Welcome To The Freakshow
Welcome To The Freakshow
I can’t stop writing. Because the freak show never ends. It can’t end. If it does, the Democrats will lose. And with them, the wealthiest, most powerful oligarchs on earth, leaving them with one strategy; protest, while pretending to have the moral high-ground. Divide and subdivide people on the basis of every possible factional difference. Give special rights to certain people and call it fair, as a way of growing your political and fundraising base. At the end of the day, it’s about money and power. That’s the 1st rule of politics; “I must have power, in order to do good.” This is true regardless of political affiliation, which quickly enough gives-in to the idea that the ends justify the means. Or, “Do whatever you have to, in order to win.”
This divide and conquer strategy means that Americans will no longer be one people. Instead, they will be many, divided by race, creed, sexual preference, religion, even perceived sexual identity; “I believe I’m a man or woman, regardless of my biology and genetics.” If that fails, invoke past racism as a justification for “The New Racism,” which will allegedly level the playing field, while imagining some society, somewhere, in some distant place, that never existed. Fictional societies are the left’s basis for utopia. Reality, on the other hand, is a dark and scary place.
This isn’t about being fair to marginalized people, let’s be clear. Although, that’s how the Left want’s to publicly frame the debate. It’s about redefining reality for political gain and social change. And, if the science doesn’t fit, change the science.
Increasingly, the Democrats stake out the position that there are no differences between what people believe, and what they truly are—or so we’ve come to find in the last few years—without regard for 1,000,000 years of human existence, to say nothing of the millions of years of the history of animals, reptiles, and insects. Finding a few species among millions that demonstrate sexual dimorphism, doesn’t redefine normal. “Normal,” is, at least, in part, a mathematical equation—what does the average member of a species do? Not, what do a few insect species, in a billion or so do, as a model for our new thinking about human sexuality?
But, if science won’t easily bend to our preferred nonsense, no worries, pay scientists to conclude what you want them to conclude. Pay for their research. Offer big salaries at think-tanks, and then use your wealth and connections to redefine reality in the public sphere, using the media.
If I want to understand the link between smoking and lung cancer, for instance, I don’t begin with “The Marlboro Institute For A Better Smoking Experience,” as my model.
A few years back, when the racially motivated lie that Black men were being hunted on American streets, by White cops, eager to randomly kill unarmed Black men, a number of major media outlets used a study from “The Malcolm X Institute,” saying that one unarmed Black man was killed by a White police officer every 23 hours in America. It was a lie. The Malcolm X Institute was to objective scientific research, what The “Marlboro Institute For a Better Smoking Experience” is to objective research about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. In fact, maybe less so. At least the cigarette industry has some real scientists, even if they’re opinions are bought and paid for like cattle futures or bacon.
The Malcolm X Institute is basically a leftwing political organization, masquerading as a scientific enterprise. The real difference between the two is that no one takes the cigarette industry’s “Scientific” findings seriously. While the other was quoted by CNN and others media outlets like they were talking about NASA.
Even NASA can be manipulated, by simply putting political ideologues in key positions of influence, and then tethering a person’s ability to move up the food chain, to their dedication to the core ideology that’s being promoted. Hire and fire based on a person’s ability to tow the political mark. Not the result of productivity, unless you measure productivity in terms of faithfulness to political ideology, which is how it works in any politicized environment.
The oft-quoted 97% consensus for global warming is a very good example of this process.
First: this was not a scientific study. It was a survey sent out to approximately 7000 scientists, asking the question: “Is the earth warming, and, could it be the result of human activity?” The answers were yes and yes. The earth has warmed about 1 degree Celsius over the past hundred fifty years. So, the earth is warming. But the earth also came out of what scientists call “A Little Ice Age,” occurring over the span of about 300-years, ending some 150 years ago, thus, leading to slightly warmer temperatures. The question of human activity and warming trends, on the other hand, is a big “Maybe,” meaning, that human activity “Could” be affecting global temperatures. Not that it is. There’s one big problem with this thesis, most of the increase in global temperatures occurred prior to industrialization. Meaning, you can’t say industrialization is the cause. As the great economist Thomas Sowell said; “you can’t argue that A causes B—if B came before A.
But the real issue is this; of the 7000 scientists surveyed, half didn’t even respond. The remaining 3500 or so, were then narrowed down to 77 scientists. That’s 77, out of 7000 plus scientists, making the 97% consensus, essentially, a big fat lie, repeated over and over as fact, by a media, who love conflict and feed on it like a school of ravenous piranha. The politicians love it because it is the great potential calamity, used to empower them to act, to save us and the world from imminent destruction while consolidating power.
"Children in cages," is the same, a lie told for political gain. What political activists know is that the average American won’t fact check, or can’t fact check the claim, making it a carefully told lie, which panders to their biases, which is a far more effective tool for manipulating public opinion.
“Us vs them,” is an old, deadly road, lined with the vestiges of long-dead cultures and the very real bodies of hundreds of millions of human beings, framed, as always, by the same illusion of concern for the poor and downtrodden. Rome’s “Bread and Circuses,” is the template, keep the masses entertained and ignorant, and give them something to eat. Feeding them to the lions will be easy enough, a foregone conclusion, as redundant as an old record skipping and playing the same song over and over, until it simply becomes background noise, no longer heard.
Eventually, people will say “What was that noise?”
The answer? A resounding “Huh?”
