CDXLI – How To Be Properly Condescending Against Climate Change

I’ve seen a lot online recently about climate change and it annoys me. It annoys me because I disagree, because I am alone in disagreeing, and because the people that agree with me seem to agree for the wrong reasons.

So here I am going to lay out my reasons for not caring about the climate change alarmism so that you can know what I think about it and you can decide whether or not we agree for the right reasons.

No. 1) Climate Alarmism Is Pride

The Earth survived the Chixculub impactor. The Earth can survive me driving my car to the grocery store. It is the height of pride to suppose that humanity is so great that we can destroy the earth irreparably. We don’t even remotely understand the self regulatory mechanisms built into nature. Nature always wins. Humanity is constantly mowing it’s lawn trying to keep the trees from growing up in that nice looking open field, and humanity will always be doing this. We have not conquered nature–we are and will always be fighting it, and we are always on the losing side.

No. 2) Climate Alarmism Is Political

The people pushing the climate alarmism are the same people pushing COVID agendas and other “well meaning” political nonsense. They are hyperbolic for no reason. I saw the movie “Don’t Look Up” and it was one big climate allegory and it just struck me as dumb. Experts with an agenda are experts only in storytelling. They are not looking out for the best interests of the common man.

No. 3) Climate Alarmism Presents No Alternatives

Oil is cheap and easy to use and burn and it has a high power density. No alternative energies can remotely compare to that. I support using “green” energy where it is available–hydroelectric is great in many instances; solar panels can do a lot to improve your houses efficiency and resilience. I also support being less wasteful as a culture. Recycling is, in general, good. You can support good energy and good practices without thinking the apocalypse is coming. Climate Alarmists need to present alternatives to the cheap and energy-dense power sources if they want people to stop using them. But if they want to go back in time and halt the advance of the industrial revolution, we would literally still be living in wooden huts and using candles to light and heat our homes. Progress isn’t always good but oil and coal got us this far and people seem to like it.

No. 4) Climate Alarmism Can’t Quantify Itself

I got this from a recently cancelled gentleman: If the science is settled, then how much of the temperature change is caused by humanity? How do we measure the change in the climate and how do we quantify the human element? If we suppose that the human element is extreme then it should be measurable. What is the measure? Are we saying water levels are higher? They are not, really. Are we saying temperatures are higher? Or lower? If so–what should the temperatures be? How much of the variance is caused by humanity? What other sources of variance are there? If I buy an electric car, how much will the temperature change? These things cannot really be measured.

No. 5) Climate Alarmists Are Smug

Climate Alarmists are just unpleasant people to be around. If their position were true, good, or beautiful you would think they would be nicer people. They shriek and they yell and they don’t behave like normal, nice, sane people. Their irrepressible smugness is a red flag.

This is your essential guide on how to be properly condescending against climate change.

AMDG

CCCII – The After-War

I know I said I wasn’t going to do it but by golly it’s my blog and I do what I want. In fairness though, this is not so much about current events as it is about future ones. Somehow that distinction excuses this article.

---

I saw a headline that showed promising signs of movement towards peace, that Russia and Ukraine have “made progress on a 15-point peace plan”. The details of the 15 points remain a mystery, but the article contained some speculation about what the result could be. In effect, the result looks like military peace between Russia and Ukraine.

A question I’ve had, and I don’t remember if I have expressed it here on this blog in an article or comment or whether I’ve only expressed this verbally to people around me: What happens if Ukraine comes to a peace agreement that is not agreeable to the United States? I have a suspicion that we are going to have that scenario, especially with all the political bluster surrounding the defense of Ukraine. “Russia will not win in Ukraine”–and then Ukraine comes to a peace deal that (for example) allows Russia to annex the Donbas region. How will America respond to that? Surely with good natured de-escalation, right?

The problem is, even if Ukraine and Russia find some resolution to their war the moment I hit publish on this article, there is still an After-War that is inevitable. The sanctions are a big deal–do those come down as soon as the peace deal is signed, or do they stay up? Russia has started to implement counter-sanctions, the most recent one I saw being that BBC is now blocked in Russia. Besides this: What ought Russia do about all the NATO and other countries that sent military aid to Ukraine? What ought Russia do to the people who sent money? What about the “foreign mercenaries” who traveled from around the world to fight for Ukraine?

The explicit military conflict was between Russia and Ukraine, but the diplomatic war was between Russia and the world. THAT war is very far from being over.

Just to state the moral of the story explicitly: This is why it is important to remain neutral or to join a fight, and why it is dangerous to sit on the sidelines and give guns and money to the participants. Because if the side you’re supporting loses, suddenly you are a valid target–you can’t claim to have “stayed out of it”.

The After-War is going to last much longer than the War, because America is proud and we refuse to admit when we have made a mistake.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

AMDG

(r) – I’m Not Going To Write About Ukraine Anymore

I’ve had a nice flurry of posts but I have to remember that I am a peasant and have no influence over this. It’s sucked me in to reading the news again, which is something I don’t enjoy and doesn’t help me get to heaven. Yes the world is messed up; yes the headlines make me think of snappy one-liners and hot takes; fundamentally we all have to get through the day and find a way to love God in the process, whatever circumstances He sends us. I wrote a while ago that we shouldn’t live as if each day were our last day but rather we should live as if each day were our only day. We have been deployed to the Earth for 24 hours and have whatever circumstances we have. How can we make the most of it and report back to base what we have done? For me, reading news about Ukraine is not helping me.

