Who in his right mind is going to sit there and watch a thing like that? (Not many, I’ve heard: but the Internet is curiously devoid of any reports on the movie’s reception.) And why didn’t they just get the kids aborted, and thus fulfill her dreams?
Some say the total fiasco resulting in the coronavirus pandemic is proof that globalism is not only a failure, but never could have been anything but a failure. I think that’s true.
But globalism is hyper-humanism’s holy grail, and they’re not about to quit on it.
Here are four signals that will tell you that you’re reading or talking to a hyper-humanist.
*Insisting that there is no God, hyper-humanists are more than eager to take on God’s job. They give themselves away by revealing their dogma that perfection can and will be achieved by… well, them. Imperfect human beings. They will create technology, societies, and political systems that are better, wiser, and more efficient than they are themselves. In their view, God couldn’t do it (because He doesn’t exist), but they will.
*Failed systems like communism and socialism won’t fail, no way, if they’re in charge! All those other poor saps in all those other countries all over the world–they just didn’t do it right. “But we will!”
*Because everything’s supposed to go right when The Smartest People In The World are in charge, if ever something goes wrong, it must be someone’s fault. Somebody let down the side. Some nay-sayer, biggit, hater, xenophobe, racist, trans-phobic deplorable must have screwed up somewhere. Probably on purpose.
*Everything “old” is useless and “on the wrong side of history.” Old stuff like Christianity, marriage, the family, nations, free enterprise: stuff like that. Everything “new,” that The Smartest People In The World just made up a few weeks ago–like 50 different “genders,” or, God forbid, a robot-controlled “social credit system” like they have in Red China’s workers’ paradise–that’s all good. That’s all on the right side of history.
Even one of these tell-tale signs, if you can spot it, should absolutely disqualify the writer or speaker from ever holding any public office or other position of responsibility.
Get these people out of power, and keep them out, before they come up with another pandemic. We probably don’t need philosophers and probably don’t need kings; but philosopher-kings are no use at all. And dangerous if swallowed.
Stop me if you’ve seen this pattern before: 1) “School” (they’re still calling them schools) plugs in some outrageous innovation that 2) gets the public hopping mad. 3) In the face of widespread protests, the school removes the innovation. But when 4) all the heat dies down, 5) they plug it back in.
This is what has happened in a school district in Birmingham, UK. Last year they plugged in a “gay”-promoting “curriculum” and parents, mostly Muslims, pulled 600 kids out of the schools and kept them out until the district got rid of its “OK to be gay” curriculum. Victory for the good guys, right?
Now, are Vermont Democrats more warped than, say, California or New Jersey Democrats? I mean, wanting everyone in Southeast Asia to get killed because you didn’t get your way in an election–can we feel entirely safe, with these people running around loose?
They want to be in charge of our country. They want power. Lots and lots of power.
Is that something we want to hand over to psychotics?
Noozies, fake educators, leftist politicians, Hollywood, hopped-up crazy judges, and teacher unions are totally gung-ho for “transgender.” Depending on where you happen to be, you can be arrested for using the wrong pronoun, or subjected to a court-ordered “gender training” course (shades of the Great Cultural Revolution, comrades!), kicked out of a public facility, or fired from your job… all because you failed to affirm and support and celebrate and give three lusty cheers for gender fluidity.
But really–we all do know, don’t we, that there are only two sexes, male and female? That except in exceedingly rare cases, you’ve either got XX chromosomes (female) or XY chromosomes (male)? Like, even noozies know this basic biological fact–right? Not an opinion, but a fact.
So what we have here are people fanatically proclaiming something which they flat-out know is not true–and demanding that everybody else proclaim it, too, or suffer consequences.
And the question is: What are we supposed to gain from this? How is society supposed to gain by affirming something that is totally untrue?
Well, totalitarians–leftids are always trying to create a totalitarian order–find it handy to humiliate their subject peoples. Forcing them to say things they know are hogwash is an easy way to do it.
But there’s also the matter of “revolution” for its own sake, as an end in itself. “We’re revolutionaries, so we make revolution!” To build your own utopia, you have to tear down everything that’s already there. Tear it all down. “But it’s for your good, people! We know what’s best! We’ll create a paradise on earth!” And you wind up with the Soviet Union, or any other communist hell-hole. Good thing they collapse before they can carry out quite all the mischief that they mean to do.
Gender fluidity. A boy one day, a girl the next. Drag Queen Story Hour, at your taxpayer-funded public library. And you’d better say you like it, or else!
This aspect of the “revolution,” this wholesale revolt against reality, is so irrational, so totally and visibly crazy, as to leave no doubt as to its satanic origin. We can’t answer the question, “What can we possibly gain by this?”, because there is absolutely nothing to be gained. It’s not about gaining anything. It’s only about tearing down. Only about loss. Forget the building up: there is only tearing down.
And they are hot to trot for it! And coming after us with everything they’ve got, short of actual war. Maybe that comes later: kill everybody who won’t affirm and celebrate gender fluidity. People have thrown each other into death camps for less cause than that–or have we forgotten the 20th century already?
When Canada in 2016 made it okay for doctors to help their patients kill themselves, no one expected a new industry to grow up around it. Even though that’s what always happens, every time some liberal politicians or judges discover a new “right” that wasn’t on the books before.
Check out this headline from The Ottawa Citizen: “Medically assisted deaths prove a growing boon to organ donation in Ontario.” Hip, hip, hooray. And, in the text, “Ontarians who opt for medically assisted deaths (MAiD)–” dig the cute acronym–“are increasingly saving or improving other people’s lives…”
You name it, people make money on it. Assisted suicide is turning into big business. All these people rubbing their palms as they wait for you to snuff it. And if you’re a little slow to tell ’em to pull your plug, there’s always someone leaning over your hospital bed to remind you of all the good you’ll be doing, so why don’t you get a move on, etc.
