Category: Culture War

The British people have spoken…

To be honest with you, I doubted every poll that showed that Britian would choose to remain in the UE simply because of all the water carrying by the usual lefitst big government types, and now that the only poll that counts has been taken, the results back my suspicions. By a 52 to 48 margin, those that voted chose to pull out of the EU. As was expected, there are both financial, and political impacts, but my favorite one is that the fucking scumbags were, yet again, on the wrong side of history. I don’t have to point out that all the people that said the other guy was in thw wrong, will now have to eat some crow.

As others pointed out during some chats in comments in other threads, this might not be a great thing for the British people. After all, they could simply be trading an unaccountable corrupt and totally inept political aritocracy in Brussels for one locally, with not much changing, but then again, I think the EU has been the prime example of what is wrong with collectivism gone haywire, and thus, I am glad to see that institution crumble and fall. Basically I see the Brexit vote as the people finally rebelling against a disconnected and abusive political ideocracy that has turned their lives into a miserable thing while pretending to do them right. And I admit I am not surprised by it. The political leadership around the globe today is basically a bunch of criminal idiots and unlike politicians of the past, no longer offer any real service in return for being able to feed at the trough.

Hey, speaking of a revolt against the political class: where else are we seeing something like that? Keep that in mind whenever you hear how bad Trump’s numbers are. The political aristocracy and their lackeys in the media have a vested interest in convincing people that Trump is DOA. Take that for what it is worth.

UPDATE: Oh, oh….

Voters in France, Italy and the Netherlands are demanding their own votes on European Union membership and the euro, as the continent faces a “contagion” of referendums.

EU leaders fear a string of copycat polls could tear the organisation apart, as leaders come under pressure to emulate David Cameron and hold votes.

It came as German business leaders handed a considerable boost to the Leave campaign by saying it would be “very, very foolish” to deny the UK a free trade deal after Brexit.

Get out of it, then form a trade pact so you are not getting screwed by the crooks in Brussels sounds like a smart thing to me…

This is how “Sensible gun control” really works

When your government disarms you in the name of public safety and security, the only people with guns will be the agents of the state and the criminals. In Brazil, a nation with one of the world’s most draconian gun control frameworks in place, crime also sets a world record. Case in point stories like this one:

After two members of the Australian Paralympic sailing squad were robbed at gunpoint, Australia’s Olympic team leader is urging Brazilian authorities to implement Olympic-scale security now in Rio de Janeiro “before an athlete gets hurt.”
The weekend incident in Rio highlighted fears of crime against foreign athletes ahead of the Aug. 5-21 Summer Games.

An estimated 85,000 police and soldiers will be patrolling the streets during the Olympics and Paralympics, but violent crime remains a fact of life in Rio.

This shit can’t be made up. In a country where owning a gun carries swift and horrible repercussions, gun wielding criminals robbed some handicapped Olympians despite the fact that the government claims some 85K agents of the state are out patrolling the streets to prevent this sort of crime.

Reality is that when seconds count help will always be minutes late. That’s why the best defense is people that have the ability to defend themselves. Of course, had Brazilians been able to defend themselves, they would have likely lynched their corrupt and criminal political aristocracy after the recent revelations of how hard they have been screwed by them. And I have no doubt that these scumbags that passed these laws’ primary reason behind the “sensible gun control laws” was to make sure that scenario couldn’t play out, from the start.

The left in this country wants to disarm the citizenry for the same reason. They have lost any desire to waste time pretending they aren’t crooks, as the past 7 years clearly show us, and if it was up to them things would only get worse. But the fear of an armed response from an angry people still holds some sway, so from that we get the surreal world we have today where terrorist attacks by islamist monsters warp into calls for disarming law abiding citizens.

Say what you want, but the forefathers that created this once great nation had the prescience to realize that the constitution was worthless paper without it also guaranteeing the people with the means to protect their rights from a calous political class claiming to want to do something noble and good and robbing us of said freedoms and the ability to protect them especially. Collectivism may claim noble intentions, but it is a scourge on humanity.

What detail was missing from this story?

The LA Times ran a story titled “Looting and unrest continue roiling Venezuela as shortages persist and protesters demand food, where it provided details like this:

Venezuela, where anger over food shortages is still mounting, continued to be roiled this week by angry protests and break-ins of grocery stores and businesses that have left five dead, at least 30 injured and 200 arrested, according to various news reports.

