Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/
Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands. Cults everywhere: Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...
Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death
The speed of light is variant. Light speed for the receiver (Earth) is not constant. There is also the vector radiation of light and energy which does not conform to the simple model of Relativity. NASA and space agencies used a fixed Earth (ECI or Earth Centred Inertial) in their software and calculations for satellites, probes and instrumentation. They don’t use ‘heliocentricity’.
As with so much of ‘the science’, ChatGPT or OpenAI replies related to scientific questions do not necessarily provide truth or reality. Questions about Global Positioing Systems (GPS) or geo-synchronous satellites are an example. Neither proves the Earth’s alleged Copernican motion, nor Einsteinian Relativity. Quite the opposite. They highlight the issues with Newtonian and Einsteinian physics. More here
In the last post we discussed stellar ‘parallax’ and why it does not prove heliocentricity and in fact completely upends planetary distance calculations from the Earth along with many other ‘modern scientific’ assumptions in astro-physics.
Related to the parallax is ‘stellar aberration’, which has been offered as a proof for heliocentrism since perhaps the early 17th century. Aberration is generally the first ‘observational proof’ of Copernicanism, given some 70-200 years after the theory was proposed by the confused Copernicus depending on who you believe. Pieroni, a Catholic astronomer who was friends with the self-promoter Galileo and Kepler the conniver, is sometimes credited with this ‘discovery’ in the early 17th century, though invention is a better description, given the poor calibration of the telescopes used in that era.
In the modern era ‘aberration’ was invented by James Bradley in 1725 though the dates vary from 1724-1729 depending on the source. Floating down the Thames, Bradley attempted to find a stellar parallax (Busch, 1838) but instead created his own aberration based on observations of the Draco or Dragon constellation (which apparently has not changed in its relationship with the Earth over 3500 years and through 1.8 Trillion miles of Earth movement!). Bradley found nothing as outlined below and fraudulently ‘recorded’ a fringe shift of light displacement 2 times the observable size. More here
In a previous post we discussed the many experiments which could find no movement of the Earth through the ‘aether’ (now called ‘dark matter’), or Einstein’s fictitious ‘vacuum’ of space (now defined as a ‘lack of energy’). These are never taught. In schools we are told that the stellar ‘parallax’ ‘proved’ that the Earth is moving. The German astronomer Bessel in 1838, is usually credited with this ‘discovery’. It is logical to maybe pause and summarise why such claims regarding parallax are also false.
Geo-centrists from the time of Tycho Brahe, had referenced the lack of a parallax to prove immobility. There is still a lack of parallax today, given how small the effect is, how negative parallax is as common as ‘positive parallax’, how few stars are affected and how different non-Copernican models can explain such an effect (below).
We should keep in mind a few things. The first is that the confused Copernicus whose effort was largely philosophical, not mechanical, combined different models including the Platonic and Pythagorean, to justify heliocentricity. He offered no proofs, his book ‘The Revolutions’ being infilled with plagiarised ancient Greek astronomical tables from Rhodes and Halicarnassus.
How is it possible that after some 1 trillion miles of Earth travel in ‘space’, ancient astrological maps would still be applicable to someone in the 16th century? Never discussed.
A simple reason why parallax failed to convince anyone is that such ‘evidence’ does not support Copernicanism. The proof for this statement is that by the 1890s, Relativity was the only possible recourse left for Copernicans to support heliocentricity. In other words, if parallax was so convincing and definitive a proof for Copernicanism (or Foucault’s ridiculous pendulum experiment), that would have been that.
More here
The above quote sums up ‘The Science’. Einstotle philosophises that the Michelson-Morley experiment along with the Fizeau, Airy and the thousands conducted by Miller and others, should simply be dismissed because, obviously, heretofore, ergo, the Earth is racing around the Sun at 60.000 miles per hour.
