The Green Socialists of Mars

Sultan Knish

We live in a strange world in which the weather is a subject of furious political debate. People have been arguing about the weather ever since the first rainstorm caught the first man without the umbrella that he did not yet know how to make, but they didn't hold political debates over it.

For the last fifty years, the anti-weather side has been insisting that the world is headed toward a Frostean apocalypse of ice or fire. The calm biblical assertion that "Seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease" was replaced by the terrifying certainty that the planet would soon turn into Mars or Venus; either too hot or too cold.

The end of weather was here. Instead of stable rhythms and cycles that might last for months or centuries, there was a runaway weather apocalypse that would culminate in unlivable conditions.

The doomsday predictions roll out daily without any regard to scientific or experiential reality. The more the predictions fail to match up, the more urgently Warmists insist on immediate action. The harder it snows, the more articles appear warning that snow may soon be a thing of the past.

Never mind the weather; the end of weather is almost here.

There is a fearful logic to the Warmist creed. Of all the planets, minor planets, moons and assorted rocks drifting through our solar system, only one is inhabitable by man. It is very easy to assume that, but for the grace of random chance, the Earth might be just as uninhabitable as Mars or Venus and to worry that one day it will be.

Mars and Venus inspired more than a series of bestselling books about gender relations. They also convinced the Warmists that Mars and Venus are what the Earth would become.

"Venus is too hot. Mars is too cold. But the Earth is just right a heaven for humans. After all, we evolved here. But our congenial climate may be unstable. We are perturbing our poor planet in serious and contradictory ways. Is there any danger of driving the environment of the Earth toward the planetary Hell of Venus or the global ice age of Mars? The simple answer is that nobody knows," Sagan wrote in Cosmos.

The insistence that Mars and Venus were variations of Earth, rather than entirely different planets, was a false assumption that predated Sagan. This geocentric fallacy insisted that Mars and Venus were teaching us about our world, rather than about those worlds. Their unlivable atmospheres reinforced the neurotic obsession of doomsayers who treated them as failed Earths. 

The original error of climate researchers was their assumption that planets were more fragile than they truly are and could be undone by a nuclear exchange or even by a few coal plants. Carl Sagan, who had done much to popularize unscientific paranoia about nuclear winter and global warming, warned that the Gulf War's oil fires would lead to a miniature nuclear winter.

They did not.

The mingling of philosophical paranoia over a godless universe and political pacifism disguised as science shaped not only Sagan's musings, but the entire ideology of weather apocalypses which derived from the conviction that ungoverned man was bound to destroy his environment.

"The surface environment of Venus is a warning: something disastrous can happen to a planet rather like our own," Sagan wrote.

Sagan, who had predicted that Venus was a hot and dry desert due to a runaway Greenhouse Effect, did not have a very good track record on that planet... or on this one.

Integral to the doomsday model was the belief that Mars and Venus were planets that had once been very much like our own. Sagan, who had spent so much time decrying the primitivism of the medieval mindset, had adopted its geocentric assumption that Earth was the baseline and that if Mars and Venus differed from earth, then they were failed earths.

It was not the first time that distorted geocentric perceptions of Mars and Venus would influence Earth.

In the 19th century, Percival Lowell, a popularizer of often bad science and an earlier version of Sagan complete with anti-clerical and pacifist views, became obsessed with the idea that Mars was an inhabited world whose native race was facing extinction because the planet was losing its water. After the Martian canals had been completely discredited, Lowell's obsessions were dismissed as the error of a lone individual; but that was no truer of Lowell than it was of Sagan.

Socialist science fiction had become a booming field in the late 19th century. Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward had envisioned time travel to a Socialist American utopia in the year 2000. It was a bad book, but a popular bestseller because it used the frame of pseudoscience to depict Socialism as both a practical model and inevitable. Likewise, Lowell's Mars allowed Socialist theorists to depict the Martian Socialist utopia that Earth could become.

Novels such as "Politics and Life in Mars", "Unveiling a Parallel", "To Mars via the Moon", "A Prophetic Romance" and "Red Star" envisioned culturally superior Martians demonstrating their advanced Socialist societies with income equality, planetary labor unions and pacifism to the human race.

In the Russian "Red Star", the Lowellian canals are a Communist triumph over inhospitable nature anticipating the USSR and Communist China's disastrous dam projects. The German writer of "Two Planets" envisioned the advanced Martians invading Earth to impose their superior Socialist society on human beings.

The Martians, like Global Warming, were a tool of radical social change.

In "A Message from Mars", a turn of the century novel, play and film, a Martian from an advanced society visits the most selfish man on earth to convert him to "Otherdom" teaching him to share what he has with the less fortunate. In "Unveiling a Parallel", a reactionary man visits Mars to discover how well a progressive society can work.

In the Martian Socialist utopias, the aliens lecture human beings on our selfishness, urging us to cast aside nations, religions, private property and monogamy and build our own Socialist utopia.

