-Michael Crichton

this is the difference between a scientist, and a person using science for a poltiical end (reason is unimportant).

from the pagan culture where they taught the wealthy, told stories, invented medicines, etc…

they are a biological type!!! so some went to monestaries… but so did empiricists, and moralists. they are intellectuals, not smart.

In his classic Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1942), the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter sketched in a brilliant “Sociology of the Intellectual.” Things have not changed much in sixty odd years. The intellectuals he has in mind are distinguished by “active hostility to the social order.” Their job, as they see it, is “to work up and organize resentment, to nurse it, to voice it and to lead it.” Not everyone who receives a university schooling ends up an intellectual, but a university schooling is nearly universal among intellectuals. The common training provides a common cause. Or, as Schumpeter phrases it, “the fact that their minds are all similarly furnished facilitates understanding between them and constitutes a bond.”

jump over the change to empiricism.. and you end up with colleges… places of learning… and when they had no place in religion, medicine, etc.. they went to eduation… and so they went in and decided tochange the world by betraying the public trust… (listening to communists tell them that they will be on top if they help the cause).

to return to shumpeter..
The major change in the twentieth century was the expansion of the university—the emergence of Clark Kerr’s multiversity. The trend only accelerated in the years following the first edition of Schumpeter’s book. From 1930 to 1957 college enrollments in the U.S. more than doubled, and between 1960 and 1969 they doubled again, rising to over seven million. The faculty expanded along with enrollment.

The economic conditions breed discontent—the intellectual feels underappreciated and underpaid—and discontent breeds resentment toward the social order which does not recognize the intellectual’s genius and unique value. Add to this the fact that the system of emoluments seems capricious, rewarding some who are no more talented or accomplished than those who are deprived.

to quote what i wrote to someone (who posted it today),

Hostility is the product of rationalization from personal experience.

The analogy is exact. Love is not a rational choice, although should you ask any lover why he favors his beloved he will reply with a long list of “reasons.” If I love you because you are beautiful and brilliant, though, what becomes of my love when you lose your looks or perhaps your mind? So too with the modern university intellectual’s pose of social hostility. It does not arise from a rational analysis of the American order, but as a distortion of one’s own personal circumstances. I should make better money; I should get the social recognition of a doctor or lawyer (my education is equal to or greater than theirs). To conceal the neurosis of this resentment from myself, I generalize it, transforming it into a social ideal. Why should a businessman make more than a teacher? (If a plumber thinks he can earn $250,000, however, he’s a joke.)

i added
in the line “the persuit of happiness” is why they don’t get it. they are miserable, they are going to move people by making them miserable. They will empower the state by making people miserable. Want to know why a doctor or lawyer or even an actor makes a lot more than they? Its bcause they make people HAPPY. Making people happy is beyond the ken of people so miserable!!! The doctor makes people happier. The lawyer strives to make people happier… even the plumber makes people happier!!! A intelligentsia can do nothing but complain, grouse, belittle, ad hominem attack, and more… the reason that they don’t make much is that they make peole miserable, and if it weren’t for the course creds no one would pay much attention to them. which is why the communists use them!!! they are angry little people who wish to see the ones that don’t love them get punished. They are borderline personalities taking it out on a society that is indifferent to them

Thus personal resentment and feelings of superiority are translated into an idealized image of social concern and responsibility. The humanities or social science professor, hating society, sees himself as the better man. And only wishes to associate with those who share his ideals—that is, those with equally idealized images of themselves.

the philosphers have now countered with relativism, deflating empiracism and diffusing the bomb.

now, through ideology, they will take control again, and philosophers will define reality.

remember the last time they did this, how long did the dark age last?

people arent realizeing the bigger picture. if they succeed they get totalitarian control of the world, through controlling a bottle neck. energy.

if they lose, they succeed in destroying the empirical opponent and they will win in the next round as science will have been completely discredited by its flight down a false road coupled with the ignorance of the masses to the process (They are now all cargo cult image only posers)