As he wrote many times, Einstotle’s axiom is to accept Copernican theory as the starting point, without needing to prove it. This is unscientific. Many posts on here discuss the lack of proofs for Copernicanism and why it is a philosophical program, if not an outright sophistry.
Einstotle and his friends cannot answer the most basic questions. I list a few below out of hundreds. Let us consider some general dogma from physics and cosmology on planetary motion and the ‘expansion’ of the universe. Many of the claims from ‘the science’ disprove their own theology. I submitted the following questions to PhDs in physics and cosmology some years back. I have never received an adequate explanation, nor proof. Just hostility or appeals to authority and consensus. More here
“Many writers pretend to understand [relativity], but simply do not. Many otherwise alert students studying relativity become logically bewildered and lose confidence in their own ability to think clearly as they slip into mysticism and become the next generation of scientific priests….The public has trusted the physicists, trusted them perhaps more, in this generation, than any other group.
……But in time, people will learn that physicists are no more immune to the perverse motivational currents of the times than any other professional people. Scientists have enormous, vested interests in protecting their theories – vested energy, time, money and indeed reputation.” (Richard Hazelett and Dean Turner, The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter- Revolution in Physics, 1979, pp. 88-91)
Consider the quote above written in 1979. The hope that people will wake up and see ‘the science’ for the charade it is, for the corrupt business model it is, for the philosophical sophistry it is, has not materialised. In fact, the submission to authority and ‘science’ is far more prevalent and slavish today, than in 1979.
In the last post we discussed the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, the great impetus for Relativity, and the lack of proofs that the Earth orbits the Sun. Relativity was the only possible approach to explain away the lack of mechanical proof for the Earth’s rapid 108.000 km per hour march around the Sun.
The following experiments, which failed to detect the Earth’s motion, are rarely taught and are almost unknown. They are buried by ‘The Science’ as either irrelevant, or are trotted out as proof of Copernicanism even though they clearly disprove it! One cannot understand ‘why Relativity?’ if these failed endeavours are not understood. More here
As taught in every classroom and echoed in every official philosophical narrative, Kant (1724 ‐ 1804) is usually portrayed as a ‘giant of philosophy’. The never married, isolated, reclusive, ‘cannot be bothered to have children’ sophist, who never travelled and knew nothing of the world of work or reality, is hailed as a great Copernican-confirmer, another of the Enlightenment’s luminous orbs of rationalism. The revisionist historians paint the recluse as a happy, sociable chap. Contemporary accounts express the opposite viewpoint.
In the standard narrative, apparently no one before Kant and the self-proclaimed Enlighteners, had thought about morality, physics, science, reason, life or the soul. In this vein we should never underestimate the powerful impact of the printing press (1440). The ease of publication, distribution and the forced necessity of literacy, allowed such propaganda to take root. The narrative was and is, that before the 17th century all was dark.
This claim is fiction of course. Relativity for example, was discussed by the schoolmen in the first universities during the 12th century (at Chartres for example). By the time Galileo and friends were taught physics, the laws of inertia and motion were already well understood, not to mention astronomy and advanced geometry. You have to be incredibly naive to believe that Newton et al conjured their theories and experiments out of nothing. More here
There is a simple technology I have used for years that disproves, or calls into question, the Earth’s purported rotation. I have taught this to students and had them conduct experiments which call into disrepute everything they have been taught in ‘science’. It is called the gyroscope.
The gyroscope joins the roughly 300.000 experiments which fail to find a motion of this planet. Current scientific principles and beliefs cannot explain this. Yet it is an experiment everyone can do at home with a U$150 instrument. It is never taught and rarely shown in schools. The online media and ‘science’ media will tell you that a laser gyroscope ‘proves’ the rotation of the Earth. The opposite is true.
