Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "Triggernometry"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The weakness of Conservatism is that it's an alliance, and some (not all) tendencies in the alliance are not just anti-intellectual, but also border on anti-human. Conservatives themseleves, treat these anti-humanists among them as a cute quirk - a strength - a sign of their diversity. Anti-humanists among conservatives are the reason I'm not a conservative. OK - so the socialists, and liberals both have their anti-humanists too. Given that, ... I must pick my politics on the basis of which - among all of you - have the least evil (& least influential) anti-humans! among you.
What do I mean by anti-human? I mean people who worship, and subsume their life, to an idea which is objectively harmful to humanity as a whole. I may be atheist, but I'm not one of these new atheists - like Francis. As a rule, I don't classify religions as anti-human (except some 'new' religions, and some fundamental ones).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I'm more likely to call Konstantin "left-wing"! But that doesn't make me more "rigth-wing" than him. It merely means that the left are more obsessed with exclusion. They have a whole list of monsterisms: Nazi, Fascist, MCP, transphobe, poplarist, climate denier, fossil fool, nationalist, cis, racist, ... But these monsterisms are not so much designed to exclude people. Monsterisms function of bully their supporters into line, into the woke/DEI/socialist world-view, ... Being in this worldview doesn't mean they know why they're there; it means they fear being outside it. Disagree with me? Then riddle me this: why are so many young women calling themselves transmen? Not because they are: but because they're psychologically bullied by fear of being called transphobes. AKA: brainwashed, gaslit, or whatever other term you have for psychological bullying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mallen Baker is a propagandist and this video is propaganda; not a good interview.
Triggernometry just aren't competent enough to unearth the truth.
Their interview is pathetic. At no stage do they give Mallen Baker a single difficult question. Mallen Baker is a snob who cherry picks doom-laden mathematical models predicting a climate dystopia. He's not a scientist. He knows nothing about 'climate change' or science. Mallen Baker calls himself "not remotely ideological". You can't make it up! He is an ex- activist and professional politician; ex-leader of the Green Party. He is ONLY an ideologist who claims to be "in the middle". He literally LIES in this interview about wind and solar being cheaper!!
Science is an empirical enterprise; it's all about experiments, tests and observations under controlled conditions. Scientists call these tests: validations and falsifications. A falsification is an experimental test which looks at core scientific ideas and attempts to empirically refute the idea. For example, in 1887, when Michelson and Morley discovered (for sure) that the speed of light was constant for all observers, they incidentally falsified Newton's physics. In addition, the failure of anyone to find an 'ether'; assumed by Newton, was also a falsification. 18 years later, A young Swiss patent office clerk explained new physics. Man-made climate change has been falsified time and again. Science is clearly too boring for Triggernometry, so they end up with a wishy-washy interview like this. With self-styled experts, like Mallen, who literally don't know the first thing about climates, are eulogised.
Mathematical modellers, Mallen Baker idolizes, don't do science. They play with computers. Mallen Baker fell for the models because they gel with his gloom-laden eco-doom future. The mathematical modellers he idolizes refuse to do science (the don't try to validate or falsify their ideas) and they refuse to debate real scientists who do such empirical work. These modellers are fraudsters not scientists. The Greens also refuse to debate actual science. It's almost as if they made a pact with the establishment! Oh wait a minute, they did make a pact in 1988 when every Green NGO agreed to be the propaganda foot soldiers for made-made global warming. The IPCC mathematical modellers cherry pick everything.
1. IPCC brief is ONLY to look for evidence FOR man-made climate change. There is no attempt to look at natural climate change causes in the IPCC documents. 34 years of documents and reports. No serious investigation into the climate made.
2. The establishment only appoint 'scientists' who agree to write propaganda. Those scientists aren't actually scientists. Gaining a science degree doesn't make one a scientist. Doing science makes one a scientist. Doing science means discovering how the natural world works. It's all about doing tests, experiments, observations. AKA validations and falsifications.
3. The most important document IPCC author: the 'Summary for Policymakers' is entirely authored by politicos - not by scientists. The only role scientists have wrt the Summary for Policymakers is to retrospectively alter the WG1 science report such that nothing in the science contradicts what the policymakers decided. This SfPM is the only thing our politicians ever read about climate change. They live in a mindless echo-chamber. Their minions (IPCC policy wonks) write reports to summarize The Science. IPCC SfPM reports are, in reality, fake science.
5. The IPCC began in 1988 when their first act was to recruit every green NGO and green politician to be their propaganda foot soldiers.
6. Mallen Baker is a propagandist, partly responsible for the doom and gloom his hacks in the Green Party manufactured.
"Solve the problem of climate change".
<- There is no problem. The sun controls the climate not the man. There are mathematical models refuted by actual data and experiment. These modellers - like the green activists - refuse to debate their critics. Triggernometry cannot interview on this topic because they are too biased and neither is a scientist. 34 years of establishment sponsored brain-washing made them too biased to interview on this issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic philosophical movement known as the Dark Enlightenment or neoreactionary movement (NRx)."
-- Triggernometry
1. "Dark Enlightenment" is "anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic"?
<- I do not think it can be. The Enlightenment was a movement for rationality, skepticism, and empiricism. It was mostly egalitarian and pro-democratic. All the important Enlightenment thinkers were: egalitarian, pro-democratic, rational, skeptical (of the authorities, and received wisdom), and empiricist.
2. Anti-Enlightenment - has rarely been a thing. For example the NAZIs were an anti-Enlightenment movement but one can only take that so far.
3. "Dark Enlightenment", if such a thing exists, would be a movement which is post-Enlightenment, in the sense that such a Dark Enlightenment movement would build on the lessons of the past. It would want to go past the Enlightenment without making the blunders of the NAZIs (anti-Enlightenment), or Bolsheviks (post-Enlightenment). Because the Bolsheviks failed does not mean every post-Enlightenment must fail.
Al lot of the criticisms Yarvin makes of Western Democracies - e.g. "we can't build anything" are not criticisms of Democracy as such. They are criticisms of our tolerance of protesters - which is a feature of diversity and inclusion - not a criticism of democracy.
1
-
1
-
1