The Humanist is dangerous because he actually studies human nature. His goal is to learn the best ways to create, shape and direct public opinion. To the Humanist, this is a science that can be mastered. It started with the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson, especially with a man named Edward Bernays. Bernays is known as the father of propaganda, and he said propaganda is a weapon. The NAZI’s actually credited Bernays (and the Wilson Administration) for teaching them how to use propaganda as a weapon. Today, we can see the perfection of the process Bernay’s pioneered in action — if we know what to look for, that is. The problem for most Americans is that we are the product of Humanist social engineering, which means we have not been taught what we need to know to spot this process. We have to know a great deal of history before we can see it in action. I do not claim to know everything I need to know, myself, but I know enough to spot it. I hope to share what I have learned with you so you might learn to spot it too. I will illustrate using the current narrative on the ‘crisis’ of ‘climate change.’
I wrote a piece on the early stages of what I believe will eventually end in a Humanist call to ‘deal with’ their political enemies — namely ‘conservatives.’ In that piece, I called attention to something Al Gore said in January of 2013:
The scientists now know that there is in human nature a divide between what we sometimes call liberals and conservatives, and it gives an advantage, you can speculate, to the human species to have some people who are temperamentally inclined to try to change the future and experiment with new things, and others who are temperamentally inclined to say, wait a minute, not too fast.
There are many foreboding aspects of Gore’s comment, all of which have close parallels with the Humanist tendencies toward mass murder of the people who oppose them. However, the part of this comment I want you to notice at the moment is Gore’s allusion to the ‘evolution’ of humanity. This is an open admission to my contention that Humanists believe they are their own gods, and that they can consciously direct the evolution of man and society. But they also know that they cannot ‘re-program’ the older generation. That requires too much energy and yields inconsistent results, at best. So they focus on the youth, which is why the Humanist says things like this:
In this audio, Gore tells a bunch of public school children that they ‘know things their parents do not.’ There is a reason the Humanist preys on children (i.e. Hitler Youth, etc): it is because the children are not only trusting, they have not had sufficient life experiences to know when they are being lied to and used by people with evil intentions. So Gore is trying to use indoctrinated children to push his Humanist agenda, and he is not alone. About the 4 minute mark of this video, Obama says the same thing about his own children:
But then Obama goes on to talk about how difficult it is for leaders to convince the people to ‘sacrifice’ for some future ‘good.’ Listen tot he whole clip and you will see Obama weaves several ideas together. He argues that Republicans will have to change their position on ‘Climate Change’ because ‘the majority of people agree with him,’ meaning the majority believe ‘Climate Change’ is a crisis requiring immediate action (BTW: this is a lie — the majority of Americans disagree with Obama’s position). Obama also says that change is difficult for most people to accept, the implication being that he will have to force change. And at the head of the entire discussion is the un-spoken assumption that Obama is right and this gives him a moral imperative to force his will on the people ‘for their own good.’
This is a very clear example of the Humanist ‘crisis-sacrifice’ play book in action, but it carries sinister implications. Just as Gore ‘suggested’ that it may be necessary to identify people with ‘conservative genetic tendencies’ while still in the womb (I’ll leave you to complete the implication here), now Gore is calling for the ‘punishment’ of those who do not believe ‘Climate Change’ is sufficiently understood to necessitate all the policies he and his allies are pushing.
This is yet another complicated aspect of the Humanist play book. First, ‘science’ cannot ‘prove’ anything. But more than this, anyone who actually understands how science works knows that it does not work by democratic vote, so the notion that ‘consensus’ establishes validity is anything but ‘scientific.’ However, you cannot get the Humanist to understand this. Science is the Humanists religion, so he is as tone deaf to correction as is the Muslim or any other believer of a false religion. Unfortunately, this does not keep the Humanist from using ‘science’ effectively. Since grade school, the majority of us have been taught to accept and embrace this Humanist religion, and to follow its priests (i.e. ‘experts in their fields’) without question. This campaign has been especially successful with the youth — who “know things their parents do not” (mostly because their parents were never taught these lies).
So, the Humanist tells us that we — man — is causing ‘Climate Change.’ He will not entertain the possibility that it could be natural. The history of climate change in the past — before man — is inadmissible in the Humanist’s court of public opinion. Nor will the Humanist listen to evidence that their climate models have been proven wrong. Nor will he listen to anyone who points out how often ‘science’ changes its mind (i.e. the ‘Big Bang’ is now false). To the Humanist, questioning his assertions amounts to heresy, and heretics must be punished! All that matters to the Humanist is that there is a crisis (i.e. ‘Climate Change’), that it demands immediate action, which requires sacrifice and he is the only person who knows how to solve the problem. Now you understand why Rahm Emanuel said this:
This all goes back to Woodrow Wilson and the founding fathers of the American Progressive movement. Wilson openly wrote about how it is a leader’s ‘duty’ to find something on which to focus the peoples’ attention, and then convince them to ‘sacrifice’ toward whatever goal that leader decrees for them. According to Wilson, the end is to ‘control’ the people. He believed it should be done ‘scientifically,’ of course, and administered through bureaucracies, but he still believed the people had to be controlled. According to Wilson, once the people elected a leader, they had no right to question him afterward — at least, not until the next election. Wilson sided with Hobbes and not Locke, and it is apparent that Obama and those around him did not fall too far from that tree, themselves. Nothing has changed in the past hundred years: Progressives are still working toward their democratic dictatorship.
But then, maybe something has changed: Americans finally seem to be ready to agree with and surrender to these tyrants.