And no, no one believes in a flat earth, nor in Chewbacca, ET and Yoda. And no, I don’t have a PhD in ‘gyroscopology’ but neither did its many inventors. If you buy one, you need to buy the free-swinging gyroscope, not the motorised version. If you use the free-swinging version, you will see what I mean as described below. The Earth might well rotate but the proof is thin. More here
We are concerned in this series with the philosophical foundations of science. Science is the discovery about how the natural, physical world operates. ‘Science’ however, interprets data based on its worldview. If the underlying philosophy is changed the interpretation must change. We know for example, that the mathematical and observational ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity, apply equally as well if not better, for the geo-and helio-geo-centric models. We also know that Relativity has been disproven through observational experience. Yet both are ‘consensus’ ‘science’. They are philosophies not ‘science’.
In the last 2 posts we discussed Descartes and the malevolent effects of Cartesian philosophy. Cartesian ‘rationality’ has been abused by interpreters to become irrational and unprovable. First it has led to hyper-rationalisation and a belief that solipsistic (egocentric) nominalism (no reality) is valid and reasonable. Second, Cartesian deductive mathematics, which negates experiential proof, were the foundations for the elevation of models and abstract maths over experimental induction. Descartes’ philosophy had led to the destruction of common sense and has informed Rousseau, Comte, Marx, Nietzsche and Einstotle’s Relativity.
Following from Descartes, it is necessary to turn to Newton (1642-1727) who was a Cartesian. Many posts here discuss issues with Newtonian physics and why it has distorted modern physics. This short post will look at the philosophical impact from Newtonian theory, including how it supplied the assumptions undergirding Relativity and modern cosmology. In summary, Newton’s mechanisation of nature and the universe is along with Descartes’ ideas, one of the great destructive theologies of common sense in Western civilisation. More here
“Accordingly, seeing that our senses sometimes deceive us, I was willing to suppose that there existed nothing really such as they presented to us….whilst I thus wished to think that all was false….I observed that this truth, I think, hence I am, was so certain and of such evidence, that no ground of doubt, however extravagant, would be alleged by the sceptics capable of shaking it….accept it as the first principle of the philosophy…” (Descartes, ‘Discourse on the Method of reasoning well and Seeking Truth in the Sciences", Part IV 1637).
In part one, we looked at the maths and cosmology of Descartes Given his Copernicanism, Descartes could not map the Earth onto a Euclidean reference grid and locate it within the universe. Though his contributions to graphing geometry and mathematics were powerful and long-lasting, he could not apply his geometrical reference grid model to cosmology. Descartes’ astronomical theory quickly lost out to the absolute reference design of Newton (Commins, Linscott, 1947).
Descartes most vital influence was in philosophy, particularly his principle of ‘dualism’. By dualism Descartes meant the difference between the body which he viewed as a material-mechanical machine and consciousness, which found its expression in reasoned thinking and in our soul, both of which verified the truth of God. More here
“Modern Science it can be said, began with Descartes. Like Francis Bacon he strove to create a new methodology, but his was based more on deduction than experience.” (Commins, Linscott, p. 159).
(Comment: Bacon [late 16th century] promoted ‘induction’ from experimentation, calling the method ‘new’. Descartes [middle third of the 17th c.] offered ‘deduction’ from general observations, suggesting it was ‘new’. Both claims are untrue. Deduction and induction long predate both men.)
Modern science, cosmology, physics and our worldview are based entirely on philosophical assumptions which might be wrong. We looked at Copernicus, whose system and theory was incorrect, premised on circular orbits and ‘crystalline spheres’. Copernicanism as first proposed, was largely incoherent, and organised around the ancient Pythagorean-Platonic concepts of Sun Worship and Aristarchian heliocentricity. Copernicus provided no observational proof whatsoever for his theory.
Neither did Kepler, who used Tycho Brahe’s detailed observations and may have killed Brahe to access his journals. Kepler’s complicated geometry seemed to offer some ‘proof’ of planetary elliptical orbits and movement around the Sun. Much of what Kepler offered was however inaccurate or wrong. His maths could just as easily have proven the Tychonic geo-helio-centric system or geo-centricity.