The latest fatality came from the southwest city of Merida, where 17-year-old Jean Paul Omana died Wednesday after being shot Tuesday during a disturbance amid looting.

Widespread violence has been reported there, as well as an attack by protesters on the headquarters of President Nicolas Maduro’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or PSUV.

As consumers grow increasingly frustrated with ongoing food scarcities and lengthening lines outside stores, protests are turning more violent. A Social media reported protests on Wednesday in the Los Teques, Los Altos Mirandinos and Santa Teresa del Tuy suburbs of Caracas, the capital.

A common thread among protesters demanding the government provide food is that they are suffering from hunger and in some cases heat exposure from spending hours in line. Mired in economic crisis, Venezuela must import the bulk of its food items, but supplies have run short because of the government’s cash shortage, triggered by falling oil prices.

So, we are told that there are food shortages, caused because the government has to import most things in Venezuela these days, and they are unable to do this because of falling oil prices! Note what’s missing in all this detail? How about explaining why Venezuela, a country that once was a leading manufacturer in South America now ends up having to import practically everything, and why the government has to do this, and not the economy as a common course? I know, it’s obvious to those of us that know what evil scourge has been destroying Venezuela, but the usual idiots that lap up the left’s bullshit, are not going to connect the dots without someone telling them what the problem is.

And the problem is not that the US is fomenting an imperialist revolution and interfering with the affairs of state in Venezuela, after all, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to coddle tyrannical leftists and murderers all over the globe, but the very fact that Venezuela is now reaping the rewards of collectivism running its course. Things are now getting to the point where the government has to deploy troops to quell the unrest. I am sure Maduro and Chavez’s daughter don’t have these problems. After all, unlike under the evil capitalist system where the rich have power, in a collectivist system, <a href=”http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640941/Super-rich-quaff-champagne-Venezuela-country-club-middle-classes-scavenge-food-rubbish-dumps-DOGS-starving.html” target={_new”>only those with power are going to be rich or have the access to what being rich buys you.

And this is the way Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America will also play out: have no doubt about it. Collectivism is an evil failure. An excuse used by people that will prey on the basest and vilest of man’s instincts – greed and envy – to justify theft. Unfortunately for the dupes that go along, the masters soon realize the pie is limited and will never grown under the system they espouse, so they end up stealing most of it, leaving the people all in abject misery.

This crap has played itself out over and over, with the results always being the same: catastrophe. In most places the decent into hell has been swift and the results immediately apparent. Because of the immense wealth in the western world, wealth created by the very system the collectivists wish to destroy, the western nations that started down the collectivist road are taking longer getting here, but they will get there. The current crop of credentialed elites are so inept that they can’t help but break it all.

This is how the left sees the system work

Sure, I can refer to this Washington Times editorial piece and stick to the fact that, again, the very asshole leftists that want to disarm the people so they can become even more horribly tyrannical in their ways, are violating the second amendment of the constitution, but in doing so I would be missing the forest for the trees. The big lesson here isn’t that these assholes exempted themselves from gun control laws they foisted on the plebes, but the following bigger problem:

The California state Senate voted 28-8 Wednesday to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive.

This is just one of many bills Golden State politicians used this legislative session to set themselves apart from the little people, the ones who pay their inflated salaries.

And this double standards when it comes to the people vs. the political aristocracy doesn’t stop with the blue states like California, but is now central to the entire political machine of this country. Wherever you turn, blue state credentialed politicians have straddled the productive with draconian legislation and fiscal responsibilities, while exempting themselves from them. In many cases they have blatantly passed laws to specifically make this the case, but in most cases, what you have is them simply enforcing the laws against the little people and their political enemies while keeping themselves exempt from that.

What is my proof, you ask? Well, if the law applied equally to us all, Obama would have been indicted for doing what Nixon couldn’t – sick the IRS against his political enemies – and the woman running for president on the Demcoratic ticket would be doing it like this:

This is what Hillary's campaign should look like

This is what Hillary’s campaign should look like

UPDATE: Yeah, she has been lying through her teeth about how bad what she did was:

Once again Hillary’s been caught lying about her criminal mishandling of classified national security information. Recall that Ms. Clinton swears none of the emails which passed through her off-the-record email server system was ever marked classified.

