Why Do Socialists Promote Global Warming?

Someone must have wondered at some point what forcing people to pay taxes and stop driving and eating meat based on a completely fantastical theory that it will change the weather has to do with “the workers.” In actual reality, global warming is a series of taxes designed specifically to gut the working and middle classes. And yet, we find that everyone who believes in socialism appears to believe in global warming.


This is an interesting question on its face, but it’s also interesting in relation to the conservative belief that being dominated by international corporations that decide what you can say and think is “freedom.” Because when you ask “why would people who support the worker support impoverishing him?” you would also ask “why would people who value self-reliance and small businesses support mega-corporations dominating society?”

You could go into something about how leftists know that in order for their programs to work, everyone has to be poor, so they actually want to purposefully make people poor. That is true for the big thinking leftists, but they are a fraction of the leftist population (virtually every intellectual involved in politics is either on the right or is a Jewish liar promoting utopian gibberish).

The first explanation would be “because everything is a bunch of bullshit.” But that’s a little bit too easy.

The second explanation is that mother earth worship is feminine, and the left tends to be feminine, while the right is masculine. That’s something obvious that we talk about on here a lot, but somehow when Paul Gottfried asked the question about what he called “belief clusters,” he didn’t bother to note the obvious masculine/feminine dichotomy of modern politics.

So I guess I should take a minute to elaborate on why this is.

Men tend to prize independence, whereas women prefer collectivism and central authority. This is because every man is a leader, to some extent, in that he leads his own family. So even when a man is a part of a hierarchy, where he is on the lower rank of it, he still values independence, naturally. A man who is a leader of other men recognizes that they are all leaders in their own homes, and he respects that, and speaks to the lower members of his hierarchy in the same tone of voice, and using the same words, as he speaks to the higher members. A man understands a man being in authority over him, because he is an authority in his household, and so a lower member of a hierarchy respects the decisions of the higher members as he hopes his wife and children will respect his own decisions.

Women, on the other hand, are not naturally leaders, so when they get together in a group, they do things by consensus opinion. They are also cruel and vindictive with other women, and do not value responsibility and fairness or clearly thought-through arguments. Everything is about their feelings. Instead of nodding and getting down to business, women continually give each other false compliments, and talk in circles about gibberish in order to express the fact that they approve of each other as part of a collective. You can see this in the film “Mean Girls,” which I always recommend everyone watch in order to better understand women (it is one of the very few honest portrayals in film).

At least according to what we’re being told, a full 80% of white men voted for Donald Trump over Joe Biden, while the number of white women is being given as 55%. The women who did vote for Trump, you would find, are women who are married and/or have a strong relationship with their fathers. They view Trump as an extension of that male authority.

The coronavirus was the main issue of the election, and that was a pure masculine/feminine dichotomy, with the male view being that people should be allowed to make their own choices and that we can’t overturn the entire order of rights in society, and the female view being that the government is your mommy and the Constitution is just a piece of paper like any other. Obviously, men are also more likely to look into the actual data surrounding this flu, and find that it’s all a hoax, while the women get drawn into the emotional spectacle of it, and this whole “we’re all in it together” thing. Further, women will just generally listen to the media a lot more, because they view it as a public consensus announcement service, and it’s very important to them that they be in line with that consensus.

Understanding the differences between men and women, you can understand why right is male brained and left is female brained. If it’s taking a minute to recognize where global warming fits into that: just look at all of the women that get involved in the occult, palm reading, fortune telling, and so on. Spiritualism in general is typically feminine, and various spirit cults are the only place anywhere in history before the 20th century where you are going to find women in charge. Global warming is a kind of mother earth nonsense occult belief. “Listening to the planet” is a phrase you repeatedly hear with these people. A man’s response would be “I’m listening, woman, and it ain’t talking – it’s dirt and rocks and it doesn’t have a mouth.”

Meanwhile, “the government doesn’t have any right to tell anybody what to do” is something that appeals to masculine sensibilities.

However, here’s the thing: “driving cars and eating meat is changing the weather” and “multinational corporations shouldn’t be regulated by the government at all” are both very, very specific and specifically weird beliefs.

