your smoke-free liver.

Fighting the Establishment of an American State Religion -- Part 3

I wrote the text below the break on September 25, 2014 but I did not publish it. I was waiting for more developments to evolve that would help make it abundantly clear how dangerous it is not to fight such developments before they are fully formed. When climate guru RFK Jr. stated he wished there was a law he could punish his opponents with, I observed that it was good he could only wish.

However developments have moved on rapidly to erase that sense of security.

Today, on episode 4 of LevinTV.com, viewers heard this:

 
This clip ends with these words:

"To use our laws to criminalize politics, to use our laws to compel a belief system, is as tyrannical as is possibly imaginable."

It is significant that people who lay claim to a higher understanding of life with their atheistic lens, routinely deny acknowledging that a religion -- a belief system -- need not center on worship of a god.

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

Mr. Levin almost got to the point where he sees what I see. It sounds like he's edging to fight increasingly heavy-handed government efforts to protect Climate Change belief in a way that is in violation of the 1st Amendment. That Amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. This essay is written in hopes that the constitutional lawyer in him will latch on to the idea.

For easy reference, here are links to part 1 and part 2.

It's the AGW Scammers Who Are the Deniers

To keep the scam running they deny all evidence that contradicts their "theory." How you can prove that it's a scam is laid out below.  

When the proponents of anthropocentric climate change resolutely refuse to look at evidence that undermines their "theory,"  what you are witnessing is the rankest violation of the scientific method (a theory, however respected, becomes a failed hypothesis when contradicted by new evidence.)

It reveals that the proponents of the AGW theory are engaging in a sham at the best, and at worst are running out a monumental scam that, if left unchecked, can't help but lead to misery for uncountable millions of people (a goal that is even embraced by its proponents, so much so that they are indoctrinating our young into believing that such a future is their duty).

By extension, the continuation of this project appears to be leading to the deaths of billions of people by any means necessary. (Here's the latest on that score. Hat tip to Doug Evans by way of Alec Satin It's another example that what we are fighting is nothing less than a neopagan belief system that's quickly become an undeclared Nationally funded religion that runs contrary to the Judeo-Christianity upon which the nation was founded, and is about as fundamentally unconstitutional as any Federal action can get.)

When one couples this with the coincident political behavior of the rest of the Progs — their fomenting, fostering and protecting of cruel Islamic death cults world wide — we see that the Establishment's pattern of behavior is very consistent.

The following is only one example of a denier. While I've seen it many more times than this. this is the first time I've seen it in Congressional hearings (exposing the shamelessness of most other congressmen). Just in case it disappears from Youtube, it's title is "Sen. Cruz Questions Sierra Club President Aaron Mair on Climate Change."

After you hear Mr. Mair repeatedly say “We concur with the 97 percent scientific consensus with regards to global warming,” you must know that he is either a man fearful of running afoul of the scammers who fund his organization and pay his salary, or is a scammer himself.

Whichever he is, his position is the exact opposite of scientific. Relying upon a consensus of scientists that is 18 years old to justify new legislation while refusing to look at the new data — some provided even by scientists that comprised that consensus — is nonsense, is not science, and therefore must be driven by other forces not yet wishing to expose themselves.

Indeed, Mr. Mair's broken-record responses to all questions is reminiscent of the testimony by communist sympathizers in the HUAC hearings of the 1950s: "I refuse to answer on the grounds it might incriminate me."

What do Mr. Mair and countless others have to hide? When one peels away at that onion, more and more hideous things are exposed. Over the years I've exposed many of them elsewhere on this blog. Use the labels below to find a few. (I'm not the only one to have done this; but I may be the one who does it most consistently. G-d: I hope I'm wrong.)

Updates with links providing additional cause for concern.

• “Judges Plan to Outlaw Climate Change ‘Denial’ Debunkers” : wherein the scammers feel the need to protect themselves by outlawing any and all who might undermine their schemes. Essentially outlawing the scientific method so it can't be used to expose them. 

