Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Instapundit: Making Sure Being Right Will Be It's Own Reward (By Making Sure Nobody Knows When He's Wrong: An Asshole Move!)

Oh goody! Look at what British meteorologist Piers Corbyn has to say about Global Warming:
Complete nonsense, it’s fiction, it comes from a cult ideology. There’s no science in there, no facts to back [it] up.
"A cult ideology" huh? Well isn't that interesting? And, of course, our old friend, Glenn Reynolds - commenting on Corbyn's prediction of a "brutal" winter - adds "I hope he’s wrong. Unfortunately, his predictions so far have been quite accurate." The Instapundit doesn't even mention the cult claim. Hmmm.

Yesterday we said, despite Reynolds' jackassery, he still provided a pretty good service. Today - based on this obvious omission - we're starting to wonder if the Instapundit provides any kind of service at all.

What he does is starting to look more and more like the "lamestream media" after this one - holding back important information from his readers, because he doesn't like someone, is fucked. He's the shit-faced Instapundit, for Christ's sake! Tell the people we're assholes (like he does Matt Yglesias) but don't keep them in the dark about the other issues, when others keep agreeing with us, or we turn out to be right. Hey, Glenn, even assholes can be right! (Or even smarter than you,

Reynolds did it again, yesterday, with our aptly-titled post "And Not Posting Critics Is Part Of The Problem". Instead of, at least, adding it to the list of opinions he got on why people would quit a job without having another lined up - we say, more than anything else, it's because of this Maharishi/The Secret-inspired management technique that (thanks to Boomers attending cult seminars) has swept the nation:

Instead of even mentioning that, though, Reynolds posted two opinions that almost sound just as deranged as we can - one, from someone named Grace McLoughlin, blaming it on Obama's abuse of management (Oh, how our hearts bleed for those in management - who, as far as we can tell, mostly all voted for Obama and are the ones who strictly enforce the Maharishi/The Secret-inspired management techniques) and another, from someone named Dave Price, blaming "the less productive". No, we're not kidding you - "the less productive". That's who's to blame out there. "Less productive" than who, Mr. Price (nor Mr. Reynolds) says, but they're out there - they just know it - sitting on fat piles of cash, being lazy.

It was at that point we asked ourselves the same question Reynolds must ask when he sees a critical post arrive from us:

Where does he get these people?


  1. You're either

    a) completely misunderstanding


    b) purposefully conflating

    the various senses of the word "cult" in this context - it's colloquial, e.g.:

    - "Pink Flamingos" is "cult film" - the rapper Eminem has achieved a "cult following"
    - etc.

    Now that I think about it, you seem to make a practice of routinely ignore the distinctions between the sociological, Christian and colloquial uses/definitions of the word "cult" on this blog - no innocent error, since it makes a mockery of people who do REAL work to expose actual cults like the Church of Scientology, the Family, etc.

    Are you really so ignorant, or are you deliberately trying to confuse the public?

    People well might read your blog and conclude that joining the Church of Scientology is no different than recycling paper waste since "recycling" is a "cult" too (according to you)

    What makes it even worse is that you set yourself up as some sort of "expert" on cults. Shame on you.

  2. Interesting. Whoever you are, Anonymous, I think it is you who are misinformed, and unaware on the toll this bit of pseudoscientific malarky has had on real people's real lives. I have found myself screamed at, by friends, convinced I was evil because I could easily poke holes in climate change catastrophism. Is a bogus belief worth attempting to destroy your friends over? Do you not think I was hurt that they couldn't be reasonable, or no longer cared about our friendship, over something so silly? Do you think I should regard such people - or such a hateful phenomena - as normal any longer? Or is all your experience with this in mere discussions in magazines and newspapers? Cultism (of all kinds) affects real people in real ways you seem to be willingly pushing aside in order to climb aboard a soapbox - I'm unwilling to do so merely for your convenience.

    From a post I did all the way back in 2008 quoting Alexander Cockburn:

    In today’s political climate, it has become fairly dangerous, step up and say: ‘This is all nonsense.’

    Since I started writing essays challenging the global warming consensus, and seeking to put forward critical alternative arguments, I have felt almost witch-hunted. There has been an hysterical reaction. One individual, who was once on the board of the Sierra Club, has suggested I should be criminally prosecuted. I wrote a series of articles on climate change issues for the Nation, which elicited a level of hysterical outrage and affront that I found to be astounding - and I have a fairly thick skin, having been in the business of making unpopular arguments for many, many years.

    There was a shocking intensity to their self-righteous fury, as if I had transgressed a moral as well as an intellectual boundary and committed blasphemy. I sometimes think to myself, ‘Boy, I’m glad I didn’t live in the 1450s’, because I would be out in the main square with a pile of wood around my ankles. I really feel that; it is remarkable how quickly the hysterical reaction takes hold and rains down upon those who question the consensus.

    This experience has given me an understanding of what it must have been like in darker periods to be accused of being a blasphemer; of the summary and unpleasant consequences that can bring. There is a witch-hunting element in climate catastrophism. That is clear in the use of the word ‘denier’ to label those who question claims about anthropogenic climate change. ‘Climate change denier’ is, of course, meant to evoke the figure of the Holocaust denier. This was contrived to demonise sceptics. The past few years show clearly how mass moral panics and intellectual panics become engendered.

    In my forthcoming book, A Short History of Fear, I explore the link between fearmongering and climate catastrophism,...It seems clear to me that climate catastrophism represents a new form of the politics of fear."

    And how much more has happened since then, to how many others? As I always do, I would suggest, Sir or Madam, that it is YOU who don't understand cultism, not taking the phenomena seriously as it continues to wreck lives. This isn't a love for a film or recording artist:

    This is madness.

  3. Recycling is a cult. The Environmentalist movement is founded on a false religious system. Consistently adhered to, it is explicit idolatry.

    It is a violation of the First Commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me... nor serve them..."

    Furthermore, this false religion stands in opposition to the Christian mandate to "subdue the earth" for the glory of God -- to use the resources God has provided to improve the material circumstances of His creatures in service to His Kingdom.

    Even worse, the environmental movement is supported by a heretical new age cult of atheistic science which prefers the Satanic, atheist, new age "evolution of the species" to the truth of God's creation as described in Genesis 1.

    In either case modern environmentalism opposes Biblical culture and thus opposes the advance of Christianity.

  4. RE: "Biblical Wisdom" - huh?!?!?!

    In other news, a "funky epiphany" from an unlikely source:

    "The Crack Emcee... eventually went on to work with... Franti's cult band the Beatnigs."

    I see - it all makes sense now.

    You consistently misuse and misrepresent the terms "cultism" and "cult" because you are yourself a cultist, as the above article proves!


  5. I was making a joke but it seems that was over your head

    let me explain it another way:

    cult as ADJECTIVE: environmentalism is a cult ideology, Eminem has a cult following, the Beatnigs are a cult band, Repo man is a cult movie, etc

    cult as NOUN: Scientology is a religious cult, The Realians are a UFO cult, The Family is a political cult, etc

    Make sense? DO you understand the difference now?

    The first is a way to explain the APPEAL of something, the second is a way to characterize an actual GROUP with certain dynamics.

    You seem to constantly mix the two senses up, which makes your blog extremely confusing

    You don't seem able to recognize the difference between fads (e.g., Snuggies) and mind control groups (e.g., the Manson Family) which means that at best you are muddying the waters and spreading dangerous misinformation by arguing and implying that all these things are dangerous in exactly the same way

    They AREN'T.

  6. It won't work in actual fact, that is what I suppose.