As a Lutheran devotee and a member of the ‘new religion’ which opposed the Catholic Church, and as an acolyte of Plato and Pythagoras, Kepler made the philosophical decision to support heliocentricity. It was philosophy and maths, not ‘science’ which informed that decision. ‘Out with the old, in with the new’, was the zeitgeist of Kepler’s era. More here
In the last post we looked at the foundational ideas for Kepler’s theory and his drastic amendment of Copernicus’ model. We noticed his occultism, his worship of the Sun, Platonic religiosity, the unjustified and unscientific use of Plato’s ‘solids’ and the Greek ideal of symmetry. We also witnessed his dependency on Tycho Brahe’s charts and observations. We saw that Kepler’s own maths could have ‘proven’ the Tychonic geo-helio-centric model, yet for personal and philosophical motivations he decided to align his complicated geometry behind Platonic theory. We will now discuss the concept of ‘proof’ for Keplerian theory which is never discussed or taught.
Kepler’s modifications of the Copernican model did not alleviate the many anomalies regarding the motions of the planets which still remain today. Kepler’s maths explaining the elliptical motion of planets is only an approximation and could be described as a poor one. Planetary orbits are not perfect circles but are imperfect ellipses. The planets precess at different rates, and all contain eccentricities that cannot be explained by the Keplerian method. More here
With Trump’s great victory, the US now has a chance at survival, as a rational, moral, constitutionally sound state. 2024 is the 2nd most important election in US history. Probably the most vital was Lincoln’s re-election in 1864, to ensure the eradication of the odium of slavery. Trump’s 2024 destruction of the deep state is just as significant.
A significant factor in Trump’s victory is the reality that most normal people, with IQ’s above Kamalalalarama Harris and Joe Biden’s (>75), are sick and tired of being told to ‘follow the science’ and that if you vote Bolshevist you are ‘the science’. How absurd it is, to conflate voting socialist and globalist with ‘science’. It hearkens back to the Nazi and Communist programs premised as their propaganda claimed on ‘science’, namely Darwinism, Evolution and dialectical Materialism. Sad, sick, stupid.
I posted previously why many of us knew that the 2020 was stolen. We knew that the Corona Plandemic was implemented in part to stop Trump from winning. The Corona Coup and Catastrophe also served other purposes as the post outlined. It punished the Americans and Brits for the 2016 Brexit and Trump votes, and it accelerated the globalist governance structure based on ‘The Science’ of ‘Pandemics’.
We know that the US election was stolen in 2020 using basic maths. More here
Henri Poincaré: “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.” (1901 in La science et l’hypothèse, Paris, Flammarion, 1968, p. 182)
Sir Fred Hoyle: “…the geocentric theory of Ptolemy had proved more successful than the heliocentric of Aristarchus. Until Copernicus, experience was just the other way around. Indeed, Copernicus had to struggle long and hard over many years before he equaled Ptolemy, and in the end the Copernican theory did not greatly surpass that of Ptolemy. (Fred Hoyle, Nicolaus Copernicus: An Essay on his Life and Work, 1973, p. 5)
We will split the analysis of Kepler into 2 parts to keep it short. In this post we will discuss the background and philosophies which provide the foundations for Kepler’s amendment of Copernican theory. In the next post we will analyse his claims and ‘proofs’.
Copernicus provided no proof for his heliocentric theory of cosmological organization. The 2 men quoted above knew this. His system possessed more ellipticals or quants than the Ptolemaic and his underlying assumption that planetary motions followed circles within a ‘crystalline sphere’ was wrong. The accuracy of the Copernican system is inferior to that of the Tychonic.