• "I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes people's politics, rather than politics shaping what people think is true." — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) January 24, 2015 : wherein a Sustainability priest preaches his "truth." The rotten irony is that this scientist has purloined the very words of those who actually use the scientific method (the same people the judges above wish to outlaw). This Sus priest-celebrity has the advantage because he has been provided the bigger bully-pulpit. He is paid by the SSM to endlessly repeat his dogma, and his words then are used to indoctrinate new true believers and to bestow a glow of saintliness on the priest. Some merely charge him with colossal failure of self-awareness. In my opinion they in turn fail to see the gain for the priest in preempting his opponents. Many more naive will fall to the confidence men — "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matt 7:15) — wherever the defenders of truth are short-sighted or fail to fight back against the schemers with full force.

Meet Another Fighter of the Sus Worshipers

Thanks to our friend Ed, I was made aware of another man, Alec Satin, who is fighting the Sustainability worshipers.

The idea of destroying large groups of people is nothing new. Stalin killed 20 million. Mao killed 40 million. It shouldn’t surprise you that there are people on earth right now who want to kill you. To a spiritual eugenicist, you are part of a less-evolved humanity which is no longer needed. You are a burden on the limited resources of the earth.

The morality of genocide

There is always a kind of false religion involved in mass murder. Eugenicists and transhumanists have a fanatic drive to advance evolution through science. Homo Sapiens must yield to Homo Noeticus who will be the true Aryan übermensch. By definition this means that the old man must make way for the new. -- The slow purge

Read the whole thing because he includes many more bits of evidence.

I responded to him mostly as follows (but now edited of typos and to improve clarity).

In 2006, after years of vacillation, I finally laid out  what I observed as compelling many people seated at the highest levels of government influence to hate the Judeo-Christian moral code. [An non-archived version that still accepts comments is here.] You [Alec] have almost stated how deeply seated the hatred is.

Here’s a short peek.

In the enemy’s camp are people who have been convinced through indoctrinating propaganda that the enemy’s view is inevitable, that at some point the planet must run out of resources and there is no way to recover them. So they go along as true believers.

Therefore those who have faith that G_d will always provide for his creatures have a major battle on their hands. The reason is the faithful will be largely battling people whose moral code is (they believe) selflessly based (saving humanity from itself) but lacking their faith (in G_d, or in words understood by optimistic non-faithful, the intelligence that nature gives many men to solve difficult problems). The ancient Sophists' word for  the true-believers was casuists. But the real enemy is the sophists -- those who employ specious reasoning for selfish ends. They are expert in the methods of exploiting well-intentioned people for nefarious gain. It is as at least as old as the time of Socrates who fought them and lost. The enemy has had long practice at this game and we have not.

Who can be saved and who must be fought and how to do it is the question the faithful must face. I do know that it is a sin -- falling far short of our commitments -- to allow the lies to accumulate and manifest into the megalomaniacal forces that are getting ever stronger. Yet large numbers of the faithful still turn their backs on the information you have reported today and against which I and others have fought for decades.

How deeply embedded is the enemy?

A statement that Pope Francis made in Bolivia in July, "we are not yet tearing one another apart" is hideous in its denial of three types of mayhem and murder currently afoot globally, was praised  by Bernie Sanders who exploits it in an advertisement for his campaign for president. It touches a subject that I've been laying out since the monstrous Planned Parenthood videos first surfaced. The Lord give me strength, I hope to complete it later today.

Misanthropic Tactic Number 1

I'm calling this tactic number 1 of the misanthropes because their contempt for "lesser" humanity seems affirmed each time they can get some dunce to believe that large gains can come from small falsehoods. That they managed to sell a Brooklyn Bridge to the dunce at little cost and great benefit to them is only the practical goal. Proving there are so many dunces is what makes them feel best.

How better to shut down discussion of a hoax than to assert

"Even if it is a hoax, the end result must be good."

That is the message of this cartoon.

Fix it to read: 'What if it's a big hoax and we destroy liberty, lives and civilization due our gullibility?'

Retrieved from the FB page of the Watermelon project that goes by the name "The Story of Stuff."

That Story of Stuff series of videos is a complete throwback to the early Marxist anti-industrialists. The Left could never win where the middle class was benefiting by being "exploited" by all that industry. Most certainly not the generations closest to those that had escaped European and Asian tyrannies.

But now with the CAGW CACC hoax's never-ending  propaganda by the SSM and academia,  they have numbskulls (with no inkling of the despots their forebears escaped from) thinking that they own the moral high ground if only they go along with the hoax. (The morality component and how it is used is explained in my essay series Fighting the Growth of Theocracy in America.)

