American Marxism

[Immanuel Can]

These are some of the conditions of the Provisional Government ...blah...

Ah, I see. Just ignore the questions, and rattle on. Typical propaganda, really. Just what all the Marxist major in.

[Immanuel Can]

Something one always notices about Marxists.

1. They always claim that all the people who tried to implement Marxism, all the poor saps in Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Romania, Albania, Congo, Zimbabwe, and everywhere else got it wrong.

2. They never want to talk about Marxism's historical record of killing folks and crashing economies.

3. They all behave as if they know how to get Marxism right. Only they can tell you what "real Marxism" is.

4. They don't want to discuss Marx's proven failures of prophecy and prediction...how his revolution of the proles never happened, for instance.

5. They claim to be "critical" and "conscious" of the faults of everybody else...of capitalism, of the failed Marxist states, of racism, of "the Right," and so on. But they don't hear any criticism of Communism, nor do they even try to patch up its obvious faults.

6. When they realize you know about Marxism, they accuse you of not knowing about Marxism, then "take their ball and go home." They carry on as if you had never spoken at all.

7. They all lie, bully and propagandize, repeatedly and shamelessly, always in the service of Marxism.

8. They can't be corrected. Find one thing wrong with their program, and they'll just revise it, reset it, and tell you their Marxism is still viable. They're immune to the idea that Marxism itself is insane, untrue and impractical. Somehow, they're going to make it happen anyway.

Jordan Peterson speaks of people who are "ideologically possessed," meaning so devoted to a certain kind of ideology that it's like a demon-possessed person is described to be; so in the grip of something that their individual intellect is totally suppressed by it, their bodily members are surrendered to it, their resources devoted to it, and their very voice turns into the voice of the demon. They are no longer their own: their soul belongs to another.

Far too many advocates of Marxism are exactly like that.

[Immanuel Can]

At least I'm glad to hear from you that global climate change due to the economic activity of over 7 billion people is a hoax and we can proceed to polute to our hearts desire.

In follow-up, Gary...here are the products of "climate change" panic. (very short vid.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQicWEp9P-s

If climate change is human caused (which we have to admit we do not know), the more important question is what to do about it (if there's something we can, which we also do not know). In the meanwhile, to thrash around at a serious problem risks making things much, much worse, as you see in the video. There's no solution to climate change in increasing the amount of waste, in search of low grade "solutions" that actually are destructive. We don't need more symbolic gestures of belief in climate change. What we need, instead of environmentally-destructive symbolic gestures like "wind power," is to put some actual science to work on the problem...and to make changes that are proven to make a difference, not merely speculated to.

And if you think the climate situation is anywhere so serious as you seem to say, then you'll agree, I'm sure.

[Impenitent]

anyone who believes in man made global warming caused by man made CO2 and continues to exhale...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

In follow-up, Gary...here are the products of "climate change" panic. (very short vid.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQicWEp9P-s

What the fuck is "climate change panic"? Would you prefer people not to be concerned? Would you like people studying climate science to just shut up and say nothing?

[blah blah blah...]If climate change is human caused (which we have to admit we do not know), the more important question is what to do about it (if there's something we can, which we also do not know). In the meanwhile, to thrash around at a serious problem risks making things much, much worse, as you see in the video. There's no solution to climate change in increasing the amount of waste, in search of low grade "solutions" that actually are destructive. We don't need more symbolic gestures of belief in climate change.[/blah blah blah]

You're right. Unlike our certainty in the existence and benevolence of Yahweh and everything that is written in the bible, we really don't know if there's such a thing as human made climate change or how to deal with it. People who use the scientific method to arrive at hypotheses don't know ANYTHING for sure.

However, I'm sure the benevolent Yahweh will fix the problem. No need to "panic".

What we need, instead of environmentally-destructive symbolic gestures like "wind power," is to put some actual science to work on the problem....

Nah science is all fake. We all know everything written in the bible is the one and only truth and there's nothing in the bible about climate change. Why bother with fake news?

[Immanuel Can]

In follow-up, Gary...here are the products of "climate change" panic. (very short vid.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQicWEp9P-s

What the fuck is "climate change panic"? Would you prefer people not to be concerned? Would you like people studying climate science to just shut up and say nothing?

