The Pathocracy

My Comment. The desciption of the 'communications class' here by Alex Phillips - of those who enable the elite - describes the mentality of people

who enable pathocracy

. It doesn't so much describe The Pathocracy itself.

Tulsi Gabbard gives a much better description of those at the top of the pathocracy.

Andrew Gold:

56:14 I think they want to believe that because "everyone's racist".

Alex Phillips:

56:20 Do you know what I don't understand with our political classes: the media class. The communications class, as I call them, whether it's marketing advertising, PR, journalism, the Arts. I think in order to get where they are in those particular industries. This is spreading out to most Industries now. In order to get where they are they've had to follow taboos and conventions that change all the time to climb up that greasy pole. And in doing so they've had to sort of be gaslit and gaslight. I think a lot of these people have done it to such an extent that they actually can't see anymore. They don't know. When you try speaking to these people and say but: "hold on, you know, this is how other people see things. This is how the working class might see things. This is the reality of the situation. Look there are Muslim militias. Here's some video evidence."

57:10 They can't see it. They've almost disabled themselves. Somehow they've brainwashed themself. I don't think people like Keir Starmer are sitting there, going: "Ha ha, I'm going to really mess this country up even more by failing to understand the plight of the working classes". I think somehow he is absolutely convinced of what he's saying. And this is the case with so many people out there. They're convinced of these things. They're convinced that there is a huge amount of injustice, and that white people are terrible, and that minorities are all victims, and you know these sort of broad brushstroke unnuanced generalizations that sort of adhere to some neo-religious moral hierarchy that we've all supposed to have learned overnight and imbued overnight. They believe in it so much they cannot see beyond it. They're staggered if you ever put real information in front of their eyes like the Cass Report on puberty blockers. I mean "Wow, science". All of a sudden we can see that we shouldn't be giving experimental medicine to children who are being brainwashed by things on social media. To me, that's common sense. Yet, it's amazing quite how many professionals just couldn't see it and I don't think it's that they didn't want to see it. They just can't. They've gone too far down the rabbit hole somehow. Yes.

Microplastics

A short, quick, debunk of Guardian scaremongering over microplastics, written by New Lede.

1. Plastics are macro-molecules which are NOT digested. So even were one to eat it, it'd pass throught the gut undigested, and out the other end.
2. Microplastics cannot be a threat because there are no mechanisms to get them into human "lungs, placentas, reproductive organs, livers, kidneys, knee and elbow joints, blood vessels and bone marrow" - where The Guardian imply they threaten us.
3. Fake health threats
   • obscure actual health issues,
   • needlessly scare people to makes us irrational, and
   • misdirects our resources and attention away from actual health issues.
4. If the claims came from empirical studies then what were those studies? Especially any studies which claim microplastics are present inside people, and are evidentially harmful. The Guardian will never tell you.
5. One of the scientists quoted did:
   • not report any microplastics inside people
   • no toxicology studies
6. There are no toxicology studies reported in this inquiry. No study shows commonly used plastics to be harmful. In reality, harmful plastics would be instantly banned.
7. Instead of actual toxicology studies, the scientist quoted by The Guardian claim hypothetical harms from microplatics. It seems to me they want to make us paranoid, and to redirect our attention away from the real health issues to hypothetical ones. They could make people prey to demagogues.

   Maybe they believe what they write? I don't know one way nor the other since they will rationally debate with no one. It's typical of fanatical & primitivist environmental activism we've had from the Guardian for many decades. It's cultish.

Consequentialism

Why is it?:

"Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions."
— T.S. Eliot

Seems counter intuitive. Surely most of the evil in this world is done by evil people: psychopaths and ASPD-types. Not really. Psychopaths get caught out quickly. ASPD-types, like the rest of us, can't see that they're harming other people. To do real evil one must enlist the support of people who believe they're doing good. For those cursed with consequentialist (utilitarian) morality: "ends justify the means", always. Today, good people are often consequentialist in their ethical beliefs. Consequentialism is the default morality of socialists. Indeed almost all socialism postdates the invention of consequentialism, as a philosophy, by Jermeny Bentham: Utilitarianism. Consequentialism is the natural philosophy of atheists. It just says do the most good for the greatest number of people. It does not say anything about consulting them, nor about checking that good was actually done.

Note: "An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation", by Jeremy Bentham. Was published in 1789. Just in time for the French Revolution.

Climate is cooling

Propaganda

☄️Key Rules of Propaganda:

1. Simplicity: Messages should be simple and easy to understand. Complex ideas are reduced to basic slogans or images.
2. Repetition: Repeating a message frequently helps it stick in the minds of the audience.
3. Emotional Appeal: Propaganda often targets emotions rather than intellect, using fear, anger, pride, or hope to influence opinions and actions.
4. Us vs. Them: Creating a clear distinction between ‘us’ (the in-group) and ‘them’ (the out-group) to foster unity within a group and demonize outsiders.
5. Selective Truth: Presenting only those facts and information that support the desired narrative, while ignoring or dismissing contrary evidence.
6. Loaded Language: Using words and phrases with strong connotations to invoke an emotional response and sway opinion.
7. Scapegoating: Blaming a person or group for problems, thereby diverting attention from other issues.
8. Appeal to Authority: Leveraging respected figures or experts to support a position, regardless of their actual expertise on the subject matter.
9. Bandwagon: Suggesting that everyone else is doing it, so you should too.
10. Card Stacking: Presenting information in a way that only highlights the positive aspects of an argument while suppressing any negative aspects.

☄️Techniques of Propaganda:

1. Name-Calling: Attaching negative labels to opponents to discredit them.
2. Glittering Generalities: Using vague, positive phrases that appeal to values but lack substantive information.
3. Transfer: Associating the authority or prestige of something respected (like the flag or a patriotic symbol) with something the propagandist wants to promote.
4. Testimonial: Using endorsements from celebrities or satisfied customers to promote a product or idea.
5. Plain Folks: Convincing the audience that the propagandist’s ideas are “of the people” and align with common values and beliefs.
6. Fear: Warning that disaster will result if people do not follow a particular course of action.
7. Bandwagon: Encouraging the audience to follow the crowd or join in because “everyone else is doing it.”
8. Logical Fallacies: Using flawed reasoning to construct an argument that may seem logical but is actually invalid.
9. Euphemisms: Using mild or vague terms to make unpleasant realities more palatable.
10. Exaggeration/Hyperbole: Making something seem much better or worse than it actually is to influence perception.