Indeed, one such fool posted

One of my favourite climate change cartoons! I've got it on my phone for a quick reply to any deniers who start carrying on about the matter.

as if the squelching of freedom is a small price to pay for a presumed better world. 

Here's the answer folks. Consensus built by cominterns to provide them cover for their hated rule have NEVER made a better world. The greatest advances have been achieved by individuals. Individualism is despised by collectivists.

Listen up you Prog megalomaniacs. 

The billions of murders you aim to achieve under cover of your Sustainability project will never be forgiven.  
Gene Roddenberry warned you of your fate in The Conscience of the King. Your own children will be driven to madness knowing what you began or -- G-d forbid -- completed.

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."

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."

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.

Contradistinctions

Whenever I see or even hear of this cold and uncaring postmodernist martinet:

Kathleen Sebelius, Sec. Health & Human Demise

it destroys the sweet memory and nostalgia associated with this:


The entire Obama administration is despicable. But as regular readers know, I hold the entire global elitist sustainability crowd responsible for the Bummer's elevation. They so hate individual liberty and the thriving that results, that I suspect that He will hold them accountable for Obama and the millions of subsequent deaths.

*In case the video gets removed, it was the Sibelius scored vignette in Allegro Non-Troppo.

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?

M³ At the Core of It All

I must admit that saying M³ (Megalomaniacal Malthusian Misanthropes) is at the core of it all reads like one hell of an assertion. It is simpler to say that the hatred of all human life is at the core of it all, but that would not be sufficient to expose the alliance of the monster types involved as is done in the above link.

Well, the assertion is actually my soft-science theory. Its hypothesis was far less difficult to engender than was Einstein's Universal Field Theory which eluded him. Furthermore, as an explanation for the politics of the post-modern world, it still has not been proven wrong. Sad to say, it is a fact that too much of all three qualities can be found in the wannabe rulers of today.

Plus, the evidence in favor of the theory -- Let's call it Anti-humanism -- continues to mount.


Whenever anyone reads stories like the one Redbaiter posted at TrueblueNZ like Singapore- trend to gender equality drives need for immigrants, that contains evidence like this:

“The choice to take a hostile stance to immigrants is something that Singapore cannot afford to make. Like it or not, unless we have more babies, we need to accept immigrants,” concluded former Singapore PM Lee Kuan Yew.

What Lee is really saying is that the progressive social trend towards “gender equality” has stuffed Singapore’s traditional culture and its economy. Bet you can’t guess where else the same trend is having the same outcomes.

the thought ought to cross any sane man’s mind “Where did the idiotic notions come from that brought us to this crisis?”

And for those who really don’t know, I would point them to TrueblueNZ's sidebar where they will find this:

Critical Theory

The stuff we’ve been hearing about, – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.

What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you’re tempted to ask, “What is the theory?” The theory is to criticize.

What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down.

And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Bill Lind

And what was criticized in this case? The role of Mother and the notion that it had any real value to society.

And the reduction of Motherhood to less than subhuman stature is in concert with the (Leftist) homosexual chide of heterosexuals as “breeders.”

Redbaiter, in response to my comment, added:

"Notice how no one talks about or acknowledges 'Critical Theory' Pascal?

That is the first pointer to what is behind the whole Prog movement."

Which brings us to the ultimate source of why these programs are driven by Progs. It’s all about Sustainability and its pagan moral code. The hatred of all human life is at the core of it all.

Ace Is Almost There

The primary problem with the so-called elites is that they are not elite, and they are neither wise, nor intelligent, nor educated, nor enlightened, nor superior in any fashion save two, accident of circumstance and elevated self-regard.

They do not have any conception of what they're doing, of the history of this country, or of the disasters their stupidity visits upon the ruled every day of the year.

And they will be the death of us all. -- Ace of Spades, Obama: I Didn't Bother Asking a Lawyer If I Could Unilaterally Suspend the Law; All I've Done Is Merely Seize Plenary Power on Behalf of the People

Ace is almost where I have been for over 2 decades. Yet Ace does not see the errant connection between his second paragraph and his third. "They do not have any conception ... that they will be the death of us all."