An inhabited Mars became a fictional conceit for envisioning an ideal society. Global Warming serves the same purpose, providing a fictional framework that can be used to reconstruct human society along more progressive lines. The only difference is that Warmists have gotten further along in imposing their delusion and their plans on the world than the Lowellians ever did.

It does not matter to its proponents, inside or outside the scientific community, whether the planet is warming or cooling, any more than the existence of Martian canals was pivotal to the Socialist Martian utopias. The bad science is only a means of advancing bad politics.

The Martian canals, like Global Warming, provided a perspective shift to enable us to see our society as changeable.

Or as Lowell wrote, "The fact gives us but a flat image. It is our reflexions upon it that make it a solid truth." Global Warming is another of those "reflexions" that led Lowell to see a dying ancient Martian civilization in the sky contrasted with a modern dystopian Earth dying of its industry and its wars.

Lowell's Mars was dying of "Global Cooling". Earth is dying of "Global Warming". The crisis of the Martians forces them to band together to manage the water they have left and abandon selfish preoccupations with capitalism and nationalism. The Warmists warn that unless we embrace global government, the excess water stored in icebergs will flood the world.

Their Martian crisis has become our crisis.   

In "To Mars Via the Moon", the human narrator encounters a Martian Socialist utopia which accepts the inevitable destruction of its planet by practicing birth control.

"As the final period draws nearer, families will become smaller and smaller, and in the last Martian century no children will be born; so the diminishing water supply will suffice for the needs of the dwindling population," A Martian character explains, forecasting the environmentalist Zero Population Growth movement on our own planet. "Thus the race will gradually die out naturally, and become extinct."

Humanity, envisioned as the plague by environmentalists, has only one final solution. Extinction.

Though Sagan and the Warmists depict Venus and Mars as failed earths, the threat to Earth that they envision comes from man. Or as Sagan put it, "Intelligent life, able to make major environmental changes." The dream of finding Martians and Venusians had died. It could no longer be argued that these worlds had been rendered uninhabitable by intelligent activity. But man was still on the hook.

Nuclear winter and Global Warming indicted war and industry, the targets of those old utopias, for making earth uninhabitable. The loudest advocates for Global Warming within the scientific community went on using Venus as a model for a failed Earth.

"The Venus syndrome is the greatest threat to the planet, to humanity's continuing existence," James Hansen declared. "If we burn all the coal, there is a good chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn all the tar sands and tar shale, I think it is a dead certainty."

Hansen's Venus syndrome is a modern echo of the old Martian obsession. Earth will lose its oceans unless it undergoes radical social and political changes. It will become Lowell's Mars.

Lowell's Mars and Hansen's Venusian Earth are both crisis societies with no room for individual concerns. Survival demands the abandonment of selfish desires such as heating your home or driving to work. It mandates a progressive society where the collective good reigns supreme and the leaders hold unlimited power until the ordinary people become progressive enough.

Global Warming is the culmination of the Martian utopias. Either we become Socialist Martians or die on Venus.

There is no more basis for Venus syndrome than there was for the Martian canals. Both depend on wishful thinking and misinterpreting data. The real threat to humanity does not come from the climate, but from the ambitions of other men. That was something that the ancients knew long before they knew anything about the worlds around us or the distant stars.

We do not face a crisis of climate, but a crisis of ideology, not a crisis of rising oceans or temperatures, but rising ambitions and egos. The environmental crisis is a work of ideology, not science, its goals are not planetary salvation, but radical social change.

Our troubles do not come from Mars or Venus, from the oceans or the volcanoes, but from the evil dreams buried in the hearts of other men.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Nobody Trusts the Government

Posted: 12 Feb 2014 08:07 AM PST

The usual formulation that you will see masticated these days by the flimsy jaws of men and women who have broken free of the editorial column to become freelance ponderers and thinkers is that the Republicans are the neo-confederate secessionists who distrust the government while the liberals, and their captive class of government employees, union members and official minority groups trust in it.

That formulation, like so much else in the spilled ink of the dying newspaper, is wrong.

Both sides distrust the government. They just react to that distrust differently. The right reacts to that distrust by trying to limit or pull down the government. The left reacts to it by trying to take it over.

The contradiction comes out most strongly among liberalism's minority base. For example, blacks are more likely to trust the Federal government than whites but less likely to trust local government. This doesn't reflect trust in government so much as it reflects a perception of which level of government is less trustworthy. From a minority perspective, national representation is safer than local governance.

Distrusting the neutrality of government and attempting to hijack it for corrupt sectarian and tribal interests reveals just as much distrust of the government and secessionist impulses as anything on the right.

Large numbers of Asian and Latino immigrants poll in favor of big government despite coming from countries whose governments are brutal and oppressive. But it's often the people who come from tyrannies who are also most likely to support them.

