American Marxism

[Immanuel Can]

You're clueless and dangerous for it.

The guy who wants to see the science, me, is "dangerous"?

And the guy who believes in "science" he's never seen and doesn't know anything about, you, is the guy to tell him how "dangerous" he is?

Lovely, Gary. With thinking like that...well, I don't know what I can tell you.

[Gary Childress]

You're clueless and dangerous for it.

The guy who wants to see the science, me, is "dangerous"?

And the guy who believes in "science" he's never seen and doesn't know anything about, you, is the guy to tell him how "dangerous" he is?

Lovely, Gary. With thinking like that...well, I don't know what I can tell you.

Unlike you, I've been paying attention to science. If you want to "see the science" then maybe you should try paying attention too.

No worries. I'm done with Yahweh's world anyway. I'm 56 and have suffered from severe psychological distress since childhood, that probably won't add up to much longer a life span for me anyway. I'd rather not go to hell but if the alternative is to visit a heaven full of stupid Kristians, then I'll hope for oblivion. Otherwise I might have to settle for hell. At least maybe hell won't be full of ignorant hypocrites. I mean, Yahweh apparently punished Eve for indulging in knowledge. Sounds like Yahweh likes his companions stupid, naive and boring to converse with anyway.

Earth, the people's paradise full of natural disasters, plagues and life feeding off life-- constructed by the almighty vengeful God. Stalin was an amateur by comparison.

Good luck with Yahweh. Sounds like you might need it.

[Immanuel Can]

Unlike you, I've been paying attention to science.

Great. Provide the studies you've been "paying attention" to.

Nobody believes you, Gary. You don't have any "studies," nor do you know anything about climate "science." You've been just trusting whatever the media told you. They said it was "scientific," like they say all kinds of things are, and you just believed them.

Judging by your lack of response with the data, I'm pretty sure of that, now.

[Gary Childress]

Unlike you, I've been paying attention to science.

Great. Provide the studies you've been "paying attention" to.

Nobody believes you, Gary. You don't have any "studies," nor do you know anything about climate "science." You've been just trusting whatever the media told you. They said it was "scientific," like they say all kinds of things are, and you just believed them.

Judging by your lack of response with the data, I'm pretty sure of that, now.

OK. Here's a video that I've found from a climate scientist that I find very compelling. If you'd like to see my impression of who you seem to be to me, jump to time around 54:10 and watch the member of the audience asking a question there. But don't do that unless you watch the whole video from beginning to end and pay attention to the arguments the presenter is making, otherwise, you'll lose all frame of reference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM&t=109s

[Consul]

"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.

Man-made climate change is not an ideological leftist dogma, but a scientifically well-established fact. Global warming actually poses a frightening global crisis threatening the future of mankind. If you deny that, you are out of touch with reality.

[Consul]

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

There is no form that has not caused torture, confiscations, death, and economic disaster.

Yes, there is, because social democracy hasn't caused that.

[Sculptor]

American Marxism
by Mark R. Levin

Check it out.

He proves that a Marxist revolution is in process, American style.

My advice to you is to try and post threads on topics you might know something about.

[Sculptor]

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.

The main problem and the most dangerous with these fundies aside from the facts that they hate freedom, free speech and toleration.
The worst is that they cannot wait for the world to end, and so reject action on disaster climate change; nuclear disarmament; pogroms and other forms of social conflict.

[Immanuel Can]

Man-made climate change is not an ideological leftist dogma,

It's not in their program, anymore than COVID was. They don't care WHAT causes the crisis or precipitates their revolution...race, "equity" issues, national borders, a health crisis, economic collapse, the surveilance state, the climate panic...it all works. When BLM was burning cities it was at the demand leaders who proudly declared themselves "trained Marxists." (their words) That made them happy, too. Klaus Schwab was so excited he compared COVID to the Black Death, and drooled that he hoped the new disease might turn out to be a culture turning point on level with the latter. (That's how deranged these people are. They actually even say this stuff out loud.)

What they liked about COVID and the climate panic is that both are an opportunity they have seized and used in exactly the way I suggested: to scare people into surrendering their independence to national and global Socialist incursions. You can read about the COVID case in the WEF's "Great Reset" book. They're quite explicit that that's what they intended to do. They were thrilled that the world was in crisis:

"The deep disruption caused by COVID-19 globally has offered societies an enforced pause to reflect on what is truly of value. With the economic emergency responses to the pandemic now in place, the opportunity can be seized to make the kind of institutional changes and policy choices that will put economies on a new path toward a fairer, greener future." (57)

Notice that for them, it's an "opportunity to seize" because it "enforces" a series of "emergency responses," that will by used by them to rationalize "institutional" and "policy" changes...ones that they see as not just social justice moves (what they mean by "fairer") but also "a greener future." Thus they link the health crisis with their greening ambitions -- a thing they repeat in their book too many times to cite here.

They don't say anything about the stacks of dead bodies that they expect to be involved. That's not something they ever mention in their program, either.

What's clear is the new Marxists love both viral crises and the alleged climate panic, not because they care about either but because both create the panic conditions for seizing political power.

There it is.

[Immanuel Can]

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

There is no form that has not caused torture, confiscations, death, and economic disaster.

Yes, there is, because social democracy hasn't caused that.

"Social democracy"? Is that actual "democracy," or are you riffing off the "social" bit to get Marxism back in, in new clothes?

The latter, I expect. That's how Marxists propagandists do it: "Oh, we're just promiting democracy..." by which they always mean "The People's Party," (i.e. the tyrannical Marxist elites) not the actual, living people." It's a simple bait-and-switch whenever they mention "democracy."