That would depend. Is climate change a product of natural cycles or of human interference? We need to know. Because if it's the latter, then sure, we ought to start to use science to discover how we did it, and what we need to do to change it.

But if it's the former, then it would be very dangerous if we started thrashing about, hating each other, doing "climate friendly" things that actually hasten the destruction of the environment -- but appeal to us, because we are in irrational panic and desperate to do something...

"Concern" is fine. But if climate change is a real and serious thing, and man-caused, then we need to be using our very best reasoning, evidence and proven tactics to combat it: not flying into emotional frenzies.

...we really don't know if there's such a thing as human made climate change or how to deal with it. People who use the scientific method to arrive at hypotheses don't know ANYTHING for sure.

It depends on what you mean by "for sure." If you mean "beyond the possibility of any doubt," you're asking too much; nothing empirical has that. If you mean, "with enough certainty to realize it's an extremely high-probability calculation," then that's not at all too much to ask; and it's good science.

How serious do you think "climate change" is, Gary? IF you think it's serious, why would you not want our best science to be used to evaluate and address it? Would you really prefer a series of panic-stricken virtue-signalling gestures that actually poison the environment, like windmills, electric cars, or solar panels? What's the use of panic gestures that only accelerate the same crisis you're so worried about?

Wouldn't you rather have us actually fix it?

[Gary Childress]

In follow-up, Gary...here are the products of "climate change" panic. (very short vid.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQicWEp9P-s

What the fuck is "climate change panic"? Would you prefer people not to be concerned? Would you like people studying climate science to just shut up and say nothing?

That would depend. Is climate change a product of natural cycles or of human interference? We need to know. Because if it's the latter, then sure, we ought to start to use science to discover how we did it, and what we need to do to change it.

But if it's the former, then it would be very dangerous if we started thrashing about, hating each other, doing "climate friendly" things that actually hasten the destruction of the environment -- but appeal to us, because we are in irrational panic and desperate to do something...

"Concern" is fine. But if climate change is a real and serious thing, and man-caused, then we need to be using our very best reasoning, evidence and proven tactics to combat it: not flying into emotional frenzies.

...we really don't know if there's such a thing as human made climate change or how to deal with it. People who use the scientific method to arrive at hypotheses don't know ANYTHING for sure.

It depends on what you mean by "for sure." If you mean "beyond the possibility of any doubt," you're asking too much; nothing empirical has that. If you mean, "with enough certainty to realize it's an extremely high-probability calculation," then that's not at all too much to ask; and it's good science.

How serious do you think "climate change" is, Gary? IF you think it's serious, why would you not want our best science to be used to evaluate and address it? Would you really prefer a series of panic-stricken virtue-signalling gestures that actually poison the environment, like windmills, electric cars, or solar panels? What's the use of panic gestures that only accelerate the same crisis you're so worried about?

Wouldn't you rather have us actually fix it?

What are you asking me these things for? I'm just a Godless, panicky fool who only listens to the non-"best science". Please show us the light, IC! What is the 'real' solution to climate change?

[Immanuel Can]

What are you asking me these things for? I'm just a Godless, panicky fool who only listens to the non-"best science". Please show us the light, IC! What is the 'real' solution to climate change?

All I've suggested so far is some real science, instead of pop-cult panic. That would seem to me to be not just an obvious thing to want, but actually the very best thing to want, regardless of what one's metaphysical view is. It's one of the few areas where, say, a Theist, an agnostic and an ardent Atheist should be in total agreement: let's REALLY fix the climate issue, if we can.

So anybody who thinks "climate" is an issue right now should be: a) campaigning for the best science to be brought to bear on the problem, and b) rejecting phony pseudo-solutions that make the environment worse.

What makes that statement controversial today? I'll tell you what: it's the panic-filled rhetoric of the media, and the facile pseudo-solutions being sold to us by the media and the corporations who benefit from our panic, as well as the useless politicians who employ "climate" as an excuse to get us to surrender ever more of our freedoms and personal responsibility in favour of their programs. That's where the controversy is coming from.