Copernicus the Confused’s primary work De Revolutionibus, was poorly written, devoid of factual evidence and based largely on Platonic religio-philosophy. Another example of Scientism. More here
In the next post we will discuss Copernicus and his underlying philosophy, including his use of ancient Greek ideas, to propose a counter theory to the Ptolemaic geo-centric model of cosmology. It is a very important topic when we look at ‘Scientism’. Many posts on this substack outline issues with the Copernican model, problems which still need remediation. None of these are well known because ‘The Science’ declines to discuss them.
“…nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.” Lincoln Barnett (in, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73)
What is rarely discussed is the philosophy which informed Copernicus’ largely purloined model. This philosophical foundation is one of the most important yet rarely discussed metaphysics in Western history. The Copernican model cannot be disengaged from its philosophical imperative.
“The result has been a popular culture littered with ideological detritus: atheism, of course, or naturalism, or materialism, or physicalism, or scientism, or even, God help us, trans-humanism. These are not very precise terms, nor do they denote very precise ideas. Naturalists can rarely say of naturalism anything beyond that it is natural.” (Berlinski, 2023, a secular Jew, Maths-Physics scholar and irreligious)
To set the stage for the Copernican discussion, we want to summarise the key points from the last post. We discussed the philosophical underpinning of ‘Science’ and the claim that Science is an output from epistemological philosophy, or the philosophy concerned with observing, acquiring and interpreting knowledge (Feyerabend, 1995).
This is a valid point of view and rarely if ever taught. We should never forget that the tragedy of the 20th century, the 100 million dead, the endless wars, the general chaos, was based and founded on ‘Scientism’ or ‘The Science’.
“There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.” Henrick Lorentz (1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.)
[Relativity arises from…] “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…” Arthur Eddington (Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11)
In the creation myth of Copernicanism, it is taught that the Catholic monk Copernicus, born in Poland and educated in Italy in the glare of the ‘enlightened’ late 15th century ‘Renaissance’, was a clear eyed, far-sighted seer and prophet, a man who knew the truth and through his jeremiads proclaimed the true gospel of mankind’s cosmic unimportance and utter irrelevancy. This lion of noble scientism fought against the crude, savagery of the dark superstitions, dragging mankind into the light of reason, Sun worship and heliocentricity. So the myth goes.
Without Copernicus, so we are told, we would still be in hairshirts, baying at full moons, convinced of a flat earth, and burning lonely widows on heaps of faggots. Misery and darkness our companions. Instead, the modern can rejoice in the gospel proclamations of Materialism and Rationalism; of mankind’s cosmological insignificance, of the uselessness of existence; and that our Earth is nothing in the great canvass of the universe. A hairless ape, a less agreeably evolved virus, so is mankind described by Materialism and the Copernican ‘principle’. More here
Niall Ferguson to his credit recognizes the role faith plays in both the development of reason, and of the political-economy and its social-environmental evolution. His comments are worth reading at some length. On page 264 he gets to the crux of the matter as to why the West is better than the Rest [to quote his own depiction]:
“Religions matter. In earlier chapters we saw how the 'stability ethic' of Confucianism played a part in imperial China's failure to develop the kind of competitive institutional framework that promoted innovation in Western Europe....But perhaps the biggest contribution of religion to the history of Western civilization was this. Protestantism made the West not only work, but also save and read. The Industrial Revolution was indeed a product of technological innovation and consumption.”
All true. Though Weber's Protestant read, work and save ethic, is indeed a prime source of European dynamism it must also be said that the Catholic Church saved Europe and should be given joint credit for its rise to dominance. The Roman church developed the economy, fought wars of liberation and defence against Islam [including the Crusades which bought Europe 500 years of time to develop]; stimulated the creation of schools, universities, enquiry and debate; and financed science and art. The balance sheet of the Catholic Church is usually taught as a negative. This is nonsense. Even with the sordid foibles, corruption and inquisitorial nature of the Church, its influence in European development is undeniably positive and decisive.
