Malthus and Godwin: The Left’s Prophets

[PoliticalChic]

Rather than going over the long list of failures and poor decisions by Hussein Obama and the cult of personality, perhaps it would be instructive to glimpse earlier ideological blunders by the Left’s visionaries, where they got the (failed) ideas that they still push today.




1.Fake science is one of their specialties, and Thomas Malthus used same to predict that the population would grow geometrically (2-4-6-8…), while food supplies, only arithmetically (1-2-3…). Hence….worldwide famine. It was the forerunner of the Global Warming scam, also designed to strike fear in the public. Obama actually hired one of these dopes as his science adviser.

Get it? The Left continues to subscribe to, and advance, proven failure.


As long as it serves their need….the claim that humankind is on the brink of extermination…..with only big government as its savior, fear of overpopulation, and worldwide catastrophe will be their message, e.g., Global Warming.




2. The claims of government ‘social justice’ programs goes back to the mid- 18th century, and English journalist William Godwin.

All six of the current criminal perspectives…..communism, socialism, Liberalism, Nazism, Fascism, and Progressivism, owe a debt of gratitude to Godwin.

3. Central to Godwin’s…and those six views, is the idea that mankind can be perfected….weaned away from greed, avarice, and all sorts of corruption, if only government were allowed to control all of our lives.

For comparison, and the explanation as to why none of the totalitarian six can be considered to be American: The Constitution commemorates our revolution, and, as Madison states in the ‘Federalist,’ is the greatest of all reflections on human nature…”human beings are not angels.”

Humans are not perfectible, but are capable of self government. The republican form of government presupposes this idea of humans. Our government is not a controlling government, but must itself be controlled: by the Constitution.



As expressed in The Federalist Papers is the idea that human nature is neither perfect nor perfectible and, hence, checks and balances are needed for both the governors and the governed. James Madison put it in Federalist 51 "It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither internal nor external controls on government would be necessary."


More on Godwin, and Democrats, next.

 

[william the wie]

The left operates on the principle that if it is glib it is great.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The left operates on the principle that if it is glib it is great.

A by-product of owning the schools and the media.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's get right to the heart of the problem:


4. The greatest and most unforgivable error in the thinking of William Godwin…and of Liberals….is that human nature undergoes a progressive evolution, and the right set of laws would make men angels and produce heaven on earth.



Any who are well read, deeply educated, and worldly in their experience, know how absurd this view is.



BTW….Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis in support of this view:

In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html




Either those who claim to believe that human nature is malleable are either supremely stupid, or have some ulterior motive.



Soooo.....you buy the tale that a totalitarian government would end greed, avarice, and self-aggrandizement????
Have you noticed how many of the purveyors of this view have become wealthy? Michael Moore, Elizabeth Warren, the Clintons….

 

[william the wie]

However the schools have caused have caused unnecessary structural unemployment with the MSM supporting the defunct school model.

 

[Confounding]

Do you understand how peer review works and that scientists are competitive too? Do you really think the vast majority of scientists are in on some scam to lead people into the arms of big government? Is it perhaps more likely that the handful of "experts" doing studies funded by oil companies and others with an interest in denying global warming are peddling nonsense?

 

[william the wie]

The possibility of AGW being predictable was disproven in 1960 at the MIT Meteorology lab by Edward Lorenz long before the pseudo-science of AGW was launched. So, yeah, scientists compete for PC grants.

 

[Confounding]

The possibility of AGW being predictable was disproven in 1960 at the MIT Meteorology lab by Edward Lorenz long before the pseudo-science of AGW was launched. So, yeah, scientists compete for PC grants.

Seems like there's more money to be made in peddling nonsense for people with an interest in denying what the majority of scientists all over the world are saying.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you understand how peer review works and that scientists are competitive too? Do you really think the vast majority of scientists are in on some scam to lead people into the arms of big government? Is it perhaps more likely that the handful of "experts" doing studies funded by oil companies and others with an interest in denying global warming are peddling nonsense?

"Do you understand how peer review works..."

Do you not understand that you are a dunce???

How many times must I prove it?????

1. Human nature is what is always was, and always will be.

2. 'Peer review' is just one more shield for the dishonest.


Watch me prove it:

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.

Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.

The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.