But the chief target of that controversy is a naive and fearful public, kept so by the fact that the media hides the bad effects of bad "climate" measures, and keeps convincing us to keep playing the "climate" virtue-gesture game, instead of actually doing science on it.

And this is where the climate Marxists come to play. By inducing irrational panic in an uninformed and unscientifically-responding public, they can justify further centralization of power, removal of personal freedoms, restricting the economy, globalizing control, and so on. Marxists love this stuff...it serves their agenda marvelously, if they can get the public to just panic and damage the whole system with stupid, counterproductive gestures of protest, rather than real-world solutions.

Marxists actually have no incentive at all to see this problem fixed. They want it made worse, so that more control is surrendered to them. Because they believe that the bigger problem in the world, the one that really needs to be fixed, is that not enough people are under Marxist rule.

[Consul]

Well, Socialism has nothing to do with democracy, actually, so that's just fine. Democracy, as I said earlier, is rule by the people. Socialism is rule of the people by "The People's Party." That's just despotism in Socialist robes, as you suggest.

"There are many mansions in the House of Socialism," as Angelo Rappoport writes in his Dictionary of Socialism (1924). There is a democratic socialism, and there is social democracy.
(If the former isn't the same as the latter, there is a large overlap at least. For example, the current basic program of the German SPD—Social Democratic Party of Germany—contains the statement that they stand in the proud tradition of democratic socialism.)

Moreover, there are different forms of democracy: direct democracy vs. indirect (representative) democracy. The existence of political parties is compatible with democracy, and democratic socialists/social democrats don't reject party pluralism. They don't share the Bolshevist view that there should be only one "people's party" or "vanguard party".

[Consul]

And this is where the climate Marxists come to play. By inducing irrational panic in an uninformed and unscientifically-responding public, they can justify further centralization of power, removal of personal freedoms, restricting the economy, globalizing control, and so on. Marxists love this stuff...it serves their agenda marvelously, if they can get the public to just panic and damage the whole system with stupid, counterproductive gestures of protest, rather than real-world solutions.

"Climate Marxists"??? This is a ludicrous right-wing conspiracy theory!

[Immanuel Can]

Well, Socialism has nothing to do with democracy, actually, so that's just fine. Democracy, as I said earlier, is rule by the people. Socialism is rule of the people by "The People's Party." That's just despotism in Socialist robes, as you suggest.

"There are many mansions in the House of Socialism,"

There is no form that has not caused torture, confiscations, death, and economic disaster. So that's just unimportant. Socialism itself is a total disaster. One can change the flavour, but it's all still the same toxin.

[Immanuel Can]

"Climate Marxists"??? This is a ludicrous right-wing conspiracy theory!

Yeah, that's what the Marxists always do: the minute you catch them at it, they cry "conspiracy theory," or call you a "Nazi," until you go away.

But Marxism itself is conspiratorial, actually. It's a shared dogma, spread across the planet by those determined to see their political experiment made universal. That's a "conspiracy." Climate is but one of the many strings on which it now pulls: there's race, gender, sex, ablility, heath, fatness, postcolonialism, climate...and Marxism doesn't care which string it has to pull, so long as it drags people into Marxism.

The game is simple: declare a crisis, frighten people, bully them into compliance, mobilize mobs, undermine all existing systems until they become dysfunctional, indoctrinate the young, stumble the economy, threaten war, and they'll all end up surrendered to centralized authority. That's the Marxist playbook. And climate panic, installed in place of actual climate science, is one string in the bunch.

[Gary Childress]

"Climate Marxists"??? This is a ludicrous right-wing conspiracy theory!

Yeah, that's what the Marxists always do: the minute you catch them at it, they cry "conspiracy theory," or call you a "Nazi," until you go away.

But Marxism itself is conspiratorial, actually. It's a shared dogma, spread across the planet by those determined to see their political experiment made universal. That's a "conspiracy." Climate is but one of the many strings on which it now pulls: there's race, gender, sex, ablility, heath, fatness, postcolonialism, climate...and Marxism doesn't care which string it has to pull, so long as it drags people into Marxism.