The 'Great Republic' is a book compiled from many essays which Churchill wrote about America, during his many years in politics. This book was formed and edited by his grandson, Winston S. Churchill who was also for a time, an MP in the British Parliament. The book makes for interesting reading because it covers all of American history, including the Revolution, the Civil War, slavery, America's role in two World Wars, and even the creation of Canada. One of the more interesting chapters is named 'The American Constitution'. It is a good read because it gives the reasons why America, and its key foundational text is so outstandingly unique.
One has to wonder what Churchill would say today of the American government's disregard for this document? What would be his reaction to the destruction of the rules of political engagement which allowed in very large part, the creation of the modern world and of American exceptionalism? The Federal government alone now consumes close to 30% of national income, with ownership of key sectors such as auto manufacturing and banking. One doubts very much, that Churchill would be impressed by the totalitarian pretensions of the unDemocratic or anti-Republican parties.
One of Churchill's strengths in his 66 year long political career, was his defense of both democracy; and of the Constitutional division of powers. He admired the US foundational texts as being unique in human history, and the bedrock of the Republican ideal. The US Constitution was not just an piece of parchment concocted by rich, white men, who owned slaves – but rather the apogee of genius, crafted by highly intelligent men, who were successful in life, and knew how a prosperous and well-functioning nation state should be developed.
“Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty.”
[Churchill May 14 1908, Dundee Hall speech].
This is little book a wonderful and new product for Churchilliana. The publishing firm, General Books, copied a number of Churchill's speeches between 1906 and 1912 using optical character recognition software. These full length reproductions were then turned into a book of some 138 pages. They are a fine compilation on Churchill's vision of 'Liberalism', or the establishment of what some might call welfare-capitalism, which merges aspects of socialism and communal responsibility, with trade, free[ish] markets, and aspects of capitalism.
These speeches formed the ideology and political convictions of Churchill the politician during the social-reforming era of 1906 to 1912. This was when the modern welfare state and its important components was created. Churchill became a minister of power during 2 governments serving as MP for Manchester North-West [1906-8], and Dundee [1908-22]. He entered the Cabinet in 1908 until 1910 as President of the Board of Trade and served as the Home Secretary from 1910 to 1911. These crucial 5 years from 1907 to 1912 were essential to restoring the communal health of Great Britain and the many 'have-nots'. Churchill's speeches make the argument as to why this is so and why a safety net of health, insurance, poor relief, and wage floors is necessary. Conservatives might be shocked but yes we do need a minimum welfare state.
The usual lament is that 'we don't build anything anymore' in advanced economies. This is not true. 15 % of GDP is in manufacturing and if one adds in software and technology development – which is a manufacturing process – the number is 30%. IT accounts for about 15% of US GDP making it the single most important industry. There are three factors about manufacturing which the mainstream media never reports.
Euro, soon to be a Zeuro. Europe has long been infected with the disease which first appeared with some force in the mid 19th century from the revolutionary slogans of 1848 to the mindlessness of Nietzsche's sad little writings which attempted to create 'supermen' out of a culture which was becoming socialist. All people, cultures, ideas and nations are equal. Fairness means everyone is the same. Equality is where all people and states are equally poor and miserable. Any 'gaps' in wealth, productivity, talent or initiative must be 'reduced' by government. If you try hard you are a criminally liable idiot, a threat to the state. Life is a large vacation punctuated by periods of unproductive, unsatisfying labour. The tenets of Christian civilization – rationality, gratitude, humility, hard-work, the reduction of the ego, the Golden Rule – are all relics of superstition and stupidity. Narcissism, self-absorption, 'free' benefits, TV and cults are the coveted idols of sophistication.
When your society is built upon the foundations of Rousseau and modern cultural Marxism it is bound to fail. When a currency is created to 'hide the decline', and allow governments more unfettered access to printed money currency, regulations, taxation, and power, the end is only a matter of time. Of course European 'leaders' now 'demand' a fiscal union. That is after all the whole point of the Euro exercise. Create a monetary disaster which implodes fiscal reality, and then offer 'solutions' which involve more government centralization and unfettered power.