So these will be my parting snappy one-liners about the Ukraine situation, and then I’m done.

President Biden Claps For Ukraine – Still refuses to consider no fly zone.
Prime Minister Johnson Claps for Ukraine – Still not sending troops.
Human Rights Council Claps for Ukraine – Still not doing anything.
Corporations Need Diplomats – When Apple can execute an embargo on Russia independent of the United States, something is wrong.
Who Cares About Sports – Various sports leagues are forcing Russia to compete as neutral. Meanwhile, Russia is bombing the heck out of Kharkov. One of these things is an act of war, one of these things is not.
Using Children As Political Pawns Is Wrong – Children were arrested in Russia for holding anti-war signage; Ukrainian highschool kids posted videos asking for the world to stop the war. Using children in this way is wrong.
Globalism Is Dead – Isn’t it funny how quickly the nations and companies of the world can act to isolate a rogue actor? Peer pressure at its finest. “Join us or die”. We are forcing Russia to be stronger by forcing them to be self reliant.

That’s it. I commend to God the fate of the conflict and I resolve to not get invested in the outcome. God’s will be done.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us, and on the whole world.

AMDG

CCXCV – Thoughts While Reading Headlines

But it’s CURRENT YEAR!
I’ve seen my first article decrying the fact that this conflict is happening in the CURRENT YEAR. It had an added element of decrying white/European racial prejudice. It went something like this: “All these white people are only upset because they only thought this could happen in third world countries.”

I have mentioned multiple times that military history is one of my hobby horses. From my casual study of the subject–far from exhaustive, but more than the average layman–I was able to see that human nature doesn’t change. You don’t have to study military history to see that this is true, it is visible in every arena of human involvement. The period of peace we have experienced since the fall of the soviet union is unprecedented. There was no way it would last forever. This conflict I think will tip the scales back towards a war filled world, because the previous peace was held together by Nuclear weapons and fear of America. When Atlas stops propping up the world, what can happen but chaos? There is a major geopolitical shift that is happening and we will not know the consequences immediately. Current Yearism presupposes that we are smarter than our grandfathers. It’s important to remember we are not. We are just as dumb as they were.

---

Weird Wartime Grey Areas
There are two odd situations happening. First, I saw a headline of an Indian National who was killed in Kharkov (or Kharkiv). Next, I see many European nations are sending weapons to Ukraine. When I was a yoot, there was (and may still be) a web based game created by an author I like, called NationStates, that allows you to play-act as a country and answer issues about how your country will develop politically, civilly, militarily. Through that game I found a forum where we would “role play” fictional geopolitics. It was an extremely frustrating experience–a bunch of edgelord yoots pretending to hit each other with imaginary sticks. “I nuke you.” “Nuh uh I have super shield.” “NUH UHHHH”. But one circumstance that came up a lot was foreign nationals being killed in foreign wars and sending weapons to help the war effort in other countries. How ought that be treated? Sending money seems fine on the face of it, because it can’t really do anything other than help defray the cost of the war. Sending guns feels a little more aggressive, even though you’re just short cutting the middle man, so Ukraine doesn’t have to use your money to buy your guns. Russia has made a statement about how this is bad and has not gone unnoticed. In my internet play acting, we at least had the courtesy to pretend to send military aid covertly. All these headlines about it feels rather brazen. If John says “I want to shoot Bill because Bill punched me.” I can pretend giving him $20 is for medical bills, but I can’t pretend that giving him a gun is anything but actively pushing him towards his goal of shooting Bill. It will be interesting to see what Russia does in response, if anything.

---

No “No Fly Zone” Zone
Ukraine is desperately trying to entangle it’s supporters. I almost wrote allies but none of them are willing to fight Russia, so just “thoughts and prayers for Ukraine” style supporters. Ukraine has expedited a request to join the EU (Entangling Europe) and has expedited a request to join NATO (entangling America). Ukraine is asking anyone who will listen to send military aid. Most recently, Ukraine has been asking their supporters to establish a no fly zone–meaning anything that flys get shot down, meaning American assertion of Air Superiority. The USA sensibly wrote off the suggestion completely. Essentially: We are willing to support, we are willing to send you money, we are willing to send you guns, but you have to do the fighting on your own.

---

“Putin Didn’t Expect Such Resistance!”
A common quick-take I have been hearing around the office and among my social encounters is that Putin didn’t expect stiff resistance from Ukraine. No plan survives contact with the enemy, and I doubt Putin expected to just roll in unopposed but I also doubt he expected to be stopped cold. I don’t like this take because it imagines that Putin is an overconfident buffoon who believes his own hype when he’s making strategy. The Russians are too pragmatic, by my estimation, and that kind of thinking doesn’t match my observations about Putin. Whether it’s true or not, it doesn’t tell us anything. The fact of the matter is that Ukraine is putting up resistance and Putin is overcoming it with violent force, and bringing up more troops by the day. War is not pretty, and most of society has not experienced a real war. Only the oldest of us remember the last true war and only a few of the fighting-age population have actually fought in any combat at all. This is a new thing for all of us, and it is not going to be pretty.