Uh oh. Au contraire, madam, once again you are exposed as a liar.

Fox News gets the credit. In an exclusive report published June 11, Fox News revealed that one of Ms. Clinton’s emails had a “portion marking” that identified the specific information contained in the “portion” as being classified. That means the information was sensitive and was legally protected.

The information had the lowest level of classification, Confidential. It discussed a phone call with the president of Malawi, Joyce Banda. Fox News included an information-rich screen shot of the email.

I wonder how much of that stuff that was “accidentally destroyed” makes this all look like peanuts. Actually, no I am not. I know they got rid of it because it was incriminating, and playing this game where we give them the benefit of doubt is long pas its expiration date.

Here cometh the next dark age?

As someone that has always been fascinated by history and the fact that humanity never learns the lessons of the past and seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes, I admit that I have been feeling, for a while now, that the people in charge of this country in particular, but the western nations in general, have been taken us into a direction that will have serious and far reaching negative global implications. When you articulate this, especially to the believers of our credentialed new political aristocracy and the left in general, you get lambasted as someone that must have some kind of vile reasons for opposing the destruction they are inflicting with their failed ideology, and ideology that seems to remain immune to the consequences and results of the failed and often horribly failed policies it keeps engendering. To the true believers amongst that bunch what counts are the feeling and their intentions, and never the results.

To those that simply take advantage of the stupidity and naivete of the true believers, the only results that count are the ones that allow them to get more power and steal more from the productive. So when you find someone that waxes eloquently about this prescient and relevant, it is a good thing and a breath of fresh air, albeit one I suspect will fall on deaf ears of the collectivists and their agenda. Jakub Grygiel at the American Interests has a great piece titled “The Stages of Grief at the Frontier“. I recommend you read the whole thing, but here is his conclusion, and it is an important warning:

Severinus’s story parallels our times (with all the necessary caveats). The stages of geopolitical grief are not as vivid today as in this story, but doubts are growing about the resilience of U.S. power and Washington’s commitment (under the current Administration or future ones) to allies. As U.S. power retrenches or is questioned, the frontier regions then experiences a series of adjustments. Insouciance about how security arises gives way to shock and panic when the security provider vanishes; then, self-delusion follows, as people convince themselves that security will sustain itself or that the threat is not real; and finally, if lucky to be fortified by a firm belief in something more than material goods or the satisfaction of one’s own transient preferences, the polity may find a reason to defend itself. The West may be going through all three stages at the same time, as many seem to put faith in the automatic harmony of international relations, do not necessarily believe in the dangerous nature of geopolitical competition with assertive rivals, and—perhaps most worrisome, and different from Severinus’s tale—do not seem to find a strong reason to devote resources to sustain the order from which they benefit.

Many people don’t realize it, but the fall of the Roman Empire in Europe led to centuries of brutal chaos and repression as the entity that provided order, albeit through its own use of force, evaporated. Whatever prosperity, wealth, and knowledge had been created all but disappeared as people reverted to savage behavior and basically resorted to fighting over an ever dwindling pool of resources and wealth. It took over a millennium for things to start righting themselves, and even after that, we had far more darkness than light until the twentieth century and another series of empires produced the stability and conditions for those that create (and for you collectivists that creation is never by government because the only thing government can provide is a system that delivers stability, with clear rules that apply to all, and government then stays out of the way of their people) to be able to bring us prosperity.

I can talk about this till I am blue in the face, but the thing has been beaten to death, so i will leave you with a quote from someone I think said it just right:

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

― Robert A. Heinlein

Get ready for the dark times. I am sure the collectivists will tell us it was not their fault because they meant well. According to them Nirvana on earth is just a question of time, but every time they have tried it we end up with something horrible and the collectivists telling us that things went wrong because the wrong people were in charge and/or it was implemented incorrectly. Their idiotic belief that they can override human nature, the laws of economics, and reality to have us all act like an insect colony be damned.

Transparency!

While the DNC controlled media has done its damned best to help the crooks in charge look decent, occasionally the truth slips out:

John Crane, 60, who spent 25 years in government before he was fired as an assistant Defense Department inspector general in 2013, went public with a series of accusations that key officials in the watchdog’s office retaliated against whistleblowers, destroyed permanent records and altered audits under political pressure.

