A translation by yours truly. Original source [A]
I've written about the discussions surrounding the floodings in Spain and got some more submissions, almost all of which concluded that the floodings weren't caused by the climate, but erroneous city building in connection with getting rid of many reservoirs for the purpose of re-naturization and a whole lot of political ignorance, the fundamental problem that the lowest of low intellectual and personality-wise people are there and put out lots of trash that can catch fire sometimes.
Of course there is the repeated claim that, in 8 hours, as much rain has fallen as would have in the entire year. Whether that's true is a different matter, and a part of this is whether the amount of rain can have such a precise expected target in the first place. Apparently, many people take it as a given that there has to be a precise amount of rain which is to fall exactly evenly, and every drop too little or too much is immediately "climate catastrophe" - as if there was no permissible deviation from the mandated target.
Which got me thinking.
Could it be that leftists are reacting so aggressively towards climate and weather because it resists their planned-economy way of thinking?
That they're treating the climate, the weather with some kind of anthropomorphy (anthropomorphism (Old Greek ἄνθρωπος ánthropos "human" and μορφή morphē "form, shape") means the attribution of human traits to animals, gods, forces of nature and similar (humanization)), an animism (The term animism (from Old Greek ἄνεμος ánemos "wind, breath" and Latin animus,[1] as anima in religious contexts also soul[2] or spirit) generally describes the "belief" that living beings as well as nonliving objects possess a soul. )
so basically what the old Romans, Greeks, and many polytheist peoples did, namely assuming that forces of nature (sea = Poseidon/Neptune) had some kind of evil will, a kind of inherent divinity?
This would fit with my observations that leftists act as if they are functionally or organically missing a part of their brain, the ratio, and that they are steered mostly and erroneously by animal pack mechanisms, the amygdala. Could it be that they are treating weather and climate not rationally, but use the amygdala to build up a sense of hostile force and threat through an opponent, one from an enemy pack, because they - socialism and communism principle - enforce a uniform social pack behavior and want to force it using the planned economy, thus a morbidly exaggerated animal pack behavior , and that they see the climate and the weather as a black sheep that doesn't fit in and rejects the instructions? That the climate thing is basically no different than insulting everybody who isn't following their mandates exactly as "right wing radical"?
From the left-wing camp, they're constantly accusing people of being incapable of having agency and acting independently. They need The Party as their representative, because only The Party knows what's good for them. And if you criticize them, you can't do that of your own volition, but someone sinister power is holding your strings in the background, Nazis or currently the Russians.
In principle, the topic of manmade climate change is nothing else but the accusation of counter-revolutionary coup activities, Nazis, Russians and so on. The accusation that something isn't exactly fitting in to the mandated pack plan because sinister powers of evil competing packs are behind it. It's the amygdala doing its thing, because the amygdala is responsible for assuming that behind every anomaly and irregularity there's the saber-tooth tiger that needs to be defended against.
So are we back to the mental state in which you view forces of nature as acts of an angry hostile god that needs to be placated by building temples and making sacrifices? Are wind turbines the polytheist placation temples of our age?
By the way, someone just sent me a link to a speech in the state parliament of Lower Saxony in which someone is brilliantly mocking the leftists, and this is fitting perfectly:
[translator's note: the link was timestamped, so I'll translate it for your convenience starting at that bit:
This is AfD politician Alfred Dannenberg speaking: "If it's dry - climate crisis. If it's wet - climate crisis. If it's dry, then wet, then dry, like this summer - climate crisis again. *cheers* We had a completely normal North German summer! The farmers know how to handle it, you just have to let them. And you know what my maternal grandparents - best regards to heaven - also a family with an agricultural background, said a lot? Listen. Wat den een seen Uhl, is den anderen seen Nachtigall. Paraphrased, for one it's good, for the others it's bad. So, the rain in July/August was bad for grains, but good for corn, potatoes, sugar cane, and green areas. And the other way around, it would've been the other way around. It's always been this way, and the enterprises know how to deal with it. The geography teacher inside of me, with a university graduation, by the way [mocking how many Greens have no achievements whatsoever] *cheers*, climate crisis is not scientific jargon, but a political fighting word, no more. And while you using fighting words to paint pictures of catastrophe scenarios, the farmers are really working very normally and professionally with this year's weather. What the farmers do have a problem with is Green ideology and its real consequences: massive regulation, high prices for energy, fuel, and fertilizer, rapidly expanding red areas, protection areas, higher organic food quotas, mandatory closing, moor mismanagement and so on, just as an aside. So, dear Greens, this is now the second time that I am catching you red-handed using the spotlight to bring in a catastrophe scenario which doesn't exist in reality. The first time was in Spring, your thing with the exotic circus animals which, in reality, don't even join the tours anymore. Apparently you can't refuse. And again, you haven't informed yourself in reality, haven't done any research. Next time, feel free to reach out to me, my phone is full of contacts who do their thing for a living. Are you interested? And if this is too much first-hand reality for you, I wanted to show you something. *whips out magazine* This is the Land und Forst, a look into this newspaper would have sufficed. Last week's edition, it says to the harvest report basically the same thing that I have just educated you on. Now comes the punchline. In the article you could have also found the following quote from your party colleague, the Green Minister of Agriculture Özdemir, I'm laughing already. Quote: 'All in all, we can be content with the harvest.' *cheers* Only the Lower Saxony Greens aren't, it's really unbelievable. One more thing, dear Greens. If I catch you a third time with such a nothingburger, I'll buy a drink for the one responsible of you, because you are proving to us again and again how delusional you are. Thank you very much, that was fun. *cheers*"]
Is the climate "right-wing"?