Fiat currencies will disappear at least in their current form. When Nixon abolished the Gold Standard in 1971 he did so for self-interested reasons. He was aping the failed but short term policy of Lincoln during the Civil War – print more money all the time – to fund the war effort. That lasted only 4 years, and the inflationary effects were real but eaten up within 5 years by a rebounding economy, growing large and powerful on a unified Continental sized market. Nixon's feat has endured 40 years with a huge increase in the printing of money aligned with zero interest rates in the past 10 years, guaranteeing some form of future financial destruction. There are laws of economics, and we can't ignore them, though the big brains which run the world often times do.
US debt took off post 1971, when the US dollar was decoupled from the Gold standard.
The ancient Greeks set up the Oracle of Delphi as a temple to Apollo the Sun and Music God. The high priestesses were stoned on Datura leaves and mumbled some nonsense to any who brought a question. They were revealing what the 'Earth Mother' forecast. But like Nostradumuses sayings, much of what these stoned women muttered was completely inane and incomprehensible. No matter. The Delphic cult believed. This is essential. Muslims believe they are the chosen ones destined by the moon deity for an after-life of pleasure and endless sex [at least for Muslim men]. Our new Earth Mother cult has to give the cult members a combination of Delphic surety and Islamic rewards. It must in other words, transcend mere paganism and take on the attributes of a religion. To this end I propose the establishment – with tax money – of Churches in every single urban center, with the name of 'Earth Mother Institute'. Thus they will not look like a 'normal church' and won't be vilified by really smart people or the media. We will teach that by following our cult, your life will be purified, you will be moral, you will be superior, and at some point, because you are 'one with nature', you will be rewarded in both this life and the next.
Climate Change is a mythical problem premised on grand lies and fraud. Witness some real world facts: Co2 Emissions today are at their 2nd lowest level in history.
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm
Ice Ages are the norm:
“For ninety percent of the last million years, the normal state of the Earth's climate has been an ice age. Ice ages last about 100,000 years, and are punctuated by short periods of warm climate, or inter-glacials. The last ice age started about 114,000 years ago. It began instantaneously. For a hundred-thousand years, temperatures fell and sheets of ice a mile thick grew to envelop much of North America, Europe and Asia. The ice age ended nearly as abruptly as it began. Between about 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, the temperature in Greenland rose more than 50 °F.”
The UN IPCC scam
The fact that Co2 does not cause anything is a scientific fact. The Earth is not a greenhouse and ergo there can be no forcing of water vapour causing global cooling. There are over 1 million impact variables in the earth's convection system. The most common climate is an ice age – a reality completely divorced from Co2 levels or human activity. The sun has more to do with climate patterns than human activity.
No one from the Marxist-Globalist Globaloney Warming cult can explain the creation and the ending of the last ice age. Nor can they posit why Co2 levels which are at their 2nd lowest level in the last 2 million years have any ties to temperature, in spite of local climactic conditions and physical thermodynamics – both of which disprove 'global temperature' as utterly meaningless. The cult can't explain local variations or why the IPCC fraudulent data confirms that the earth is cooling, not warming. IPCC models [26 of them], have proven utterly futile at predicting any real world climate events or temperatures – a fact again left unexplained by the Eco Fascist cult.
Socialist reduction
Socialism always fails. States cannot afford socialized programs. If you deem health care to be a human right than nationalize food, housing, water bottle distribution, and clothing. Health care is no different than any other market. If a socialized system is truly necessary than we should at least have the rational intelligence to allow a functioning market to co-exist in which private insurances, care, and access are subject to price points and supply and demand factors. Not only would that alleviate the stress on state budgets it would improve the morality of the system by both decreasing costs and death rates. The modern dark-age mantra of 'socialism is good' is absurd. Time to move on.