Au contraire mon ami. Many of the "elites" do have the conception of what they do. It's just that the progressive/sustainability vision is so God-awful that they dare not speak it except in obscure journals published by radical nut-job institutions for which they provide tax preferences and to which they funnel taxpayer money.

This is the problem I have with all the top Dextrosphere bloggers. Because the Left, the phony Right Statists, and the enemies of humanity (but I repeat myself) will not say they are its enemies, the top bloggers fear being laughed at. That fear is not new. It lies at the heart of Hans Christian Anderson's tale The Emperor's New Clothes. Only the fool, yours truly, will speak of it nearly every day. The others are quite apt to go to their deaths muttering something like "if Stalin only knew."

Across the board. We. Need. New. Leaders.

Find them amongst those who are unafraid to call out the enemies of all mankind: the Prog megalomaniacs.

Fundamentally Change ... the Land of Opportunity

The truth of Obama's promise -- to "fundamentally change America" -- may not have been what many believed it was, but who can deny it was the truth?

Irony or not, the opening phrase of JWF's sarcastic sounding headline,  Another Obama Victory! 4 in 5 in U.S. Near Poverty, Can’t Find Work gets it literally correct once you understand the horrific prog/sustainability agenda: "Ending once and for all this land of opportunity and its God-anchored moral guidance."

Now we know what party under which the Obomber ran. We also know that the opposition party sure did not do all it could to prevent his elevation to power (No! He's a nice man." -John McCain). Furthermore, we know it has done worse than nothing to derail his agenda (Crying leader Boehner "fearing" government shutdown, and Deer-in-the-Headlights leader McConnell "fearing" not appearing senatorial), and has been actively targeting the honestly anti-Statist TEA party movement that began because the GOP was not doing its job.

As the fears continue to pile up (extorted into admitting to phony fears in order to not have real sins exposed), is there any longer any doubt that Gresham's Law has taken hold in all important national institutions? Like a real opposition party. Like a real independent media. Like once God-fearing religious organizations that have morphed into ones that only fear losing income enhancing tax exemptions should they oppose (or even expose; or even not endorse) governmental evils.

How many of the people have also succumbed? Maybe not entirely on their own, but because they fail to recognize and follow honest leaders.

What about you? What do you suppose your Maker will tell you?

**Updated with related news: The Environmental Lobby's Great Forest Con

Shameless Sus High Priest

Just when you didn't think he could be any more of a fool, Bummer tops himself, all with the aid of the SSM doing its 3-monkey shtick.

But we fearlessly step in to fill the vacuum left by the creatures formerly practicing journalism.

His Most High Eminence, Sustainability Priest Obama, declared today that all who disagree with his denial of the latest science news were "Flat Earth Society" members that he has no time for.

Sus worshipers clearly don't like humans very much do they? For else they would not be looking to freeze us (increasing the cost of all fuel and looking to eliminate coal altogether) and starve us (wasting corn acreage to be burned and eliminating farm land under ESA and other pretexts)  in the name of protecting the planet from us.

You know their claims that we're heating her up. It turns out that even the science that is beholden to them and their grants says it's not (see that second link up there).

It's an awfully suspect religion that our rulers have tied to their tyranny.

Look friends, religious and atheist alike, it definitely is in our best interest to put an end to this attempted government establishment of an all-but-declared religion before it destroys us in large numbers.


These charlatans and hangers on believe there is no force in the world that can stop them. But the truth of Natural Law keeps coming back to bite em', so they have to lie to prop up their facade a few more moments so they can steal your treasury blind.

I know from conversations that even those who don't believe in God will accept the notion of Natural Law.  So because it (some say the Hand of God) has made a liar of the Sus cult and its tyrants and now they have nothing left but to increase the lying and start looking for the exits.

Even though Leftist who agree with you on nothing major are likely more embarrassed by this bozo than they would like (or ever) admit. Take it to them.

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.

The Sus Nuts Behind ObamaCare

The Sustainability nuts that I routinely warn against are finally being noticed. I pray it is not too late to break their monstrous stranglehold on what remains of America's once outstanding healthcare system.

I point you to this conversation at Breitbart Obamacare: We Will All Be Sarah Murnaghan Soon Enough.