He has filed those charges with the Office of Special Counsel, which so far has referred one to the Justice Department for detailed investigation, though others may soon follow.

Crane’s name and case appear in a new book, Bravehearts: Whistle-Blowing in the Age of Snowden (Hot Books, 2016), by Mark Hertsgaard, excerpted in the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel.

In an interview with Government Executive on Sunday, Crane challenged the criticism by many top U.S. officials who say Edward Snowden, the former Booz Allen Hamilton employee who worked as a National Security Agency contractor, could have taken his complaint through official channels. In 2013, Snowden flew to Hong Kong, leaked classified documents exposing U.S. surveillance programs and ultimately took refuge in Russia.

“Edward Snowden and his decision not to go through the whistleblower process indicate a larger failure within DoD IG,” Crane said. “Snowden did not go through the IG because he saw what had happened to Thomas Drake,” he added.

This reality has permeated this administration across the board: anyone that pointed out how fucked up things had gotten was hammered for doing so. From the VA whistle blowers to those that spoke out about the crap the Obama controlled agencies were doing either in operation “Fast & Furious” or at the IRS, where they targeted enemies of the administration for political reasons, the Obama admin has set new records in punishing those that dared point out that things were real bad for us all.

I remember the BDS infected fuckwads making me defend Boosh when they levied these idiotic accusations against him, and yet today, when we really have a tyrannical government punishing dissent, these fuckers – like the anti-war pinkos – are nowhere to be found.

Pro-collectivist media can’t avoid making exuses

It came as no surprise to me that after a decade plus of favorable pro-collectivist media coverage of shit-holes that took hard left turns we found out Venezuela was following in the footsteps of illustrious collectivist success stories like Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. What is less known is that the other South American country that had also taken a hard left turn and was touted as a great success story, Brazil, is also heading in the same direction now that blatant corruption and mismanagement practices have come to the world’s attention.

As is always the case with progressive governments, the pretense that the shit they do is to help the less fortunate is just that: pretense. What they are really doing is creating a system that will allow the political aristocracy and those few lucky enough to be connected to them, to rob the people blind. The new masters tend to be worse than the old ones, and while they can temporarily hide the rot, eventually economic and human nature reality asserts itself. Big and powerful government, especially one that has successfully disarmed the masses and then pretends their wealth transfer schemes are to help the less fortunate, sooner than later results in abused people. Yeah, I know that this piece specifically was written about the Arab world, but the article does speak of other corruption failures in general. The problem with people that advocate for collectivism is the fact that they seem to miss that corruption is the norm, and having little or none of it, is actually an outlier. And the bigger an autocratic government that abrogates the duty of creating economic justice becomes, both in terms of actual size and the amount of money it now forces through its hands, the more corruption you will get.

For example, take China, which is still run by an authoritarian government that decided not to stick to the letter of marxist dogma. While the Wiki article tries its best to show how fucked up China is because of this corruption, it, because of the bias of the Wiki organization in general, does a lot to apologize and conceal that the problem there is the authoritarian and collectivist system that creates the framework that allows this corruption. When your government is all powerful and has its hands in everything, you can bet it will result in abuse and corruption by the very elite put in charge. Pick your country, check out how authoritative and big their government is, then look at how much wealth redistribution power said government has, and you will find corruption.

But back to what I wanted to point out: AP writing an article that tries hard to not tie the corruption now evident to the ideology or failures in Brazil. From the article:

Brazil’s Senate voted on Thursday to put leftist President Dilma Rousseff on trial in a historic decision brought on by a deep recession and a corruption scandal that will now confront her successor, Vice President Michel Temer.

With Rousseff to be suspended during the Senate trial for allegedly breaking budget rules, the centrist Temer will take the helm of a country that again finds itself mired in political and economic volatility after a recent decade of prosperity.

The 55-22 vote ends more than 13 years of rule by the left-wing Workers Party, which rose from Brazil’s labor movement and helped pull millions of people out of poverty before seeing many of its leaders tainted by corruption investigations.