Leftists could just as easily be promoting open wizardry and occultism with ghosts and Ouija boards, and say the world was going to end because we weren’t allowing women to “free bleed” during menstruation, which was causing a blockage in the spiritual energies of the universe, and have the global goal of ridding the world of tampons before dark spirts suck us all into a tube in the sky. Instead, it’s the weather thing, and the solution is taxes on the middle class and forcing everyone to eat bugs.

Rightists could just as easily be demanding child marriage and an end to women being schooled or taught to read. The entire education system could easily be a target for right-wingers, and they could be saying “girls should be getting ready for marriage, and boys should be put to work.” Instead, they focused specifically on promoting the idea that wealthy people should be able to act without any kind of regulations, allowing a tiny elite minority to suck up all the wealth and dominate society completely.

The explanations for both things is that there is an agenda behind everything, and democracy allows for a seemingly counterintuitive progression of society.

If you were a group who was planning the future, and you envisioned a situation where the middle class was abolished, people were stripped of their basic rights, and a tiny elite minority ruled over everyone and forced them to eat bugs, you would have a very hard time selling people on that. The peasants have always had some form of rights, going back to the Middle Ages. And even during the Industrial Revolution, we started to develop the idea of social mobility. Having freedom and economic prosperity are typically things that both the right and left would agree are universally good in nature.

So what they did was create “rider” agendas to attach to both right and left, that the democracy process could itself be used to explain. A “rider” is what they call a totally different topic that gets attached to a bill in Congress. Like if the bill is about spending for roads, it includes a passage about how Israel gets more access to our intelligence. It’s often the way they push through things that wouldn’t otherwise be popular.

People generally sign up for one thing or the other. If somebody says A, B, C and D, and you really feel strongly about A, B and C, you’re going to go along with D without thinking too much about it, generally. If right-wingers started thinking about the fallout of free trade, they’ll get the whole spiel about regulations progressing toward communism. Left-wingers are obviously less likely to ask questions, but if they do wonder what eating bugs has to do with “the workers,” they’re shown the hockey stick graph which says if we don’t eat bugs, we’re all going to burn up.

When leftists went to the government and asked why we were allowing corporations to run wild, why they were refusing to tax the ultra rich, why they were allowing Walmart to destroy small towns, the government could point to libertarians, who would say “we have to do this for the sake of independence and fairness.” Right-wingers supported this because these same people were supporting everything else they supported, and the idea that “Walmart destroyed your town square because it delivers better value” was acceptable to them in the larger context of the agenda they were presenting. These people were lied to and apparently believed there was no way to categorize small businesses differently than large corporations, legally, and if Walmart wasn’t allowed to destroy towns, it would mean that the government would have to implement a planned economy, as under communism. (“And then it will be communism” is kind of a right-wing equivalent of the leftist doomsday claims about the weather.)

Right-wingers are now in a kind of shock seeing this shutdown on freedom of speech, but the government can simply say: “this is what you wanted.”

Obviously, this whole global warming thing is going to come back and bite leftists the same way. We’ve already seen articles saying that people who support climate change theories are still going on vacations and refusing to eat bugs. Just like there was a fringe vanguard cult of libertarians who were tasked with injecting that agenda into conservatism, there is a fringe cult of climate changers who are going to start pushing these people to “practice what they preach.” Most of them won’t do it.

Then, at some point, they will realize they don’t have a choice.

Right-wingers were told: “No, you don’t have freedom of speech anymore, because you gave your speech rights to private companies as part of a bizarre deregulation agenda presented by fringe kooks. Yes, the end result is a lot like the communism you were trying to avoid, but the difference is that in this case, the government is – oh, it doesn’t matter anymore. It’s already happened and there is nothing that you can do about it.”

It will be the same for any leftist who wakes up and realizes that he didn’t get an anarcho-syndicalist utopia.

Democracy is about pitting people against each other, using nonsense and psychological and emotional exploitation, to push through a pre-determined agenda, and then pretend it was an accident.