You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”

All manuscripts are reviewed initially by one of the Editors and only those papers that meet the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, and fit within the aims and scope of the journal, will be sent for peer review. Generally, reviews from two independent referees are required.

An announcement from SAGE published July 8 explained what happened, albeit somewhat opaquely.

In 2013, the editor of JVC, Ali H. Nayfeh, became aware of people using “fabricated identities” to manipulate an online system called SAGE Track by which scholars review the work of other scholars prior to publication.

Attention focused on a researcher named Peter Chen of the National Pingtung University of Education (NPUE) in Taiwan and “possibly other authors at this institution.”

After a 14-month investigation, JVC determined the ring involved “aliases” and fake e-mail addresses of reviewers — up to 130 of them — in an apparently successful effort to get friendly reviews of submissions and as many articles published as possible by Chen and his friends. “On at least one occasion, the author Peter Chen reviewed his own paper under one of the aliases he created,” according to the SAGE announcement.

The statement does not explain how something like this happens."
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’



Jot this down so you don't forget....I am never wrong.

 

[westwall]

Do you understand how peer review works and that scientists are competitive too? Do you really think the vast majority of scientists are in on some scam to lead people into the arms of big government? Is it perhaps more likely that the handful of "experts" doing studies funded by oil companies and others with an interest in denying global warming are peddling nonsense?

I suggest you look at how peer review has been corrupted in climatology especially, but in other sciences as well. That's the problem when you switch from the Scientific Method, to scientific "consensus", which political. You only allow peer review by your friends, thus why we call climatology review PAL review. In one instance a well known paper was reviewed by the mans wife.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The possibility of AGW being predictable was disproven in 1960 at the MIT Meteorology lab by Edward Lorenz long before the pseudo-science of AGW was launched. So, yeah, scientists compete for PC grants.

Seems like there's more money to be made in peddling nonsense for people with an interest in denying what the majority of scientists all over the world are saying.

1. The United Nations was a Joseph Stalin creation.
2. Communism is international socialism, with worldwide governance.
3. So is the Global Warming Scam.
4. The United Nations is Global Warming's greatest proponent.
5. Check the note at the lower left of your mirror: Warning: Objects in mirror are dumber than they appear.

 

[westwall]

The possibility of AGW being predictable was disproven in 1960 at the MIT Meteorology lab by Edward Lorenz long before the pseudo-science of AGW was launched. So, yeah, scientists compete for PC grants.

Seems like there's more money to be made in peddling nonsense for people with an interest in denying what the majority of scientists all over the world are saying.

Oh? Politicians using climatology "studies" based almost entirely on computer derived fiction, want to spend 76 trillion, taxpayer dollars on a complete reengineering of the worlds global energy systems. That is their estimate, so we know it is low, and of course the wealthy elite get to pocket vast sums of that cash for "managing" the programs. Kind of how the clinton crime family foundation took over 80% of the donations it raked in for Haiti for "management" costs.

Funny how that works.

 

[PoliticalChic]

History and experience have proven that human nature cannot be altered.

But…..can people be convinced that it can???

Yup.



5. Can people be convinced that communism has the ability to alter human nature….something that has been shown to be false time and again?

Absolutely…..the Left has used repetition and violence to do just that.

“In 1920, when I was working as a medical missionary in South China, I was introduced to Communism by long "indoctrination" by Chinese devotees. They were so sure of themselves that sometimes I had to wonder if their interpretation of human beings and society was factual and correct while ours was illusion and error.

One day I said to the persuader: "It is plain that you totally believe what you are saying, but I can't agree. I'm sure it is against human nature."

He exploded: "You Capitalists always talk about 'human nature;' but there is no such thing. Human beings are what you make them. Capitalism makes them acquisitive, selfish; it inevitably produces clashes and WAR. Communism makes persons selfless, with concern not for themselves as individuals, but for the whole society-the masses.
Thus, Communism won't lead to clashes-and the whole world at last will have PEACE!"
The Schwarz Report | Essays



If you vote Democrat, you are agreeing with the fallacious view that their sort of government can alter human nature.

 

[Confounding]

Watch me prove it:

Do you have evidence that peer reviewed climate science from scientists all over the world is fake nonsense? It's a pretty powerful consensus. It doesn't seem likely to me that such a conspiracy is even possible.