It was Ace's link at his own site to his contribution that really pissed me off.  "I predicted it. It was an easy call."  Too bad he's not made his "understanding" a major factor that ties into all the other dangers to our freedoms. Probably too worried about his reputation.

When I say that the Sus nuts and their scheming tie into everything it's because they fit so well as an answer to a whole lot of questions. I'm talking about seemingly odd political actions that leave people stumped -- "that makes no sense"-- and leaves them asking seeming unanswerable things like "how can someone so smart behave so stupidly?" and "Is there nobody in Washington with the balls and the sense to speak out?" To arrive at answers that make sense, I think all that is needed is to recognize that there has been a paradigm shift in the meaning of public servant that is not generally discussed, but for which the risk to human life is quite great if it is as widespread as the evidence suggests.

See: if the people in power are guided by a moral code that does not seek to protect citizens, then their actions will appear to be odd if you think they are still abiding by the old moral code. So to get on the same page as I am on, all you have to ask yourself: "Considering how much other moral foundations have been eroded, dare I ignore the likelihood that those in power believe exactly the opposite of those who hold human life to be sacred?"

I know it sounds really insane to say "they are out to kill us all." But that is mostly because so many of us who hear such words still cling to the basic theme of the Judeo-Christian ethic no matter how much we personally fall short daily. That basic theme -- "do nothing that is hateful" -- conforms pretty much to the Hippocratic Oath as well -- "first do no harm." Thus only madmen would seek to kill others for whatever reason. And so too, would it not also mean that only madmen would eliminate the Hippocratic Oath? But beginning in the 1990s, one medical school after the other did exactly that. That so few know of this is just one more piece bit of evidence to add to the indictment I consider worthy of wider consideration.

Morality is not the same for the Sus worshipers. Their moral code is centered upon limiting human growth so as to save humanity from itself. They are never openly chastised for it like other groups the soviet style media portrays as hateful, so many people know nothing about them and their plans. And as far as I'm concerned, they have been secretly nurtured by those who hate people long before the Progressive movement was formed. The misanthropes loved Malthus and his theory. So even after Malthus himself said he was wrong, they have been using his ideas to hide their lethal, immoral lust.

I have tried repeatedly to get more people to speak up and force the movement out into the open. This particular conversation at Breitbart looks like another opportunity to drive home my point. And again, I pray it is not too late.

Brother Og has mused on a clear-headed start for a plan that stands to aid you should it be too late.

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?

Overspecialization and Misanthropy

A blind nut finds a squirrel now and then. It looks like an observation I left at NRO yesterday rang a few bells there. So far my comment has received 7 thumbs up, and that pleases me. I have already added it to my annual Gorehog Day contempt post, but in hindsight its message deserves more than to be an add-on to some throw-away humor.

Jonah Goldberg had waxed eloquently about the movie "Groundhog Day" nearly a decade ago, and has seen fit to republish it each year on February 2. This was the first year I'd read it, and it struck me that he'd missed something I thought I should share with his audience, and as I implied above, it seems to have struck a harmonious chord there.

I could not help but notice how Goldberg's examination (as have myriad others who've discussed the movie) somehow missed out on one deeper ramification of Bill Murray's character due to him becoming so well versed in so many skills and trades and professions. Knowledge that he was compelled to learn only from all the locals for whom he had nothing but disdain before his nightmare began. There was something more there than him solely transforming from the  the soulless, smart-Alec, weatherman celebrity. The movie provided, maybe unwittingly, what may be an insight as to why someone like him could be transformed.

You might want to consider that Phil Connors has essentially become a Renaissance man by the end of the film. His postmodernist cynicism that accompanies celebrities in particular (famous for usually some specialty, or even for only being well-known) is finally vanquished by him no longer being a narrow specialist.

By engaging in depth in all those other activities, he trashes the contempt our society implies in its appellation "Jack of all trades." After he picks up all that additional depth, we see he begins to respect and love those who are now colleagues of a sort. Most noticeably supplanted is the casual contempt Phil had for others ("hicks") that so many like his former self display towards those who are not a part of ones narrow circle. That is a true love that is apparently vacant in those at the top of our contemporary world.

Those who miss or reject this additional concept really are missing the key on how it is possible to learn love of mankind. In a world where Sustainability is becoming even more worshiped than money, such an outlook offers an antidote.