The neutral spaces of the Bill of Rights are not real ideas to them the way that they are to many Americans. The idea that government can simply be forced out of a space without that space being filled with either a more repressive government or gangs collecting protection money is often not a part of their experience and so not a realistic calculation for them.

Government to them is a power struggle. It's not a question of how powerful government should be, they assume that it's always powerful, but who steers the beast. And so they vote Democrat, because the Dems promise to steer it to their advantage.

It's a mistake to try and break down minority alliances with government to specific issues such as immigration or health care. Issues are only the subset of a larger cultural arrangement based on a distrust of government. In a worldview in which government is always abusive and corrupt, the only question is who gets it worst and who benefits from that corruption.

That kind of trust in government isn't trust, it's a calculated amoral strategy based on mistrust, like a shoplifter who steals because all of society is based on theft. Small government is a traditionalist strategy based on a historical memory, part real part not, of a system where more freedom and wealth were available by minimizing government power.

The other side rejects that historical memory as naive and irrelevant in favor of grappling for power now.

It's not just an issue with minorities. The Tea Party runs into that same issue when polls show that the commitment of Americans to small government stops when it's to their disadvantage. That is the gap that the left knows about and exploits in its traditional style of creating a patchwork system of fines, taxes and subsidies that create massive inequalities but force everyone to cling to their privileges.

Once you accept that government isn't going to be reformed, then clinging to whatever advantages it gives you becomes a plausible survival strategy until the whole thing collapses under its own weight or the weight of public outrage. The Soviet Union outlived Russian Communism until enough people inside and outside the government decided that they could live better if they gave Marx and Lenin the boot. But if there hadn't been Western counter-examples that became increasingly hard to shut out, it might have taken much longer to fall because there would have been no visible alternative.

The right in the United States has its alternatives to the current setup and the left has its usual totalitarian fantasies, but the clients of the left don't see an alternative. They are too insecure and unwilling to gamble with their lifelines to failing setups such as generous social welfare or municipal unions to gamble with an open system. And those in the private sector are equally unwilling to support any destabilizing change that doesn't come with pre-approved promises of benefits.

Conservatives dream of defaulting to society, but for many of the clients of the left there is no larger society. They place no trust in a larger society that is bound by few formal laws because it appears to them to operate by a kinship that places them outside it. They understand how government works for all its abuses, but they are far less trusting of a society that they are not truly part of.

And it may be wishful thinking to assume that the society still even exists. Libertarian deregulation alone would not default to a working society. No more than the absence of law does in Mexico or Somalia. It's not some arcane crowdsourced magic, some wisdom of the mob that makes a society work, but the values of civilization. The United States isn't Somalia or Mexico, yet, but its social breakdown can be seen in the broken families and gangs. And there are few opposing factors.

The militarization of the police has come hand in hand with the collapse of values and mores. Take enough broken families, pile what's left over into gangs and the drug trade and before long you need a lot more police to deal with everything from domestic violence complaints to everyday rapes and murders to the bigger stuff that moves up the organized crime ladder all the way to gang warfare.

In a broken society, there are a limited range of options between the fascist government and the feudal cartel, between the gangs and the cops with their repurposed military gear, between the state and a state of lawlessness. And it's the immigrants from failed states who are the eagerest to embrace government as a hedge against the night. It doesn't mean that they trust it. It means that they distrust everything and everyone else.

While the left is obsessed with pushing society until it breaks and can be put back together their way, their clients have mostly accepted that society is broken, that families don't stay together, that men and women can't count on each other, neighbors can't be trusted and that freedom leads to anarchy.

It's not just that they need to be convinced to trust us, they also have to be convinced to trust themselves. It's easier to trust the government because it is an abstract, a set of ideas and symbols lacking in human frailties. The collective always seems stronger than the individual, even if isn't. An older breed of American distrusted the group, but elections are increasingly being won by cities and their satellite suburbs where people have despaired of the individual and believe in authority.

People only believe in governments when they lose faith in themselves and their society. The great work of the counterculture was destroying the faith of Americans in their own society, trampling their beliefs through the mud in a dozen different ways, demoralizing them, tearing down their culture and making a self-reliant individualism as difficult to sustain and as socially unacceptable as possible.

When the counterculture couldn't attack directly through regulation, it attacked indirectly by wrecking the family. When it couldn't get the numbers it needed quickly enough, it turned to immigration from failed states. That is the end result before us now.

An authoritarian state is a failed state. It represents a failure deeper than that of mere government, but of society. Before a state fails, its society fails. A culture can survive a failed state, but a failed culture cannot help produce anything except a failed state.

America is drifting into totalitarianism because of the left's exploitation of social failures. The critical mass of social breakdowns, from gang violence to terrorism to poverty, justify the nanny state, the police state and all the other totalitarian states of authority. When there is nothing and no one else to trust, a failed society turns to a tyrant who can cut through all the red tape and govern with pen and phone.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.