I am never wrong.

Stay cringy dude.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Watch me prove it:

Do you have evidence that peer reviewed climate science from scientists all over the world is fake nonsense? It's a pretty powerful consensus. It doesn't seem likely to me that such a conspiracy is even possible.

I am never wrong.

Stay cringy dude.

Who is able to put bread on the table, those who decry the Global Warming Scam, or those who go along with it?
Who gets the government grants for research?

I'd say 'use your head,'...but I can see why that plan wouldn't work with you.

 

[Confounding]

1. The United Nations was a Joseph Stalin creation.

I'm not a globalist, so meh.

3.Global Warming Scam.

That's a pretty impressive conspiracy, no? How do you think they got virtually all scientists on board with it? Are people in the sciences just naturally nefarious?

4. The United Nations is Global Warming's greatest proponent.

Nah, science and scientists are.

 

[Confounding]

Watch me prove it:

Do you have evidence that peer reviewed climate science from scientists all over the world is fake nonsense? It's a pretty powerful consensus. It doesn't seem likely to me that such a conspiracy is even possible.

I am never wrong.

Stay cringy dude.

Who is able to put bread on the table, those who decry the Global Warming Scam, or those who go along with it?
Who gets the government grants for research?

I'd say 'use your head,'...but I can see why that plan wouldn't work with you.

"Experts" that deny global warming get paid pretty well by the people that fund their studies. You know, oil companies, etc. Certainly no conflicts of interest there. Anyway, yeah, I figured you'd have nothing. Let me know when you find something credible that proves scientists the world over are peddling a conspiracy.

 

[westwall]

Watch me prove it:

Do you have evidence that peer reviewed climate science from scientists all over the world is fake nonsense? It's a pretty powerful consensus. It doesn't seem likely to me that such a conspiracy is even possible.

I am never wrong.

Stay cringy dude.

But of course. They are actually writing studies on how the process was corrupted, that's how bad it is.


“Climategate” and The Scientific Ethos

Abstract
In late 2009, e-mails from a server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were released that showed some climate scientists in an unfavorable light. Soon this scandal was known as “Climategate” and a highly charged debate started to rage on blogs and in the mass media. Much of the debate has been about the question whether anthropogenic global warming was undermined by the revelations. But ethical issues, too, became part and parcel of the debate. This article aims to contribute to this debate, assessing the e-mail affair in the light of two normative analyses of science, one proposed by Robert Merton (and developed further by some of his followers), the second by a recent suggestion to use the concept of honest brokering in science policy interactions. On the basis of these analyses, different aspects of malpractice will be discussed and possible solutions will be suggested.


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243911432318

 

[PoliticalChic]

It’s all about whether or not one believes that political doctrine can change human nature.
You can see that belief in the alpha to the omega of Leftist stars.....


6. Leon Trotsky wrote in his Literature and Revolution [2] :

"The human species, the sluggish Homo sapiens, will once again enter the stage of radical reconstruction and become in his own hands the object of the most complex methods of artificial selection and psychophysical training... Man will make it his goal...to create a higher sociobiological type, a superman, if you will"
New Soviet man - Wikipedia



7. Here is the Ameican version, on the malleability of human nature…..the fundamental claim of the Left:

In 1969, Hillary Rodham gave the student commencement address at Wellesley in which she said that “ for too long our leaders have used politics as the art of making what appears to be impossible, possible….We’re not interested in social reconstruction; it’s human reconstruction.”
-http://www.wellesley.edu/PublicAffairs/Commencement/1969/053169hillary.html




Neither our Founders, nor conservatives today, believe that human nature can be changed.
That's the reason for the checks and balances designed into government.

 

[william the wie]

What is truly absurd is you can make an irrefutable and plausible argument for AGW but not with the BS currently being used.

Urbanization requires tar and asphalt which absorbs visible light in order to radiate infra-red (heat).

The increasing use of glass in construction prevents radiation of infra-red. This is not a greenhouse effect, it is the building of greenhouses that are used as office buildings.

Admittedly this is not high speed AGW but it does actually cause measurable local climate change.

Given the rate of global urbanization it is easy to write scary scenarios about this type of AGW but the "scientists" who do AGW know that they can't make money doing truthful work because once you subtract out reality there is effectively no unaccounted for AGW.