My interpretation of this nonsense is that it almost sounds like AP is trying hard to tell readers we should give the corrupt officials a pass because they meant well. After all, they helped the poor people! I constantly see MSM stories saying how well off people in Brazil have it because of the wealth redistribution schemes of the leftists, but when I look the stuff that sticks with me is the rampant crime, the fact that economic promises are not materializing, and how despite the claims that the poor are better off, I see very few things that really show that to be the case. Especially when you look at the future. That’s not just me however, as this verya rticle points out:

In addition to the gaping deficit, equal to more than 10 percent of its annual economic output, Brazil is suffering from rising unemployment, plummeting investment and a projected economic contraction of more than 3 percent this year.

Basically the Brazilian success story was to borrow and print money, over spend, and put polities in practice that drastically hamper economic growth and result in rampant unemployment. Shit they are even looking at an economic contraction. Does this not sound kind of like the Obama economic plan to spend us out of a recession and even into prosperity? Don’t worry though, because the PA tells us people are on top of the crisis;

“Only major reforms can keep Brazil from moving from crisis to crisis,” says Eduardo Giannetti da Fonseca, an economist and author in São Paulo who has written extensively about the country’s socioeconomic problems.

While I am not very familiar with this individual, the fact that he is the one AP chose to quote tells me this guy is very likely to be the Brazilian Paul Krugman, whose usual retort when confronted with the failures of Keynesian wealth transfer schemes, advises that the the problem was not the fact that borrowing/printing more money/spending money you don’t have can’t buy your prosperity, but that government didn’t borrow/print/spend enough money. This shit doesn’t work. It never has, and never will, but the collectivist driven media still wants you to have faith in this crap. This AP article sure goes a long way to try and avoid making the point that these leftist SJW wealth redistribution policies failed Brazil despite the temporary bump they produced obvious.

Another tidbit from the article that I found interesting was the following:

Brazilian markets have for weeks rallied as investors welcomed the likely dismissal of a president they believe crippled the economy, but were largely unchanged on Wednesday.

Note that the AP avoids saying why investors felt Rousseff crippled the economy. One could come away thinking the only problem was the endemic corruption, but the fact is that this was just one of the symptoms of the real problem: the Keynesian economic practices leftists resort to in times of trouble to hide the problems caused by their wealth transfer schemes. Brazil is on the same path as Venezuela right now, only it might be slower to reach the end state because they didn’t choose to have a dictator hold all the power like the Venezuelan’s did. This shit don’t work people.

Why is everyone acting as if this was not expected?

Blazing headline: “WEST VIRGINIA PRIMARY RESULTS

As I expected, Shillary lost. What I didn’t expect was all the hand wrining.

This was West Virginia. A state that has an economy with a heavy reliance on the coal industry. The other Clinton, stealing a page from Obama’s playbook, talked about how she would destroy the coal industry to appease the usual collectivist Gaia worshipers. Why would anyone think that the majority of democrats in that state would vote against their own interests, and cast a vote for Shillary? I certainly don’t know if she is unraveling or not, but I am loving the freak show.

This win was all but a given for the Bern-minator, and while it is a boon for those of us that enjoy the left eating itself up, there is a far juicier story, one of real criminal activity, to investigate.

Yeah, I know, wishful thinking. The DNC mouth pieces will never actually investigate anything unless they can use it to help democrats and hurt everyone else, so we are not going to see any justice here it looks like. Ain’t the fundamentally transformed America Obama promised us great?

That idiotic pay gap thingy..

Want to see an article that should have stopped after the third paragraph? Well, here is a “Science Daily” article titled Young women in STEM fields earn up to one-third less than men which says exactly the opposite of the title’s claim. From the article:

One year after they graduate, women with Ph.D.s in science and engineering fields earn 31 percent less than do men, according to a new study using previously unavailable data.

The pay gap dropped to 11 percent when researchers took into account that women tended to graduate with degrees in fields that generally pay less than fields in which men got their degrees.

The rest of the pay gap disappeared when the researchers controlled for whether women were married and had children.

Seriously, you should have ended the article right here and the title correct title would have been that gender pay gap, at least according to this study, is a myth. But of course, since there is no money to be gotten by finding that this myth the SJW types in government fork over oodles of money for is bunk, they decide to contradict their own findings with politically motivated clap-trap.

“There’s a dramatic difference in how much early career men and women in the sciences are paid,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author of the study and professor of economics at The Ohio State University.