The game is simple: declare a crisis, frighten people, bully them into compliance, mobilize mobs, undermine all existing systems until they become dysfunctional, indoctrinate the young, stumble the economy, threaten war, and they'll all end up surrendered to centralized authority. That's the Marxist playbook. And climate panic, installed in place of actual climate science, is one string in the bunch.

As far as I know, "real science" is being done in the area of climate change. Vested economic interests that fear financial penalties to their own personal fortunes (resulting from proposed policies that climate scientists arrive at the need for) seem to be the ones most interested in conspiring to create cognitive dissonance on the matter.

Then there are people like you who seem to think that those engaged in laborious science on climate change are in some sort of conspiracy with 'powermongers' who secretly just want to control people for the empty sake of controlling people (or else to apparently kill us for no particular rational stated reason that you provide). That's utter nonsense.

The greatest conspirators and manipulators of power in our world are economic entities seeking profit in cases where science contradicts their pursuit of economic gain. Look at the tobacco industry for an example of a true conspiracy to knowingly harm others. While I assume Christian fundamentalists are not out to do harm or knowingly mislead people, your reliance on a book of mythology over 2000 years old is not rendering you sound judgment. You're in Lala land. (And quite frankly, many Christians are because many of you seem to insulate yourself from scientific opinion when it doesn't stroke your archaic 2000-year-old God hypothesis. Go to a university and get a real education in science.)

[Immanuel Can]

As far as I know, "real science" is being done in the area of climate change.

What does that mean, Gary..."as far as I know," and "real science is being done"?

We know some phony pseudo-science is being done, for sure. Windmills, solar panels, electric cars, recycling...these are not "scientific" solutions, but merely speculative efforts to convince the public we're "doing something" while we make the problem worse. So where is this "real science," and by which people is it "being done"?

And you say, "in the area of climate change." What about it has this "real science" delivered to us? How do we know the "real science" from the scam-artist pseudo-science we're being fed in the media, so often?

Who is convincing us? How "far" do we really "know," then?

Not very far, I'm thinking.

Vested economic interests that fear financial penalties to their own personal fortunes (resulting from proposed policies that climate scientists arrive at the need for) seem to be the ones most interested in conspiring to create cognitive dissonance on the matter.

There may be some of those, such as wanton polluters who don't want to be capped. China and India are full of such industries, but one has a hard time blaming them, since they're going through their own Industrial Revolution periods, and trying to get millions of people out of poverty. Still, in that process, China and India are the zones that are likely to kill us with climate change. It's certainly not Britain or North America that will have any impact -- that much, we know for sure.

But what about the "vested economic interests" that have marshalled their forces to commit us to these environmentally-disastrous "climate" policies that we have right now? Who makes a profit on our belief in recycling and windmills? Who's winning by convincing us to buy electric cars that are actually MORE environmentally damaging than gasoline ones, and make us dependent on heavy metals culled by slave labour from the developing world? Who won there? And who is gaining the advantage by sending us into irrational environmental panics without providing us with the definite science to back their claims? And which academics are making careers off the climate crisis? And so on.

So there are financial manipulators on both sides. My argument would be that we have to look to the science that is backed by properly-done studies. But you and I haven't seen a lot of those yet. We're just reassured by the media that they must exist somewhere, so "as far as we know," science says we ought to panic.

It all doesn't make sense, Gary.

Then there are people like you who seem to think that those engaged in laborious science on climate change are in some sort of conspiracy with 'powermongers' who secretly just want to control people for the empty sake of controlling people.

I'm sorry...did you find some "labourious science" I don't know about? Maybe you'll send me those references, so I can figure out just how "labourious" and decisive they are...

Or are you only trusting those who are telling you that such exist? And why are they wanting you to trust them, if they don't provide the evidence?

The greatest conspirators in our world are economic entities seeking profit in cases where science contradicts their pursuit of economic gain.

White hats and black hats, right, Gary? The climate panickers wear the white hats, and get to assign the black hats to nameless "industrial tycoons" who are doing us wrong....

