Proletariat Blog

Freeman Dyson absolutely nails it in regards to the environmentalist religion:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the be-lief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.  ~nybooks.com

Take this headline:

Scientists Know Better Than You–Even When They’re Wrong
Why fallible expertise trumps armchair science—a Q&A with sociologist of science Harry Collins

[...]

What’s wrong with ordinary people weighing in on scientific subjects?
It is easy to imagine all sorts of horror stories if we abandon the idea that there are some people who know what they are talking about and some who don’t. ~sciam.com

And then reconcile it with this recent headline:

Scientists take drugs to boost brain power: study

Twenty percent of scientists admit to using performance-enhancing prescription drugs for non-medical reasons, according to a survey released Wednesday by Nature, Britain’s top science journal.

The overwhelming majority of these med-taking brainiacs said they indulged in order to “improve concentration,” and 60 percent said they did so on a daily or weekly basis. ~breitbart.com

Obama thinks there are 57 states? I know he’s the candidate of ‘change’ but this is ridiculous.

57 states

Why Are Liberals Actively Helping Terrorists?

Chavez’s close ties to FARC are an integral part of his efforts to undermine the democratically elected government of Colombia President Alvaro Uribe. Chavez’s continued involvement in FARC’s deadly hostage-taking tactics are a key element of these efforts.

Richardson is not the first liberal to legitimize the regime. Ex-Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) stars in Chavez’s heating oil giveaway commercials. Rep. William Delahunt (D-Mass.), like Richardson, has also supported Chavez’s efforts to lead hostage extraction efforts with FARC. And the same laptop mentioned above also shows that Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) “has been working with an American go-between, who has been offering the rebels help in undermining Colombia’s elected and popular government.”

McGovern’s pro-Chavez efforts do not end there. He has also been a leading force in Congress against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the defeat of which is another key Chavez goal. Susan Segal, president of the Council of the Americas, notes:…  ~blog.heritage.org

The liberal answer is that communist/progressive terrorists aren’t terrorists at all, they’re freedom fighters.

The religion of peace has belligerant aspirations:

Sheik Ali Al-Faqir: We must declare that Palestine, from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, is an Islamic land, and that Spain – Andalusia – is also the land of Islam. Islamic lands that were occupied by the enemies will once again become Islamic. Furthermore, we will reach beyond these countries, which are lost at one point. We proclaim that we will conquer Rome, like Constantinople was conquered once, and as it will be conquered again.

Interviewer: Allah willing.

Sheik Ali Al-Faqir: We will rule the world, as has been said by the Prophet Muhammad.  ~littlegreenfootballs.com

The progressives want to bring us change. But what kind of change? How about a “maximum wage”? Surely no one needs to make more than $500,000 a year right? Right?

This is the kind of change that Obama supporters want. Plain and simple, it’s commie pipe-dreams.

As ignorant as it sounds there seem to be too many people for whom this illiterate socialistic claptrap seems plausible.

I’m not rich nor do I ever expect to make $500,000 a year but that doesn’t mean that no one else should  ever make more than that. In fact, one could make the case that a country which limits the income of it’s citizens in this manner will in fact be limiting the freedom and prosperity of the entire country.

Go ahead, call me a communist, but this would be a world of equality where 90% could consider themselves in the middle class, a sustainable society where no ones really loses, even those who are sacrificing their excess to charity. Think about it: An owner of a fine dining establishment can rest assured that with everyone else out there earning a reasonable salary, his restaurant will always be full. Even though he will make no more than a half million per year, he is guaranteed a steady business. Small businesses would flourish! Most folks would be much better off. Imposing this new payment structure will allow people to find out that the meaning of success has nothing to do with unfettered wealth, but it has to do more with satisfaction of one’s self, just going to bed knowing you’ve done your best.

Limiting the income of businesses means limiting business to a kind of serfdom. No expansion. No investment. No economies of scale. No research and development. In short this kind of communist ‘reform’ would result in making citizens subservient to the only organization allowed to make more than $500,000 a year… the government.