So first it’s in your interest to die, to escape unrelievable suffering. Then it’s in the interest of those who will get well if they can gave one or more of your organs. It’s also in the interest of those who will make money on the deal, but it’s tactless to mention it. And finally, offing yourself probably helps Save The Planet.
In 2009, the prime minister’s top”science” advisers advised him that Britain would have to get rid of more than half its population so as to build a “sustainable” society. They didn’t tell him how he was to dump 32 million people off the island.
C.S. Lewis got it right, after all: the ultimate goal of the satanic enterprise we know as leftism is to exterminate the human race. If they can knock off the animals and plants, too, they’ll do it. Because their master’s objective is to un-create Creation.
That’s what lies behind all the “science” and the virtue signalling. Read Lewis’ That Hideous Strength for a crisp, clear picture of it.
The Internet is overflowing with posts about this paper; but I was not able to find any flat-out statement that billions of us have to be killed off on these scientists’ say-so. The closest I could find was this quote: “The world population must be stabilized–and, ideally, gradually reduced.” Yeah, well, they’ve been saying that since the 1970s when the new ice age was all the rage, haven’t they?
There’s the customary Far Left twaddle about how Government must DO SOMETHING and TAKE ACTION to lower the birth rate and stop people from eating so much meat, and getting rid of carbon dioxide (CO2), and somehow they’re gonna “avert the sufferings” of humanity… by killing lots and lots of people.
The paper is published by “Bioscience.” The authors are William Ripple (Oregon State), Christopher Wolf (Oregon State), Phoebe Barnard (Conservation Biology Institute, in Oregon), Thomas Newsome (University of Sydney), and William Moomaw (Tufts University). They want “transformative change for society.” Bibble-babble-blup.
In C.S. Lewis’ novel, That Hideous Strength, a consortium of moral imbeciles–scientists and political operatives–get together to “transform” the world according to “scientific principles.” They’re too full of their own hot air to realize that the aim of their enterprise is to erase all life from the earth. I think he hit the bull’s eye on that one.
Is science still science anymore? I think we’re justified in doubting it.
It’s possible this whole thing is a hoax. But it’s not so different from melodramatic scientific poobah that we’ve all heard before.
In our mania for “change” and “transformation,” we’ve come up with many ways to defy reality–all in the interests, of course, of creating “equality” and a utopia on earth. Imperfect sinful stupid human beings creating a perfect world: uh-huh.
So the BBC is going to run a series called “No More Boys and Girls: Can Our Kids Be Gender Free?” Because, again, doing away with the male/female distinction will create “equality” and a paradise on earth. To this end, an “expert” has been given a free hand for six weeks at a school, where he means to wipe out all visible signs of difference between boys and girls.
Male and female created He them, chuckles.
Reality is real and you can’t cheat it forever. Sooner or later it will eat you. Let me offer an analogy from history.
On January 17, 1912, a party of five British explorers led by Captain R.F. Scott reached the South Pole–a month after Scott’s rival, Amundsen, got there. On the way back to base, all five of the British died. All five. The Norwegians got back to their base all safe and sound with everybody healthy.
For “reality” read “Antarctica.”
The icy continent has its own unique conditions which brook no compromise, no negotiation. You either do things Antarctica’s way, or you don’t do them. Amundsen’s expedition was consciously made to conform to Antarctic conditions. Scott ignored those conditions. Here are some of the disastrous decisions he made–all of which had nothing to do with how to survive in Antarctica.
He passed over his strongest, fittest men and took those who were much less fit. He took one man from the Army because he decided the Army had to be represented. Sort of a token, you see. The Army man died. But then so did all the others. He also took an older man who’d already been weakened by earlier adventures in the killing cold, because the man was his friend and supporter. No one who was fit for the journey was picked.
Although the polar party was provisioned for four men, at the last minute Scott decided to take five. The fifth man didn’t have skis.
For transport of supplies he relied on ponies. The Antarctic is no place for herbivores: nothing for them to eat. The ponies failed and died.
Failing to account for weather and climate conditions, Scott didn’t keep accurate track of the location of his supply dumps. His party lost considerable time finding them again.
Wishing to salvage some good public relations after losing the race to Amundsen, Scott chose to have his freezing, starving men haul loads of fossil-bearing rocks back to base instead of leaving them somewhere to be picked up later.
And on and on. Did Scott think he could make it to the South Pole and back just because he wanted to?
It remains to be seen whether Western society can make it back alive from its expedition to Transgender Land.
On his radio show yesterday, Sean Hanity played some interviews with current college students. I was in my car on the Parkway, so I couldn’t take notes. But what I heard was–well, pathetic. Shameful.
The topic was “The Appeal of Socialism,” and it certainly seemed to appeal, big-time, to these overgrown babies. Free college. Free healthcare. Free housing. Guaranteed income, in case you just don’t want to work. One and all, these college students aspired to a life of “being taken care of” by the government. Just as if they were to be little children all their lives. Have they no shame? Have they no morals? Yes, folks–it’s immoral to be a parasite, with the government forcing other people to pay your way.
What do these people even want to do with their lives? There’s a poll that says most of them want “to be famous.” But famous for what? They don’t know. Swallowing Tide pods?
They also have no idea how all this free stuff is going to be paid for. No idea at all. Their guiding light, Congresscreature Alexandria O’Crazy-O Cortez, says all we’ve got to do is print more money. Yeah, that’ll work.
But here’s another thing they don’t know. Apart from the money, what will all this free stuff cost those who receive it? What will they have to give in return? “Their unqualified obedience” would be my guess. Right down to the most minute details of their lives. And if that means they kill and eat you after your 30th birthday–