Yes, Gary, there can be greedy industrialists. And back in the '70s, maybe, during the first oil crisis, maybe the split worked something like the way you're saying. But nowadays, why are all the rich tycoons backing the environmentalist movement? If the story you're telling yourself is true, then the richest among us should be the ones fighting against climate change rhetoric. They should, like the tobacco industry did, be buying up media and producing pseudo-studies to prove their practices are "healthy" or "climate friendly." They should be blocking reform, shutting down political parties that campaign on climate, and protecting their assets, should they not? But it seems that all the really big money-holders, like the manipulative meddlers at the WEF or the chairmen of major corporations and banks, are championing climate change rhetoric...so you need to ask yourself what they know that you might not.

[Gary Childress]

As far as I know, "real science" is being done in the area of climate change.

What does that mean, Gary..."as far as I know," and "real science is being done"?

We know some phony pseudo-science is being done, for sure. Windmills, solar panels, electric cars, recycling...these are not "scientific" solutions, but merely speculative efforts to convince the public we're "doing something" while we make the problem worse. So where is this "real science," and by which people is it "being done"?

And you say, "in the area of climate change." What about it has this "real science" delivered to us? How do we know the "real science" from the scam-artist pseudo-science we're being fed in the media, so often?

Who is convincing us? How "far" do we really "know," then?

Not very far, I'm thinking.

Vested economic interests that fear financial penalties to their own personal fortunes (resulting from proposed policies that climate scientists arrive at the need for) seem to be the ones most interested in conspiring to create cognitive dissonance on the matter.

There may be some of those, such as wanton polluters who don't want to be capped. China and India are full of such industries, but one has a hard time blaming them, since they're going through their own Industrial Revolution periods, and trying to get millions of people out of poverty. Still, in that process, China and India are the zones that are likely to kill us with climate change. It's certainly not Britain or North America that will have any impact -- that much, we know for sure.

But what about the "vested economic interests" that have marshalled their forces to commit us to these environmentally-disastrous "climate" policies that we have right now? Who makes a profit on our belief in recycling and windmills? Who's winning by convincing us to buy electric cars that are actually MORE environmentally damaging than gasoline ones, and make us dependent on heavy metals culled by slave labour from the developing world? Who won there? And who is gaining the advantage by sending us into irrational environmental panics without providing us with the definite science to back their claims? And which academics are making careers off the climate crisis? And so on.

So there are financial manipulators on both sides. My argument would be that we have to look to the science that is backed by properly-done studies. But you and I haven't seen a lot of those yet. We're just reassured by the media that they must exist somewhere, so "as far as we know," science says we ought to panic.

It all doesn't make sense, Gary.

Then there are people like you who seem to think that those engaged in laborious science on climate change are in some sort of conspiracy with 'powermongers' who secretly just want to control people for the empty sake of controlling people.

I'm sorry...did you find some "labourious science" I don't know about? Maybe you'll send me those references, so I can figure out just how "labourious" and decisive they are...

Or are you only trusting those who are telling you that such exist? And why are they wanting you to trust them, if they don't provide the evidence?

The greatest conspirators in our world are economic entities seeking profit in cases where science contradicts their pursuit of economic gain.

White hats and black hats, right, Gary? The climate panickers wear the white hats, and get to assign the black hats to nameless "industrial tycoons" who are doing us wrong....

Yes, Gary, there can be greedy industrialists. And back in the '70s, maybe, during the first oil crisis, maybe the split worked something like the way you're saying. But nowadays, why are all the rich tycoons backing the environmentalist movement? If the story you're telling yourself is true, then the richest among us should be the ones fighting against climate change rhetoric. They should, like the tobacco industry did, be buying up media and producing pseudo-studies to prove their practices are "healthy" or "climate friendly." They should be blocking reform, shutting down political parties that campaign on climate, and protecting their assets, should they not? But it seems that all the really big money-holders, like the manipulative meddlers at the WEF or the chairmen of major corporations and banks, are championing climate change rhetoric...so you need to ask yourself what they know that you might not.

You're clueless and dangerous for it. We'll all roast in an environmental oven when scientifically ignorant Christian fundies like you are finished carrying out the revenge of the ignorant. Go to a university and meet real scientists doing real science. I did. Sunday school and Youtube videos from the Alex Jones types are not helping you.