But Marxism is the bloodiest creed in human history, by orders of magnitude. And that's so certain, so statisitically obvious, that it cannot be denied. It killed over 100 million at least, by the most charitable of counts, in the last century alone. Hitler (the National Socialist) only killed about 6 million Jews and 8 million others. Stalin killed over 20 million, and Mao over 40 million. Socialism's got one heck of a lot of bodies to answer for.

If they love democracy, then why is it the first thing they eliminate, in favour of a one-party system? If they love people, why do they always kill so many?

[Immanuel Can]

Unlike you, I've been paying attention to science.

Great. Provide the studies you've been "paying attention" to.

Nobody believes you, Gary. You don't have any "studies," nor do you know anything about climate "science." You've been just trusting whatever the media told you. They said it was "scientific," like they say all kinds of things are, and you just believed them.

Judging by your lack of response with the data, I'm pretty sure of that, now.

OK. Here's a video that I've found from a climate scientist

Wait. I asked you what had ALREADY convinced you. You went out and had to find something new?

In that case, you're admitting that up to now, you didn't have the data...if you had, you'd have supplied me with that, surely. So now you're going on a hunt for videos (not scientific studies) to support your existing prejudgments? That's not really the same thing at all.

Okay. So up to now, you've been operating without evidence, on pure panic. That's now clear.

What should I do next? I could send you a whole bunch of other videos, like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d51qDgeF8vY, until you and I weary each other. But I think that would be unprofitable. The outcome for your case, at best, will be a war of experts: but what it will show at the end, inevitably, is only that expert opinion is divided. Which is exactly what I've been saying: we don't really know what the right thing to do with the environment is, yet; and until the science actually gets sorted out, it would be insane for us to go about trashing the economies of the world, killing people in the developing world (or now, even in Europe or the UK, when winter comes) doing things like windmills, batteries and solar panels that make pollution and the energy crisis both immeasurably worse than before, and getting it all wrong.

So my point is simple: wait for the science. Don't shoot random "bullets" in every direction until you know what you're doing. You'll only make things much worse. And if the climate situation is anywhere near so important as you say you think it is, that would seem to be the most obvious and rational thing either of us could possibly do.

P.S. -- If the Dems are so keen on green, why did they blow up the Nordstream pipeline, thereby creating the biggest carbon-release disaster in all of human history? https://phys.org/news/2023-03-hidden-en ... eline.html How "green" is that move? Doesn't that tell you that they don't actually care about the environment, but about something else? It should.

[Gary Childress]

Great. Provide the studies you've been "paying attention" to.

Nobody believes you, Gary. You don't have any "studies," nor do you know anything about climate "science." You've been just trusting whatever the media told you. They said it was "scientific," like they say all kinds of things are, and you just believed them.

Judging by your lack of response with the data, I'm pretty sure of that, now.

OK. Here's a video that I've found from a climate scientist

Wait. I asked you what had ALREADY convinced you. You went out and had to find something new?

No. I've known about the video for years. Watch it or don't.

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Here's a video that I've found from a climate scientist

Wait. I asked you what had ALREADY convinced you. You went out and had to find something new?

No. I've known about the video for years. Watch it or don't.

A video "I've found" you wrote. That looks like present tense. Don't blame me, if I took you at your word. But I'll have a look. The outcome will be the same: I can send you a dozen that will make the opposite point, and then we'll have to agree that the science isn't settled yet.

And we both know that's true. Denying the existence of the opposing views and data won't help your case, because I can produce an abundance of them. So there's no singular view in "science" about what percentage of "climate change" is human-caused, or about what's the right thing to do with the situation. What is clear, though, is that your pro-climate gurus have been getting it wrong...and badly wrong...for years, now. If they hadn't, we wouldn't have all the failed and disastrously counterproductive "green" programs we've got. Go out on the street, and watch the "electric" cars go by, all powered by gas reserves and carrying all kinds of unrecyclable parts and rare earth metals. Pick up your "recycling bins," in the garage, and figure out how many pieces of plastic they're not actually going to recycle. Drive around and look at the windmills, and figure out how much energy it took to make them, how little they produce, and where the parts of them are going to be dumped within 15 years...

[Immanuel Can]

OK. Here's a video that I've found from a climate scientist

Wait. I asked you what had ALREADY convinced you. You went out and had to find something new?

No. I've known about the video for years. Watch it or don't.

I watched it. Sea level rise? Really? You know that panicky nonsense has been floated before, don't you?

Do you remember a film called "An Inconvenient Truth"? NASA's been keeping statistic on sea-level changes. Here's what they found:

"...he [Al Gore] showed the consequences of a wildly hypothetical 20-foot increase in sea level. This was done with an alarmist video showing Manhattan, most of Florida, Beijing, Shanghai, and many other regions being submerged under the waves.

At the current rate of sea level increase, it will take 1,800 years for the ocean to go up another 20 feet.

Let’s say the annual average pace of sea rise quadruples, from the thickness of two quarters stacked atop each other to the thickness of eight quarters. That still puts the 20-foot total increase at 450 years away."



That's NASA. I am led to believe those folks do some science.

[Gary Childress]

Wait. I asked you what had ALREADY convinced you. You went out and had to find something new?

No. I've known about the video for years. Watch it or don't.

I watched it. Sea level rise? Really? You know that panicky nonsense has been floated before, don't you?

Nice well thought out refutation. How long did it take you to piece that 'argument' (to be generous) together? You get an F in science and philosophy. Cheer up though, you get an "A" in Kristianity. I'm sure that's the real bar to measure people. You led us all to our deaths, but you did it "nicely".

No worries. "Hell" must be a veritable utopia compared to having to encounter you in "heaven". I can't think of anything more torturous than to listen to you making an "argument" (again to characterize it extremely generously).

Good bye. It's been horrible knowing you.