Some people have begun to bristle at the mounting number of absurdities that they are forced to accept and repeat, if not believe, in order to get through an ordinary day in the USA.
Nothing new under the sun...20. 1:9 - "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isa 5:20
This is as credible and plausible an explanation for the proliferation of absurd yet authoritative claims that I've seen. The only thing for it is to insist on common-sense wherever these absurdities are encountered. For example, if the doctor's office has that ridiculous verbiage about 'assigned gender', just tell the doc or write on the form that it's impossible to have any confidence in a medical practitioner who doesn't understand basic biology. Little things like that add up.
The fabricated consensus is fragile, hence the need to enforce rigid conformity and censor the slightest hint of divergence. So these little, you might call them micro-agressions, show everyone the consensus they imagined is... imaginary. These have a cumulative, multiplier effect. Slower than we'd like, but it's a start.
I don't know this author's view of the catastrophic climate change religion, but in my opinion something similar to what he discusses here applies to it. Rather than nit-pick about the effectiveness of proposed solutions - wind turbines or solar panels, outlawing gas stoves, etc - those wanting to preserve our way of life in the west must always and first attack the foundation by stating that there is no climate emergency to solve.
Nothing new under the sun...20. 1:9 - "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isa 5:20
Not new, but still not nice...
This is as credible and plausible an explanation for the proliferation of absurd yet authoritative claims that I've seen. The only thing for it is to insist on common-sense wherever these absurdities are encountered. For example, if the doctor's office has that ridiculous verbiage about 'assigned gender', just tell the doc or write on the form that it's impossible to have any confidence in a medical practitioner who doesn't understand basic biology. Little things like that add up.
I agree but then what?
The fabricated consensus is fragile, hence the need to enforce rigid conformity and censor the slightest hint of divergence. So these little, you might call them micro-agressions, show everyone the consensus they imagined is... imaginary. These have a cumulative, multiplier effect. Slower than we'd like, but it's a start.
I don't know this author's view of the catastrophic climate change religion, but in my opinion something similar to what he discusses here applies to it. Rather than nit-pick about the effectiveness of proposed solutions - wind turbines or solar panels, outlawing gas stoves, etc - those wanting to preserve our way of life in the west must always and first attack the foundation by stating that there is no climate emergency to solve.
I agree 100 percent—no possible emergency for a problem that occurs over hundreds of years, if at all.
Read my Substack post on Michael Crichton for more about this topic.