A Sinister Bromance

Trudeau and ObamaSo begins the cozying up of Trudeau and Obama, birds of a feather, ‘liberals’ (or I would say ‘extremists’, to save the honorable and venerable term ‘liberal’ from further degradation) of the most extreme stamp, breathing forth all the bromides of the modern zeitgeist from their Vanity Fair facades.  Behind the glitz and glamour, Sophie as the new fashionista of Canada, Justin with his smug smile and intimate nose-to-nose hugs, viewing themselves as the new Kanadian Kennedys, wafted in from their Camelot on the Rideau, surrounded by fawning A-list actors, yes, behind this apparent goodness there is a deep well of vacuous evil, for I know other name for it.

 

One need only consider the disturbing truth that Both Trudeau and Obama are vehemently pro-choice, all the way through nine months of pregnancy, which means they consider that the life of an unborn child right up until birth hangs upon the whim of the mother, for she may destroy that child upon either a ‘deeply considered decision’, or out of caprice, the ‘choice’ is hers, the decision kept confidential between a woman and her doctor, all paid for by the benevolent State.

 

Behind also their Potemkin facades is an evangelical zeal for battling that elusive chimera of ‘climate change’.  Trudeau is quoted during his address yesterday as saying that the ‘science is settled, and debate is closed’, implying that dissent will not be tolerated, much like a Pontiff decreeing the immutability of the revelation of God Himself.  Who, pray tell, is this semi-educated former rafter-drama-snowboard instructor and general dilettante, to tell all and sundry what to think, especially on a topic as complex and controversial as climate change?  And why bring that up at a State dinner?

 

Obama’s Department of Justice has gone a step further, contemplating bringing forth criminal charges against those who deny the reality of climate change.   Here is the current Attorney-General of the U.S., Loretta Lynch:

 

loretta lynchThis matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on

 

They are trying to draw similarities between the denial of the harm of tobacco by the cigarette companies, and the denial of harm of carbon emissions.   Our own David Suzuki (no expert on climatology, but a would-be geneticist) is probably licking his chops, for he was ahead of the curve, proclaiming this inquisitorial goal way back in 2008, and now within sight even here in Canada:  Throw in jail all those who disagree with him and his own university-educated brainwashed disciples that the Earth is being destroyed by the carbon molecule.  Is this what ‘science’ has come to?

 

If you want a denier, I am still not one-hundred percent convinced that tobacco necessarily causes cancer.  Cigarettes, perhaps, with all the carcinogens they pack in there to make them addictive and hence highly profitable, but pure tobacco, I am not so sure.  Nothing wrong with a good pipe with some excellent leaves to stuff in there, along with a fine glass of port, all in moderation, of course.

 

On climate change, I am even more dubious.  As a premise, it is unfalsifiable, failing the first test of true science, according to the eminent Karl Popper (and every other sane scientist).  That is, a hypothesis or theory must able to be tested and refuted.  If not, then one holds it on faith.

 

How, pray tell, does one possibly refute the hypothesis of ‘climate change’, since the climate is always changing?  It use to be ‘global warming’, which could theoretically be disproved (and, to some extent, has been).  Should it not at least be extreme, radical, volcano-erupting, hurricane-inducing, end-of-the-world-around-the-corner climate change?  But we know the reliability of the track record of those who have predicted such cataclysms presaging the fin de monde.  As one chapter on the hypothetical method I give my own students declares, if there is one thing ubiquitous in induction and science in general, it is doubt.  That is how true science proceeds, and how dearly-held, but outmoded and false, theories are demolished.

 

No, it seems to me that climate change is a cover for a very effective way to control people, for what better fig leaf to cover the government legislating and limiting every aspect of our lives, than to monitor all of our ‘emissions’, our use of energy, where we go and how we get there.  What better story to justify limiting human growth, demography and population than to conjure up such apocalyptic scenarios, that there are too many people using too much carbon?  In fact, are not people made of carbon?

 

Both Obama and Trudeau, driven onward by their deeply-ingrained socialist principles instilled in them from youth, believe fervently in such universal government control, which they perceive as benevolence from their enlightened kingly consciences.  What is worse is that most of our sheep-like voting population, educated into a solidly-grounded vapid ignorance and dependency, agrees with just about all of their principles.

 

Perhaps some are just awed by the Camelot story, the scion of a ‘great’ Prime Minister, drawing the sword out of the heart of the hard-hearted rock of Harperian conservativism, now taking his rightful place upon the throne, Arthur and Guinevere redivivi, smiling benevolently upon their peons.

 

Everyone wants to believe in fairy tales and sunny ways, but the Trudeau version is a fake, and a rather sinister one at that.  We must have eyes to see and ears to hear the truth behind the veil of the illusion, before he and his new bro’ Obama make true on their not-too-veiled threats.