I was just wondering.I've written about the discussions surrounding the floodings in Spain and got some more submissions, almost all of which concluded that the floodings weren't caused by the climate, but erroneous city building in connection with getting rid of many reservoirs for the purpose of re-naturization and a whole lot of political ignorance, the fundamental problem that the lowest of low intellectual and personality-wise people are there and put out lots of trash that can catch fire sometimes.
Of course there is the repeated claim that, in 8 hours, as much rain has fallen as would have in the entire year. Whether that's true is a different matter, and a part of this is whether the amount of rain can have such a precise expected target in the first place. Apparently, many people take it as a given that there has to be a precise amount of rain which is to fall exactly evenly, and every drop too little or too much is immediately "climate catastrophe" - as if there was no permissible deviation from the mandated target.
Which got me thinking.
Could it be that leftists are reacting so aggressively towards climate and weather because it resists their planned-economy way of thinking?
That they're treating the climate, the weather with some kind of anthropomorphy (anthropomorphism (Old Greek ἄνθρωπος ánthropos "human" and μορφή morphē "form, shape") means the attribution of human traits to animals, gods, forces of nature and similar (humanization)), an animism (The term animism (from Old Greek ἄνεμος ánemos "wind, breath" and Latin animus,[1] as anima in religious contexts also soul[2] or spirit) generally describes the "belief" that living beings as well as nonliving objects possess a soul. )
so basically what the old Romans, Greeks, and many polytheist peoples did, namely assuming that forces of nature (sea = Poseidon/Neptune) had some kind of evil will, a kind of inherent divinity?
This would fit with my observations that leftists act as if they are functionally or organically missing a part of their brain, the ratio, and that they are steered mostly and erroneously by animal pack mechanisms, the amygdala. Could it be that they are treating weather and climate not rationally, but use the amygdala to build up a sense of hostile force and threat through an opponent, one from an enemy pack, because they - socialism and communism principle - enforce a uniform social pack behavior and want to force it using the planned economy, thus a morbidly exaggerated animal pack behavior , and that they see the climate and the weather as a black sheep that doesn't fit in and rejects the instructions? That the climate thing is basically no different than insulting everybody who isn't following their mandates exactly as "right wing radical"?
From the left-wing camp, they're constantly accusing people of being incapable of having agency and acting independently. They need The Party as their representative, because only The Party knows what's good for them. And if you criticize them, you can't do that of your own volition, but someone sinister power is holding your strings in the background, Nazis or currently the Russians.
In principle, the topic of manmade climate change is nothing else but the accusation of counter-revolutionary coup activities, Nazis, Russians and so on. The accusation that something isn't exactly fitting in to the mandated pack plan because sinister powers of evil competing packs are behind it. It's the amygdala doing its thing, because the amygdala is responsible for assuming that behind every anomaly and irregularity there's the saber-tooth tiger that needs to be defended against.
So are we back to the mental state in which you view forces of nature as acts of an angry hostile god that needs to be placated by building temples and making sacrifices? Are wind turbines the polytheist placation temples of our age?
By the way, someone just sent me a link to a speech in the state parliament of Lower Saxony in which someone is brilliantly mocking the leftists, and this is fitting perfectly:
This is AfD politician Alfred Dannenberg speaking: "If it's dry - climate crisis. If it's wet - climate crisis. If it's dry, then wet, then dry, like this summer - climate crisis again. *cheers* We had a completely normal North German summer! The farmers know how to handle it, you just have to let them. And you know what my maternal grandparents - best regards to heaven - also a family with an agricultural background, said a lot? Listen. Wat den een seen Uhl, is den anderen seen Nachtigall. Paraphrased, for one it's good, for the others it's bad. So, the rain in July/August was bad for grains, but good for corn, potatoes, sugar cane, and green areas. And the other way around, it would've been the other way around. It's always been this way, and the enterprises know how to deal with it. The geography teacher inside of me, with a university graduation, by the way [mocking how many Greens have no achievements whatsoever] *cheers*, climate crisis is not scientific jargon, but a political fighting word, no more. And while you using fighting words to paint pictures of catastrophe scenarios, the farmers are really working very normally and professionally with this year's weather. What the farmers do have a problem with is Green ideology and its real consequences: massive regulation, high prices for energy, fuel, and fertilizer, rapidly expanding red areas, protection areas, higher organic food quotas, mandatory closing, moor mismanagement and so on, just as an aside. So, dear Greens, this is now the second time that I am catching you red-handed using the spotlight to bring in a catastrophe scenario which doesn't exist in reality. The first time was in Spring, your thing with the exotic circus animals which, in reality, don't even join the tours anymore. Apparently you can't refuse. And again, you haven't informed yourself in reality, haven't done any research. Next time, feel free to reach out to me, my phone is full of contacts who do their thing for a living. Are you interested? And if this is too much first-hand reality for you, I wanted to show you something. *whips out magazine* This is the Land und Forst, a look into this newspaper would have sufficed. Last week's edition, it says to the harvest report basically the same thing that I have just educated you on. Now comes the punchline. In the article you could have also found the following quote from your party colleague, the Green Minister of Agriculture Özdemir, I'm laughing already. Quote: 'All in all, we can be content with the harvest.' *cheers* Only the Lower Saxony Greens aren't, it's really unbelievable. One more thing, dear Greens. If I catch you a third time with such a nothingburger, I'll buy a drink for the one responsible of you, because you are proving to us again and again how delusional you are. Thank you very much, that was fun. *cheers*"]
