Elizabeth Scalia, writing on the American website Pajamas Media, has an interesting approach to the current environmental crisis. That's the man-made environmental crisis, you understand - you know, the one invented by politicians and campaigners in an attempt to gain complete control of our lives. The aristocracy of the 18th Century tried it but lost their heads eventually, the Communists tried it and couldn't make it stick, the Nazis tried it and it didn't last, and now these modern demagogues think they've found the answer …
"Somewhere between 1968 and 2008 the social messaging wires have gotten tangled.
"Forty years after enlightened baby boomers and academics decried conformity and told the world to ignore "the establishment," to not kowtow to "the man," to "rap about problems to find solutions," and to "not guilt-trip or judge other people's life choices", those same sorts - the now firmly ensconced "establishment" pretending otherwise - are wondering why they can't get people to fall in line and do as they're told to do and think as they're told to think with respect to the environment and the "crisis" of "climate change", the "crisis" which used to be called "global warming" until the news got out that the earth has been cooling for the last ten years and the arctic ice is refusing to melt.
"Now, these establishment Boomers want you to kowtow to "the man." They'll brook no open discussions and they prefer you would learn to judge others - and to scold them - for their own good and for the planet's.
"To encourage you in those noble endeavors, the new establishment is bringing in the psychologists:
"Armed with new research into what makes some people environmentally conscious and others less so, the 148,000-member American Psychological Association is stepping up efforts to foster a broader sense of eco-sensitivity that the group believes will translate into more public action to protect the planet.
"'We know how to change behavior and attitudes. That is what we do,' says Yale University psychologist Alan Kazdin, association president. 'We know what messages will work and what will not.'
These experts have made the staggering observation that negative feedback breeds a bit of spite; if you tell people they are pigs who are killing the earth, people will raise an eyebrow and defiantly throw their candy wrappers on the ground, but if they are "invested in the environment" and lauded for that, they will keep the candy wrappers in their pockets.
"Ergo, expect to hear more quotes like this one, rendered to get you more "invested" in the environment: 'people know outside is going to feel much better for them but underpredict how happy they're going to feel after being outside in nature even 15 minutes.'
"As to debating the issue or listening to opposing viewpoints, we won't see that. News stories that provide a balanced view of climate change reduce people's beliefs that humans are at fault and also reduce the number of people who think climate change would be bad, according to research by Stanford social psychologist Jon Krosnick.
"It would seem that Al Gore was correct then, to eschew any debate on the topic of global warming, and correct again when he ordered the press to stop presenting balance and dissent in their global warming coverage - sorry, primary sources on that story can no longer be found in the archives of the obedient press. When you are trying to peddle the "crisis" mentality necessary to get Americans to hand over power, there is no room to "rap about" the questions or to introduce reason or balance into the non-discussion.
"Finally, the generation that would not be judged wants to lay a heavy guilt trip on environmental sinners: social psychologist Jessica Nolan … 'found that students are not particularly inclined to disapprove of the non-sustainable behavior of others. People showed strong approval for other students who recycled. You would hope to see people disapprove of people who don't recycle, but they didn't disapprove,' she says.
"But she says the response was stronger if the activity was perceived as more harmful. More students said they would scold someone if they saw that person improperly disposing of motor oil.
"That's just what Americans need - more scolding. We don't get enough from the press, the political parties, and the establishment moralists; now we need to scold each other. Presumably, the next step after finger-wagging at our neighbors for their environmental failings will be informing on them - especially if we're suspected of not being "green enough" ourselves.
"All of this manipulation and social engineering is necessary, you understand, because we're facing a "crisis." The environmental "crisis" is the mother lode of guilt-tripping; if it is successful - if people can be made to accept the unprovable theory that humankind, not nature, is responsible for "climate change" - then the tentacles of the nanny state will be able to reach into every aspect of every life, from how one may heat or cool one's home to how many children one may bear. It will be a necessary intrusion, meant to save the planet. For the children you should not have.
"Americans - who are all for reasonable conservation measures, but not at the cost of our personal freedoms - are making it tough on our establishment betters. We're forcing them to play the headshrinker card on us. If only we would just conform, listen to "the man," stop questioning, and just judge others, the world would be a better and groovier place."
The GOS says: You have to wonder about the intelligence of Americans, don't you? Not only do they seem to have no difficulty with the idea of placing the big red button within easy reach of a woman who believes that an old man with a beard and a night-shirt could create the earth with a wave of his hand, and who has as her role-model an animal which licks its own arse and can't be left alone with children,* but they genuinely believe that they have discovered some great revolutionary insight into human behaviour when they say that people react better to praise and encouragement than they do to criticism.
Well, American Psychological Association, we've got news for you. In this country, teachers have known it for years. Some of them even put it into regular practice, before the government made them concentrate on testing kids to destruction and telling them how fat they are.
* In one of her first major speeches she described herself as a "soccer-mom", and joked "What's the difference between a soccer-mom and a pit-bull? Lipstick!"
God, that's really funny. My, how we laughed. What the hell is a soccer-mom, anyway? Is it the American equivalent of a WAG?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite