No one will tolerate what he despises,So, he'll berate who otherwise advises.So many busybodies and gossipers in the blogosphere!Sometimes, they amuse me, other times irk me. Either way, blogging busybodies are empty shells.
Jewlyus and Ethel Rosenberg saidSounds like typical Progprop.
Your point here of the unflinching embrace of the doctrinaire admonitions of the propagators of "climate science" is well illustrated in the post immediately below. Oddly enough, it's the "educated" left that are obviously enthralled by propagators of thsi BIG LIE contained in the climate hoax. They are skeptical of the assertions of individuals, which is fine, but show no skepticism when it comes wrapped with a stamp of approval from some government agency who have a vested interest in pushing ever forward with the blindly accepted agenda "climate change" which requires ever more draconian measures to monitor everything.
And so the universe is divided into two categories: appeals to authority vs paranoid conspiracy theory. Is there a middle path?
How about common sense?Weather changes
A voice from "The Old Country", the British philosopher, Bertrand Russel, can shed some light on your unenlightened perception of reality ...The Impact of Science on Society
Bertrand Russell is best reserved for readers with a working appreciation of sarcasm.
Apparently you jest.
Waylon,The passages cited from Lord Russell –– if we may accept that as established fact –– do sound remarkably like parody. I see from the way the world appears to have been working for a very long time that whether or not Lord Russell was writing tongue-in-cheek or not, the hideous scenario he outlines has proven to be perilously close to the truth.As we know, Forster, Huxley, Orwell and Atwood wrote profoundly disturbing dystopian fiction that in retrospect qualifies as prophecy. From the tone of their work --–– Huxley may be an exception, because his Brave New World has quasi-theatrical, comic-grotesque, savagely satirical qualities about it --–– no one in his right mind would imagine for an instant that these authors were merely indulging in light-hearted spoofery.At any rate, I shall say once again that INTENTIONS have little or no value -- RESULTS are ALL that COUNT.Even so, I am always wary of writing that appear nakedly tendentious. I dislike and distrust propaganda no matter the direction from which it comes -- Left OR Right. The simplistic view rarely serves the best interests of Truth.
FT, I didn't realize that a tweed-wearing-pipe-smoking-fox-hunter had a sense of humor a requirement if you write parody. Anything I've seen of him he surely comes across as a a holier-than-thou Presbyterian professor. And being that he was a Bolshevik of the Fabian variety I believe the citations above represent his true self, although there are "deniers" of the self-evident.
I am pretty sure he started out as an Anglican, if anything, Waylon. Russell was, of course, an assertive atheist and an all around pain-in-the-ass, as very smart people who sincerely believe that THEY know what's best for everybody usually are. I don't know why so many who have sky high IQ's are attracted to Marxism, but they are.TRAGIC, isn't it?
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.We welcome ConversationBut without Vituperation.If your aim is Vilification ––Other forms of Denigration ––Unfounded Accusation --Determined Obfuscation ––Alienation with Self-Justification ––We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.IN ADDITIONGratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.