---

War Crimes and the Death of Globalism
The West’s bitter losers have already begun to cry war crimes. I have seen a headline about a thermobaric explosive and a video of a missile hitting a city plaza. I don’t know much about military equipment but if the missile strike was an accident (seems unlikely given modern technology), and if the thermobaric report is true (one never knows) then it seems there have been war crimes by the Russians. The problem is–what do they expect to happen? Russia can just simply ignore any international court and shoulder any international sanctions. These sanctions only hurt if you want to be a part of the international system, and Russia doesn’t care. Once people realize the international system doesn’t have any punitive power, they will realize it doesn’t provide much benefit either. As Zippy says: Authority is the moral capacity to oblige a subject to choose x rather than z; Power is the capacity to make x happen rather than z. When people realize the international system can’t oblige Russia to choose x and neither can the system make x happen in Russia, then it has no authority and it has no power.

This will not be immediately obvious, but Russia has already proven it to be true, so now we just need to wait 50 years.

---

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.

AMDG

CCIII – Peace vs Surrender

When I was younger and political, there was an inspiring speech I discovered by Ronald Reagan called “A Time for Choosing“. In it he said something which struck me: “There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace, and you can have it in the next second: Surrender.”

Let’s explore this idea for a moment. What are the ways we can have peace? Surrender is laying down your arms and ceasing to fight a determined enemy. Further still, Surrender embraces the enemy as brothers. In war, a combatant who surrenders becomes a prisoner first, and when the war is over is either integrated into society or killed. In the Civil War, the Union had many Confederate prisoners of war, who were pardoned on the condition they surrender their arms. A non-combatant who surrenders simply accepts the new regime as their own. A non-combatant who does not surrender has the choice of either taking up arms for themselves and becoming a combatant, or going underground and becoming a conspirator.

What other ways can we have peace? Another perhaps obvious answer is “victory”. Your side wins, peace fills the land because there are no enemies. War has taken a heterogeneous view and made it homogeneous by way of combat and eliminating opposition.

Peace in both of these contexts involves eliminating opposition, either through voluntary submission or military conquest. We talk about Peace in other ways though: We talk about “making peace” with a new reality, or cultivating “inner peace”. In the former, regardless of a persons interior viewpoint, they have decided to cease opposition. This is distinct from surrender because they may or may not embrace the new regime as their own. In the latter case, a person has ended internal turmoil–has created internal homogeneity of disposition–regardless of their exterior circumstances. This is again distinct from surrender because a key element of surrender is embracing the new regime.

From this we can glean that there is a form of peace that does not embrace the enemy but which does end conflict with them. The enemy doesn’t mind either way, because from their perspective they have achieved victory. This is still in keeping with Reagan’s speech: “making peace” or “inner peace” are hard work and cannot be achieved in the next second.

My point here is not political, though. There is a spiritual combat which is going on around us. We often describe Christ as achieving victory over evil, on our behalf. “We know the end of the story” is the refrain–but between now and The End is a whole lot of time under enemy occupation. This is what I refer to when I named this blog the Times Dispatch of Vichy Earth. Earth is enemy territory, occupied by and in collusion with the Enemy. We know there will be a D-Day style landing at the end of time to liberate us. In the meantime, do we surrender to the enemy, and embrace them as our brothers? Do we “make peace” and accept reality while ceasing to fight? Do we cultivate “inner peace” and bring an end to internal turmoil? Or do we accept the alternatives of becoming combatants or conspirators against the enemy?

As lay-people, we are unable to be combatants in this fight. That is a task reserved for Priests and Religious–they are our front-line soldiers. We can become conspirators–working in concert with our Priests and Religious to help achieve their ends. But again–that is a particular expertise, sometimes it would be better to leave that to those skilled in this kind of conspiracy than to attempt it yourself.

So if we decide we do not wish to Surrender, the only options available to us, the hard work of which we can begin immediately, is “making peace” or “inner peace”.

Making Peace involves an acceptance of powerlessness. It is a resolution to wait for Christ, to focus on the things immediately around us. If there is war in some far off country, I can do nothing to help it nor hinder it; if there is a disagreement between my friends, I can do something to help bring it to an end. Making Peace involves accepting, externally, the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Inner Peace involves an internalization of that exterior peace. If there is war in some far off country, it can still bring me inner turmoil even if I have accepted that I cannot do anything about it. Inner peace is ending that inner turmoil. There are multiple ways to achieve this, prayer perhaps being the foremost. But it will take work, and it will take constant work.

The effort is worthwhile because peace is important to happiness. If I have not made interior peace, I will be internally troubled. If I have not made external peace, I will be agitated and irritable. If I Surrender, I will be living contrary to my nature, and so will be both internally troubled and externally agitated.

To borrow a line from the Order of the Mass: May the peace of the Lord be with you always.

AMDG