My last post was too big of a bite - Let's look at the "isms" one at a time...
Previously I discussed how ideology, as a broken form of religion, leads to a departure from reason into a world of fantasy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the modern iteration of environmentalism. One must look no further than the dogmatic mindset of today’s climate warriors, pushing the “Climate Crisis”, to see the zealotry and fanaticism found in any historical or current fundamentalist faith. In Jordan Peterson’s Beyond Order he states,
“Ideologues are the intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists, unyielding and rigid. Their self-righteousness and moral claim to social engineering is every bit as deep and dangerous. It might even be worse: ideologues lay claim to rationality itself.”
Despite the radical theatrics of true believers, the ideology behind modern environmentalism is one which has been carefully crafted, from its anti-human population element, to its anti-capitalistic economic push - it is designed to undo the very tenets of modern democracy and progress.
This is where the HOW and the WHAT become very important to explore.
The Infallible Theory.
Many years ago medieval Catholicism managed to hold its grip on much of humanity through layers of existential fear-based controls.
(I don’t need to get into the details, nor do I propose that the entirety of organized religion has a negative impact on human progress and well-being - in fact I (now) feel quite the opposite after educating myself on the topic through the lectures of Jordan Peterson. The value of the content of the scripture can be completely eradicated by how it is used in society, and I think there are enough examples outside of Christianity where we can see that reality.)
The end result was a population of people who believed what they were told to believe, and anything that they saw which fell outside of what they were told could be explained by an all-encompassing answer of, “God’s Will”. By the employment of this infallible theory, or ideology, a control was enacted whereas nothing could penetrate the manufactured logic of the dogma. It was, as Havel in “The Power of the Powerless” described in more modern terms, “a bridge of excuses between the system and the individual” which, “spans the abyss between the aims of the system and the aims of life.”
Anything that sufficiently challenged the status quo was considered heresy, and punishments were meted out in ways which significantly curbed dissent.
The sneaky Dogma.
The parallels between what I have described and what we see in today’s environmental movement are striking, although there are ways in which it is even more likely to gain support from those less inclined to see themselves as “religious” in nature. Today’s movement preys upon atheistic, secular worldviews as equally as those prone to fervent belief. It might actually be more appealing to those who consider themselves, “too smart for God” because it is apparently based on science. Again, Peterson speaks of ideologically driven belief when he says,
“The single axioms of the ideologically possessed are gods, served blindly by their proselytizers.”
The ideological “ism” attached to the movement demonstrably mirrors the “system” described by Havel, complete with slogans and self-correcting pressures within the society. Much the same as before, the appearance of action is far more important than the (proposed) effect of that action. . In the hypocritical world of the ideologue one can hold conflicting ideas simultaneously without needing to address them,
“it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves.”
Historically we saw “indulgences” granted by the Roman Catholic church, today we have “Carbon Offsets”.
The facilitation of state sponsored cognitive dissonance is nothing new, but the outcome is almost always the same.
The sneakiness was underestimated.
I don’t think people were prepared for just how powerful the ideology behind, and associated impacts of, “The Climate Crisis” would be.
Not only did it attract the true zealots and radicals already predisposed to activism, but a large majority of regular folk who just wanted to “do the right thing.” Since the argument was presented in a way which clearly establishes Good (Reduction of Emissions) and Evil (Fossil fuel use and production), it enabled people to pick a side and signal their virtue in much the same way Havel’s post-totalitarian system did in Czechoslovakia half a century ago, but as a self directed action instead of a coerced response - no one wants to be a “bad person”.
“Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them.”
Modern environmentalism has been slowly evolving since the initial days of “global warming”. Initially presented as accelerated warming due to the excess carbon dioxide emitted by human combustion of fossil fuels, the data began to disconnect from the narrative, and the tagline then had to change to “Climate Change”. With that subtle semantic shift, the ability to attribute any and all weather related events to a human cause was established.
The Infallible Theory was then crafted, with “God’s Will” being replaced by, “Climate Change”.