Settled Pseudoscience

Mysticism, not reason

Page 15 of The Church Guardian

Religious truth was in 1890 the same as it is today. Nowadays, its advocates call it “science.” Of course there is disagreement among folks who have rejected reason. Some of them point to “Creation Science” as proof that policemen who–in good faith–believe they detected the odor of a burning bush, should shoot unarmed teenagers and not be liable to criminal charges. It provided the moral basis for the President of These United States to go on the public record advocating the death sentence in 1989 for anyone dealing in agricultural products likely to lower the price of liquor or coffee–with their executioners given immunity. Others are congregants of climate science.

“Climate Science” is a religious truth according to which the entire global population should be forcibly subjected to health hazards in the form of blackouts, brownouts, and reduced access to the very energy that enables people to work for a living. In actuarial math, health hazards are anything that reduces the life expectancy of a population. This rests on the observation that pandemics and power outages alike cause suffering and death.

What we observe today is the merger of two distinct and mutually antagonistic pseudoscientific religions onto one, exactly as occurred in National Socialist Germany in 1933. Religious conservatives declared Germany a Christian nation dedicated to the common good, not personal profit. They wanted the Political State to provide pensions and censor not only fake news but also anything offensive to their ethical and moral feelings. Conservatives emphatically demanded “public health through protection of mother and child,” just like today, with altruist indoctrination a part of government education in Christian Germany.

National Socialists also demanded regulation of all professions, especially journalism–translations of foreign newspapers were banned, under penalties including deportation, and foreigners, especially if selfish–were deported. Asset-forfeiture laws were enacted in support of Germany’s War On Bad Things so that entire companies could be readily confiscated.

All of these things were published by Adolf Hitler in 1920, and read by German voters, some 99% of whom were Christians, 2/3 Protestant and 1/3 Catholic. Less than one percent were Jewish. But though Hitler’s party was repeatedly elected in a landslide by Protestant and Catholic voters for a dozen years, many who claim to speak for Christianity and for Socialism, deny that Hitler and his allies were Christian or Socialist. They evade mention of speeches, writings, photographs and artifacts to the contrary. Can you imagine an atheist, mohammedan or pagan being elected president of These United States today? Nor could German voters in 1928, 1932 or 1933-45. That political science was as settled then as it is today.

narcotic syrup

Page 16 of the Church Guardian, “Advice to Mothers”

And like today, the money behind the propaganda was put up by investors with a stake in the market. Banning alcohol increased demand for other stupefying drugs, such as opium. This ad for Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup is from the next page of the Church Guardian. The syrup contained morphine, which competed for adult market share with beer, wine and spirits.

Behind every prohibition law directing the initiation of deadly force in violation of individual rights you will find hidden persuaders. All such laws are an offer to kill any number of people in order to force the survivors to obey market-distorting orders lobbyists hire politicians to enact. Lobbyists who want to ban coal or hemp are cut from exactly the same ideological cloth.

If you liked this article, you might want to visit my legal and contractual translations website.

Advertisements

Useless Drones Claim to Represent Science Beehive–as reported by Ron

This week the AMS (American Meteorological Society) sent a letter chastising Scott Pruitt for keeping an open mind on the question of man-made global warming/climate change. The letter (here) referred to the AMS institutional statement on the matter, and summarized their position in this paragraph: In reality, the world’s seven billion people are causing climate […]

via The Weathermen vs. EPA’s Scott Pruitt — Science Matters

Religious conditioning v. science, by Ron

The confirmation hearings with questions from global warming zealots reminded me of Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy. The notion of global warming/climate change resembles closely that mythical teapot. People like Lewandowsky and Oreskes psychoanalyze unbelievers. And public hearings are conducted to uncover unseemly heresy inside political appointees. At least when religion is recognized as such, and […]

via The Climate Change Teapot — Science Matters