But if it does turn out that human induced global warming was all a false theory, it would represent the greatest scientific embarrassment in history. The confidence and conformity with which the institutional scientific community has pronounced on the issue will be seen as a shockingly black mark against the professionalism an integrity of a generation of scientists.

it was the church who first opposed the philosophers…

a glorified name for witch doctor till more formalized later. otherwise a philosopher was an adviser, doctor, and religious expert. the elite person, as shumpeter pointed out, had center stage and was all important and his self agrandizement was assured. they had not to lear real facts as to the world, just master their disciplines esoterica. they were all cargo cult analysing image to pretend to find subsdtance.

then religion came along… that threatened one of their major powers… religion then had the realization that everything was made by god, and if we understand how everything is made, then we understand the maker, god. a simple thing that no one else thought of. then the church funded empirical science.

and that created the stake that killed the philosophers from their thrown of self aggrandizing and politicizing, and manipulation of others not as clever as they are.

religion took over the spiritual, since religion was a defininite, and philosophers were abstractors.

medicine took impiricism, and created modern medicine.. the philosophers couldnt make up herbals, an blood letting and declare humors no more, things had to work and progress had to be seen and proven.

then capernicous knocks them off of their trustted place by proving that we are not the center of the universe as the self absorbed and aggrandized philosophers put us.

then newton knocks them completely off the thrown by proving that reality is better known thorugh empirical argument.

of course there were many otehr termites. the rule of the abstract talker was divested in favor of the meritocritous the able, the measurable production.

socialism and such are all philosophical system seeking to oveturn empirical capitlaism. the power people see it as a way to power, to control, without having to work at having the ability to actually be competent

its a power movement which seeks power by other means than war, because war socialism didnt work… and revolution didnt work… now they are trying subversion.. and they are winning this one in ways that they never did before. the lie and the indiret attack using others as your pawns and stepping sones is the way to go.

its already too late…

we have passed the event horizon, and no force can pull us back other than a nuclear bomb, or a huge attack. the reason we havent had one, is for this reason, not because of security. you cant convince me that they can smuggle in a few tons of cocaine in one shot, and not include 10 hand grenades that can be tossed into a subway car as the doors close (tie a string to release the spoon after its gone down the tunnel). they can build roadside things from scraps, and you can buy things here… but they arent smart enough to just do something? they are. its jsut that it didnt make us cower, it made us reverse 20 years of progress towards totalitarianism and subversion in one month.

sigh.

Truth matters, Rick. Doing the right things for the wrong reasons is like an episode of House, where they administer what they’re sure is the right medicine and it ends up shutting down the patient’s kidneys and liver because their diagnosis was just plain wrong.

And like Kcom said, there are those whose primary mission is to take control of the world, thus to stop all the bad things from happening. That was the promise of the Fascists and the Bolshevicks and the Maoists, and all those “good things” they did were instead a holy horror.

Truth matters. It’s the only thing that matters.

But what really, really, tipped me to the fact that the whole thing was fishy was that the IPCC published a summary of its report before the report was written.

Intentions are sweet.

We ALL have good intentions.

These are the questions that become relevant:
1) Do the poor have to forgo heat/cooling, refrigeration, transportation – or will the government have to take from the top 50% of income earners (who pay 97% of the income taxes) to subsidize the poor with these needs. Remember energy is a significant cost and market forces are important.

2) Does the inflated price take away resources for shelter, food, medicine and does that shift in priorities HURT the poor as the government with finite resources already prioritizes resources towards shelter, food and medicine for the poor.

3) The federal government under Bush (the last time I checked a year ago) spent 3 billion per year for “climate change” which is a significantly higher dollar amount for that subject than previous administration’s by far – WHEN will the left stop demonizing and questioning Bush’s or the republican’s motives and intentions?

As King (Rodney) said, “Can’t we all get along?”

I would love the caring and well intentioned left to offer that the right has valid points and good hearts and ADDRESS the points we are making instead of addressing us with vitriol.

We will not be shifting the world to wind and sun power. To see why go to Professor Haydens website at http://www.energyadvocate.com/ .