Climate Hersteria On The Increase

Caused By Experts

It will come as quite a surprise to many that the New York Times has come out against women voting and democracy.

I, too, did a double-take when I realized what I was reading. "Could it really be," I said to myself half in wonder and half bewilderment, "That the regime organ par excellence has become based?" I was forced to answer yes. You will be, too, when you see what they wrote.

Here, for instance, is their opening of the think-piece "Climate Change Enters the Therapy Room", with subheadline "Ten years ago, psychologists proposed that a wide range of people would suffer anxiety and grief over climate. Skepticism about that idea is gone."

It would hit Alina Black in the snack aisle at Trader Joe’s, a wave of guilt and shame that made her skin crawl.

Something as simple as nuts. They came wrapped in plastic, often in layers of it, that she imagined leaving her house and traveling to a landfill, where it would remain through her lifetime and the lifetime of her children.

She longed, really longed, to make less of a mark on the earth. But she had also had a baby in diapers, and a full-time job, and a 5-year-old who wanted snacks. At the age of 37, these conflicting forces were slowly closing on her, like a set of jaws.

In the early-morning hours, after nursing the baby, she would slip down a rabbit hole, scrolling through news reports of droughts, fires, mass extinction. Then she would stare into the dark.

Poor Alina was suffering from climate anxiety, a mental malady she learned about from "Thomas J. Doherty, a Portland psychologist who specializes in climate."

Well, you're with me now, of course. You can see it. How can any but a damned fool or a female deep in the grip of hersteria (not hysteria) succumb to something as idiotic and fantastical as climate anxiety?

Answer: a sane person cannot. Hence, those who are persuaded they suffer from this imaginary asinine preposterous pseudo non-disease are a menace, they are too easily led to be trusted, and, the NYT asks us to infer, to participate in civic life.

Since it's almost always women who fall prey to ridiculousness panicked mesmerisms of this sort, as harsh as the paper's judgement-by-inference is, we must conclude that women should not vote.

Women and male effeminates, that is.

"Eco-anxiety," the paper continues, is "a concept introduced by young activists, [and] entered a mainstream vocabulary. And professional organizations are hurrying to catch up, exploring approaches to treating anxiety that is both existential and, many would argue, rational."

We in the minority argue irrational. But never mind. The thing has already taken all the marks of a tremendous moral panic or scam, a way for unscrupulous shrinks to fleece watchdogless sheep.

The Climate Psychology Alliance provides an online directory of climate-aware therapists; the Good Grief Network, a peer support network modeled on 12-step addiction programs, has spawned more than 50 groups; professional certification programs in climate psychology have begun to appear.

Experts, in other words, are being credentialed in this subject. And you know what happens when Experts are created. They issue "The Science" dicta from which dissent officially becomes "denial."

You will also recall that it was Experts who created the first great global cooling mini-panic in the 1970s, identifying the culprit as fossil fuels, which would create pollution and knock back the sun's rays, plunging us into another ice age.

It was those same Experts, forgetting to say Oopsie when the climate failed to cooperate with their theories, that created the global warming mega-panic of the 1980s. Everybody was supposed to be dead by now, due to endless heat waves and mass starvation. Fossil fuels were going to create carbon dioxide, this time trapping the sun's rays.

Their ploys worked. Many believed. They were sure back in 1986 that the World's Last Chance was now, and that if we didn't act now, we were damned. They are still sure, almost forty years later. Only now it's "climate change" that will get them. And it's still now.

Only now, as the old saying goes, the panic has turned into a racket. Even, not surprisingly, The Lancet is in on it. In a paper surveying 10,000 people they found "Forty-five percent of respondents said worry about climate negatively affected their daily life. Three-quarters said they believed 'the future is frightening,' and 56 percent said 'humanity is doomed.'"

Almost half the electorate is worried that climate negatively affects their daily lives.

And there it is. The NYT has, subtly and quietly, come out against democracy.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Visit me at my blog.