“We can get a sense of some of the reasons behind the pay gap, but our study can’t speak to whether any of the gap is due to discrimination. Our results do suggest some lack of family-friendliness for women in these careers.”

WTF? Your first three paragraphs make it plenty clear that when you try to do an apple to apple comparison and control for type of degree and for choices related to family life, that there is no gap. It is fairly obvious to anyone that applies statistical methodology to any analysis of these claims that when you account for the types of careers women favor or life choices they make, that the entire gap argument vanishes. So then, why are we still getting a long winded article if it is obvious there really isn’t any nefarious reasons for this difference? Well here it is:

The importance of helpful family policies is supported by the fact that single and childless women tended to have less of a pay gap than those who were married and those who had children. About equal percentages of men and women were married or partnered. And more men than women in the study (24 versus 19 percent) had children. But it was the married women with children who saw the lower pay.

“Our results show a larger child-gap in salary among women Ph.D.s than among men,” Weinberg said.

Reading between the lines it is obvious that the study’s authors seem to feel that making the choice to focus on family and children shouldn’t impact women’s earning potential. Sure you can think this is quite noble since family units, and especially the children, are so important, but to me it is ludicrous. Lets start out by noting that these crusaders are currently only asking that employers pay women for less productivity than men. I wonder if they would demand the same for men that decide to stay at home and be the one dealing with the children. Somehow I don’t believe that is the priority of these SJW types, but it could well be that the end goal isn’t to make employers just pay more for less productive women, but to pay more for less productive people in general. The laws of economics and human nature be damned.

Look, like I told the crazy SJW type from the HR department of my company a few weeks ago during her rant about how unfair it was that the guys in the IT department made so much more money than she did, the reason is in the details. While she felt here women’s studies major and political history (WTF is this even) minor at an expensive school should earn her the same as the guys that got real engineering or computer science degrees at whatever institutions, employers who pay for the work obviously felt it was not worth the same. Similarly, if she took time of to spend it with her cats while these guys were totally career oriented, it wouldn’t be fair for either the employer or the guys that she ended up being paid more simply because of her plumbing.

Of course, she really didn’t like that reality and got all huffy at me and even insinuated I needed some PC reeducation, at which point I simply told her that I had no problem saying what I just said to her, even though she was in HR, because the value of the work I did was so important to my employer that I doubted they would make a fuss about it. After all, if they did, I could pack up and head somewhere else, because my particular skills, especially when combined with my work ethics and track record of producing results, were in very high demand.

My advice to people that feel they are not getting compensated enough was always to see how valuable the employer really felt about what they did and how quickly they could find somewhere else to work. In most cases, when you add value, they will pay you for that value. if not, someone else will. The gap comes when your productivity factors in, both because of your learned skills (degree and work experience) and the effort they get from you (are you there and working hard, or are you in need of taking time off too often).

This shit ain’t that complicated man. Of course, you factor in the government meddling, and everything goes out the window…

Study makes the wrong conclusion.

I was quite baffled when I saw the title for a study posted on science daily that reported that “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy” because while I am certain that in good economic times people are less resistant to government fleecing, I still have a hard time believing people would buy the AGW lies. from the article I see the following declaration:

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

I could not fathom any study that would produce these results, and immediately suspected some kind of bullshit. My first inclination was that they very likely had loaded questions designed to illicit responses that would allow them to make this ludicrous claim. After all, there is a historical precedent that most people are willing to tolerate a heavier hand from Uncle Sam, the one going straight into their pockets where they keep their money, when their own income and potential for income looks good. I can see a study rigged to use that mechanism to make this idiotic claim that resistance to this nonsense and the political agenda is economic, but I wanted details, so I decided to take a closer look at the article, and the answer was right there. This was a bunch of bullshit wrapped in pretty paper to sell another lie. let’s start with this:

In an experiment conducted online, 187 Americans ranging from 18 to 70 years old watched a newscast with skeptical commentary about a NASA documentary on climate change. Participants who more enthusiastically supported the capitalist system were more dubious about climate change, and they misremembered facts from the newscast about the severity of climate change. Conversely, participants who were more critical of the capitalist system and more interested in social change recalled the information about climate change as being even more severe than the facts that were presented.

