What kind of person is so caught up in the climate-change alarmism that they’d suggest pets are part of the problem? Perhaps someone caught up in mass-formation psychosis. (Oops! Did I say the 'M-F' word?) Pets are part of our families in the West, so it's no wonder that the left under Marxism, wants Fido and Kitty too. The Leftist religion of Climate Change makes way for this new target, our pets. This may sound off-the-wall, but then, there's a reason we use the word "psychosis," and we explore the role mass-formation psychosis or "mass hysteria," has been used to build totalitarian regimes.
Dystopia
The Thought Police
Thier surveillance state in 1984 was slightly more advanced than ours, though ours is rapidly catching up. It enabled them to detect deviant, anti-party behavior as soon as it manifested itself. That would trigger increased scrutiny. If it advanced to the point of being displayed in public, the perpetrator would be imprisoned, and eventually killed. Not just killed, but all traces of you would be erased. People would quickly learn not to oppose the ever-changing Big Brother narrative. They were conditioned though fear, and the knowledge they were monitored constantly to intuit wrongthink and stifle such thoughts before they emerged. This is what Ingsoc called "crimestop". People were trained to self-cancel any independent part of their psyche.
Dystopic Journal: Geopolitics: Orwell vs. Today’s World
Orwell got a lot of things right, like the surveillance state and doublethink. How close was his vision of the geopolitical landscape in 1984 to real life?
Analysis of John Galt’s speech: Individuality
Atlas Shrugged, 1957, by Ayn Rand One of the themes of Atlas Shrugged, and of the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand is the idea of all rights are individual rights. Growing up in the Soviet Union, she witnessed first-hand the evils of collectivism, the negation of the self. She believed in the rights of minorities, … Continue reading Analysis of John Galt’s speech: Individuality
LR Podcast, S3E20: The Constitution and why it matters.
Many countries have borrowed from it, none have improved upon it. Strong as it is, it's only as strong as the Supreme Court Justices charged with following and interpreting it, and only as strong as the Citizens of the US are willing to allow it to be. Hopefully the next 235 years will see it remain as strong, if not stronger, as it is now.
LR Podcast, S2E19: God save the King…and us.
Charles has been outspoken in recent years on Leftist causes such as climate change and has attended the WEF summit in Davos, Switzerland. He's going to have to put those days behind him and rule from the center. When in doubt, he should ask himself-- "What would mother do?"
LR Podcast, S3E17: Will Atlas shrug?
One of the chief themes of Galt's speech is the idea that society had begun to hold sacrifice as its highest virtue, but Galt points out that in society's twisted morality, societies concept of sacrifice was not that of noble self-sacrifice, it was responding to the demands of others that was held as a virtue. Virtue, in this fallen system, was to accede to the demands of others, even to the point of going against one's own best self-interest. This “virtue” of sacrifice stemmed from or perhaps caused a widespread sense of entitlement. People had stared to believe that they were entitled to the efforts of others.
Analysis of John Galt’s speech: Sacrifice
One of the chief themes of Galt's speech is the idea that society had begun to hold sacrifice as its highest virtue, but Galt points out that in society's twisted morality, societies concept of sacrifice was not that of noble self-sacrifice, it was responding to the demands of others that was held as a virtue. Virtue, in this fallen system, was to accede to the demands of others, even to the point of going against one's own best self-interest.
LR Podcast, S3E15: Poking the bear
There is a time and place for those angered by the raid on Trump's home, that time is November, and the place is the ballot box. The Democrats will do anything to marginalize and demonize Trump and his supporters. We must not be baited into acting as they would, as demonstrated during the summer of 2020.
Right problem, wrong solution?
So, what's the problem with that? The problem is that who gets to decide what is "harmful"? Who would be the subject matter experts mentioned in this scheme? The same people who decide what is racist, homophobic, or Islamophobic?
Liberty Relearned 