Note:
This is an important article,
but also depressing.
For that reason it starts
with a few jokes,
and ends with a joke
I wrote about leftists
that I think is funny,
but have not shown it to the
wifey, who I've known for
42 years, because she thinks
this blog would be more
professional if I did not
insult leftists.
She does not realize
the primary purpose of this
blog is to insult leftists,
once in a while, and to do
"scientific research" for my
Climate Centerfolds Blog,
which gets 97% of my attention.
( "97%" is a very important number
in the climate change game, and
should be used frequently ).
The wifey also strongly objects
to my Climate Centerfolds Blog,
at the link below
( so you know it must be good )
heh heh
If the planet gets warmer,
women should wear fewer
clothes, scientists say !
And that's why I favor
more global warming !
THE CLAIM THAT CLIMATE CHANGE
IS LEADING TO A CLIMATE CATASTROPHE
IS A BAD JOKE, THAT'S NOT FUNNY --
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO TAKE ANY
SCIENCE-FREE LEFTIST SCAREMONGERING
SERIOUSLY !
No nudity at the link, but
not for office viewing,
unless you work
THE ARTICLE STARTS HERE:
Three years ago biochemist
Sir Tim Hunt, recipient of
a Nobel Prize, made a
casual remark, during a
speech at a conference of
science journalists.
He seemed to imply
that women and men
might not be equally
suited to a scientific
career.
Soon after, Sir Tim was forced
out of his position as honorary
Professor at University College
London, reprimanded by the
Royal Society, hounded in
the press, and subjected to
a hate campaign on social media.
Eventually, he and his wife
(a scientist of the same rank)
left England to work in Japan.
This deplorable episode
is one of many, in which
a person’s character,
career and livelihood
have been attacked,
in punishment for
a "thought-crime".
On the surface, promoting
leftist ideas, which is usually
called "political correctness",
seems like a way to support
"victims", such as women,
minorities, gays, transsexuals,
etc.
In reality, it's a form of fascism,
with the goal of creating victims.
It sets out to repudiate traditional
ways of life, by using ridicule,
character attacks, hatred,
and rejection, in place of calm
debate.
Leftists love to be the judge,
prosecutor and jury -- the "voice
of righteousness".
Their goal is to intimidate
their opponents, by exposing
them to public humiliation.
Nazis and communists
did that too -- they imposed
their world view through fear.
This is similar to college students
denying a ‘platform’ to people
whose arguments they don't
want to listen to.
And similar to the disease
of Islamophobia, invented
to prevent discussion of
radical Islam bombings, and
other crimes committed,
throughout the world,
in the name of Islam.
The fear of challenging
leftist beliefs, results in
questions that
will not be asked.
"Isms" and phobias have been used
to put many complex matters
beyond discussion, so only
one view can be publicly discussed.
"Political correctness" creates
thought crimes, in a leftist world,
where there is no presumption of
innocence, but only a hunger for
new targets.
Jesus Christ prayed for those
who nailed him to the cross,
saying ‘Father, forgive them,
for they know not what they do.’
But his prayer changed nothing.
Leftists can easily take a sentence
out of context, and believe they
discovered a thought-crime.
They may have misinterpreted your
intended message -- but they don't care,
they'll character attack you anyway !
A society where half the people
subscribe to "political correctness",
is on the look-out for scapegoats,
with the goal of preventing debate.
How should climate skeptics respond
to the ridicule and character attacks ?
The first response is to celebrate --
if leftists are attacking you, then
you are doing a good job refuting
their usually science-free beliefs
about CO2 and climte change.
A character attack should be treated
like a war medal for climate change
skeptics.
The "proper response" is supposedly
to avoid the name-calling in return,
shrug off the ‘isms’ and ‘phobias’
when they are heaped on us,
and deny the often false charges.
I strongly disagree.
In 2015 I read both of Saul Alinsky's
books and his Playboy interview to
understand the "father of leftist
ridicule".
I wrote a feature article in my newsletter
ECONOMIC LOGIC, to explain Alinsky,
and say that Republicans would have
to fight back with the same weapons.
I posted it on my ElectionCircus blog in 2016:
https://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2016/11/we-just-had-saul-alinsky-election.html
I posted it on my ElectionCircus blog in 2016:
https://electioncircus.blogspot.com/2016/11/we-just-had-saul-alinsky-election.html
Donald Trump was the first Republican
candidate who fought back -- starting
with practicing on his Republican
opponents in the primary -- I'd never
thought of that, but it was good practice
although it alienated too many Republicans.
Donald Trump became president
by fighting back, not from taking it
with a smile, as Mitt Romney did
in 2012.
Trump did not become president
from making brilliant speeches
on complex policy positions.
I think today's leftists have become
horrible people, with few similarities
to liberals, when I was a liberal,
in the late 1960s, and early 1970s,
when liberals were very different:
-- We did not trust the government,
and
-- We wanted to debate our positions.
So, when I read the radical
"Green New Deal" proposal,
presented by Alexandria
Occasionally Coherent:
I called the proposal an obvious
attempt to destroy the US economy,
and said our government would have to
convert to a Communist dictatorship
to force implementation in ten years,
and avoid a civil war
... and I called the current sponsor
a "dingbat", because AOC certainly is.
Am I being polite?
Of course not !
To leftists, a polite response
is a sign of weakness.
A counterattack is a sign of strength.
That's why leftists suffer from "Trump
Derangement Syndrome", and can't think
straight , or honestly, about him !
Attacking first is an even better
sign of strength, for example:
Q.
How many leftists does it take
to screw in a light bulb ?
A.
Eight Leftists:
One black.
One white
One Hispanic.
One Asian.
One mixed race.
One gay.
One she-male / transexual.
( Four of them must be women,
or at least look like women ).
Their Tasks:
One makes a political speech
about the job, blaming Trump
for the burned out light bulb.
One is the union representative.
One is the equal opportunity representative.
One is the EPA representative.
One union worker will stand
on the ladder, holding the
light bulb vertically,
in his / her / its hand.
in his / her / its hand.
Three other union workers
will lift up the ladder & worker,
and turn it in clockwise circles,
based on their computer model,
until they finally figure out
that counterclockwise circles
work better !
work better !
heh heh
I guess I'm not politically correct,