My Analysis of Daniel Greenfield’s Piece on the Leftist Resistance Is Educating Millions
RUSH: Steve in Springfield, Massachusetts. Great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Oh, Rush, wow. This is a tremendous honor. Spare me if I sound a little nervous. I used to listen to you on THE in Leicester in the late eighties. Anyway --
RUSH: That makes you a lifer. I mean, if you've been around since the late eighties, you've been around since the beginning.
CALLER: Yeah. But I'll tell you, you know, two things that I heard on your show really reshaped my analysis of liberalism. One of them, when you said it was actually the news media that was controlling things and the party was just an arm, but also that piece by David Greenfield. IT really kind of like shook up my thinking as to how diabolical the liberal movement is. This isn't just arbitrary stuff, and they've gone way beyond just political propaganda. What they're doing is they completely hijack the language and learn how to do things with subtle nuances that a lot of people don't even pick up on.
RUSH: You know, you are -- and I don't mean this to take away from you. I'm actually very happy to hear it. You are one of many people who have given me feedback that my reading and interpretation of that piece by Daniel Greenfield was of profound enlightenment to them. It was a great piece because it did cast all of this in a different light. It's not just left-versus-right politics, and it's not the Democrats that are running this show. It's the media, the entire left-wing apparatus of which the Democrat Party has now just become an arm of it.
But this "resistance" movement is not just the standard, ordinary political opposition where there are two players who respect the same authority. What we have here is one of the players who does not respect any of the authority that comes from the Constitution. They don't respect the authority of the outcome of elections. And that's probably what opened your eyes and made you see it for something different than the way you've been looking at it.
CALLER: Plus another thing too is I'm almost beginning to look at the left as like kind of like a confrontational or rather almost like an anti-ideology. I think they would switch their entire agenda if it suited their purpose. You know, they create these absolutes like climate change, like all of a sudden there's no such thing as science or testing the theories anymore. It's almost like they're trying to bring us back to the Dark Ages when, you know, the earth was flat and the sun and the moon and the stars revolved around the earth.
RUSH: No, no, no. Wait a minute. Let try to correct you on this gently. That's the wrong way to look at them. You're giving them way too much credit for intelligence. The outcome, if they succeeded, that's exactly what would happen. They would destroy economic progress because that's what they're actually opposing. They're opposing technological progress, economic progress, societal progress. It is progress that upsets them. So when you say, "That would take us back to the Dark Ages.
"That would take us back to the 17th Century. It would take us back to pre-electricity." That's not what they want. That's not what they're thinking. They don't take it that far. All you have to do is look at California recently to find out how basically vacuous these people are. Victor Davis Hanson made this point recently. Let's take the four-last year California drought. All during that drought, what did the climate change people say? They said, "This is because of climate change!
"This is the worst drought ever, and this drought is never going to end because this drought is the result of climate change! Since climate change is happening, and since climate change is destructive, and since climate change is horrible, then this is life in the future California!" Okay. So you have a bunch of people stating that they believe droughts in California is permanent. What do they do and not do? Well, in the first place, that is stupid and silly and absurd to think.
Because if you look at the historical record, droughts in California generally have a duration of four to five years, and then something happens where they're either totally ended, you get enough rainfall to the replace whatever the four-year drought has created, or you get enough to reverse the trends of the drought. Now, what happened to the Oroville Dam during this period of time? It was clearly known that the Oroville Dam could not withstand what usually is a predictable amount of rain in a certain period of California.
And they didn't do it because they didn't think it would be necessary because there was a drought that was never going to end. Then when the massive rains came, rains that were never predicted and global warming said would never happen -- and then the floods came and the Oroville Dam, the spillover nearly didn't hold up -- what did they do? They switched, and rather than recognize the peril that their policies had put everybody in, they immediately switched the argument to say that the end of the drought was due to climate change.
"The drought ended because of the unpredictable nature of chaotic weather brought on by climate change!" The point is they had prevented the state from spending any money on infrastructure to deal with modernization and upkeep. Water and California are not natural. California has to import it; they have to buy it in most of the state. The Southern part of California is a dessert, is arid. They have to get water from other states or from Northern California. And if there isn't rain in the Sierra and snow in the Sierra and not natural runoff, there's trouble.
Well, there always is. It may go three or four years. But the point is when this drought was happening, they believed it was permanent, but they didn't stop to think of the damage that was gonna result. They were too happy celebrating that they thought they were right about climate change and they were convincing people that they were right. But my point to you is the results, the actual results of their policies... In other words, taking us back to the dark age? They don't think that's gonna happen.
They're gonna have their iPhones and they're gonna get better every year and they're never gonna run out of bottled Poland Spring water or whatever. They're always gonna have what they want. They're the biggest short-sighted... Who are these people? They are mind-numbed robot liberals. They've co-opted science. They've turned science into a full-fledged, partisan political project. They destroy virtually everything they come in contact with, including the very things they claim they're trying to protect. And you can find these kinds of examples of how people enforcing adherence to climate change policy end up causing great damage.
Because believing in the policy prevents doing things that modernize infrastructure on the theory we're not gonna need it. "It's never gonna rain here again! This is a drought caused by climate change, and since we can never say that climate change is going to stop, we can never say that climate change is going to take a pause, we can never say that it's gonna start getting cooler, we can never, therefore, say it's gonna rain." But it's always gonna rain again. There are always gonna be storms and there's always gonna be floods in California.
They may take four years to happen, 50, a hundred years. But there's always gonna be floods, always have been. But with these people in charge of that state, they're never prepared for anything, because they live in this permanent bubble that by stopping climate change, they're gonna be improving everything. In their minds, they're not taking everybody be back to the Dark Ages, pre-electricity and horse dung in the streets. They're improving life for everyone. That's how dangerous and stupid they believe these people are. But they happen to be elected to office. One of these lamebrains is the governor. The people of California have no chance as long as these people continue to run that state. You can see it deteriorating!