Apr 8 • 18M

Ep. 92 - The Battle Of Beliefs

3
 
1.0×
0:00
-17:42
Open in playerListen on);
Intelligent views on headline news.
Episode details
Comments

What do you believe?

"High gas prices? That's just what we need!" -- coming from the cover of the Seattle Times, I believe these words capture the great disconnect between reality and radical progressive politics. Writing for the Times, John Talton goes on to educate the uneducated conservative peasants of the world:

"The biggest paradox of the moment is Americans complaining about high gasoline prices while climate change is growing worse. ... Yet carbon — of which Happy Motoring is among the worst offenders — needs to be priced high enough to keep it in the ground instead of burning it into the atmosphere. This is essential to preventing global catastrophe."

Priced high enough to keep it in the ground? Really? How will that work exactly? Setting all facts and logical thinking aside, what is critical to remember, is that John Talton and many others actually believe that driving their cars is destroying the planet. More importantly, they actually believe that you driving your car is destroying the planet too.

By extension, they believe that you are an existential threat to the future of planet Earth.

It does not matter that you or I disagree. It does not matter that world-class scientists disagree. It doesn't matter that higher gas prices are hurting low-income families, driving up the prices of groceries and everything else on the half-bare shelves. It doesn't matter if you want or need to travel for work, or to visit with family and friends. Any such "happy motoring" should be considered selfish and shameful.

All that matters is "preventing global catastrophe." This is a belief that is held with religious conviction, and anyone who challenges The Science or questions the underlying premise is a charlatan who deserves public flogging and humiliation. Worse yet, dissenters are a threat to humanity -- even though they don't yet realize it -- and in order to prevent global catastrophe, dissenters must be dealt with. 

Now, think about the war in Ukraine -- or any war for that matter. Consider that in every battle, on both sides, there are human beings who are willing to fight to the death to defend their beliefs. In war, both sides are ultimately fighting to defend their right to believe something different.

What if we don't believe that driving electric vehicles will save the planet? What if we don't believe that socialism is the solution to societal woes? What if we don't believe that global governance is what's best for humanity? What if we don't agree with what they want us to believe?

What if we disagree with the covid narrative? What if we disagree with masking, lockdowns, and other risk mitigation measures? What if we disagree with the "experts" and The Science? Ultimately, what if we disagree with the way they want us to live our lives? What if we believe something different?

Currently, if you believe anything other than the state-sanctioned narrative, you are considered a threat to public health, a threat to the planet, a threat to democracy, and a threat to the future of humanity. In the collectivist mind, these threats must be dealt with in order to protect the greater good. Throughout history, this is the exact same justification that has driven the most heinous crimes against humanity.

It would be foolish to think it will never happen again. We like to pretend that somehow the 21st century has ushered in a more civilized era, but we need look no further than the brutal war crimes spilling across the headlines to see the flaw in this assumption. Rather than evolving into a more respectful and harmonious society, we find the impulse of a few to conquer and control the many, is still very much alive and well.

In fact, the efforts to impose the state’s will upon the people has taken a dystopian technological twist. Rather than having storm troopers going door-to-door to weed our dissenters, we now have robotic dogs, 7 foot tall robo-cops, and government drones policing our behavior. These machines are the new agents of the state, and they are blaring the same message:

"Control your soul's desire for freedom."

Don't go outside. Don't open the window and sing. Don't you dare take off that mask! Step away from the crowd. You are not allowed to be that close to other people. This gathering is a threat to public health and safety. Systems show that you have not received your required booster. Do not attempt to flee, authorities will be here soon. You must comply. Resistance is futile.

How long before these drones and robots are equipped with other means of enforcing the state's will? How about using non-lethal rounds or a stun-gun of some sort to apprehend dissenters? How about simply snapping an incriminating picture, forwarding it to law enforcement, and following your every move until you can be tracked down, tackled to the ground, and injected against your will?

It almost seems silly so say it, but this sort of scenario is becoming more plausible by the day. Not long ago, people would have been abhorred by the sight of government robots policing public spaces. Anyone who remembers the Terminator would be quick to tell you why this is a bad idea.

Unfortunately, in today's world, rather than questioning the presence and mission of robotic overlords, people like John Talton and other progressive quacks will be cheering them on. This, they will claim, is the only way to control that pesky human impulse to breathe freely and be together just being human beings. The problem is not the global police state, the problem is the peasants who dissent.

It's those who's souls yearn to be free that are the real threat to democracy -- not the leftist lunatics who believe they can squash the human spirit and impose their will on humanity.

Enjoying the podcast?

Please Like, Subscribe, & Share!