Mark Magula
I can’t stop writing. Because the freak show never ends. It can’t end. If it does, the Democrats will lose. And with them, the wealthiest, most powerful oligarchs on earth, leaving them with one strategy; protest, while pretending to have the moral high-ground. Divide and subdivide people on the basis of every possible factional difference. Give special rights to certain people and call it fair, as a way of growing your political and fundraising base. At the end of the day, it’s about money and power. That’s the 1st rule of politics; “I must have power, in order to do good.” This is true regardless of political affiliation, which quickly enough gives-in to the idea that the ends justify the means. Or, “Do whatever you have to, in order to win.”
This divide and conquer strategy means that Americans will no longer be one people. Instead, they will be many, divided by race, creed, sexual preference, religion, even perceived sexual identity; “I believe I’m a man or woman, regardless of my biology and genetics.” If that fails, invoke past racism as a justification for “The New Racism,” which will allegedly level the playing field, while imagining some society, somewhere, in some distant place, that never existed. Fictional societies are the left’s basis for utopia. Reality, on the other hand, is a dark and scary place.
This isn’t about being fair to marginalized people, let’s be clear. Although, that’s how the Left want’s to publicly frame the debate. It’s about redefining reality for political gain and social change. And, if the science doesn’t fit, change the science.
Increasingly, the Democrats stake out the position that there are no differences between what people believe, and what they truly are—or so we’ve come to find in the last few years—without regard for 1,000,000 years of human existence, to say nothing of the millions of years of the history of animals, reptiles, and insects. Finding a few species among millions that demonstrate sexual dimorphism, doesn’t redefine normal. “Normal,” is, at least, in part, a mathematical equation—what does the average member of a species do? Not, what do a few insect species, in a billion or so do, as a model for our new thinking about human sexuality?
But, if science won’t easily bend to our preferred nonsense, no worries, pay scientists to conclude what you want them to conclude. Pay for their research. Offer big salaries at think-tanks, and then use your wealth and connections to redefine reality in the public sphere, using the media.
If I want to understand the link between smoking and lung cancer, for instance, I don’t begin with “The Marlboro Institute For A Better Smoking Experience,” as my model.
A few years back, when the racially motivated lie that Black men were being hunted on American streets, by White cops, eager to randomly kill unarmed Black men, a number of major media outlets used a study from “The Malcolm X Institute,” saying that one unarmed Black man was killed by a White police officer every 23 hours in America. It was a lie. The Malcolm X Institute was to objective scientific research, what The “Marlboro Institute For a Better Smoking Experience” is to objective research about the link between cigarettes and lung cancer. In fact, maybe less so. At least the cigarette industry has some real scientists, even if they’re opinions are bought and paid for like cattle futures or bacon.
The Malcolm X Institute is basically a leftwing political organization, masquerading as a scientific enterprise. The real difference between the two is that no one takes the cigarette industry’s “Scientific” findings seriously. While the other was quoted by CNN and others media outlets like they were talking about NASA.
Even NASA can be manipulated, by simply putting political ideologues in key positions of influence, and then tethering a person’s ability to move up the food chain, to their dedication to the core ideology that’s being promoted. Hire and fire based on a person’s ability to tow the political mark. Not the result of productivity, unless you measure productivity in terms of faithfulness to political ideology, which is how it works in any politicized environment.
The oft-quoted 97% consensus for global warming is a very good example of this process.
First: this was not a scientific study. It was a survey sent out to approximately 7000 scientists, asking the question: “Is the earth warming, and, could it be the result of human activity?” The answers were yes and yes. The earth has warmed about 1 degree Celsius over the past hundred fifty years. So, the earth is warming. But the earth also came out of what scientists call “A Little Ice Age,” occurring over the span of about 300-years, ending some 150 years ago, thus, leading to slightly warmer temperatures. The question of human activity and warming trends, on the other hand, is a big “Maybe,” meaning, that human activity “Could” be affecting global temperatures. Not that it is. There’s one big problem with this thesis, most of the increase in global temperatures occurred prior to industrialization. Meaning, you can’t say industrialization is the cause. As the great economist Thomas Sowell said; “you can’t argue that A causes B—if B came before A.
But the real issue is this; of the 7000 scientists surveyed, half didn’t even respond. The remaining 3500 or so, were then narrowed down to 77 scientists. That’s 77, out of 7000 plus scientists, making the 97% consensus, essentially, a big fat lie, repeated over and over as fact, by a media, who love conflict and feed on it like a school of ravenous piranha. The politicians love it because it is the great potential calamity, used to empower them to act, to save us and the world from imminent destruction while consolidating power.
"Children in cages," is the same, a lie told for political gain. What political activists know is that the average American won’t fact check, or can’t fact check the claim, making it a carefully told lie, which panders to their biases, which is a far more effective tool for manipulating public opinion.
“Us vs them,” is an old, deadly road, lined with the vestiges of long-dead cultures and the very real bodies of hundreds of millions of human beings, framed, as always, by the same illusion of concern for the poor and downtrodden. Rome’s “Bread and Circuses,” is the template, keep the masses entertained and ignorant, and give them something to eat. Feeding them to the lions will be easy enough, a foregone conclusion, as redundant as an old record skipping and playing the same song over and over, until it simply becomes background noise, no longer heard.
Eventually, people will say “What was that noise?”
The answer? A resounding “Huh?”
Mark Magula