So first off, let me point out that the “mischaracterization” made by this idiot author about how supporters of the capitalist system were more likely to “misremember facts” or “not grasp the severity of the problem”, was nothing but his biased attempt to discredit people that pointed out what they were shown was a pile of bullshit. The likely scenario is that these people, less ruled by fucking feelings, pointed out that this cult is based on a well orchestrated campaign of falsehoods, flawed models and systems, manipulation of the facts and data to create a desired results, a peer review circle jerk, the demonization of anyone not willing to let them get away with this shit, and that not a single one of the horribly exaggerated effects have come to pass, isn’t “misremembering” or “not seeing the gravity of the situation”, but pointing out why this thing is a scam. Cultists don’t like that.

I also am not surprised people that saw the inherent value of the capitalist system were less prone to bullshit than their collectivist counterparts, because it has always been obvious to me that collectivists tend to be ruled by emotion and emotional appeal. Show a bunch of collectivist twits a fictional piece like Al Gore’s idiotic movie, hilariously titled “An inconvenient truth” of all things, that proposes draconian collectivism to deal with the coming apocalypse, and one shouldn’t be surprised these twits gobble up that shit sandwich either.

Anyway, back to the point here. The study, as practically every one of these pro AGW propaganda pieces tends to do, made a totally wrong conclusion from what they saw. The conclusion they should have made was that people inclined to believe the unwashed masses have a right to use government force to steal from the productive to benefit themselves are far more likely to buy a pack of lies when it pushes their agenda, while those that don’t buy theft by government and totalitarianism as good, are far less likely to fall for that bullshit.

Next we get the following doozy:

In another experiment, with 57 college students, participants were divided into two groups: One read a statement that the federal government had very broad power to influence the economy and the availability of jobs; the other, a statement that the government’s power was limited. The participants then read a news article that recounted some errors that were inadvertently included in a scientific report on climate change. Participants who thought the economy had a strong influence on their lives were more skeptical about climate change and were less likely to remember facts from the news article about the severity of climate change.

In a third experiment, with 203 college students, one group listened to a podcast that reported the U.S. economy had recovered from the recession, another group heard the recession was continuing, and a control group didn’t hear any podcast. All of the participants then watched a NASA documentary about scientific evidence of climate change before completing a survey about their support for the current U.S. economic system. Participants who more strongly endorsed the legitimacy of the economic system were more likely to believe in the severity of climate change only when they thought the economy was strong and stable.

Let me start by pointing out that when you pick a bunch of college students that are not in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, medicine, accounting, or something that actually involves not just regurgitating bullshit liberal dogma, for their opinion on things scientific, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the stupidity the experimenters did. I am sorry, but “Studies” or “Poli Sci” majors are neither hard science types nor – yes it is my opinion – really learning anything of value outside an artificial world created by the grand collectivist machine. They are a plague on the universe. I should have probably at the point of the realization how unscientific this scientifc study was, just moved on to something less brain damaging than this idiocy, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to showcase what we are dealing with here.

In the first example, where they used some college students that were likely some 7 year geniuses of the humanities fields, we should begin with the fact that nobody with any common sense would buy the idiocy that government, by its very nature, has any form of control on economic activity, other than to impede, degrade, or piss away tons of tax payer dollars on it. But it remains baffling to me that this experiment led to the conclusion that good economic metrics influence people to dismiss the AGW bullshit. Again, I see that the correlation here isn’t faith in good economic times over AGW dystopia as much as how much more inclined someone was to accept the AGW nonsense as gospel if they lacked a solid grasp of economics and the impact of government on that activity.

If anything, the third experiment shows that the AGW cult is bull. Believers are far more likely to endorse the agenda while they felt they had little to lose and a lot to gain from the wealth transfer agenda behind the AGW movement. But as happens in real life, as soon as things got good for them, they were far likely to want that wealth transfer. Seriously, if you take a look at the supporters of Bernie Sanders and then at the supporters of Donald Trump, the big difference is the fact that the Sanders camp is comprised of people that are in deep debt and are looking for someone to bail them out (lots of jobless humanities students with big loan debt), while the other camp lacks that crowd.

These experiments should have concluded that collectivist are far more likely to like collectivist agendas when they gain from them, and much less likely to do anything but pay lip service to them when they find out they will foot the bill. Also that non-collectivists will focus on the reality of economics and human nature over some apocalyptic fantasies collectivists hope will convince people to let them fuck us all over.